Microsoft's Mattrick Tried To Buy Zynga Before Jumping Ship

Microsoft's Mattrick Tried To Buy Zynga Before Jumping Ship

image

Could Mattrick be a Trojan?

When Don Mattrick leapt like a gazelle made entirely of money from Microsoft to Zynga, it wasn't fully appreciated at the time just how close Mattrick was to Zynga's top brass. Mattrick and Zynga boss Mark Pincus used to be - and still are - road biking buddies, and while out on the trail they talked about this, that, and the possibility of Microsoft buying out Zynga, as part of a long courtship that went back to 2010. Of course, that isn't how things turned out in the end, as Mattrick was instead bought - to the tune of $95 million, potentially - by Zynga. Analyst Michael Pachter has already pointed out the absurdity of Mattrick's position. "To walk into a company that is not profitable, it's not growing," says Pachter, "and you've got the founder and majority controlling shareholder sitting in the office next to you ... what exactly can you get done?"

Well, that might depend on exactly what it is Mattrick intends to do. To earn the lion's share of his mega-payout Mattrick has to be a Zynga man for three years minimum. But if he really wants a jackpot he could just sell Zynga. Under the terms of his contract Mattrick would collect at least 25%, and perhaps as much as 50%, of his Zynga bonanza as soon as the deal goes through. Of course, a deal would probably also push up Zynga's share price, and a substantial chunk of Mattrick's compensation comes in the form of Zynga stock. Plus any deal is bound to come with golden inducements for the man making the thing happen, your friend and mine, Don Mattrick. As to which big corporation Mattrick might turn to in order to sell off Zynga, weeeeeellll ...

Will this happen? Your guess is as good as mine. But there is something interesting in Mattrick's pay package regulatory filing. Mattrick is now part of a two man executive committee - Pincus is his other half - designed to "facilitate approval of certain corporate actions." If that committee ever goes away or expands, Mattrick can claim severance as if he had been fired arbitrarily, so he's sitting pretty however this turns out. But you do have to wonder just what those corporate actions are likely to be, and why it wants a team of just two people - who've already talked about selling Zynga - to carry them out.

Source: Bloomberg

Permalink

It's the executive club, all these executive types know each other and they move from one job to anther job like they are playing musical chairs. Except there is always a seat regardless of how well they did at their previous job. See Mattrick's 5 million dollar signing bonus.

Ain't free flow information a wonderful thing?

But honestly, it sometimes looks as if they're trying to go for zero approval, these guys...

Oh well, it's still not as bad as Vivendi forcing massive debt onto Actibliz for the sake of a cash lump sum to cover their corporate failures elsewhere.

"'To walk into a company that is not profitable, it's not growing,' says Pachter, 'and you've got the founder and majority controlling shareholder sitting in the office next to you ... what exactly can you get done?'"

Apparently something worth millions of dollars, usually per year. Or, in layman's terms, you're both overpaid twits currently helming the Titanic into an iceberg, and that has nothing to do with who is sitting next to you.

fix-the-spade:
Oh well, it's still not as bad as Vivendi forcing massive debt onto Actibliz for the sake of a cash lump sum to cover their corporate failures elsewhere.

Well he is doing this for the sake of a massive cash lump sum to cover his corporate failures elsewhere
But since it's Zynga...

And in a few months we will hear how Zynga-EA is now a thing and ALL games come with a Zynga facebook game clone so you can game while you game.

not to mention you have to sign in on the Facebook one before you are even allowed to start the console version.

Hyperbole? yea, think that, but we have seen how EA deals with its games before, something like the above would not surprise me one bit.

synobal:
Except there is always a seat regardless of how well they did at their previous job. See Mattrick's 5 million dollar signing bonus.

Except for the Xbone launch Mattrick actually did a good job with Xbox, under him it went from a bottomless money pit into something profitable.

J Tyran:

synobal:
Except there is always a seat regardless of how well they did at their previous job. See Mattrick's 5 million dollar signing bonus.

Except for the Xbone launch Mattrick actually did a good job with Xbox, under him it went from a bottomless money pit into something profitable.

You mean he walked into the Xbox devision almost two years after the 360 was released and already well established and gets to take credit for it doing well for some reason, despite having nothing to do with it's development, release, or Sony's massive failures that likely contributed more to its success than his stewardship of the brand. He also seems to be credited for the division beginning to turn a profit which is a complete and utter joke since it's typical of next gen consoles to be sold at a loss early on and a profit later as costs go down and install base goes up. We might as well credit him for the 360 being a console that exists because it would make about as much sense. But we can thank him for a few things that really are entirely his: the waste of time known as the Kinect and the massive cluster fuck that is the Xbox One.

So honestly now, what should I place more weight on in evaluating his performance: The success of a console he didn't even play a role in for the first two years and which was already riding high on Sony's fuck ups, or his completely unnecessary addition to the dead end world of motion controls and a complete pile of shit for a console and console announcement which he oversaw start to finish?

Vivi22:

J Tyran:

synobal:
Except there is always a seat regardless of how well they did at their previous job. See Mattrick's 5 million dollar signing bonus.

Except for the Xbone launch Mattrick actually did a good job with Xbox, under him it went from a bottomless money pit into something profitable.

You mean he walked into the Xbox devision almost two years after the 360 was released and already well established and gets to take credit for it doing well for some reason, despite having nothing to do with it's development, release, or Sony's massive failures that likely contributed more to its success than his stewardship of the brand. He also seems to be credited for the division beginning to turn a profit which is a complete and utter joke since it's typical of next gen consoles to be sold at a loss early on and a profit later as costs go down and install base goes up. We might as well credit him for the 360 being a console that exists because it would make about as much sense. But we can thank him for a few things that really are entirely his: the waste of time known as the Kinect and the massive cluster fuck that is the Xbox One.

So honestly now, what should I place more weight on in evaluating his performance: The success of a console he didn't even play a role in for the first two years and which was already riding high on Sony's fuck ups, or his completely unnecessary addition to the dead end world of motion controls and a complete pile of shit for a console and console announcement which he oversaw start to finish?

Please excuse me if I take the word of financial experts over yours...

word on the street is that Mattick is actually very good at turning a company's fortunes around. Zynga may still benefit from this.

Time will tell...thought when it does, no one will remember.

J Tyran:

synobal:
Except there is always a seat regardless of how well they did at their previous job. See Mattrick's 5 million dollar signing bonus.

Except for the Xbone launch Mattrick actually did a good job with Xbox, under him it went from a bottomless money pit into something profitable.

So you mean a good job at being a dick to people? Pushing huge restrictions on the xbox one and over all being anti-consumerism? I think that did completely the opposite thing than be profitable. To top that if he was doing a good job I'm pretty sure he wouldn't jump ship that fast.

It looks to me like Mattrick is just going to squeeze what he can from Zynga then jump ship after those three years are up. Hell, that's what I'd do, fuck 'em.

J Tyran:

Vivi22:

J Tyran:

Except for the Xbone launch Mattrick actually did a good job with Xbox, under him it went from a bottomless money pit into something profitable.

You mean he walked into the Xbox devision almost two years after the 360 was released and already well established and gets to take credit for it doing well for some reason, despite having nothing to do with it's development, release, or Sony's massive failures that likely contributed more to its success than his stewardship of the brand. He also seems to be credited for the division beginning to turn a profit which is a complete and utter joke since it's typical of next gen consoles to be sold at a loss early on and a profit later as costs go down and install base goes up. We might as well credit him for the 360 being a console that exists because it would make about as much sense. But we can thank him for a few things that really are entirely his: the waste of time known as the Kinect and the massive cluster fuck that is the Xbox One.

So honestly now, what should I place more weight on in evaluating his performance: The success of a console he didn't even play a role in for the first two years and which was already riding high on Sony's fuck ups, or his completely unnecessary addition to the dead end world of motion controls and a complete pile of shit for a console and console announcement which he oversaw start to finish?

Please excuse me if I take the word of financial experts over yours...

A wild Cop-out appeared!

Devoneaux uses Logical Rebuttal!

"You know, someone being an expert does not mean he's right, furthermore, your failure to refute anything Vivi22 said is either telling of your lack of insight into the matter or of him simply being right, in which case, you were wrong and should own up to it."

It's super effective!

Devoneaux:

A wild Cop-out appeared!

Devoneaux uses Logical Rebuttal!

"You know, someone being an expert does not mean he's right, furthermore, your failure to refute anything Vivi22 said is either telling of your lack of insight into the matter or of him simply being right, in which case, you were wrong and should own up to it."

It's super effective!

You should lay off the Rare Candies, you're way OP. Devoneaux, return! *raises tennis ball painted red and white*

I didn't really see something like this coming, maybe his hiring was some kind of mercy bro-fist from Pincus so he wouldn't be embarassed at being friends with someone who isn't an overpaid wanker in a suit. My guess is that they will point Zynga towards the nearest iceberg, set the autopilot and jump ship to EA. Rinse and repeat, jump to Ubisoft. Rinse and repeat, get turned down by Valve.

Devoneaux:

J Tyran:

Vivi22:

You mean he walked into the Xbox devision almost two years after the 360 was released and already well established and gets to take credit for it doing well for some reason, despite having nothing to do with it's development, release, or Sony's massive failures that likely contributed more to its success than his stewardship of the brand. He also seems to be credited for the division beginning to turn a profit which is a complete and utter joke since it's typical of next gen consoles to be sold at a loss early on and a profit later as costs go down and install base goes up. We might as well credit him for the 360 being a console that exists because it would make about as much sense. But we can thank him for a few things that really are entirely his: the waste of time known as the Kinect and the massive cluster fuck that is the Xbox One.

So honestly now, what should I place more weight on in evaluating his performance: The success of a console he didn't even play a role in for the first two years and which was already riding high on Sony's fuck ups, or his completely unnecessary addition to the dead end world of motion controls and a complete pile of shit for a console and console announcement which he oversaw start to finish?

Please excuse me if I take the word of financial experts over yours...

A wild Cop-out appeared!

Devoneaux uses Logical Rebuttal!

"You know, someone being an expert does not mean he's right, furthermore, your failure to refute anything Vivi22 said is either telling of your lack of insight into the matter or of him simply being right, in which case, you were wrong and should own up to it."

It's super effective!

Well you see thats the difference, I do not claim any great insight over the ins and outs of being a CEO because I have no great insight and I do not like to talk to rubbish about something I don't know.

This is actually a good thing.

So when most financial institutions say someone did a good job of being a CEO I am inclined to listen, you can claim cop out all you want but the real logic is listening to the experts instead of someone that has probably never even progressed through even middle management. Which is fairly obvious as he doesn't even talk from a business perspective and whines like a typical gamer.

J Tyran:

So when most financial institutions say someone did a good job of being a CEO I am inclined to listen, you can claim cop out all you want but the real logic is listening to the experts instead of someone that has probably never even progressed through even middle management. Which is fairly obvious as he doesn't even talk from a business perspective and whines like a typical gamer.

What you're engaging in is Appeal to Authority, a recognized logical fallacy. So you might want to stop that before talking about "the real logic". Let's not forget about how "experts" in EA thought that buying companies for $100 million was a good idea, only to turn around and shutter them in a year.

Bonus points for your "Authority" being some nebulously-defined "experts".

Personally, I'm going to rely more on the Xbone's disaster of a reveal- an objective measure of performance- over the opinions of some "experts" who may or may not know a single thing about the games industry.

BloodSquirrel:

J Tyran:

So when most financial institutions say someone did a good job of being a CEO I am inclined to listen, you can claim cop out all you want but the real logic is listening to the experts instead of someone that has probably never even progressed through even middle management. Which is fairly obvious as he doesn't even talk from a business perspective and whines like a typical gamer.

What you're engaging in is Appeal to Authority, a recognized logical fallacy. So you might want to stop that before talking about "the real logic". Let's not forget about how "experts" in EA thought that buying companies for $100 million was a good idea, only to turn around and shutter them in a year.

Bonus points for your "Authority" being some nebulously-defined "experts".

Personally, I'm going to rely more on the Xbone's disaster of a reveal- an objective measure of performance- over the opinions of some "experts" who may or may not know a single thing about the games industry.

Wait what? Talking to a doctor for a medical problem is a fallacy? Consulting a builder if someone wants a conservatory is fallacy? Getting a mechanic in when you need your car fixed is a fallacy?

I think your fallacy is a fallacy or at least your use of it is.

Edit.

Indeed your use is inappropriate, ironic really as the fallacy your trying to pin on me is actually related to the appeal to "inappropriate authority" and not taking an experts word over someone who probably doesn't know what they are talking about.

This reeks of asset stripping and vulture capitalism. They're scuttling the ship, sinking the stock and making just a big enough bounce to save their own investments in the company.

Let me also make one thing clear; Mark Pincus is a con man. A trickster. A terrible human being and possibly a massive stock fraudster who belongs in prison. Zynga was built on lies, scam-ware, adware and selling it's users details. Even leaving out out the way the games themselves were set out as micro-transaction hubs and nothing more.

Zynga's bosses are still irresponsible, grossly mismanaging their company by using their entire cash reserves and more than a full quarters profits to buy companies that would be worthless soon after then attempting to hide it. Their stock floatation was one of the most bizarre, questionable and opaque i've ever seen with ordinary investors being practically robbed. They became billionaires from a company that was only ever worth billions on paper. Paper they created and manipulated.

J Tyran:
Wait what? Talking to a doctor for a medical problem is a fallacy? Consulting a builder if someone wants a conservatory is fallacy? Getting a mechanic in when you need your car fixed is a fallacy?

I think your fallacy is a fallacy or at least your use of it is.

Doctors, builders, and mechanics can all be wrong. If your doctor tells you that he's going to bleed you to get the devil out, are you going to go along and not argue just because he's a doctor? Are you going to spend $2000 on car repairs because your mechanic tells you that your car needs its blinker fluid replaced?

And, for someone who is so enamored with listening to experts, you sure are bizarrely insistent on reject the one piece of actual authoritative knowledge that's been brought into this discussion, ie, that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and should not be relied on to make arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

BloodSquirrel:

J Tyran:
Wait what? Talking to a doctor for a medical problem is a fallacy? Consulting a builder if someone wants a conservatory is fallacy? Getting a mechanic in when you need your car fixed is a fallacy?

I think your fallacy is a fallacy or at least your use of it is.

Doctors, builders, and mechanics can all be wrong. If your doctor tells you that he's going to bleed you to get the devil out, are you going to go along and not argue just because he's a doctor? Are you going to spend $2000 on car repairs because your mechanic tells you that your car needs its blinker fluid replaced?

And, for someone who is so enamored with listening to experts, you sure are bizarrely insistent on reject the one piece of actual authoritative knowledge that's been brought into this discussion, ie, that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and should not be relied on to make arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Not only did you get it from Wikipedia you didn't even read the article properly, pretty funny actually because you are guilty of your own fallacy by not only misusing it but making an inappropriate appeal to authority. You have mastered the art of unintentional irony, /tips hat.

J Tyran:

Not only did you get it from Wikipedia you didn't even read the article properly, pretty funny actually because you are guilty of your own fallacy by not only misusing it but making an inappropriate appeal to authority. You have mastered the art of unintentional irony, /tips hat.

Did you even bother reading the article before claiming that I haven't read it for some undisclosed reason? And you're actually accusing me of unintentional irony while claiming that, of all logical fallacies, Appeal to Authority is logically sound?

I'm not sure what it is you've won, but there has to be a very dubious award for it.

I think this is just a man doing a favor for a friend, And sure it smells funny , but we are talking about Zynga, every thing about that company smells funny.Will be fun to see who in their right mind would buy Zynga thou. I dont see how Mattrick or anyone else for that matter can turn around Zynga its way of the tracks as it is.

J Tyran:

BloodSquirrel:

J Tyran:
Wait what? Talking to a doctor for a medical problem is a fallacy? Consulting a builder if someone wants a conservatory is fallacy? Getting a mechanic in when you need your car fixed is a fallacy?

I think your fallacy is a fallacy or at least your use of it is.

Doctors, builders, and mechanics can all be wrong. If your doctor tells you that he's going to bleed you to get the devil out, are you going to go along and not argue just because he's a doctor? Are you going to spend $2000 on car repairs because your mechanic tells you that your car needs its blinker fluid replaced?

And, for someone who is so enamored with listening to experts, you sure are bizarrely insistent on reject the one piece of actual authoritative knowledge that's been brought into this discussion, ie, that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and should not be relied on to make arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Not only did you get it from Wikipedia you didn't even read the article properly, pretty funny actually because you are guilty of your own fallacy by not only misusing it but making an inappropriate appeal to authority. You have mastered the art of unintentional irony, /tips hat.

"In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts."

For this reason alone, the input of an "expert" (Whom you never did name) is not the end all, be all of an argument...You get it yet?

America: where the most work you have to do for almost $100 million is signing your name on the dotted line.

Scrumpmonkey:
This reeks of asset stripping and vulture capitalism. They're scuttling the ship, sinking the stock and making just a big enough bounce to save their own investments in the company.

Let me also make one thing clear; Mark Pincus is a con man. A trickster. A terrible human being and possibly a massive stock fraudster who belongs in prison. Zynga was built on lies, scam-ware, adware and selling it's users details. Even leaving out out the way the games themselves were set out as micro-transaction hubs and nothing more.

Zynga's bosses are still irresponsible, grossly mismanaging their company by using their entire cash reserves and more than a full quarters profits to buy companies that would be worthless soon after then attempting to hide it. Their stock floatation was one of the most bizarre, questionable and opaque i've ever seen with ordinary investors being practically robbed. They became billionaires from a company that was only ever worth billions on paper. Paper they created and manipulated.

I think it's quite possible that they just have no idea what they're doing.

Zynga made it big during the facebook/mobile game bubble, not through any particular genius at working the market, but just by getting into at the right time. Now that things have had time to settle they need to transition into a more mature structure and business model, but the rules of the market are still congealing and they don't have the kinds of hooks into it that they thought they had.

The whole "casual games" bubble really was a great example of the "experts" having no idea what they were doing. They saw a few people making massive amounts of money, completely ignored the transitory nature of the market, and ran forward expecting it to be the new status quo. A couple of years later and competition had gutted their profits, leaving them holding properties they paid exorbitant amounts of money for because they though that they were going to be able to make billions on cheap Farmville clones.

Devoneaux:

J Tyran:

BloodSquirrel:

Doctors, builders, and mechanics can all be wrong. If your doctor tells you that he's going to bleed you to get the devil out, are you going to go along and not argue just because he's a doctor? Are you going to spend $2000 on car repairs because your mechanic tells you that your car needs its blinker fluid replaced?

And, for someone who is so enamored with listening to experts, you sure are bizarrely insistent on reject the one piece of actual authoritative knowledge that's been brought into this discussion, ie, that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy and should not be relied on to make arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Not only did you get it from Wikipedia you didn't even read the article properly, pretty funny actually because you are guilty of your own fallacy by not only misusing it but making an inappropriate appeal to authority. You have mastered the art of unintentional irony, /tips hat.

"In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts."

For this reason alone, the input of an "expert" (Whom you never did name) is not the end all, be all of an argument...You get it yet?

Duh, I never said they where. I bolded the relevant part, my claim was that business experts probably have a more informed opinion than a random person on a forum. It would be a appeal to authority fallacy to go around telling people to listen to random people on a forum, you know like you are.

BloodSquirrel:

J Tyran:

Not only did you get it from Wikipedia you didn't even read the article properly, pretty funny actually because you are guilty of your own fallacy by not only misusing it but making an inappropriate appeal to authority. You have mastered the art of unintentional irony, /tips hat.

Did you even bother reading the article before claiming that I haven't read it for some undisclosed reason? And you're actually accusing me of unintentional irony while claiming that, of all logical fallacies, Appeal to Authority is logically sound?

I'm not sure what it is you've won, but there has to be a very dubious award for it.

Unlike you I did actually read it and several other sources and you're misusing it, appealing to authority is not a fallacy itself. Its only a fallacy when it meets specific conditions, mainly:-

-When the appeal is made to those without legitimate expertise
-When there is no expert consensus

J Tyran:

Devoneaux:

J Tyran:

Not only did you get it from Wikipedia you didn't even read the article properly, pretty funny actually because you are guilty of your own fallacy by not only misusing it but making an inappropriate appeal to authority. You have mastered the art of unintentional irony, /tips hat.

"In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts."

For this reason alone, the input of an "expert" (Whom you never did name) is not the end all, be all of an argument...You get it yet?

Duh, I never said they where. I bolded the relevant part, my claim was that business experts probably have a more informed opinion than a random person on a forum. It would be a appeal to authority fallacy to go around telling people to listen to random people on a forum, you know like you are.

And your cop out response ultimately failed to address any of the points made by the person you were responding to, making it an outright dismissal. The claim of authority was inappropriately made in the context of the argument and ultimately amounted to little more than a cop-out.

Devoneaux:

J Tyran:

Devoneaux:

"In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts."

For this reason alone, the input of an "expert" (Whom you never did name) is not the end all, be all of an argument...You get it yet?

Duh, I never said they where. I bolded the relevant part, my claim was that business experts probably have a more informed opinion than a random person on a forum. It would be a appeal to authority fallacy to go around telling people to listen to random people on a forum, you know like you are.

And your cop out response ultimately failed to address any of the points made by the person you were responding to, making it an outright dismissal. The claim of authority was inappropriately made in the context of the argument and ultimately amounted to little more than a cop-out.

You can say it was a cop out if you want but that doesn't make it true, I was simply dismissing the uninformed opinion in favor of an informed one. I was not attempting addressing his whine about Kinect at all because it was an outright dismissal, I was just pointing out I would rather listen to the experts when someone tells me a CEO does a good job instead of whining.

You then decided to jump in and champion the guy, oh and several others. I would guess you did it out just to be contentious because you have not addressed any points either, no conflicting evidence, sources, facts, not even any informed opinions you have just attacked and nit picked my posts instead. Thats ok though because I am just going to apply the same level of dismissal to any further posts.

BloodSquirrel:

Scrumpmonkey:

I think it's quite possible that they just have no idea what they're doing.

Zynga made it big during the facebook/mobile game bubble, not through any particular genius at working the market, but just by getting into at the right time. Now that things have had time to settle they need to transition into a more mature structure and business model, but the rules of the market are still congealing and they don't have the kinds of hooks into it that they thought they had.

The whole "casual games" bubble really was a great example of the "experts" having no idea what they were doing. They saw a few people making massive amounts of money, completely ignored the transitory nature of the market, and ran forward expecting it to be the new status quo. A couple of years later and competition had gutted their profits, leaving them holding properties they paid exorbitant amounts of money for because they though that they were going to be able to make billions on cheap Farmville clones.

Blind luck followed by blind ignorance and stupidity are always an option. Their rise from the bum-fight of small social gaming cash-ins was largely luck you are correct. The way they have treated their staff (laying off over 500 people from without any explanation, many from recently purchased companies they have run into the ground) coupled with their stock irregularities is pretty shocking to behold. Not to mention their earlier wholesale stealing of other people's game assets.

Zynga won the 'race to the bottom' of the social gaming rip-offs in many ways. It's a bubble that rose out of misunderstanding the market and consisted of a lot of ugliness and very few, if any, creative ideas.

J Tyran:

Devoneaux:

J Tyran:

Duh, I never said they where. I bolded the relevant part, my claim was that business experts probably have a more informed opinion than a random person on a forum. It would be a appeal to authority fallacy to go around telling people to listen to random people on a forum, you know like you are.

And your cop out response ultimately failed to address any of the points made by the person you were responding to, making it an outright dismissal. The claim of authority was inappropriately made in the context of the argument and ultimately amounted to little more than a cop-out.

You can say it was a cop out if you want but that doesn't make it true, I was simply dismissing the uninformed opinion in favor of an informed one. I was not attempting addressing his whine about Kinect at all because it was an outright dismissal, I was just pointing out I would rather listen to the experts when someone tells me a CEO does a good job instead of whining.

You then decided to jump in and champion the guy, oh and several others. I would guess you did it out just to be contentious because you have not addressed any points either, no conflicting evidence, sources, facts, not even any informed opinions you have just attacked and nit picked my posts instead. Thats ok though because I am just going to apply the same level of dismissal to any further posts.

You don't actually know if the opinion was uninformed, or even incorrect. you just assumed so because it agreed with your preconceptions, but that's okay, I understand if you're too prideful to admit fault on an anonymous website full of people who don't know you. Some people just aren't that self confident.

J Tyran:

Unlike you I did actually read it and several other sources and you're misusing it, appealing to authority is not a fallacy itself. Its only a fallacy when it meets specific conditions, mainly:-

-When the appeal is made to those without legitimate expertise
-When there is no expert consensus

I realize that you're desperately grasping for straws, but could you at least grasp some that are relevant to what you're saying?

Not only have you not:

-demonstrated legitimate expertise behind the claims you're making
-demonstrated consensus behind the claims you're making

but you're making a claim about the fallacy itself that you can't support with anything other than some very selective bolding. Let's rebold that paragraph of yours:

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.

It's almost like I read the article (or, even better, was educated properly as to know all of this ahead of time), noticed how it describes exactly what you're doing as fallacious, and linked it in order to use your scheme of legitimizing your stance via claimed authority against you.

J Tyran:

Just stop. Please, just stop.

You appeal to nameless experts. Anyone with a differing viewpoing can also appeal to nameless experts. Let's presume that I have done so. Now who's right?

You can't tell, because both appeals are meaningless. That's one of the reasons why appeals to authority are wrong. They, by necessity, are always irrelevant since they neither prove nor disprove an issue at hand.

BloodSquirrel:

J Tyran:

Unlike you I did actually read it and several other sources and you're misusing it, appealing to authority is not a fallacy itself. Its only a fallacy when it meets specific conditions, mainly:-

-When the appeal is made to those without legitimate expertise
-When there is no expert consensus

I realize that you're desperately grasping for straws, but could you at least grasp some that are relevant to what you're saying?

Not only have you not:

-demonstrated legitimate expertise behind the claims you're making
-demonstrated consensus behind the claims you're making

but you're making a claim about the fallacy itself that you can't support with anything other than some very selective bolding. Let's rebold that paragraph of yours:

In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.

It's almost like I read the article (or, even better, was educated properly as to know all of this ahead of time), noticed how it describes exactly what you're doing as fallacious, and linked it in order to use your scheme of legitimizing your stance via claimed authority against you.

Nowhere does it say "didn't provide consensus yet". Well I better do it otherwise the discussion will go around in circles.

CNBC: Don Mattrick is the hero of Microsoft's Xbox team. It was under his leadership that the videogame console rose to the top of the market-and finally became profitable.

The Economist: Why, then, has Mr Mattrick, who helped increase the number of Xboxes in homes from 10m to 80m

Seeking Alpha:Don Mattrick, the man behind Microsoft's (MSFT) Xbox success

There you go, three out of hundreds of comments like it. Balls in your court now, go and find at least three experts saying he did a terrible job and it would counter that consensus. Then you can try and mangle the definition of that fallacy a bit more.

keserak:
J Tyran:

Just stop. Please, just stop.

No.

I get it people are still mad about the Xbone, I am not impressed with it myself but this revisionist history where people deny that Mattrick turned XBox from a money pit into a profitable business is rubbish.

Noone has provided any evidence to the contrary, just some whining and personal attacks because people are mad about the Xbone.

synobal:
It's the executive club, all these executive types know each other and they move from one job to anther job like they are playing musical chairs. Except there is always a seat regardless of how well they did at their previous job. See Mattrick's 5 million dollar signing bonus.

Exactly this situation already happened with John Riccitiello when he became CEO of EA (or whatever his position was) As soon as he accepted the position he bought the videogame company he was a majpr shareholder for (Pandemic/Bioware) earning him a cool $5 million handshake for a job well down from his previous position.

Pandemic was closed a year and a month later, Bioware has been relegated to developing for a F2P MMO and sequelizing 2 franchises. Riccitiello was CEO for a few years, but was fired this year. He'll still keep his several million dollar worth of Shares in EA and earns a multi 100,000 $ income for the next 3 years from EA despite being fired for incompetence because that's what these turds write into each others contracts when they sign each other on.

The paychecks of those highest in our society demonstrate the absolute worst of humanity, and prove that we should count on none of the influential or powerful to protect our future or our wellbeing. They consider their most trivial flight of fancy as infinitely more important than the most vital needs of the poorest.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here