Zynga Gave Mattrick Millions To Leave Microsoft

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
A million a year, plus a $5 million signing bonus and $40 million in stock awards? Holy cow! :eek:

Struggling Web game maker Zynga gave new CEO Don Mattrick a $5 million signing bonus and stock awards valued at $40 million to lure him away from his previous job overseeing Microsoft's Xbox console for video games. Mattrick's compensation package also includes a $1 million annual salary and a guaranteed bonus of about $1 million this year, according to a regulatory filing made late Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
The board of idiots and all of the idiot management will make like bandits when the fail of a company crashes like the fail it is.
 
Thats ok the 1% get rich while the lonely programmer and tech support for this company will be out of a job soon.
 
That's..
Maybe after all..
"I'm going to fuck shit up before I leave and join Zynga"
 
metril said:
The board of idiots and all of the idiot management will make like bandits when the fail of a company crashes like the fail it is.
Click to expand...

Actually I think it's grave robbing at this point and Zynga shareholders should be outraged. This company is swirling the drain and they are giving this guy a 5 million signing bonus?
 
So basically , his career at MS was tanked because he fucked up the Xbox One reveal and general PR message so badly that MS had to do a complete 180 on their policy and plan and now he was supposedly "headhunted" over to Zynga? Yea right...

Let's put some reality into this , Zynga has probably been after him for a while but since he tanked his career at MS he probably accepted whatever offer Zynga was willing to give to him. Me thinks he had a much better offer on the table before the Xbox One reveal , privately of course.
 
Yeah, and a guy who got C's in basketweaving in College signs up $10 million signing bonus so he can play with balls.

And I cringe every time I see Keano Reeves cast as a scientist. He thinks barium is something a hitman does. Yet, he gets millions.
 
fdiaz78 said:
Actually I think it's grave robbing at this point and Zynga shareholders should be outraged. This company is swirling the drain and they are giving this guy a 5 million signing bonus?
Click to expand...

It depends on how you look at it, if 5 million gets them someone who can put them back on the map and make good decisions its not a problem.

However given how bad the xbone went down it makes the decision to pick him very questionable. I can think of a ton of companies whom are doing poorly and seem to make even poorer decisions for CEOs. Look at HP and that apotheker guy or RIM and their current loser. Sometimes I think these companies would be better off picking a random idiot from the street. At the least the random idiot might have actually played their games.
 
Man... When I got headhunted, all I got offered was $36,000 per year and was told I would have to fund my own move across the country. Thanks but no thanks.
 
Just shows you how detached these companies are from their target audience. If Zynga would have asked any true gamer if they should hire Mattrick, they answer would have been a resounding Darth Vader Episode III post-volcano "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
 
So basically he can sit at his desk masturbating all day and still make a fortune?

How do you get...that good?
 
Greggy_D said:
Just shows you how detached these companies are from their target audience. If Zynga would have asked any true gamer if they should hire Mattrick, they answer would have been a resounding Darth Vader Episode III post-volcano "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
Click to expand...

But their targeted audience isn't true gamer though. Certainly not for Zynga anyway :p
 
And that is one problem with capitalism that i don't know the solution to.

The very bottom and very top rungs in a capitalist society tend to get completely dicked over.

Yes, of course a CEO should be earning more than the guy walking around the office delivering the mail, and the fact that there is difference is the reward and incentive system to get people to continue to be their best and invest the effort to better themselves and produce results for the company.

But there has to be some kind of rational limit, where one person in a company isn't making eight HUNDRED times the average employee.

Surely there would be sufficient incentive if CEOs were capped globally at say $3 million a year (completely hypothetical). I mean, would there really be talented people that would say, "nope, I don't feel like getting out of bed for so little cash" and the jobs would be vacant?

And while granted anyone can do it, does it really make sense that the guy breaking his back working long days in the exhausting heat mowing the lawn and cutting the shrubs around the building make likely UNDER minimum wage since he's likely an illegal alien contracted out by a third party (to avoid all liability by the company while enjoying the cheap labor)?

That said, I don't know of a better economic system, and if you tax the top 5% too highly, at some point in this global economy they say "screw you" and simply move to some other resort island and manage things remotely... or heck just move the whole business. I don't know the fix, I just know its fucked, and am annoyed when my fellow Republicans act like there is nothing wrong.
 
ServerKing said:
Thats ok the 1% get rich while the lonely programmer and tech support for this company will be out of a job soon.
Click to expand...
That's what I don't get about this. What did he do exactly for Microsoft that made Zynga want him so badly? He's responsible for the Kinect? Yea cause he alone engineered it. Which was a failure.

Wasn't he the idiot that said the Xbox 360 is an alternative for those without an always online connection? And I believe that he left cause Microsoft didn't stick with the always on connection and no resale of games? Why would anyone want to hire him? He's clearly out of touch of the reality with the consumer.
 
Ducman69 said:
And that is one problem with capitalism that i don't know the solution to.

The very bottom and very top rungs in a capitalist society tend to get completely dicked over.

Yes, of course a CEO should be earning more than the guy walking around the office delivering the mail, and the fact that there is difference is the reward and incentive system to get people to continue to be their best and invest the effort to better themselves and produce results for the company.

But there has to be some kind of rational limit, where one person in a company isn't making eight HUNDRED times the average employee.

Surely there would be sufficient incentive if CEOs were capped globally at say $3 million a year (completely hypothetical). I mean, would there really be talented people that would say, "nope, I don't feel like getting out of bed for so little cash" and the jobs would be vacant?

And while granted anyone can do it, does it really make sense that the guy breaking his back working long days in the exhausting heat mowing the lawn and cutting the shrubs around the building make likely UNDER minimum wage since he's likely an illegal alien contracted out by a third party (to avoid all liability by the company while enjoying the cheap labor)?

That said, I don't know of a better economic system, and if you tax the top 5% too highly, at some point in this global economy they say "screw you" and simply move to some other resort island and manage things remotely... or heck just move the whole business. I don't know the fix, I just know its fucked, and am annoyed when my fellow Republicans act like there is nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% Ducman. Capitalism, in theory, is a great economy, however it's completely spun out of control. Unfortunately, it isn't just an American thing any longer. Now that economies are in full force global mode, CEO's everywhere are getting rich. Really though, if you think about it, to a certain degree this is no different than in the medieval days. You have lords, dukes and whatever royalty sitting at the top with all the power and money. There is more of a middle class now, but it's more relative to the age we live in. At it's basis it's about power though; always has been.

I've mentioned the show a few times in previous posts but you all should check out Continuum. I can easily see their situation happening to the world.

Also, it's amazing the liberties Americans are willing to give up for safety. I've thought all along that Americans are going to have to take this country back by force or not at all. I think it is completely laughable some people say that if you don't like the laws vote someone else in. Most of the people on Capital Hill have been there for years and so long as politics is a way of life it will stay that way. Voting will only fix things on the surface. True change, true equality will only be garnered by taking it.
 
The median wage for a publically held corp CEO is $750k, not the $10-14m the AFL-CIO says.

The average wage for a head of a C class corp (officers and annual report) of all kinds, is about $100k.
 
Ashbringer said:
That's what I don't get about this. What did he do exactly for Microsoft that made Zynga want him so badly? He's responsible for the Kinect? Yea cause he alone engineered it. Which was a failure.

Wasn't he the idiot that said the Xbox 360 is an alternative for those without an always online connection? And I believe that he left cause Microsoft didn't stick with the always on connection and no resale of games? Why would anyone want to hire him? He's clearly out of touch of the reality with the consumer.
Click to expand...

At this point, zynga just needs any kind of name they can flash to investors.
 
That is a lot of stock $3.43 at the moment, went up a penny.

This sounds like a very odd story, he jumped ship from a massive company that was no doubt paying him well to BS and spin everything, and is kind of sitting pretty after their policy reversal on the Xbox dOne (still going to get slaughtered by Sony), and got aboard the USS Zynga that is sinking almost as fast as the Titanic?

Sounds more like he was pushed out of Microsoft.
 
Board members are typically CEO's from other companies...the more money they pay CEO's the more money they pay themselves.
 
Darn. If only all the wages of all the CEO's in America could offset the Earned Income Credit, then the Middle Class wouldn't be getting screwed with 100 different taxes.
 
Sadly we can make it so no executive wants to work in the USA and we would still have to pay taxes, but we wouldn't have a job to pay them with.
 
Ducman69 said:
And that is one problem with capitalism that i don't know the solution to.

The very bottom and very top rungs in a capitalist society tend to get completely dicked over.

Yes, of course a CEO should be earning more than the guy walking around the office delivering the mail, and the fact that there is difference is the reward and incentive system to get people to continue to be their best and invest the effort to better themselves and produce results for the company.

But there has to be some kind of rational limit, where one person in a company isn't making eight HUNDRED times the average employee.

Surely there would be sufficient incentive if CEOs were capped globally at say $3 million a year (completely hypothetical). I mean, would there really be talented people that would say, "nope, I don't feel like getting out of bed for so little cash" and the jobs would be vacant?

And while granted anyone can do it, does it really make sense that the guy breaking his back working long days in the exhausting heat mowing the lawn and cutting the shrubs around the building make likely UNDER minimum wage since he's likely an illegal alien contracted out by a third party (to avoid all liability by the company while enjoying the cheap labor)?

That said, I don't know of a better economic system, and if you tax the top 5% too highly, at some point in this global economy they say "screw you" and simply move to some other resort island and manage things remotely... or heck just move the whole business. I don't know the fix, I just know its fucked, and am annoyed when my fellow Republicans act like there is nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

people roughly get paid a proportion of what they made for the company, so a person doesn't have to be any better than anyone else, they just have to sit in the chair that makes million-dollar decisions, and then they get a cut of that.

the ideal way for wealth to be distributed is competition. as competition increases, the top makes less and the bottom makes more. the people pay less and the super-rich make less but stay rich. the problem is the political system which decides how competition happens. the politics are influenced by the money generators, and therefore competitive policy is decided by the anti-competitive. thus the distribution of wealth ends up poor, and some people try to fix it after the fact with taxes.

it doesn't take smarts or skill to make money and power. all you need is money. money makes more money. a rich person who does nothing for a year can make a million dollars from their bank account interest. a rich business can make a million dollars by buying a 100 million dollar company and waiting a year. a regular person who does nothing for a year gets poorer.

radical pro-competitive law could help everyone except the incomprehensibly rich, and could do it without involving government agencies, government management, or government taxes.

imagine some completely radical idea that would multiply the amount of competition in business. taxes based on some measure of the size of the business, or the number of businesses? some limit on the number of business? a limit on the number of staff?

imagine if you took the current million-page tax code and simplified it into "small" businesses paying zero tax and "big" businesses paying 4x the tax. never going to happen right? because big businesses won't let it happen. but would incentive for more businesses and therefore more competition be bad for people and the country and the future?

it is natural for businesses to get larger and consume each other, because that is the best way to make money. but is the acquisition of wealth by non-living entities the #1 goal of society? at the very worst case we know it is not, because there are laws in place to prevent every company from becoming 1 giant super-company. but those laws are weakened by lifetimes worth of big businesses telling their politician friends to weaken those pro-competition (anti-trust) laws.

what if there were 20 zyngas instead of 1? prices would fall, you would pay less, their top staff would make less. more people might be employed, making less than before. there would be 20 mattricks, each still a millionaire. would that be so bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top