Take-Two's CEO can get a huge bonus if enough people spend on microtransactions and DLC

We're talking millions

It's not surprising at all, but it's still a bit infuriating. Today's games are chock-full of microtransactions, as publishers are looking to milk every last cent from gamers that they can. The strategy is working, as millions upon millions of dollars are raked in by publishers every year. One of those publishers is Take-Two, and CEO Strauss Zelnick benefits in a really big way from this business approach.

Very long and detailed story short, Mr. Zelnick gets a bonus if Take-Two moves enough microtransaction/DLC units in a year. This bonus is tied into stock levels, and can amount to some insane figures. Taking figures from a recent financial report, and matching them up with Take-Two's current share value, Zelnick could make a potential $1,264,614.12 to $2,529,228.24 in bonuses alone.

Knowing that, it's pretty easy to see why so many in companies push extremely hard for as much in the way of microtransactions as possible.

Categories: Consoles
Tags: take-two


This headline reads like a satirical article, the fact that its a real story is pretty bad,

Oh come on he's basically asking for it at this point!

why the heck would the stockholders not want the actual GAMES to sell well? why are they so stingy and obsessed with DLC? Stockholders seem to be really ignorant or just plain silly if Nintendo's own are anything to go by (with the bad Q and A sessions we see every quarter)

As if I didn't find the whole premise of DLC/microtransactions disgusting enough already. There's loads of shady practises that go on behind closed doors that we never hear about. I could start, but I wouldn't finish for yonks. It's DIRT, Developed Interest Retention Tax.

Are people surprised that CEOs get bonuses based off revenue performance?

luckily they pay a lot of taxes ... oh wait they don't? wait people are actually giving them money ? oh why is it that nobody talk about those 60 mega corps paying 0% in taxes , actually like activision -51% effective tax rate , they are even getting paid !

but yeah let's defend our glorious lord, they protect us from something something. lol ! well i understand i would cheer my bully/overlord if he gave me the opportunity too.
still one trillion and a quarter of billion given to those jokers , from 30 to 60 multi billions companies not paying a cent, and they don't even have the decency to make your health costs going down (from the 25%, well for the lucky few really insured pay)

All the gods combined are nothing compared to how humans worship money! That is God!

I wonder at one point it is less, having to pay for things, and moreso getting influence and power or just making money for the sake of making a number go up (the irony).

CEOs make more money when their company makes more money, news at 11.

I think it's the "CEOs make even more money by pushing questionable microtransaction practices" that make this news.

No, it’s not news. It’s obvious. Questionable things often make money, which is why it’s done. People who make money for their companies are going to be rewarded. For instance, the people running tobacco companies are going to get rich when they sell a lot of cigarettes. I don’t need to be told this. It’s more clickbait articles from Kotaku.

Good thing us Nintendo doesn't have CEOs this greedy.

I remember when Nintendo would never do DLC or mobile games. That was looked at as greedy by some. Then Iwata made some bad decisions and lost a lot of money for Nintendo. They soon changed their tune. I’m not saying those decisions were greedy or not, but they were decisions made for the benefit of the company.

Name me a bunch of decisions that were considered greedy.

Their DLC is fairly done and it's not often done like day one. And Nintendo has never expoited this and microtransactions.

Amiibo? Totally optional and nothing worthy of getting them. Have never seen a game that forces you to atleast use one of them.

Really, people are just bummed that Nintendo never lowers their prices in the games section and that's neither bad nor good as it is just what Nintendo decides to do.

Charging more for Switch ports of games that were priced lower when they launched on a Wii U could be considered greedy.

Maybe because the ports had to be built from scratch that they are charged 60$?

Then that's not a port. A port is a port. Porting the vast majority of software code to a different platform that requires minimal change to run on the new platform.

That's the thing. Its NOT minimal. If it was, Smash would not have been built from scratch as they could have easily just ported the Wii U version.

Who's talking about Smash? Donkey Kong TF was a port. Captain Toad was a port. Hyrule Warriors was a port. NSMBU was a port.

They didn't build any of them from scratch for Switch. They ported the Wii U code (PowerPC based) to the Switch (ARM based) chipset, made minor alterations and maybe added a small amount of content in some cases. They could easily have ported SmashU to Switch btw. it would have required very little effort.

Your understanding of what a port is, is incorrect.

Sat Apr 20 19 04:50am
(Updated 1 time)

And that kind of practice is part of the problem right there: When you incentive greedy execs to force terrible product models on consumers because they'll know they'll make more money, what in the flying hell do you expect. You're building games partly based on greedy doucheballs in suits who don't really care about satisfying their customers rather making a product that truly satisfies the customer while still making a product Dumb as hell imo. Loot boxes and micro-transactions, and sometimes even certain DLC, are not what's best for gaming.


Today's VIP

darmani's avatar
Joined: April 2013

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!