• snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    196
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Could he not use the excess profits to pay the employees a massive bonus for the success that they created?

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      92
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, all a nice retirement fund and they can make the game. Hire some additional people. No need to become a mega corp

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I often wonder exactly what the pathway is to a company growing in response to a huge influx of cash.

        It seems like a company could simply not let itself be transformed, but it never happens.

        Why not? Is it in the nature of people who run companies that they can’t constrain themselves from 10x-ing the staff? Are there Men in Black type folks who show up and start threatening you if you don’t try to grow the company?

        • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 months ago

          For most small companies that break big, they want to use the new resource to make more stuff, because most of these types of companies are in creative industries. Then when those things aren’t also breakout successes, they get saddled with extra staff and costs and spend up in the machine.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            So they want to implement their pie in the sky dreams? But they’re less careful about market fit than they were with the first project?

            Or maybe they expand their staff to shoot for the bigger goal, and the expansion is too fast and the new team can’t execute as well as the previous team?

        • kautau@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Generally that’s true but there are outliers. Valve for example continues to rake it in while not turning immensely shitty. (Not saying they aren’t without issue, but they are vastly better than many others in the industry)

          Similarly, the route that Hello Games took. They started off with an unfinished product rushed to market, but took the money made and invested back into NMS, continuing to release big free expansions to this day.

          I think a big part is “don’t go public.” As soon as you go public, your dedication is no longer to your product / your customers, but to quarterly growth / gains for shareholders

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I wonder if there are other forces analogous to that public stock commitment, even with private stock. When I’ve been in startup circles, I’ve met people who are “money experts” who have like zero conception of what quality is, or even the joy of work. It’s like a blind spot in their mind.

            What I want to know is how do these people worm their way into positions of control? Is it a CEO getting invited to rich people dinners and they slowly get talked into what they “have to” do now that they’ve got big money? “Oh you’ve got to hire Dave he’ll help you navigate this money thing” and then Dave is soulless ghoul?

            • kautau@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              I would imagine it’s very common. “Serial entrepreneurs”, angel investors and the like are often like sharks but their blood is maximum ROI with minimum turnaround time, and I believe they do their best to get people into leadership positions who’s greatest goal is to exit as early as possible based on some minimum ROI, whether that exit be by acquisition or IPO. Especially if the original startup founder is more focused on the product. “Hey man, you focus on the code, let me and Dave handle the business side of things, we’ll keep the sharks off your back” when usually they themselves, are in fact the sharks

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                This makes me think there are (at least) two kinds of naïveté. One is about business and money. That’s the kind that people know they have. They think “Oh I do need this shark on my team because I’m not savvy enough”, because they think of themselves as naive.

                But there’s also naivete about the nature of quality and morale. There are limits to how far one can get from “the tao”, ie their passion, ie the pursuit of beautiful quality, and still maintain contact with it.

                I would say the sharks are even more naive about this (maybe?), and it’s on the founder to discover this for their self and to protect it. Like, it’s definitely not a childish thing, but a transition to adulthood to understand and take responsibility for the spirit of their company.

                One must be ruthless about that.

                I’m not really sure what I’m trying to say. Maybe that the ruthlessness of the sharks is what is needed, but not in service of the sharks’ usual goal of maximum ROI. One must be ruthless in ensuring they keep their eye on whatever X they originally set out to create.

        • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          I mean generally I think it’s cause the people who start these more creative focused companies like video games have a bunch of things they want to do but can’t because of money. But when they get lots of money suddenly they’re able to do all these cool ideas and hire the staff to make them happy. Then just naturally as companies get bigger they become harder to manage and the CEO who probably was just wanting to do creative stuff now is managing stuff instead so a new CEO comes in and that’s when things start to become more profit focused and start to go bad. Or just when the original owners get greedy and take it public to try and make even more money.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          It seems like a company could simply not let itself be transformed, but it never happens.

          The developer of Minecraft did this. Later, he eventually sold it to Microsoft for like $2 Billion, if I recall correctly.

    • KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Even if they gave every employee a ¥10,000,000 bonus, they would still have ~95% of the money left over.

    • L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      131
      ·
      8 months ago

      Windfalls like this cannot be taking lightly and need to be approached strategically. It depends heavily on tax laws and employee finances overall.

      Some common got rich quick concerns off the top of my head: Could accidentally knock people into a higher tax bracket and ruin their finances long term for short term gain. Could accidentally give someone collateral to take out a massive loan they cannot afford long term. Could make someone in a low income area a target before they have a chance to move out. Could accidentally get double taxed by doing the payout incorrectly because they’re not practiced with handling this much money. Could overinvest it all back into the company and burn too brightly negating all their success. Doing nothing and simply using it as cash reserves is better than making a foolish mistake and ruining it for themselves.

      • borf@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        117
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        These are all ludicrous.

        Could accidentally knock people into a higher tax bracket and ruin their finances long term for short term gain.

        This makes zero sense. Read up on how tax brackets actually work. Hitting higher tax brackets doesn’t mean your existing income is taxed at the higher rate. No “ruining.”

        Could accidentally give someone collateral to take out a massive loan they cannot afford long term.

        Wtf is this paternalistic BS. They could buy drugs or guns too!! 😱

        Doing nothing and simply using it as cash reserves is better than making a foolish mistake and ruining it for themselves.

        Nah. Pay people.

        • ZeroCool@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          52
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Could accidentally give someone collateral to take out a massive loan they cannot afford long term.

          Wtf is this paternalistic BS. They could buy drugs or guns too!! 😱

          “Paying people more would be irresponsible of us. The poors would be burdened with the responsibility of having too much money! It would destroy them!”

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            28
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            with the responsibility of having too much money! It would destroy them!

            It often does, seen it firsthand. Hell, I doubled my income and benefits from last job to current. Did not manage it well, wasn’t prepared, fucked up my credit (though I always pay on time!), never learned about dealing with money.

            Also, are you suggesting a Japanese company of software devs are “poors”?! Don’t even know how to reply…

            This whole thread cements my view that lemmings are a bunch of teens and 20-somethings that have little real-world experience and are angry at what their generation is waking up to. (And you SHOULD be angry. But FFS, take a deep breath, take a wider, longer view.)

            • ZeroCool@slrpnk.netOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              18
              ·
              8 months ago

              This whole thread cements my view that lemmings are a bunch of teens and 20-somethings that have little real-world experience and are angry at what their generation is waking up to.

              Yes dear, everyone that disagrees with you is just an angry child. 🙄

        • Bugger@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Posting US tax code like it’s the only country in the world and using it as a basis to say something about a Japanese company could be construed as ludicrous, could it not?

          And you choose drugs or guns for your example? Again, JAPAN.

          Japanese bonuses are heavily taxed and highest salary periods can have big implications on how much one has to pay into the national pension system. The way taxes are paid in arrears can also very easily put people in difficult positions if they aren’t financially responsible and happen to suddenly lose their jobs.

          • xradeon@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Still doesn’t matter if something is “heavily taxed” because regardless of how much tax, you’ll never own more in taxes than you made. So if you got a 10,000 bonus and it was heavily taxed at 60 percent, you don’t somehow have to pay like 15,000 in taxes or something on it. You pay 60% of 10,000, leaving you with 4,000 left over. This is typically done before you even see the money, if not ensure that you keep funds aside to pay for the tax.

            Also looking briefly at Japan, it appears that their income tax is a bracket based system similar to the US. So again, even if you go up a bracket, you’ll never own more taxes than you make. Honestly, people need to stop thinking in brackets when it comes to taxes, all you need to worry about is your “effective tax rate.” That’s it, you don’t need to worry that your income pushed you into a 29% tax bracket or whatever. All that matters is your effective tax rate is 24.2% or whatever. You’ll never own more money because you “moved” into a higher bracket, because that’s not how that works.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            No tax system in the world taxes all your income after you reach a higher tax bracket. It’s always “all the money above X amount is taxed higher”. Even if that would somehow be the case, they got so much cash, you don’t even realize how insignificant any type of tax is. They are set for life. They have like a 3 person gaming studio.

          • GBU_28@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            It doesn’t matter if they tax bonuses 99% , you are still gaining net income

      • AdmiralShat@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        70
        ·
        8 months ago

        …you can’t ruin finances by knocking some one into a different tax bracket. This statement alone proves you don’t understand how tax brackets work

        • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          In the us, there are very rare cases where someone’s income straddles the line between benefits with a higher value than the increased income. This is not one of those cases, and it effectively only applies to people are below the poverty line and gain only a few hundred dollars in income.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        8 months ago

        Imagine being so brainwashed by your Robber Baron overlords that you literally think: More money = less money. Sad.

        • shalafi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          8 months ago

          It often works that way. Look at lottery winners and NFL players who end up broke as fuck overnight.

          Anecdote: Knew a guy who scored a cool $1,000,000 off the VA for a testicular cancer misdiagnosis. Somehow blew every penny in 12-months, lost it all, ended up worse off. And promptly died.

          This’ll trip everyone up. Paying more does not lead to better outcomes. Y’all should love it. If you read between the lines, there’s a lot of Linux culture in there. Explains much of what I’ve seen IRL.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc&t=1s

          • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 months ago

            “Lottery Winners and NFL Players” You mean it works that way often for the 1% of the 1%? Wtf are you even saying? Are you a bot or is chatGPT writing this for you? You don’t think that paying more to the 80% of Americans that live PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK is going to be a good thing for them? Do you really think that not fearing homelessness is actually gonna make them sadder? Lol.

            I hope you’re trolling and not really so sadly blind to the reality world you live in.

      • ZeroCool@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        8 months ago

        This is probably the most ridiculous comment I’ll read on Lemmy all year and it’s only March. Wow.

      • yeather@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        8 months ago

        Bro said the most wrong thing I’ve seen all week and won’t respond.

        • M500@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          What if you have too much money and you become a target?

          Well that’s on you for letting people know about if.

          • yeather@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            This isn’t a lottery amount of money from the bonus. They aren’t going to be targeted for their bonus that’s in the bank. Plus the og comment didn’t mention this, making it still a wrong take.

        • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Shame is a powerful motivator for behavior change. It’s also a shame we don’t use it anymore and instead hide behind computer screens.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Woah, do you actually believe earning more means you’ll be taxed cruelly? Actually, you are only taxed more on the income FROM that bracket. Not all income the same

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Could end up calibrating someone’s “earning potential” super high for the sake of calculating child support.

        But couldn’t most of these be avoided by structuring the bonus as some sort of annuity?

      • shalafi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        OK y’all, fine, OP’s higher tax bracket take is off target. But if you’re suggesting sudden and massive wealth increases for these employees? Yeah, that’s kinda fraught.

        https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_happiest_5word_sentence_you_could_hear/chb38xf/

        OP makes some discussion worthy points. And I agree, sit on the reserves as cash and think on it. Meanwhile, nothing leads me to believe Pocketpair isn’t doling out fat bonus stacks. They’re private, they’re not advertising compensation and it’s none of your business.

        I work for a software dev in America, we get fat bonuses every year, on top of what’s guaranteed, because we keep making more than anticipated.

        On top of that, imagine having “developed Palworld” on your resume. Jesus. Golden ticket there.

        tl;dr: Most small companies and individuals are not prepared for this sort of success. Sudden influxes of cash must be navigated carefully.

  • RanchOnPancakes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I mean it sort of makes sense from a business perspective. The amount of rapid scaling is something you can get wrong very easily.

    But yeah a lot of big ass bonus checks is a good start.

    • ZeroCool@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yep, it’s an amusing headline which makes it perfect for this community but it’s a genuine problem that needs to be navigated carefully. But as far as problems go this is a pretty damn good one to have.

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hey, if they have an issue with too much money, they can always give me some, that I can handle it for sure

      • Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hey, if they have an issue with too much money, they can always give me some, that I can handle it for sure

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      What if the massive bonuses result in your employees retiring early? Now you’ve got a brain drain.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        So you hire more staff, and tell the new employees that they can ask you to call in a favor here and there from the retired folks that you made into millionaires.

          • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Haha. Fair point.

            I agree there’s absolutely no obligation there.

            After an unplanned $1,000,000.00+ bonus, I personally, will occasionally accept a phone-a-friend call.

            Expecting quid-pro-quo is not the reason to pay out the bonus, of course.

            But the world will be better when more people understand that generous leaders finish with more friends than tightwads do, and are proportionally more successful.

            I say proportionally because most folks who didn’t have the foresight to be born into an emerald mining fortune still aren’t gonna start a flamethrower company for funsies, of course.

      • NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Haters in shambles. They stay pickin’ the corn out of my shit. This Smith & Wesson got me movin’ like an invasive species. I got Midas touch, fuck boi! Bitch so bad, I made her shit in my chopped cheese. I’m at the bank about to withdraw all of it. These Valentinos are from Milan, you fucking idiot. That Fentanyl gave me Vitruvian Man flexibility, got me in a state of rigor mortis. Caught a broke boy trying to come up on my Amazon package, so I skinned his ass alive.

  • BmeBenji@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    8 months ago

    Pokemon with guns and more slavery…

    “How could someone make money with such a stupid idea?”

    “And how could you NOT make money with such a BRILLIANT idea!”

  • Delphia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    8 months ago

    The Palworld devs sound like they are very switched on, its a good thing that they recognise that their epic success can bring with it headaches.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Right on! They should drop some fat bonuses and sit tight for a minute while they figure this out. It’s a good problem to have, but it’s still a problem.

  • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah they should just add content. No need to throw All that money around. Bonuses, nice office… these guys are set for life and can just make the labor of love they started

  • Vertelleus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    They should use the money to buy lawyers for when Nintendo sues them, and give Nintendo a fight for once.