• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Breaking: Microsoft to acquire Activision-Blizzard in near 70$ billion deal

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
There is a reason why Sony spent $1b on bungie employees.
Buying IPs is that useless, since they have no experience with it. Buying the company makes sense, because you are getting the experience.

MS bought gears of war, and got Coalition in the process.
Coalition originally Black Tusk or Zipline was made internally. After buying Gears of War, Rod Fergusson joined Black Tusk and it became The Coalition.
 

DavJay

Member
Even if most CoD games won’t be exclusive MS got a lot of new studios. People are forgetting that. Every IP Ms own can be allocated by them.
 
There is a reason why Sony spent $1b on bungie employees.
Buying IPs is that useless, since they have no experience with it. Buying the company makes sense, because you are getting the experience.

MS bought gears of war, and got Coalition in the process.
This is not true. Microsoft already owned black tusk studios that was working on a different game at the time called shanghiest. They changed their name from black tusk to the coalition after the IP was bought no talent came with the IP.
 

DavJay

Member
Scary who opportunistic MS is. I’m super impressed and this put Phil Spencer in the GOAT conversation… game industry executive that is.
 

Sega Orphan

Banned
The more I look at the ABK purchase, the more I really like the Zenimax one.
For me I'm not a Blizzard Game person. Don't care for WOW or Diablo. I enjoy Call of Duty sure, but not anymore than I care for Doom or Wolfenstien. I don't play Candy Crush either.
So while I understand the value of ABK to Microsoft, I personally think Zenimax is the far better purchase. If I was told MS could only get one of them, I would say Zenimax.
 

Lognor

Banned
Speaking of.



Man, that would be awesome if we got some AB content prior to the acquisition be finalized (don't think any Bethesda stuff dropped on GP until it was final so this would be a change). I just maxed out my battle pass on Halo Infinite and looking for another competitive fps to sink my teeth into. It's been years since I've played COD but if it's on Game Pass I'll definitely get back into it.
 

reksveks

Member
I know this will end up being a touchy subject, but why should you "Pay women and BIPOC" more.

Just because they're women and BIPOC, that should not entitle them to a special privilege over other workers.

If you doing the same jobs, shouldn't everyone be paid the same amount outside of years surved in the company, experience, etc etc

The problem is generally the following:
- Women get lower salaries when they start new jobs or when they are applying.
- Women are also less likely to push for pay rises
- When Women do, people (both male and women) find it offputting

It happens sometimes even if the hirer is female. I don't know if paying specific females more is the solution but measurement, reporting/transparency and having good processes in place does seem like a good idea.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I know this will end up being a touchy subject, but why should you "Pay women and BIPOC" more.

Just because they're women and BIPOC, that should not entitle them to a special privilege over other workers.

If you doing the same jobs, shouldn't everyone be paid the same amount outside of years served in the company, experience, etc etc
Virtue signaling as it doesn't come out of their pockets. Now if MS or another game company said they give every women and POC a $10k pay bump, but their own pay went down $10k to cover it, you can bet every dollar you have they'd shut their mouths.
 
Last edited:

MadPanda

Banned
I know this will end up being a touchy subject, but why should you "Pay women and BIPOC" more.

Just because they're women and BIPOC, that should not entitle them to a special privilege over other workers.

If you doing the same jobs, shouldn't everyone be paid the same amount outside of years served in the company, experience, etc etc
that's not how I understood it. I think she meant that women are underpaid so we should get them. up to men's paygrade. aa/e for bipoc even though I don't know what's the meaning of it.
 

sircaw

Banned
The problem is generally the following:
- Women get lower salaries when they start new jobs or when they are applying.
- Women are also less likely to push for pay rises
- When Women do, people (both male and women) find it offputting

It happens sometimes even if the hirer is female. I don't know if paying specific females more is the solution but measurement, reporting/transparency and having good processes in place does seem like a good idea.
I would have thought it would be illegal for a company to have different starting salaries for doing the same job.

I am sure it is like that in the UK,

Maybe it's a USA thing, but there are discrimination laws in place that stop this on a very basic level.

The discrepancy in pay comes from hours worked, overtime, women leaving the job to start families, etc.
 

sircaw

Banned
that's not how I understood it. I think she meant that women are underpaid so we should get them. up to men's paygrade. aa/e for bipoc even though I don't know what's the meaning of it.
I kinda get what you're saying, but someone who has been at a company for twenty years over someone that has been there for one surely deserves to be paid more.

Like i said a can of worms.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I would have thought it would be illegal for a company to have different starting salaries for doing the same job.

I am sure it is like that in the UK,

Maybe it's a USA thing, but there are discrimination laws in place that stop this on a very basic level.

The discrepancy in pay comes from hours worked, overtime, women leaving the job to start families, etc.
Maybe the UK is like that, but in Canada, your starting salary is what you negotiate.

Every job will have a general band what it pays based off what job it is (the going rate in the industry) and how much money the company can afford (let's say it pays $80 - 100k), but what you ultimately get paid will be an offer and then adjusted to what you counteroffer. And hope they agree. Most of the time, the job pay isn't public.

Typically people hired externally get paid more because they had to tease someone to join the company, while someone internal with the same job and tenure may be $10+k behind as they started with a low salary and creeps up +2% salary bump per year for 7 years. But then some person swoops into a similar role and gets paid $10k more right off the bat.

Tip for all: unless you work at a lousy hourly job you know they arent going to pay more than the hourly rate, any half decent job you can always negotiate. The higher the salary the more room you got to counter as HR/hiring manager will always try to offer a relatively low pay hoping you take it. It is also a low end amount because every job has a pay band. If someone gets paid at the high end, then their future pay bumps will eventually stop as they hit the max, which would piss off the employee. I know people hitting the max band. So what happens is their annual salary doesn't go up. But they get paid a flat rate small pay out, which she wasnt thrilled about. But it's not baked into future salary.

So those are two key reasons why HR doesnt just offer you a job at a maxed out salary on day one.
 
Last edited:

FingerBang

Member
I know this will end up being a touchy subject, but why should you "Pay women and BIPOC" more.

Just because they're women and BIPOC, that should not entitle them to a special privilege over other workers.

If you doing the same jobs, shouldn't everyone be paid the same amount outside of years served in the company, experience, etc etc
Because saying something like that makes you look virtuous by doing absolutely nothing. That's why she said it.

Because the gender pay gap is obviously BS once you look at the data properly and any kind of pay discrimination would be illegal.
And to make it clear, I believe people, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity should be paid based on performance.

The problem is generally the following:
- Women get lower salaries when they start new jobs or when they are applying.
- Women are also less likely to push for pay rises
- When Women do, people (both male and women) find it offputting

It happens sometimes even if the hirer is female. I don't know if paying specific females more is the solution but measurement, reporting/transparency and having good processes in place does seem like a good idea.
- This first point is illegal and should be easy to prove and made companies change their behavior. Companies offer a salary range, normally, if they don't negotiate you can't blame the company for sexism. They do the same for men.
- Again, this point too has to do with personality. They don't push for pay rises, like a lot of men. We should teach women to be more assertive when it comes to jobs, this isn't sexism.
- This third point is cultural but has nothing to do with sexism. I am very cynical when it comes to companies and jobs, I don't expect them to give anything for free.

I agree that reporting and transparency are good things though.
 
Last edited:

Banjo64

cumsessed
Maybe the UK is like that, but in Canada, your starting salary is what you negotiate.

Every job will have a general band what it pays based off what job it is (the going rate in the industry) and how much money the company can afford (let's say it pays $80 - 100k), but what you ultimately get paid will be an offer and then adjusted to what you counteroffer. And hope they agree.

Typically people hired externally get paid more because they had to tease someone to join the company, while someone internal with the same job and tenure may be $10+k behind as they started with a low salary and creeps up +2% salary bump per year for 7 years. But then some person swoops into a similar role and gets paid $10k more right off the bat.

Tip for all: unless you work at a lousy hourly job you know they arent going to pay more than the hourly rate, any half decent job you can always negotiate. The higher the salary the more room you got to counter as HR/hiring manager will always try to offer a relatively low pay hoping you take it. It is also a low end amount because every job has a pay band. If someone gets paid at the high end, then their future pay bumps will eventually stop as they hit the max, which would piss off the employee. I know people hitting the max band. So what happens is their annual salary doesn't go up. But they get paid a flat rate small pay out, which she wasnt thrilled about. But it's not baked into future salary.

So those are two key reasons why HR doesnt just offer you a job at a maxed out salary on day one.
Man fuck negotiating for a salary.

In the UK when you apply for a job 90% of companies list the yearly salary. The ones that list it as ‘competitive’ rather than a figure are charlatans that you wouldn’t want to work for.

I can’t imagine having to apply for a job, interview and then reach a stumbling block in terms of wages, what a waste of time!
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Man fuck negotiating for a salary.

In the UK when you apply for a job 90% of companies list the yearly salary. The ones that list it as ‘competitive’ rather than a figure are charlatans that you wouldn’t want to work for.

I can’t imagine having to apply for a job, interview and then reach a stumbling block in terms of wages, what a waste of time!
Didnt know that. Here, salaries on job boards may or may not list it. The jobs I apply for rarely list it. Only way to know id to get an interview then they tell you. Or if it's through a recruiter, they will tell you.

And if they tell you how much it pays, it'll usually be a range too like $75-90k or $120-140k kind of thing. So you still don't know exactly what they will offer you, but at least you have an idea.

I had that stumbling block many times. At least with a recruiter you can immeidately tell them you arent interested if it pays bad. But when you get a direct interview from the company, you never (at least I dont) right away talk money as you dont want to look like a greedy bum. You go through the first interview (likely a half hour screener chat), and then in the last 5 minutes compensation is brought up and then you decide in your head if it's worth it or not. I've declined going further many times when it turns out the job paid $20k less. But if the pay range offer is good, you act happy and hope they call you for round two.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but thats they way I go through jobs and interviews.

Edit: I just checked my Linkedin job filter and went down a list of about 15 jobs checking out the description. One job posted what it pays.
 
Last edited:

FingerBang

Member
Man fuck negotiating for a salary.

In the UK when you apply for a job 90% of companies list the yearly salary. The ones that list it as ‘competitive’ rather than a figure are charlatans that you wouldn’t want to work for.

I can’t imagine having to apply for a job, interview and then reach a stumbling block in terms of wages, what a waste of time!
In the UK too they list a salary range, you can always negotiate. Obviously, as a candidate, you should make it clear from the start what your expectations are.
I don't know what kind of jobs you apply to, but in tech they always write at least the upper bound (e.g the job pays up to £70k yearly).

If a company doesn't list the salary, I don't even bother interviewing unless I'm 100% sure they are going to meet my expectations. If they don't, they don't get me.
 

reksveks

Member
I would have thought it would be illegal for a company to have different starting salaries for doing the same job.

I am sure it is like that in the UK,

Maybe it's a USA thing, but there are discrimination laws in place that stop this on a very basic level.

The discrepancy in pay comes from hours worked, overtime, women leaving the job to start families, etc.

It's not explicit, that definitely would be illegal but in my experience you go into an interview with a range and then during the negotiation, you get down to a number. men typically get higher salaries than women. Yeah, we definitely need to figure out the difference between real and solvable causes in gender pay gap.

Because the gender pay gap is obviously BS once you look at the data properly and any kind of pay discrimination would be illegal.
And to make it clear, I believe people, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity should be paid based on performance.

- This first point is illegal and should be easy to prove and made company change their behavior. Company offer a salary range, normally, if they don't negotiate you can't blame the company for sexism. They do the same for men.
- Again, this point too has to do with personality. They don't push for pay rises, like a lot of men. We should teach women to be more assertive when it comes to jobs, this isn't sexism.
- This third point is cultural but has nothing to do with sexism. I am very cynical when it comes to companies and jobs, I don't expect them to give anything for free.

I agree that reporting and transparency are good things though.

The problem is that when you randomise names on CV's; results in terms of the number of positive response actively changes in a number of cases. This happens if you randomise names based on ethnicity and gender. You might argue that ain't racism or sexism but it's weirdly happening. Separating cultural difference and sexism is kinda the whole topic, right? I don't think females are actively discriminating against more assertive females but it is having an impact therefore it needs to be solve somehow at the cultural level or individual.

PS I agree the general gender pay gap number is actively unhelpful due to the over-simplification that happens.

Also yeah, i tell my recruiter what I am getting now and what I am expecting. I don't mind a first stage interview after that point.
 
Last edited:
I know this will end up being a touchy subject, but why should you "Pay women and BIPOC" more.

Just because they're women and BIPOC, that should not entitle them to a special privilege over other workers.

If you doing the same jobs, shouldn't everyone be paid the same amount outside of years served in the company, experience, etc etc
Idk about BIPOC (must be some weird American thing) but women have a few disadvantages to overcome, mainly child birth which makes them miss out on getting raises or getting promoted. They're also in general more risk averse so they ask for lower salaries.
 

FingerBang

Member
Didnt know that. Here, salaries on job boards may or may not list it. The jobs I apply for rarely list it. Only way to know id to get an interview then they tell you. Or if it's through a recruiter, they will tell you.

And if they tell you how much it pays, it'll usually be a range too like $75-90k or $120-140k kind of thing. So you still don't know exactly what they will offer you, but at least you have an idea.

I had that stumbling block many times. At least with a recruiter you can immeidately tell them you arent interested if it pays bad. But when you get a direct interview from the company, you never (at least I dont) right away talk money as you dont want to look like a greedy bum. You go through the first interview (likely a half hour screener chat), and then in the last 5 minutes compensation is brought up and then you decide in your head if it's worth it or not. I've declined going further many times when it turns out the job paid $20k less. But if the pay range offer is good, you act happy and hope they call you for round two.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but thats they way I go through jobs and interviews.

Edit: I just checked my Linkedin job filter and went down a list of about 15 jobs checking out the description. One job posted what it pays.
This is capitalism, you work for money. Let's leave the bullshit outside. They will hire you to make money, it's fair that money comes first.

When a company gets in touch with you and invites you to an interview, tell them that you're interested but you want to set expectations from the start to avoid wasting each other's time. Tell them how much you're looking for. Time is the most valuable thing you have, don't waste it.

The problem is that when you randomise names on CV's; results in terms of the number of positive response actively changes in a number of cases. This happens if you randomise names based on ethnicity and gender. You might argue that ain't racism or sexism but it's weirdly happening. Separating cultural difference and sexism is kinda the whole topic, right? I don't think females are actively discriminating against more assertive females but it is having an impact therefore it needs to be solve somehow at the cultural level or individual.

PS I agree the general gender pay gap number is actively unhelpful due to the over-simplification that.

Also yeah, i tell my recruiter what I am getting now and what I am expecting. I don't mind a first stage interview after that point.
But the CV part is different, I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist. I am all for randomizing CV's by removing names and anything that could give out gender, age and so on. I used to live in Japan where, on top of stating your age and gender, they expect you to put a picture on your resume. I'm happy that is illegal in the west.

And don't get me wrong, I'm for female empowerment and try to actively teach people how to get more in life, especially the women around me. I'm just annoyed by wokeness and how they're not really trying to solve problems as much as they are trying to destroy a system that actually works. Many times for them the solution is positive discrimination to hire/promote people based on gender and ethnicity instead of merit. That is a recipe for disaster.
I work in tech and trust me, I'd love to be surrounded by girls instead of entitled dudes who would kill you for a semicolon in the wrong place.
 
Last edited:

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Jason sure is focused on QA staff.

Easy target to cheerlead, because -and I'm sorry if this offends anyone- they are expendable. Its an entry-level position which for the most part requires minimum skill and training.

Reality is if local QA gets too pricy, they will simply outsource it to India or some other location where labour is cheap.

Pretending that everyone is of equal value to an organization is nice and all, but its a fucking fantasy.
 
Easy target to cheerlead, because -and I'm sorry if this offends anyone- they are expendable. Its an entry-level position which for the most part requires minimum skill and training.

Reality is if local QA gets too pricy, they will simply outsource it to India or some other location where labour is cheap.

Pretending that everyone is of equal value to an organization is nice and all, but its a fucking fantasy.
Yep. If you want to make money, make yourself irreplacable. That's why the really good coders make 500k a year while shitty coders work for 12 bucks an hour.
 
Last edited:

Kokoloko85

Member
Actually forgot about this, it did the boom shock effect when it was anounce, but then nothing concrete, meanwhile Sony and other 3rd party devs keep on announcing and delivering great games.

What games have Sony announced since September 2020?

They’ve shown 2 first party games since then which was Spiderman 2 and Wolverine, its been a awfully uneventful as far as annoucements go from Sony.
Great games especially in the last month but actual announcements, absolutely awful. Plenty fo rumours but nothing concrete worthwhile
 

reksveks

Member
But the CV part is different, I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist. I am all for randomizing CV's by removing names and anything that could give out gender, age and so on. I used to live in Japan where, on top of stating your age and gender, they expect you to put a picture on your resume. I'm happy that is illegal in the west.

And don't get me wrong, I'm for female empowerment and teach people how to get more in life. I'm just annoyed by wokeness and how they're not really trying to solve problems as much as they are trying to destroy a system that actually works. Many times for them the solution is positive discrimination to hire/promote people based on gender and ethnicity instead of merit. That is a recipe for disaster.
I work in tech and trust me, I'd love to be surrounded by girls instead of entitled dudes who would kill you for a semicolon in the wrong place.
Generally on the liberal/left side, but yeah, sometimes the more extreme end can't see the forest for the tree.

I have a feeling most coders will hate my codes, i fortunately just need to get POV up and working and hand it off.

Yep. If you want to make money, make yourself irreplacable. That's why the really good coders make 500k a year while shitty coders work for 12 bucks an hour.
You made me laugh cause I don't document the fuck out of my work which is one way to make yourself irreplaceable in a way. I am not a good coder though.
 

hybrid_birth

Gold Member
What games have Sony announced since September 2020?

They’ve shown 2 first party games since then which was Spiderman 2 and Wolverine, its been a awfully uneventful as far as annoucements go from Sony.
Great games especially in the last month but actual announcements, absolutely awful. Plenty fo rumours but nothing concrete worthwhile
KOTR remake is a big one. Though I don't remember if exclusive. God of War ragnorak comes out this year.

There will be plenty of announcements this year from Sony im sure. State of play is coming up.

Sure MS announced a lot of games but it remains to be seen if they will be good. (perfect dark, avowed etc)

Games take time to make we have had a lot of great ps5 games already.

it's the beginning of the year and we aren't close to the end of the generation yet. We still are seeing cross gen games. So we got to be patient.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yep. If you want to make money, make yourself irreplacable. That's why the really good coders make 500k a year while shitty coders work for 12 bucks an hour.
Yup.

And most people in low end low paid jobs dont understand that. They just assume if they are slaving away all day in front of a hot fryer, that automatically assumes they should get paid more because the job seems like a pain in the ass.

There's lots of money to go around. Just got to be worth paying to keep around. As you said, how can coders sitting at a desk all day make more money than some Directors and VPs? Well, they must be awesome so they get paid.

There's sales people who can do so well at their job, their commission/bonus structure in a good year will have them getting paid more than their boss.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
Yup.

And most people in low end low paid jobs dont understand that. They just assume if they are slaving away all day in front of a hot fryer, that automatically assumes they should get paid more because the job seems like a pain in the ass.

There's lots of money to go around. Just got to be worth paying to keep around. As you said, how can coders sitting at a desk all day make more money than some Directors and VPs? Well, they must be awesome so they get paid.

There's sales people who can do so well at their job, their commission/bonus structure in a good year will have them getting paid more than their boss.
We shouldn't pretend that the irreplaceable coder is a common thing. In my career that's been incredibly rare and those people are often specifically identified as people who are a risk to business continuity and plans are made to obsolete them more often than not. There aren't a ton of people like that.

But you guys are right that there is plenty of money out there. You just have to make your skills valuable enough to be able to claim it. That and being assertive and confident enough to take your share.
 

nikolino840

Member
I would have thought it would be illegal for a company to have different starting salaries for doing the same job.

I am sure it is like that in the UK,

Maybe it's a USA thing, but there are discrimination laws in place that stop this on a very basic level.

The discrepancy in pay comes from hours worked, overtime, women leaving the job to start families, etc.
Nope...at least in Italy... For every work theres some "levels"
Is not illegal hire someone with the minimum level and Is not illegal working for 10 years with the minimum level
There's some laws but not enough ... The lucky ones who get promoted is becouse of the unions (i'm still waiting for my level up...i'm One of the few with the minimum level in my workplace)
For the work that i do (a normal worker in a factory) a level up Is like 40/50€ more a month
 

SSfox

Member
Wow, what a terrible post lol.
Yeah i'm sorry if it trigger you, but i'm excited about games, not about X aquired Y.


They’ve shown 2 first party games since then which was Spiderman 2 and Wolverine, its been a awfully uneventful as far as annoucements go from Sony.
Great games especially in the last month but actual announcements, absolutely awful. Plenty fo rumours but nothing concrete worthwhile
They have announced some games and release some as well, maybe not at taste of everyone but it's there.

Personally i don't really care about Spiderman or Wolverine, but GT7 and Rangnarok i'm full in, but after GOWR there is nothing i'm excting for when it comes to Sony 1st party, but thankfully there is a lot of awesome stuffs coming from 3rd party. But yeah Sony need to step it up, too many tv shows and movies announcements here and there, but not much about games outside of the Marvel stuff you mentioned, big lack of games, specially Japanese games.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
But you guys are right that there is plenty of money out there. You just have to make your skills valuable enough to be able to claim it. That and being assertive and confident enough to take your share.
Yup.

A very important point when it comes to moving up the ladder. There's two types of people at work who see an internal job posting and are interested.

1. Person A asks around, asks the boss, asks the person leaving the company more about the job

2. Person B is the "I've been here for 5 years and think one of the bosses should tap me on the shoulder and hand me the job on a platter"

Person A will the score the job a lot more than Person B.
 

Gavon West

Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Wow, MS got in touch with them in November and finalized the purchase in 2 months.

That's a ridiculously fast turn of events for a 70 billion dollar deal in my eyes.
Holy shit! I want to meet the MF's that closed a near 70 billion dollar deal in two months. I could rule the world with a mouth piece like that!
 

GermanZepp

Member
The problem is generally the following:
- Women get lower salaries when they start new jobs or when they are applying.
- Women are also less likely to push for pay rises
- When Women do, people (both male and women) find it offputting

It happens sometimes even if the hirer is female. I don't know if paying specific females more is the solution but measurement, reporting/transparency and having good processes in place does seem like a good idea.
Bullshit.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yeah i'm sorry if it trigger you, but i'm excited about games, not about X aquired Y.

Posting something completely irrelevant to the topic-at-hand and talking about PS exclusives as a gotcha over this deal that hasn't even closed.

Yeah, no that's an equally terrible follow up lol.

c'est magnifique

If you don't care about X acquired Y, why even bother posting in this topic which is specifically about X acquiring Y. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom