Did you know MS still owns 49% of Bungie?

#41I-Love-PumpkinsPosted 4/14/2014 2:30:00 PM
Horridhal posted...
To the both of you let me use an example to explain it since you seem to be missing the point:

Pretend we have a company together. I own 49% of controlling stock and you own 51%. That means that any decision made is ultimately your decision and, even if I disagreed, you'd still be free to supersede any veto power I had because you own more of te company than I do.

It is idiotic to pretend 49% gets you anything other than dividends and a seat at the table.


49% is a fart away from half ownership. While controlling interest resides with the 51%, when it comes to profits we make virtually the same thing. Ergo, hardly "nothing." Also, at 51% the minute you need to take on additional investors to save your company and have to give away additional equity, BOOM! 49% becomes controlling interest.

Do you get it now?
#42GuitaristMattPosted 4/14/2014 2:49:46 PM(edited)
Where is the source on MS owning 49%?
also, 41 posts to call out the TC on that?
---
"Well if you think chickens can fly, we better pull up wikipedia." - S. Healy
PS4 FAQs http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/67619422
#43SamcroReaperPosted 4/14/2014 2:50:38 PM
LOL the game PS fanboys think of as a PS4 exclusive is going to be making a ton of pure profit for Microsoft. That's hilarious.
#44GuitaristMattPosted 4/14/2014 2:58:37 PM
"More than 500 people working on Destiny"
Wikipedia's a little outdated with that 160 team members info

oh, and source unlike your 49% statistic
http://www.gamrreview.com/news/91314/each-planet-in-destiny-is-the-same-size-as-halo-reach/
---
"Well if you think chickens can fly, we better pull up wikipedia." - S. Healy
PS4 FAQs http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/67619422
#45HorridhalPosted 4/14/2014 6:57:07 PM
I-Love-Pumpkins posted...
Horridhal posted...
To the both of you let me use an example to explain it since you seem to be missing the point:

Pretend we have a company together. I own 49% of controlling stock and you own 51%. That means that any decision made is ultimately your decision and, even if I disagreed, you'd still be free to supersede any veto power I had because you own more of te company than I do.

It is idiotic to pretend 49% gets you anything other than dividends and a seat at the table.


49% is a fart away from half ownership. While controlling interest resides with the 51%, when it comes to profits we make virtually the same thing. Ergo, hardly "nothing." Also, at 51% the minute you need to take on additional investors to save your company and have to give away additional equity, BOOM! 49% becomes controlling interest.

Do you get it now?


My point isn't about profits. It is about who actually makes the decisions at Bungie. I NEVER denied that 49% gets you income, but it doesn't give you any legitimate power over the company. The person who owns 51% has complete authority on decisions regarding company direction and focus.

Do you get it now?
---
I'm not the nicest person you'll meet.
Have a real point please.
#46lunaticcorePosted 4/14/2014 7:02:36 PM
Did I miss the citation where it showed they owned 49%

49% would actually be huge. I think that was pointed out in this thread.
---
--- Chilling and Killing 11 (Punching Titans) on youtube.
http://youtu.be/q4p7NCm7fng
#47lunaticcorePosted 4/14/2014 7:05:40 PM
Horridhal posted...
I-Love-Pumpkins posted...
Horridhal posted...
To the both of you let me use an example to explain it since you seem to be missing the point:

Pretend we have a company together. I own 49% of controlling stock and you own 51%. That means that any decision made is ultimately your decision and, even if I disagreed, you'd still be free to supersede any veto power I had because you own more of te company than I do.

It is idiotic to pretend 49% gets you anything other than dividends and a seat at the table.


49% is a fart away from half ownership. While controlling interest resides with the 51%, when it comes to profits we make virtually the same thing. Ergo, hardly "nothing." Also, at 51% the minute you need to take on additional investors to save your company and have to give away additional equity, BOOM! 49% becomes controlling interest.

Do you get it now?


My point isn't about profits. It is about who actually makes the decisions at Bungie. I NEVER denied that 49% gets you income, but it doesn't give you any legitimate power over the company. The person who owns 51% has complete authority on decisions regarding company direction and focus.

Do you get it now?


Company are not generally owned by just two groups. You can have a majority stake in a company with less than 50% because the other owners own less. That is why it would seem crazy (and unlikely) for them to own 49%
---
--- Chilling and Killing 11 (Punching Titans) on youtube.
http://youtu.be/q4p7NCm7fng
#48HorridhalPosted 4/14/2014 7:07:22 PM
lunaticcore posted...
Horridhal posted...
I-Love-Pumpkins posted...
Horridhal posted...
To the both of you let me use an example to explain it since you seem to be missing the point:

Pretend we have a company together. I own 49% of controlling stock and you own 51%. That means that any decision made is ultimately your decision and, even if I disagreed, you'd still be free to supersede any veto power I had because you own more of te company than I do.

It is idiotic to pretend 49% gets you anything other than dividends and a seat at the table.


49% is a fart away from half ownership. While controlling interest resides with the 51%, when it comes to profits we make virtually the same thing. Ergo, hardly "nothing." Also, at 51% the minute you need to take on additional investors to save your company and have to give away additional equity, BOOM! 49% becomes controlling interest.

Do you get it now?


My point isn't about profits. It is about who actually makes the decisions at Bungie. I NEVER denied that 49% gets you income, but it doesn't give you any legitimate power over the company. The person who owns 51% has complete authority on decisions regarding company direction and focus.

Do you get it now?


Company are not generally owned by just two groups. You can have a majority stake in a company with less than 50% because the other owners own less. That is why it would seem crazy (and unlikely) for them to own 49%


And apparently you didn't read the example we are discussing. For simplicity I used a company owned by 2 individuals. Pay attention to the context of the argument before trying to white knight, k?
---
I'm not the nicest person you'll meet.
Have a real point please.
#49Will42505Posted 4/14/2014 7:09:21 PM
Horridhal posted...
I-Love-Pumpkins posted...
Horridhal posted...
To the both of you let me use an example to explain it since you seem to be missing the point:

Pretend we have a company together. I own 49% of controlling stock and you own 51%. That means that any decision made is ultimately your decision and, even if I disagreed, you'd still be free to supersede any veto power I had because you own more of te company than I do.

It is idiotic to pretend 49% gets you anything other than dividends and a seat at the table.


49% is a fart away from half ownership. While controlling interest resides with the 51%, when it comes to profits we make virtually the same thing. Ergo, hardly "nothing." Also, at 51% the minute you need to take on additional investors to save your company and have to give away additional equity, BOOM! 49% becomes controlling interest.

Do you get it now?


My point isn't about profits. It is about who actually makes the decisions at Bungie. I NEVER denied that 49% gets you income, but it doesn't give you any legitimate power over the company. The person who owns 51% has complete authority on decisions regarding company direction and focus.

Do you get it now?


Most companies require a 2/3 majority vote for a ruling to pass so you owning 49% will more than likely stop any business decisions the 51% wanted to change (some states this is law, off the top of my head I know Massachusetts is ones of them). Theres also a thing called Shareholder Oppression that allows the smaller precantage to fight back regarding any changes. They can go as far as to dissolve the corporation or to hold the leaders accountable for fiduciary responsibility.
---
Fan of SOCOM 1 and 2? Want a good shooter with a great community then please support H-Hour at sofstudios.com
#50HorridhalPosted 4/14/2014 7:15:04 PM
Will42505 posted...
Horridhal posted...
I-Love-Pumpkins posted...
Horridhal posted...
To the both of you let me use an example to explain it since you seem to be missing the point:

Pretend we have a company together. I own 49% of controlling stock and you own 51%. That means that any decision made is ultimately your decision and, even if I disagreed, you'd still be free to supersede any veto power I had because you own more of te company than I do.

It is idiotic to pretend 49% gets you anything other than dividends and a seat at the table.


49% is a fart away from half ownership. While controlling interest resides with the 51%, when it comes to profits we make virtually the same thing. Ergo, hardly "nothing." Also, at 51% the minute you need to take on additional investors to save your company and have to give away additional equity, BOOM! 49% becomes controlling interest.

Do you get it now?


My point isn't about profits. It is about who actually makes the decisions at Bungie. I NEVER denied that 49% gets you income, but it doesn't give you any legitimate power over the company. The person who owns 51% has complete authority on decisions regarding company direction and focus.

Do you get it now?


Most companies require a 2/3 majority vote for a ruling to pass so you owning 49% will more than likely stop any business decisions the 51% wanted to change (some states this is law, off the top of my head I know Massachusetts is ones of them). Theres also a thing called Shareholder Oppression that allows the smaller precantage to fight back regarding any changes. They can go as far as to dissolve the corporation or to hold the leaders accountable for fiduciary responsibility.


Again, pay attention to the context of the argument. In a company with two owners the majority owner has all the power. End of story. The only thing the minor shareholder can do is go along with what the majority owner wants or sell their part of the business.

Stop trying to convolute the argument with semantics and other crap. This is a very simple point and none of the things you mentioned would affect it.

In a massive public corporation, yes. In a private business, no.
---
I'm not the nicest person you'll meet.
Have a real point please.