- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- gaming@lemmy.ml
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- gaming@lemmy.ml
- games@sh.itjust.works
Speaking with Game File (users will encounter a paywall) at the Game Developers Choice Awards, Larian director of publishing Michael Douse gave his take on the current state of the industry, including some sharp criticism on the wave after wave of mass layoffs we’ve been seeing.
“They are an avoidable fuck-up,” Douse said. “That’s all they really are. That’s why you see one after the other. Because companies are going: ‘Well, finally. Now we can, too. We’ve wanted to do it for ages. Everyone else is. So why don’t we?’ That’s really kind of sick.”
This whole myth stakeholders are the reason why board members make cold-hearted decisions lets them off the hook as if they’re somehow at the mercy of the evil shareholders. For most companies there are majority holders, and many of them sit on the board or are the CEO, and then there’s fund investments from retirement accounts, and then there’s the average share holder who is most likely just a middle class schmo who chose a few stocks and doesn’t really pay attention. They’re not doing it because of the evil shareholders. They’re doing it because they hold lots of shares, and they get big bonuses and golden parachutes by shaving percentage points off their expenses. They’re doing it because of their own greed, not because of the demands of others. They’re heartless, and they’ve managed to create this common mythology that they’re not responsible for the decisions they make.
That doesn’t mean they’re not doing it to appease the market - it just means that the stock market existing and them having shares gives them misaligned incentives.
The “market” is awful for demanding that and they’re awful for giving in to the idiocy.
I would imagine there are some shareholders with a significant portion of shares, but yes, on the whole BoD/executives.
There are definitely companies with psychopathic majority shareholders. But it seems like on-average it’s the board making these decisions to benefit themselves. Then they blame it on the nebulous shareholders .
No, I don’t think so. CEOs don’t just make these decisions for strictly monetary gain. Otherwise literally every company would be constantly conducting layoffs or whatever short-term tactics to push the stock up so the C-Suite could cash in.
The BoD and shareholders absolutely do have clout in company decisions, mostly large shareholders pressuring the BoD, but the a smaller shareholder selling off and helping tank stock value has power as well though unfortunately they’re usually the last to get their order in.
Would some CEO knowingly start pulling strings to maximize short term gain and sell off assets to make a buck on a company that’s not doing well? Sure. Happens all the time, Sears comes to mind as a fairly recent company that got fucked over for a buck. Toys’r Us too. But those companies were in real trouble. If Best Buy goes that way you’ll know it.
That’s not true. Running businesses into offshoring/ankruptcy is very profitable.
Ok, maybe I wasn’t clear. Usually a company is already in some sort of trouble when the vultures descend on it. That was the point I was trying to include in what I said in the last paragraph.
Yes, absolutely, disassembling a company and offshoring is profitable.