I'd join, but most of the relevant stereotypes I know deal with the American capitalism, since that most closely resembles my own background, rather than collectivism or council democracy.
Oh, it's behaviour that has evolved to make certain kinds of social structure work better (having everybody with a sense of punitive fairness reduces free riding and encourages cooperation). So in that sense it's "rational". But homo economicus is an incorrect model of homo sapiens, and only recently have attempts been made to account for this in economic theory.
I'm not using "rational" here as a synonym for "best option" or "morally correct".
I understand. It sounded like it based from the context, though. But isn't social behaviour also not largly based on the culture and mentality of people. I mean wouldn't that shake up what rational is for (for example) a person A and Person B?
Because I personally see this experiment largly different happening in a country like Switzerland or Germany versus a country as Egypt.
I mean the social structure isn't the same on the entire world isn't it?
A smart company would've given them extra bonuses to make sure they stay on; a greedy, corrupt company tries to strong-arm them into making another product.
Ding ding ding!
How much money has Activision made off of IW? How much money could they potentially make in the future?
Seems like it would have been a better idea to pay them the bonus, and then offer another (also ridiculously high) bonus upon the completion of MW3, since that course of action would have made Activision an assload of money in about a year (not even considering MW4, 5, and on) and let them keep their consumer recognition as an ok company.
If you know the heads of your biggest moneymaker are looking at other companies, you need to do whatever it takes to entice them back, not fire them and withhold their royalty payments.
Instead, they're more than likely still going to have to pay the original bonus, and they've lost a huge chunk of their largest earning team. Instead, they get Bungie (who has made nothing but Halo games for over a decade), only but they don't get Halo. And if West and Zampella win their suit, Activision won't have Modern Warfare either.
So basically, this could end up really bad for Bungie, since if both lawsuits don't work out well for Activision they're going to have to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars and they'll lose the Modern Warfare brand, meaning they'll be leaning on Bungie hard for a new cashcow franchise.
SmokeStacks on
0
Options
MongerI got the ham stink.Dallas, TXRegistered Userregular
So basically, this could end up really bad for Bungie, since if both lawsuits don't work out well for Activision they're going to have to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars and they'll lose the Modern Warfare brand, meaning they'll be leaning on Bungie hard for a new cashcow franchise.
Well, lest you forget that for Activision every franchise is a cash cow franchise. That's kind of to be expected regardless of the current news.
But one Mr. Robert A. Kotick would like to remind everyone in this thread that he's not a dick.
I don't really have an issue with someone saying they will focus on annual releases, hell Activision even specifically employed multiple dev houses per franchise so that the annual releases weren't total shovelware.
Posts
I'd join, but most of the relevant stereotypes I know deal with the American capitalism, since that most closely resembles my own background, rather than collectivism or council democracy.
ACTIVI-SHUN! FUCK YEAHH!
I understand. It sounded like it based from the context, though. But isn't social behaviour also not largly based on the culture and mentality of people. I mean wouldn't that shake up what rational is for (for example) a person A and Person B?
Because I personally see this experiment largly different happening in a country like Switzerland or Germany versus a country as Egypt.
I mean the social structure isn't the same on the entire world isn't it?
Edit: Man, I suck at Englisch.
Ding ding ding!
How much money has Activision made off of IW? How much money could they potentially make in the future?
Seems like it would have been a better idea to pay them the bonus, and then offer another (also ridiculously high) bonus upon the completion of MW3, since that course of action would have made Activision an assload of money in about a year (not even considering MW4, 5, and on) and let them keep their consumer recognition as an ok company.
If you know the heads of your biggest moneymaker are looking at other companies, you need to do whatever it takes to entice them back, not fire them and withhold their royalty payments.
Instead, they're more than likely still going to have to pay the original bonus, and they've lost a huge chunk of their largest earning team. Instead, they get Bungie (who has made nothing but Halo games for over a decade), only but they don't get Halo. And if West and Zampella win their suit, Activision won't have Modern Warfare either.
So basically, this could end up really bad for Bungie, since if both lawsuits don't work out well for Activision they're going to have to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars and they'll lose the Modern Warfare brand, meaning they'll be leaning on Bungie hard for a new cashcow franchise.
But one Mr. Robert A. Kotick would like to remind everyone in this thread that he's not a dick.
All right, people. It is not a gerbil. It is not a hamster. It is not a guinea pig. It is a death rabbit. Death. Rabbit. Say it with me, now.