I don't see the difference, if someone other than Microsoft acquired them, it'd be the same scenario, they would get their golden parachute. If nobody acquired them, well, Bobby owns 4.1 million shares in Activision-Blizzard (worth a few hundred million) so even if the board removed him, which was always unlikely as they've had plenty of opportunities to do so, he would still be making large amounts from ABK.

The slimy prick also had a bunch of compensation clauses too which guaranteed him payoffs through both fired with cause and fired without cause. He has long term stock incentives that can be transferred to him even if he leaves the company (worth $106m), his terms suggest he can get the money even if asked to leave. He has golden parachutes if terminated due to a "change in control"

Stockholders have also had opportunities to get rid of the board, including Bobby but they never did, even as recently as June 2022, stockholders voted overwhelmingly (91%) in favour of re-electing Bobby and the other 9 members of the board until June 2023 (yearly vote I believe). And again, even if they kicked Bobby from the board, they can't take his shares off him.

Unfortunately, despite being a massive dickhead, Bobby is an extremely successful businessman and turned ABK into the most profitable 3rd party publisher in the gaming industry, even today. I'm of the opinion that unfortunately this would have all blown over, Activision's stock would rebound on the next CoD (Modern Warfare 2) since it has massive hype behind it and likely, again, unfortunately, everyone would move on.

If Kotick is terminated for cause he is entitled to benefits. If Kotick is terminated without cause (or chooses to leave for good reason) he is entitled to even more benefits ($270m). He has got clauses whether the board terminates him, Microsoft terminates him, or he leaves of his own accord. Activision also is required to reimburse Kotick for up to $80,000 per year of life insurance premiums until the 10th anniversary of his employment agreement on October 1, 2026.

Point is that no matter what, there is not a single scenario where Bobby is leaving Activision-Blizzard without a huge pay package, not to mention he's already rich as fuck, it's unfortunate, short of him going to prison for something there's nothing anyone can really do, simpler to pay him and the rest of the board to fuck off out of Activision-Blizzard forever, at least they'll be free of him.

thank you for your concern on how i spend my money, but i rather prefer normal troll posts

What a wonderful world we live in!

Anyway this deal definitely put the narrative of working conditions and harassment on a side track. Maybe someone else (Google, Amazon?) would have made an offer, yet without, acti/bliz would have felt a lot more pressure to clean things up. But yeah, at least they'll be free of Kotick in a year. (if all goes through)

Starfield was the one game I was looking forward to, but not soo much now after seeing the gameplay reveal. I also have low expectations that it will launch next year. I expect another delay or 2. 2024 earliest.

They'll be free of kotick, but what about the chairman of the board, the guy that has been at activision longer than kotic and holds more shares. This guy was fine to allow the company to be run as it is. I think brian kelly was his name.

Yup. Unfortunate that he will get away with a lot but he's already incredibly rich and receiving a fee no matter what, I'll just take kicking him out of the industry, I hope he vanishes into retirement, and we never see his face again, though there is a possibility that he instead invests into another company but eh, I think this is retirement for him, hopefully.

Idk, I think they would have just fired a few fall guys and patted themselves on the back, said a job well done and then try to wait for things to die down, pretend to make some major moves but not actually do very much for the company as a whole, a bit like Ubisoft. Would still feel dirty with the board there too, they're all just as guilty as Bobby, they all knew and all defended Bobby for years.

Brian Kelly is Bobby's business partner and has been at Activision for as long as Bobby has. Bobby and Brian jointly invested 25% in Activision back in 1990 when it was almost bankrupt. All the original founders of Activision have left.

But to answer your question, the board won't exist post acquisition, it will be dissolved, Microsoft has no need for it. Zenimax's board was also dissolved and to my knowledge, all board members left the company, unless Microsoft finds a brand-new role for Brian Kelly which I find unlikely, it's almost certain he, along with the entire board will be leaving.

You are completely wrong!

You entire argument is based on a game is only good if it's exclusive rather than Microsoft doesn't make any good games. The fact that a game can be played on more then one place on Xbox and PC in Microsoft case doesn't make them bad game. Microsoft just went from 5 studios (Xbox One era) to 23 studios (most of which haven't even release their game on Xbox series yet). The Activision will bring Microsoft number of studios to 30; why would any Xbox fans not be very happy with Microsoft doubling down on gaming and making so many games for us to enjoy. With 30 studios there was never an era in the Xbox history where they produce so many quality and diverse amount of games.  

You last statement just shows, how out of touch you were on Microsoft past history. Have you not seen what Microsoft did in the Xbox one era? They only had 5 studios and barely made anything let alone any new IP's and Quality titles.

Beside your entire argument won't really mean anything in the future. The future of gaming is cloud gaming and Console won't really be a necessity anymore. Last generation no one wanted to let go of physical medias and refuse to embrace digital delivery. This generation will be reluctance from moving from console gaming to cloud gaming. 

Sony games will soon be available on the cloud and not locked to the console; it's pretty clear were the industry is going. 

There are a lot of talent that MS and others could step in to acquire or fund and provide tools to. The numbers far exceed the support they're actually getting from big publishers, and some have to depend on Kickstarter to fund their projects. My most anticipated game since Elden Ring is in fact a Kickstarter project, Eiyuden Chronicle.

Wild Arms and Shadow Hearts creators recently started a couple of Kickstarter RPG projects. The Wild Arms guy tried to approach Sony multiple times and was pretty much given the cold shoulder. Pretty sure Falcom recently commented that the budget is the limiting factor as to why their games are graphically/technically poor. Fumito Ueda was fortunate enough to have his project backed by Epic Games, which I'm very grateful for, he's my tied favorite game director alongside Miyazaki. Companies that are going under like Tri-Ace could also use a hand, if MS steps in and revives or acquires them, everyone should be grateful because the alternative here is their likely demise.

Such talents is where Microsoft's $80 billion, or even a fraction of that, should've gone to. And no, it isn't "risky" for a giant like Microsoft that shits billion of dollars like it's nothing. AA games cost less than 50 million to make. 10 AA games = 500 million, maybe a few hundred million $ more for establishing efficient and advanced development environments. The "risk" is so minimal for MS that it's silly to call it one.

A timeline where we are openly cheering for the filthy rich to acquire everything has to be the darkest of timelines.

Sure, the amount of games available to purchase may not decrease that much from a pure numbers standpoint, but the casual/core gamer will not see it that way, especially if titles from publishers like Ubisoft, Capcom, Take Two, EA, are locked behind a specific platform.

For the life of me I do not understand this argument at all. Never have. 

Halo and Gears of War are more similar in look/feel/aesthetic/style than pretty much any two Sony games. Spider-Man is nothing like God of War, which is nothing like Bloodborne, which is nothing like The Last of Us, which is nothing like Ghost of Tsushima, which is nothing like Ratchet and Clank, which is nothing like Horizon, etc. Do they have some very basic things in common? Yeah. Third person perspective and a focus on singleplayer. That's like saying 'all action/adventure games are the same' despite the fact that Zelda and Grand Theft auto are so far apart from one another that the genre is irrelevant. 

I'm not saying Xbox games aren't GOOD, but to claim they are more diverse than Sony/Nintendo is just such an absurd statement I genuinely don't understand how anyone could make it. (And keep in mind this is Xbox games, not 'games made by Xbox studios', just like I don't consider MLB the Show to be a PS game anymore and won't be factoring Destiny into future discussions. It also doesn't factor in stuff that will be exclusive in the future, since it hasn't happened yet.)

Microsoft has always been more about heavily western styles. Shooting, racing, sports, wanton action. AND THAT'S FINE. But you can't sit here and tell me that Xbox's output is more diverse than Sony or Nintendo's output. Sony's whole thing is that they do a little bit of EVERYTHING for a GLOBAL audience. It's what has made the PlayStation brand so popular ever since 1994. IT's an all-purpose console and company that caters to American, Japanese, and European tastes equally, with a tonne of quirky shit in between. This is a truth so wholly evident I genuinely don't think it can be argued against.