say goodbye to the HMX bonuses...

[ultimatespidey81]

Stung by slowing sales of the Rock Band videogame series, Harmonix Music Systems Inc. of Cambridge may be forced to repay millions in bonuses to its parent company, the entertainment conglomerate Viacom Inc.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/02/17/harmonix_may_have_to_repay_bonuses_after_sluggish_ rock_band_sales/

all i gotta say is this sucks. a damm shame!

[rammetal7]

the RBN will fix this.

[freakonate]

Lol. Oh man. That suuucks. There is a pretty depressing vid on Yahoo about it.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/playback/playback-104/1389935

[weeyoo]

This is why we need RB3.

[freakonate]

This is why we need RB3.

That won't happen if nobody is gonna buy it.

[Kariodude]

This is old news. There is a discussion thread about this in the Rock Band section. Also, they said they are only seeking a portion of the bonus not all of it.

The whole thing is BS though. They paid them that bonus for the success that the game already had. You can't change the past, so they still deserved that bonus. They said they would given them another bonus if it kept doing as well, but it didn't, so they didn't give them the second bonus. Harmonix doesn't owe Viacom anything.

[freakonate]

This is old news. There is a discussion thread about this in the Rock Band section. Also, they said they are only seeking a portion of the bonus not all of it.

what would we do without you?

[RockBandRocker]

So...the fact that music games were the second highest selling genre of video-games (after First-Person Shooters at first) isn't enough?

I mean, that one piece compared the sales of The Beatles: Rock Band to the sales of Modern Warfare 2. Of course the sales of Modern Warfare 2. Of course the sales for Modern Warfare 2 were going to be high around Christmas (it freakin' came out in November).

If The Beatles: Rock Band had come out in November (instead of September), it would have had high Christmas sales.


I'm not a business man, but I don't think everyone has all their ducks in a row. They aren't looking at ALL the facts.

[DethTung]

Viacom...I am disappoint.
Activision...I am smolder with generic rage.

[jonoo24]

RBR, even if they would have both cam eout at the same tim, MW2 would have still destroyed it sales.

[bmaninc]

Its not BS. It was apparently stated in the contract that they would be paid upfront but must meet performance bonuses. A glorified loan.

Some of you are assuming Viacom is completely stupid, I doubt there weren't specific perfomance incentives tied to that contract. Viacom didn't get to be a huge company by making stupid moves.

[bood-boy]

yeah, viacom doesnt want to end up like the american economy.

[bmaninc]

I would simply tell HMX to hit moar notes.

[ThunderCurls]

I would simply tell HMX to hit moar notes.

Oh hoooo! It's funny because they owe millions of dollars!

[bmaninc]

Ok.

[Kariodude]

Its not BS. It was apparently stated in the contract that they would be paid upfront but must meet performance bonuses. A glorified loan.

Where did you read that? I haven't read that anywhere. Why would they give them a bonus with the stipulation that they must meet performance goals in the future, but also promise another bonus if the series continues to do well?

[bood-boy]

maybe it had to do with the launch of RBN which has stumbled and they needed pre-funding for the launch. i doubt they release ALL info to the public on the inner workings of the company.

[bmaninc]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6250295.html?sid=6250295&part=rss&subj=6250295


was driven primarily by lower sales of Rock Band bundles


In 2008, we paid $150 million, subject to adjustment, under this earn-out agreement related to 2007 performance," ... "At December 31, 2009, we believe that we are entitled to a refund of a substantial portion of amounts previously paid..."


I don't see any other reason why they woudl ask for their bonus back. They wouldn't if sales were fine, and Viacom isn't stupid. It seems clear that there were performance goals stipulated in that contract.

We can argue semantics all we want but I call it how I see it. I can't be far off.

[Kariodude]

Well it even says in that quote that they paid the bonus under an earn-out agreement related to 2007 performance. It was all based on sales that had already happened. Viacom hasn't demanded the money back either. They just "feel they are entitled" to a substantial portion of it, but they fail to mention why other than them losing money on the franchise last year. If it were in the contract that the bonus was paid with future sales in mind as well, they would have said "It was agreed upon when this bonus was given that it depended on future sales of the game" instead of just saying "We feel we are entitled."

[bmaninc]

The primary goal of business is to make money. If HMX lost money last year which caused Viacom to lose money, that's a HUGE, primary issue. I don't think there needs to be any other reason (though there might be).

Viacom is not going to tell us everything in every contract. That's not good business practice, most businesses only give out public information if it directly affects the common/preferred shareholders. If it doesn't need to be in the public, it isn't.

I honestly don't see any other reason. I think you are underevaluating the importance of making money.

[Kariodude]

Well it's obvious Viacom wants the money back because sales dipped last year, but the issue is why does that entitle them to any return of money? I understand that if something doesn't need to be public then they don't announce it to everyone, but everyone knows about this. If it was agreed upon that they could only keep the bonus if sales stayed up, then that would be public information too. Not just because I would like to know, but because that's something shareholders would want to know about. They never mention anything close to that. That's why all they said is that they feel they are entitled. If it was in a contract, they wouldn't just say "we feel" they would say "we are entitled according to our contract."

[bmaninc]

Nah, they don't need to disclose the terms of every contract, it would actually be counterproductive to business if they did so. Its basically a semantics argument. You see entitled one way, I see it another.

[bood-boy]

im anti-semitic so you guys should probbly stop discussing racial issues. theres been a lot of semantic arguements lately eh?

[bmaninc]

Yeah for sure. Its basically why I don't go to the Rock Band section.

[hawkofva]

we paid $150 million, subject to adjustment, under this earn-out agreement related to 2007 performance

The amount was determined by the 07 performance. The "subject to adjustment" part is what entitles them to the partial refund. That would be the "adjustment".

[Meatwad555]

im anti-semitic so you guys should probbly stop discussing racial issues.

Good to know.