{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/28/2016 4:40:30 PM
1
Admittedly, it could be the opposite - the Bungie board could have thought Ryan went along too much with Activision's model and are hoping that Parsons will push back. The problem I see with this interpretation is that the contract between Activision and Bungie, as disclosed from Marty O'Donnell affair, gives Activision so much control and that control is so ... penetrating into Bungie that in effect makes Bungie almost a temporary subsidiary of Activision. But again, the contract that was disclosed was from several years ago and left so much open that it's probably been amended. So maybe I'm putting too much weight in what that contract said.
English
-
A board of directors is almost always ensconsed on the business side of things as they represent the stockholders, and not the consumer side. In fact, they have a fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders, and can be sued if they don't do their job. While that doesn't mean they don't care about consumers, it's not who they represent. I'd have to look up who is on their board to get a clue.
-
I get that. It's a question of whether the "best thing" for Bungie's shareholders is to do what is in the long term best interest of Bungie and its major games like Destiny or is to comply with the terms of the contract with Activision which gives Activision a lot of control. This is well with the business judgement rule. As a player, I would prefer that Bungie focus on the long term success of Destiny and thus its own long term success. My concern is that it is too beholden to Activision to do that and instead is more focused on what goes into Activision's next 10-Q filing. But, alas, such is capitalism and it's only a video game.
