Former Blizzard president says gamers should be able to show their gratitude by tipping devs

[Watzupken]

To be fair, nothing wrong if you think they did a great job, and you want to appreciate their work. Its like someone you know did a great job, so get him/ her a coffee or beer. The unfortunate fact is that nobody knows who contributed materially in the dev team, and more than often, the money goes to someone in the high ups, while the people who works hard get laid off.

 

[DrkKnight]

Wow, I cannot believe they actually had the testicular fortitude to even say something like that after what people already pay for their games ......... how about this one for all you Devs , GET BENT

The sense of self entitlement in today's woke DEI world is just effing astounding.

 

[LemmingO]

I fully support tipping INDIE developers, and do so whenever a game exceeds my expectations (and there is a system to do this).

Now, if you operate a multi-billion dollar corporation and are telling your customers to tip your employees, then, buddy... have I got news for you.

 

[LemmingO]

To be fair, nothing wrong if you think they did a great job, and you want to appreciate their work. Its like someone you know did a great job, so get him/ her a coffee or beer. The unfortunate fact is that nobody knows who contributed materially in the dev team, and more than often, the money goes to someone in the high ups, while the people who works hard get laid off.

Gotta say I disagree. If a game's developers really went the extra mile and delivered an outstanding product, that will be reflected in the game sales and consequently in the company bottomline, which should be fed back to the developer in the form of a bonus. Incentivize good development and better sales is the employer's obligation. Don't overcharge for a game and then guilt-trip consumers into throwing more money in the form of tips...

 

[Endymio]

If a game's developers really went the extra mile and delivered an outstanding product, that will be reflected in the game sales and consequently in the company bottomline, which should be fed back to the developer in the form of a bonus.

Several problems with this. Many companies don't engage in profit-sharing, and several of those that do (particularly the larger ones) base it on the overall bottom line, meaning the developer who worked on a dog of a product might receive the same bonus as someone who created a gem. And finally, games are like movies -- many of the true classics sold rather poorly initially, and only showed their true worth in the future.

Tipping culture has gotten totally out of control and I'm just waiting for some state to ban it outright.

While tipping culture has gotten out of hand, I have to ask: why would you need the government to ban something you can "ban" yourself by simply not tipping? I think protecting the concept of freedom is innately valuable .... and if you truly believe a tip isn't warranted, then it shouldn't embarrass you to refuse.

 

[LemmingO]

Several problems with this. Many companies don't engage in profit-sharing, and several of those that do (particularly the larger ones) base it on the overall bottom line, meaning the developer who worked on a dog of a product might receive the same bonus as someone who created a gem. And finally, games are like movies -- many of the true classics sold rather poorly initially, and only showed their true worth in the future.

Having worked in tech for the past 12 years, that is simply not true. No profit-sharing that I know of means everyone gets the same extra monies. Companies performance-review employees to hell and back, and not necessarily to improve the rewards.

imho Tipping culture will lower the overall quality of the industry professionals (like any industry, tbh).

The future - I HOPE - is not a $70 game + hundreds of microtransactions and season passes, that needs "tipping" to give devs a chance at making a decent living.

 

[Endymio]

Having worked in tech for the past 12 years, that is simply not true. No profit-sharing that I know of means everyone gets the same extra monies...

You failed to read my post. Every single Fortune 100 firm I know uses the same general scheme: the profits for either the company in toto or a major structural division are used to set a baseline bonus, and then individual performance reviews adjust that bonus upwards or downwards. The issue is that, even when bonuses are done by division, that entity generally has dozens or hundreds of products besides the one that a specific employee worked upon. Furthermore, one of the most common schemes involves granting stock or stock options, which obviously is intimately tied to overall company performance.

Your post stirred enough interest, however, for me to check what actual policies are at major game studios. The largest of them (Sony Interactive Entertainment) apparently uses just the system I describe, while Blizzard Activision used this system until just last year:

"...The new policy was instituted in 2023. Before the change, Blizzard would dole out bonuses to all employees based on the overall success of the publisher. If Blizzard's earnings were up, then everyone would get a bonus. The new policy only gives bonuses to the teams that are successful. For instance, in 2023, Diablo IV generated $666 million in just 5 days via game sales alone. The Diablo team's success doesn't affect other teams within the confines of the newer bonus scheme."

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9705...-cuts-bonuses-for-overwatch-2-devs/index.html

 

[ZedRM]

Really Blizzard/Activision/Microsoft? Your greed is not blatant enough so you want the general public to pay your developers for you?

Weak, plain and simple.

 

[LemmingO]

You failed to read my post. Every single Fortune 100 firm I know uses the same general scheme: the profits for either the company in toto or a major structural division are used to set a baseline bonus, and then individual performance reviews adjust that bonus upwards or downwards. The issue is that, even when bonuses are done by division, that entity generally has dozens or hundreds of products besides the one that a specific employee worked upon. Furthermore, one of the most common schemes involves granting stock or stock options, which obviously is intimately tied to overall company performance.

Your post stirred enough interest, however, for me to check what actual policies are at major game studios. The largest of them (Sony Interactive Entertainment) apparently uses just the system I describe, while Blizzard Activision used this system until just last year:

"...The new policy was instituted in 2023. Before the change, Blizzard would dole out bonuses to all employees based on the overall success of the publisher. If Blizzard's earnings were up, then everyone would get a bonus. The new policy only gives bonuses to the teams that are successful. For instance, in 2023, Diablo IV generated $666 million in just 5 days via game sales alone. The Diablo team's success doesn't affect other teams within the confines of the newer bonus scheme."

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9705...-cuts-bonuses-for-overwatch-2-devs/index.html

I work at a Fortune 100 company (not a startup!). My bonus and my stock are NOT the same. I've worked at large multinational corporations for the past 12 years. They all had the same incentive structure:

* 10/15% (non-senior/senior-and-above) of overall yearly gross salary as a bonus. Non-executive roles, of course, as those have their own incentives.
* Variable RSU levels depending on seniority. minimum level is actually a Senior IC employee, although pre-IPO companies will likely give everyone a stake.
* Some companies don't do RSUs anymore, they do, however, provide ESPPs (Employee Stock Purchase Programmes) where you can get "buy 2 get 3" deals on stock, for example.

Overall bonus-setting is for non-execs and non-sales people (because the bonus for these are heavily variable), of course. Employee bonuses work like this:
1. Company sets their financial goals.
2. Company sets baseline bonus levels. 100% is for goals that are met. Then they stagger up and down a range of percentages. e.g. they'll pay out less if they don't meet targets, etc. This is a modifier on your direct bonus.
3. Individual performance-reviews set how much you receive compared to the baseline. Say you were a top-performer and there is a 115% modified to your bonus.
4. At the end of the FY, you get that grade modified by the overall company modifier.

Say the company determined a 120% bonus if sales goals were exceeded by 30%. Your bonus would be <base bonus value based on your salary (15%) > * 1.15 * 1.2. So if you made $100K a year in a senior role, you'd get $15,000*1.15*1.2= $20,700, usually subject to income tax, depending on where your contract is.

This is not company stock. Those are awarded at the senior manager's discretion to further incentivize people.

Some companies are now changing this format to a benefits-based scheme, where you don't get a bonus directly, but you get extra benefits, that are "tax free".

 

[Disiw]

I'm so tired of this new tipping culture. Everywhere now people have their hands out expecting free money. If you work someplace where you have to rely on the kindness of strangers to boost your pay then here's a tip for you: FIND A BETTER JOB.

True.