John Riccitiello, CEO of Unity, the company whose 3D game engine had recently seen backlash from developers over proposed fee structures, will retire as CEO, president, and board chairman at the company, according to a press release issued late on a Monday afternoon, one many observe as a holiday.
Drops a nuke on their stock
“Well, guess my work is done. I’ll take my $400 million golden parachute and just step over the pieces of my broken company as I shuffle out to my car. Peace, bro.”
Then 6 months later gets a VP job somewhere else because he “has experience” all the while eyeing another run at CEO.
Nah once they’re CEOs they’re good. They just go sit on various boards making millions for doing relatively nothing.
I’ve heard he sold some stock but it was like a recurring sell-this-much-every-this-often type of thing so it wasn’t out of the ordinary is what I heard.
That’s odd. I heard he specifically shorted on Unity before he announced it and that’s some sleazy shit.
I’m not sure if it’s an accident, but the value of $400m is exactly how much private equity firm Silver Lake invested in them in 2017. They were backed by a lot of private equity and VC money before they had an IPO.
Unity IPO’d 3 years ago in Sept 2020 at $52 per share, they’re now at $30/share, and have been under $50/share since May of 2022. The chairman of the board, Roelof Frederik Botha, is a partner at Sequoia Capital.
This is a business run by VC / PE people, that’s doing shitty in the market, and was doing badly before this whole license fee event. It’s not going to come to its senses and start behaving well just because the scapegoat CEO is gone. They need to juice their revenue streams to make investors happy, because it’s worth significantly less than it was at the IPO.
I just hope nobody is saying “Yay, now that the evil CEO is gone, Unity will be good again.” Anybody thinking that is just setting themselves up for whatever the company does next to juice their failing stock price.
Pisses me off that CEOs never get fired for their bullshit and get to “retire” or “resign” like they didn’t just make the most boneheaded decision that severely hurt the company.
There really needs to be some organizational structure where the CEOs have the power to make the decisions they make, but the employees have the power to punish and fire them when they do shit like this. No golden parachutes for them!
This is actually wrong. There’s a near 100% chance that the decision was made by the board, and also the decision to remove the CEO. So we’re talking about the fall guy, but being an insider, the fall guy will get a tidy sum for the dive
Then the CEO can be recycled to some other project, and a new CEO instated at Unity, so they can pivot or double down with no moral dilemma. In reality, the board was there all along and it’s all a big PR game
Also if we’re talking about avoiding responsibility cause of privilege then the boards of companies are the topic.
The C suite are just managers, usually wealthy from their own career rather than heritage. Board people are almost all old wealth, a parasitic race of nepo babies who ruin everything.
Maybe, but I’m betting that the CEO who floated the idea that FPS players would be willing to pay per-reload didn’t push back too hard against the board’s ideas.
Unity is a public company. Look at their share price:
The company IPO’d 3 years ago at $52 a share, it tanked in late 2021, and since then has been way below the IPO price. Non-investors only started paying attention in September when they came up with their ludicrous licensing fees. But, for investors what mattered was the way their investment cratered in late 2021 / early 2022.
The investors want returns. This isn’t going to be a matter of finding a good CEO who can treat gamers and the gaming industry right. That kind of CEO isn’t going to get the investors back to $175 a share. The board is going to demand someone who finds a new way to tap new revenue streams, even if it makes people miserable. This one particular gambit failed, but the board isn’t just going to sit back and accept that the IPO price is too high. The chairman of the board is a partner at Sequoia Capital, one of the main pre-IPO investors. My guess is that the VC / Private Equity people didn’t manage to cash out completely before the stock price crashed. So, they’re going to figure out a way to juice the share price so they can sell, even if it means killing the company in the long term.
LOL, you’re not playing the game correctly! CEO = bad/evil/stupid, every time, always. They’re all worthless scum that never lift a finger and don’t deserve their job. (Mine’s great and does a fine job of leading the company. We make hella money, but never at the cost of morals, employee pay/benefits or long-term profits. He’s basically an alien. Apparently.)
These kids have never heard of a “board of directors”, nor do they realize the CEO serves at the board’s pleasure. (For those of you working your first job, that means the board can fire the CEO anytime they fuck well please. CEO, in turn, gets a “golden parachute” against such an eventuality. Ya know, in case they get fucked for circumstances beyond their control. Because they’re smart and negotiate the terms of their employment. Meanwhile, “How come my boss won’t give me the raise I didn’t ask/fight/learn for?! That shit should be automatic!”)
“Fall guy” or “patsy” is also a new term. Reminds me of reddit’s Ellen Pao. Board wanted unpopular decisions made, put her in the hot seat, she made 'em, fired her ass.
Yeah, it’s infuriating how no one talks about the board of directors for any big corporation. And the Ellen Pao shit was wild back in the day. I was there and so many kids and teenagers were throwing internet tantrums because some of the worst subs were being taken down. At least we have Lemmy now, it feels better to me but I guess people can have their hateful communities in the fediverse if they want
Pisses me off that CEOs never get fired for their bullshit and get to “retire” or “resign” like they didn’t just make the most boneheaded decision that severely hurt the company.
They’re rich people and it’s not considered acceptable to hold rich people accountable in even the most trivial way.
Employees should be automatic shareholders. Ought to be a workers right by default to receive some portion of the equity they’re producing.
Edit: And to be clear, shareholders win too. More companies should voluntarily structure themselves to grant shareholder rights to employees. Dumbass company ending mistakes are usually seen a long way off by line and rank employees.
But it should also be legally mandated structure, much like 401k rules exist now. I propose that all players involved are better off with such a rule, other than the (not currently rare) asshole CEOs who only want to pump and dump their stock.
It’s actually pretty common to provide employees with stock options. But depending on the situation, it can be a better deal for the company than the employees. For the company, equity is a relatively cheap way to “motivate” employees. For the employees, it goes against the principle of portfolio diversification: if the company does badly, not only is their regular income threatened, but so are their assets.
Unity employees are shareholders, but greatly in the minority compared to the executives. The C-suite is routinely granted thousands of shares while the lowly employees are given a few hundred RSUs every year, which vest over a period of 4 years. It’s kinda bullshit how little equity employees by comparison, but definitely by design.
Yes, I understand that’s the current structure. I’m saying there needs to be a new structure where CEOs can’t make greedy decisions with impunity. Clearly the idea that the board is supposed to prevent that doesn’t work because this story is all too common.
In a co-operative the shareholders are employees and associated members, and they elect the board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers'_co-operative
Not that Unity is a co-operative, but there is another way.
The only way this can be done in a capitalist way, is by distributing exactly one company share for every employee that’s not tradeable at all, flattening the hierarchy completely, and making every decision in a direct democratic way.
wouldn’t an untradeable share just be worthless? give employees stock options
Profit maximization and personal gain over the many is where cooperation goes to die.
Some small companies can do a good job, and sometimes bigger ones too, but they’ll be crushed by other companies that exploit their employees forcing them to do the same if they want to stay in the business.
Being fired as CEO essentially black lists you from working. So they get nudged out instead
Former EA CEO will be replaced in interim by James Whitehurst from IBM/Red Hat.
Is that better or worse?
I swear they treat CEO’s who tank companies like they do priests who molest kids and just send them to another place whenever they get caught.
That’s corporatism in a wider sense. Existed since times immemorial. It’s a systemic problem, that is, defined by architecture.
Corporatism like this is fairly new. Creating bullshit positions for your followers is an old tradition among kings and other rulers, but putting people from one leadership position where they fucked up into the next is only here since the capitalist class established itself after the industrial revolution.
People in software know who people in software are. Unity is for software developers, not gamers.
Tell me again why these hacks get paid so much for “taking risks” when they never end up being fired? I have not seen a single CEO officially fired from a company for driving it into the ground. They always “choose” to retire after fucking up the entire thing and collect a fat paycheck for doing so.
He’s been told to retire or be fired.
Being actually fired is not at all good for his CV at that level, hence he is leaving by “retiring”, a different process in legal terms.
That said, anybody with any experience with high-level management knows that a manager “retiring” after having made the kind of the decision this one did with the consequences it had, actually means he’s been pushed out, just not through the formal process of “firing”.
that’s why I put the “choose” into air quotes. It’s bs, anybody with a bit of info about the matter knows it but he still gets to cash out his boni because he has not been technically fired for crashing the company’s future
Well, had he been fired the whole thing would’ve ended up in Court as he tried to get the full amount of his contract period (so all contractually defined payments until the end of his contract) plus likely all bonuses, while the company would be trying to prove he was fired for cause, all of which would be quite a public display of dirty laundry, at the end of which one side would lose and quite likely and indirectly both sides would lose.
Meanwhile, he wouldn’t just accept to leave by his own hand “for the good of the Company” without compensation.
So that’s how you end up with him “retiring” (legally he’s the one leaving) with a golden umbrella (his compensation for doing so rather than drag it through the courts).
I’m almost certain that the Board fucked-up and don’t want to see themselves personally trashed in Court whilst the company tried to prove the CEO had severely mismanaged, hence went for the “give him money for leaving quietly and not involving the Courts” option.
Ultimatelly the ones that should be held to account are the Board who hired him and apparently were either directly behind that genious idea of screwing their relationship with their customers or were behind him when he pushed that idea out. This is why in another post I very clearly state that the Board needs to be kicked out to begin to start restoring the trust of the customers.
PS: That said, the system is broken, which is how the seriously incompetent Board members (as amply demonstrated by them hiring him and this whole thing going ahead on their watch) ended up in their cozy sinecures, risk-free with their backs covered using the company’s money, and also why he was hired in the first place with the kind of contractual conditions he got.
Being actually fired is not at all good for his CV at that level,
He ran EA. It doesn’t matter if he retires or is fired. It’s irrelevant at that level. Everyone knows the board said you need to leave, which means being fired. The only potential difference is final compensation. Future job prospects are not changed either way for him.
I suspect openly being fired would make harder for his mates in the boards of other companies to convince the remaining board members to hire him.
It’s not about competence, it’s about not having quietly stepped out when asked to (only CEOs that don’t quietly step out are fired, the rest “retire”) - you could say that the deadly sin by a CEO for a Board is not incompetence, it’s making a fuss when asked to leave.
Once you slightly climb the career ladder, vocabulary turns into marketing bs. Suddenly you most not say “problem” anymore. They’re “opportunities” or “challenges”. So at that level you don’t get “fired” because that would sound bad for the next company you’re going with. You’re looking for new challenges elsewhere. Leaving behind a dumpster fire like in this very case.
I mean with a company that big, they can just google you to see what you messed up
At that level cronyism is rife and merit is secondary to connections.
As long as he doesn’t have a big black spot on his CV, his mates can keep doing him favours using the resources of the companies in which they’re board members or similar and he will keep on doing favours to them in the same way.
It’s not by chance that in that environment there is a web were the CEOs of some companies are board members in other companies, whose CEOs are board members of the first company - or in other words “I scratch your back, you scratch my back”.
when they never end up being fired
When you’re a career professional, this is what being fired looks like.
“Choosing to retire” is face-saving language for “is being asked to step down,” which is sort of like the police asking you to turn yourself in. You can choose not to, but you’re still getting arrested either way
yes and that’s bullshit. They run a company into the ground, risking and often costing the livelyhoods of hundreds or thousands of employees and then take a fat bonus because, as you said, they were not fired, they were forced to resign. Sitting comfortably in their golden parachute they then glide over to the next opportunity to ruin people’s lives and days.
Also since you did not get that I was hinting at exactly what you wrote by using “choose” instead of choose and you seemingly not being the first person to stumble over that I have to work on my sarcasm skills.
They’d get paid severance if they were fired - it’s likely them “retiring” saves the company money overall.
I do agree that CEO compensation is insane, due to perverse incentives, but this seems like harm reduction on the part of the board
I do apologize for missing your sarcasm as well.
You only get to become CEO when you have friends in high places. Why would anyone risk the backlash for hurting you when silently letting you go with a golden handshake doesn’t cost their own money or at least a neglegible part of it.
I know but to the common pleb it’s still always sold as “well they get this much money because they’re on the hook if the company goes down” which, as shown time and time again, is just not how these parasites operate. No they operate exactly as you describe it moving from one opportunity to suck money out of the lower classes to another.
They treated a game engine company like a Silicon Valley startup. It’s a limited customer base. It was never going to scale. Dummies.
