| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (10)

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 1:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The approaching release date of GTA IV is reason for joy as well as some serious concern. If I were a Take Two employee I'd start looking for a new job in the industry 'cause San Andreas is still quite fresh and now with GTA IV coming to New York (call it whatever you want Rockstar, it's still NYC) with way more realism and more fuel for Jack Thompson's rants and lawsuits Take Two could be in for some very harsh times...
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 1:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jack Thompson is, at worst, static noise and at best free advertising for the GTA franchise. If I was making violent video games, I'd send him free advance copies and fire my marketing department.

All the problems Take Two has had have nothing to do with GTA, but everything to do with them sticking their own foot up their asses. Just like Dennis said. From (the overblown) Hot Coffee scandal that Take Two seriously mishandled to backdated stock options...nothing to do with GTA.
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 5:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's nothing, when Jill (whatever her name was) took Mattel down the tubes and my stock with her, she get's "let go" with a 40 Million dollar check in her pocket.
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You should research how Corporate Officers are hired before making such a statement. My father-in-law was an officer and he explained the concept to me. CEOs, CIOs, etc... are usually paid per contract. These contracts say "You must meet blah blah blah" and such to be compensated. When a company hires a CEO, they also must write up a contract. Now, keep in mind, these are NOT the rank and file workers. It's not like CEOs are a dime a dozen. Usually companies hire CEOs away from their current companies to take over at the hiring company. Now, to do this, they have to sweeten the pot for the new hire. Plus, the CEO is going to ask for some kind of security so they aren't fired in 2 months after they start at the new company with nowhere to go. So...complain about the "golden parachute" clause all you want... but at least have an understanding how these things are done.
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 3:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jack Thompson won't hurt Take Two. In fact, nothing can really hurt Take Two at all besides them messing up their stock reports. In the end, Jack Thompson is basically just arguing freedom of speech, art, and everything else. He does not have a case.

Not only this, but as a company, T2 is perfectly fine. Whatever mishaps they have had in the past few months will slowly fade away. The only reason this is even a discussion is because they are planning on releasing such a big game in the near future. But... That's just my 2cents.
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 3:05PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, maybe now that he's gone, things will get better

One can hope, and it would be interesting to see how GTA IV does, wisdom says it'll sell well, but after the sales flops of Bully and the "stories" GTAs, one can wonder how well it will do
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 3:52PM Vidikron said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@4

Sorry, but there really is no way to defend how many CEOs are paid off like this. They can drive a company into the ground and get paid millions to leave. Anyone else below who does poorly simply gets shown the door with no compensation. It's ridiculous.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2007 9:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
unfortuantly as far as monumental CEO screw ups goes eibler really didn't screw up that badly. the company is still quite stable finacially and a good bet moving forward, he hardly 'drove it into the ground.'

would hot-coffee have happened with a different ceo there? very much yes. so it's not like you can blame him specifically for that problem or for jack thompson or even for ignoring it. at the time a lot of people were saying that all of that was just silly and it would blow over once people reaslized it's a game. he, unfortunatly, choose that position and it was the wrong one to take so he was fired and left with the severance package that was agreed to before he showed up. gripe about it all you want but this is pretty much the SOP when it comes to CEOs and CFOs and for good reason, it's the only way you can attract the ones that are actually worth that much money to the company and trust me, many are.
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2007 7:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
#6. Again, research how top executives get paid. In no way am I saying it is the right thing for a company to do...but the board decides what to pay the CEOs... that is where the blame should be placed.
Like superstar athletes, I think "pay for play" should be instituted for CEOs and such. If you perform well, they pay you well. If you perform poorly, you get paid poorly. It is ridiculous what CEOs expect now for compensation and the company boards are completely at fault for giving it to them.
Reply

Posted: Apr 10th 2007 1:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thank you, evaNERV. It's silly, of course, but entirely fair.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW