Network now...NEWS
Microsoft's Shane Kim To Retire
Shane Kim, corporate vice president for strategy and business development at Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Business, is to retire at the end of 2009 following 19 years with the company.
Phil Spencer, general manager of Microsoft Game Studios, will be promoted to vice president, while current chief financial officer Dennis Durkin will assume a new chief operating officer position within the Xbox group.
In a statment issued to the Seattle Times, Xbox senior VP Don Mattrick said: "Shane's been an instrumental leader in the evolution of Microsoft Game Studios and the Xbox business -- from the early days of Flight Simulator and Golf to the launch of the original Xbox, to the successful launches for two of the biggest entertainment franchises in the industry -- Halo and Gears Of War.
"Shane's passion for this business and industry runs deep and he will be dearly missed. Having dedicated the last two decades to Microsoft, Shane is eager to make up for lost time with his family and friends."
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
i don't care for kim or ms making money from xbox but i know one thing for sure.i enjoyed both halo and GOW and many other great games on my 360 and i spend many hours on XBL everyday so i think kim did a good job with the 360 for the gaming community
If nothing else, Kim was notable for not having the typical exec ego requirement of seeing himself all over the internet/tv - something guys like Kotick, Hirai, etc. could learn from.
The "sinking ship" comment below displays an amazing ability to disengage from reality. If you want to know why he's retiring you might want to look at how many shares he has (and what they're worth) from a company that's doing anything but sinking.
Fair One Grog.... I was worth as much as Mr Kim.. I'd retire tomorrow and not look back !
Credit where credit's due... Even you don't like Microsoft as a company or the Xbox 360 as a console, you can't deny that Shane Kim has done more for the gaming industry than most people and he'll retire at the top of his game.
Well done Shane!.. Enjoy your retirement and thank you!
Fun Facts:
Year 2000- MS share price was $60 a share and they unveiled the first XBOX at GDC
Year 2009-MS share price has fallen to $25.155 a share and the XBOX division has yet to make back it's investment.
Fun fact: You and other fanboys like to state facts without knowing the correct context or what they even mean.
In 2003 Microsoft's stock split (2 for 1) as they have done on a few occasions since their IPO. What that basically means is each share turned into 2 shares that were half the value of the single share. I'm not into the market at all, so I can't accurately speak to the benefits/advantages of splitting stock shares, but I knew enough to call you on your bullshit/idiocy.
Here's a link with the details: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/FAQ/stocksplit.mspx
And guess what? The value of shares has been pretty much equivalent to the split price.
Again, don't bring up things you really have no clue or understanding about.
Thanks for the share split info, the only share split this decade was 2003 and errrr guess what? The share price has still fallen by the equivalent on $10 a share and this supports my point that the share price of MS doesn't really support the idea that Kim's retiring has something to do with an amazing stock performance. Even your incorrect point that the share price has remained static isn't really supporting the counter view.
And again for the millionth time, I own both consoles and have openly mocked the "EDGE has XBOX bias" crap several times.
You really are a moron. The split price was about $24, the "current" price you quoted is $25. No where did I state I had any opinion on why he retired, I was just calling out your uninformed, so called "facts".
As well, if you own stock in a company, and you're not a day trader, dividends are what matter. Especially with a company like Microsoft that makes profit every year, most people don't buy into MS to sell off the stock for a profit, it's all about the dividends. Can't really say how much stock Shane Kim has, but I'd imagine that it probably isn't a trivial amount (especially considering the splits over the years), and it probably goes a decent way towards a nice retirement income.
On the topic as to why he retired, it's not even worth speculating, especially on the negative side. It's pretty obvious you and the others who don't believe the publicly stated reason (that he wants more time with his family), have never been in a high intensity and demanding job before. He worked at MS for 19 years, I'm willing to bet that he probably averaged 60+ hours per week over those years. Sounds very reasonable to me that he had an opportunity money wise, to do good by his family.
"You really are a moron. The split price was about $24, the "current" price you quoted is $25. No where did I state I had any opinion on why he retired, I was just calling out your uninformed, so called "facts"."
First of all quit with the insults, especially as you jumped to the wrong conclusion. Second of all you responded to a response I gave to someone else, maybe you should consider the context of that before shooting your mouth off?
What exactly is wrong with my point that in the year 2000 the share price was $60 and in 2009 its equivalent price is $50? Now correct me if I'm wrong does $60-$50 not equal $10? Hardly a stellar performance on the stock front is it?
"As well, if you own stock in a company, and you're not a day trader, dividends are what matter. Especially with a company like Microsoft that makes profit every year, most people don't buy into MS to sell off the stock for a profit, it's all about the dividends. Can't really say how much stock Shane Kim has, but I'd imagine that it probably isn't a trivial amount (especially considering the splits over the years), and it probably goes a decent way towards a nice retirement income.
On the topic as to why he retired, it's not even worth speculating, especially on the negative side. It's pretty obvious you and the others who don't believe the publicly stated reason (that he wants more time with his family), have never been in a high intensity and demanding job before. He worked at MS for 19 years, I'm willing to bet that he probably averaged 60+ hours per week over those years. Sounds very reasonable to me that he had an opportunity money wise, to do good by his family."
But we just don't know if he has stock options, what those options were, when they were paid or bought or how they were structured do we? I haven't seen his contract of employment and neither have you and neither has the person I ORIGINALLY responded too before you came in with your childish insults and childish accusations of fanboyism.
So yeah I agree it is pointless to speculate just as it's pointless to speculate that perhaps his performance had an influence on the stock price or how many hours he worked or why he's retiring in the first place.
You might want to take the value of the stock in context to the rest of the market right now. In case you hadn't noticed, there's a deep recession going on and MS shares are holding up better than almost any large publically owned company. Yes, they're down right now - but then again, whose aren't?
Apple around $30 Jan 2000 and $181.90 today. Nintendo around €70 Jan 2004 €184 today.
Exactly the two examples I'd have used.
That's because they're just about the only two available that did well since the recession (Apple stock hasn't split though, right?) . :)
If Apple had a stock split and their share price has still reached $181.90 a share then they're doing even better. Actibliz around $2 in Jan 2000 and $11.77 today.
I think you interpreted what I said backwards. I'm saying that if you're comparing apples to apples (no pun intended) the MS stock split while the Apple did not. So you'd have to double the price of current MS share price for anything you held before the split if you want to compare it to Apple shares purchased at the same time.
I don't think you're following; MS stock has fallen, Apple's. Actibliz and Nintendo's has risen, splits accounted for.
Also because they're two of Microsoft's chief competitors. Another is Google.
Not a pretty picture for MSFT investors!
You guys are missing the point. MS stock is doing fine in this environment. More specifically to the original point, you don't think that an exec who has been getting shares (not to mention a substantial salary) for 19 YEARS didn't earn enough to retire very comfortably for the rest of his life? You're looking at a snapshot - not a full career. Only day traders are concerned about daily stock prices - look at what the shares he has accumulated over 19 YEARS are worth (those original stocks have split MANY times). Many companies have a brief moment of glory in the stock market, but Bill Gates didn't earn over $5 Billion because MS stock has underperformed over the past 2 decades...
If I formatted the link correctly, then the chart should've showed relative performance from August 2004 (after the last MSFT split) onwards. And I think you might be missing my point: that while MS stock might be "doing fine" in this environment, the stocks of their competitors are doing significantly better.
Their stock has dropped since 2000, coincidentally the same year that they announced the XBOX.
Both Microsoft and Sony have struggled in recent history it's no secret. In Microsoft's case it is due to VIsta not doing so well, Zune bombing and Xbox losing Billions.Now they have Google releasing their own OS and Apple have more money then them now. Steve Balmer has kind of been the harbinger of doom now that I think about it.
In Sony's case where do you start? they've lost market share in their main babies i.e. televisions and Music players. Then there's Sony Ericsson which never really got started (and I own one what is more). They bought a bunch of movie studios that just cannot seem to make a hit after Spiderman. Then yes the PS3 has cost them billions as well and the PSP has failed to shift software which is where the profit is at.
It's amazing really that Nintendo are the out and out winners of the last 3 years when they were all but dead and buried around the back end of the Gamecube's gen. They must be laughing like the evil emperor as all they have to do now is come up with a DS 2 or advance or some such which maybe has the power of a gimped Gamecube and bam they're be making money hand over fist.
Keep in mind that Nintendo were only dead and buried in the court of public opinion: GameCube might've only sold 22 million to Xbox's 24 million, but it was infinitely more successful financially.
Well I meant in the sense that Microsoft offered to buy them and people thought they might quit the hardware side of the game industry. Thing is they've got it made because traditional consoles have no long term future, there's going to be one more cycle if that. Where as portables clearly have a massive future and they are the industry leader in that space.
It's highly ironic that Sony are where Sega were back in the day. Not financially but from a gaming platform relevance POV they need something to start working for them and I don't know if it is going to be the Slim or the Go.
Sony are no where near where SEGA were back in the day, that's absolute nonsense.
My god Arron you're such an unrepentant fan boy lol. Actually Sony in some respects are in a worse position in that their Games division could almost level itself, (not likely this gen) but the company is still losing masses of money all over the corporation.
What I mean is like Sega and less like Nintendo last gen they are struggling like Microsoft to differentiate their product from their competitor. In other words do we really need two high end consoles? the fact that many people have both kind of suggests not since they have the same controller and serve the same function. Hell do we even need a high end consolde period? with PCs showing they are capable of generating profits in the higher number and not just because of casual games and MMO's.
Nintendo are on a solid because of the DS and then their unique software titles not Just Mario and his crew, Zelda and Metroid but animal park, Layton, super smash and so on.
*sigh*
I'd have said the same if you'd have said it about MS. I love the way people use the term fanboy whenever someone say's something positive about a company.
I need both consoles, that's why I've got both.
SEGA royally pissed off the third party devs when they ditched the Saturn early in order to release the Dreamcast early, they'd failed to gain traction with Saturn and were haemorrhaging money and the Dreamcast was their last ditch attempt to stay in the market, this lack of support contributed to SEGA pulling out of the hardware market. They situation was unique to them. Sony and MS are facing different challenges but neither company is anywhere near the situation that SEGA was is in and both companies aren't likely to be either.
The PC is never going to replace consoles in terms of the average home user.
"I need both consoles, that's why I've got both."
Therefore having one high end console would be financially better for you with all the titles from both the PS3 and Xbox 360 on one system.
"SEGA royally pissed off the third party devs when they ditched the Saturn early in order to release the Dreamcast early, they'd failed to gain traction with Saturn and were haemorrhaging money"
Sony also pissed off a lot of Devs by using the Cell more obscure processor, making a PC/Xbox 360 multi platform more viable and less expensive. They are also losing ridiculous amounts of money all over the corporation and will probably have to shed some staff yet in order to right the ship.
"Sony and MS are facing different challenges but neither company is anywhere near the situation that SEGA was is in and both companies aren't likely to be either."
No but that doesn't mean they aren't still in massive trouble. The problem that they both have is that logically it is difficult to prove you can make a high end console profitable. Reason being is that for the first time ever these consoles have similar spec's to PCs but computers cost as much as they do for a reason. So by massively undercutting a PC by so much you're always losing X amount of money then you have to overcharge for software to make your money back, which as Sony in particular have found cuts into software sales. Where as Steam has published double figure profits for the last few years and continues to grow.
It's not a case of some twirly moustache guy at the top of the company doing what he wants, Both Balmer and Stringer are still in some way answerable to shareholders and who the hell invests in a project that has lost Billions previously?
"The PC is never going to replace consoles in terms of the average home user."
I agree to some extent but what we are seeing is that the gen below me and I assume you is gaming differently to us. I am currently a mature student at Uni and all the teens/tweens talk about is WoW, Facebook, the Wii and portables. Hell I even know some girls in my classes who play Left 4 dead.
What I think will happen though is that cable providers are looking to release set top boxes with larger hard drives and a flash interface and I suspect that will drag further people away from consoles.
"Therefore having one high end console would be financially better for you with all the titles from both the PS3 and Xbox 360 on one system."
I'm not hooking up a £1000 rig to my tv. Thanks but no thanks.
"Sony also pissed off a lot of Devs by using the Cell more obscure processor, making a PC/Xbox 360 multi platform more viable and less expensive. They are also losing ridiculous amounts of money all over the corporation and will probably have to shed some staff yet in order to right the ship."
You mean they pissed off Valve, a MS second party developer. The games division posted a profit in Jan 2009. All major third party developers are supporting the PS3 just as all third part developers are supporting the 360 some smaller developers are supporting the 360 only and some are supporting the PS3 only. That's why owning both machines is so much better than owning one. Then of course you've got the lovely exclusives from the first part studios to play on both consoles and then second party studios. Another good reason to own BOTH. I'm guessing you own only one.
"No but that doesn't mean they aren't still in massive trouble. The problem that they both have is that logically it is difficult to prove you can make a high end console profitable. Reason being is that for the first time ever these consoles have similar spec's to PCs but computers cost as much as they do for a reason. So by massively undercutting a PC by so much you're always losing X amount of money then you have to overcharge for software to make your money back, which as Sony in particular have found cuts into software sales. Where as Steam has published double figure profits for the last few years and continues to grow."
Yes it's true that MS and Sony massively subsidise their machines at the beginning of their lifecycles but do you wanna know something? The PS2 was massively subsidised as well and it's hard to argue that the PS2 isn't now profitable on a per unit basis and has been for sometime and with both MS and Sony talking about 10 year lifecycles I'm guessing they'll both turn a profit before the last one rolls off the production line.
"What I think will happen though is that cable providers are looking to release set top boxes with larger hard drives and a flash interface and I suspect that will drag further people away from consoles."
I can't wait for this pipe-dream to be shown for the well errr pipe-dream that it is.
"I'm not hooking up a £1000 rig to my tv. Thanks but no thanks."
You purposefully misinterpret me, which is ironic considering a PS3 plus an Xbox 360 is about as expensive as a PC gaming rig these days, especially if you bought them at launch. However what I meant was both consoles are technologically capable of playing each others games so surely it would make sense to have a £250-£300 console that played all hardcore titles?
"You mean they pissed off Valve, a MS second party developer. The games division posted a profit in Jan 2009. All major third party developers are supporting the PS3 just as all third part developers are supporting the 360 some smaller developers are supporting the 360 only and some are supporting the PS3 only. That's why owning both machines is so much better than owning one. Then of course you've got the lovely exclusives from the first part studios to play on both consoles and then second party studios. Another good reason to own BOTH. I'm guessing you own only one."
Both John Carmack and Cervat dooda (Crytek guy) admitted there were a few glitches in getting PS3 to work as well as the other versions of their games. Bobby K, twat though he is, openly threatened to bail on the PS3. EA admitted they'd banked too heavily on the PS3 and needed to refocus on the Wii. Ubisoft have also talked about a greater focus on the Wii.
You're wrong I own NONE and I previously owned a PSone, PS2 and PS2 Slim. I've never seen the need for an XBOX because I can get better versions of the games that would interest me on that platform on the PC i.e. Bioware and Bethesda's games. The PS3 only ever had a few titles I was interested in as a person who cannot stand platformers and hack and slash games. I'm not paying that much money for Uncharted 1 and 2 and Capcom games.
"Yes it's true that MS and Sony massively subsidise their machines at the beginning of their lifecycles but do you wanna know something? The PS2 was massively subsidised as well and it's hard to argue that the PS2 isn't now profitable on a per unit basis and has been for sometime and with both MS and Sony talking about 10 year lifecycles I'm guessing they'll both turn a profit before the last one rolls off the production line."
Aye but the PS2 had both the hardcore and the casual audience to draw on. The casuals now own either Wii's, a DS or play Facebook games. There isn't a cat in hell's chance of Sony reclaiming the casuals as they now have an entire platform based around their tastes for which the games are cheaper. Plus the PS2 was hand down winner of the core audience too where as now the Xbox and PS3 are neck and neck.
"I can't wait for this pipe-dream to be shown for the well errr pipe-dream that it is."
It's not a pipe dream mush, I'm not suggesting for a second that the core gamer will bog off and play facebook games. But the previous consoles needed the casuals to subsidise the core gamer. The casuals have now not adapted to the pricey high def gaming rigs because there is nothing in it for them. I guess what I mean is that that particular group of people who make up probably the largest group of gamers in other words "on the fence merchants" have so many other options that Sony and Microsoft have nothing to offer them.
On top of this the hardcore audience is NOT increasing in fact it is decreasing, see sales of GTA 4 vs GTA San Andreas for details. This may be due to financial reasons but it just as easily could be that lots of hardcore boys like me see greater value in the PC and some hardcore guys have grown up and had kids and now only have time for a little bit of gaming and therefore use other platforms.
It is highly unlikely that the Xbox division will ever make back its investment.
They can use endless reorganizations and creative accounting to try and mask the true extent of the financial hemorrhaging from investors, but anyone who's been following this since day one and watching not only their ongoing failure to show successful results but their insane marketing spend knows the truth: the Xbox (along with its doomed Entertainment & Devices cousin the Zune) has been nothing but a huge sinkhole for money.
Can you imagine how many ridiculously successful/profitable quarters they'd have to have in order to even come within spitting distance of this whole Xbox folly remotely resembling a profitable venture? The writing is on the wall, and the "sinking ship" comment was dead on.
Microsoft as a company may be doing fine, coasting on its illegally obtained Windholes monopoly, but the performance of the Entertainment & Devices Division (or whatever they're calling it this week) is another story entirely.
Wow, so all these investors and investment firms, comprised of many, many MBAs, PhDs, millionaires, and decades of financial market wisdom, are all getting bamboozled by Microsoft and can't see that it's a bunk investment that's losing so much $$. But you, guy that has way too much time on his/her hands, edge-online.com comment board poster see's through the lies and how truly insoluble Microsoft is, because you're way more qualified than those millionaires with diplomas, but no one except your fellow fanboys see your true prophetic genius.
Again, refer to the above, don't speak on shit you have no clue about. All those investors, they know exactly what's going on, and if you even have a little bit of knowledge about business in general, you would know that starting a new business venture in an area your company is not already established, takes capital and more often then not the division will incur losses before turning a profit. This is especially true for the competitive video game console market (if that statement needs justification, just take a look at all the companies that failed to launch more than 1 console).
MS at the top is definitely not run by stupid people, it is obvious that the future they see involves gaming, but even more importantly entertainment devices hooked up to the main TVs of households. If they did not think their return on invest would not payout in the future, then the Xbox would be canned. Simple as that.
Next time you want to call someone else a fanboy, you should look to yourself, you're probably one of the most mis-informed, non-objective fanboys posting comments on this site.
Ooooo, ouch! Forgive me if I see light-headed as I type this, but I think I might be losing a dangerous amount of blood from all these barbs in my side.
Anyway, as much as I appreciate the excerpts from Business School 101, you're obviously misinformed about the personalities of the stupid people who run Microsoft. Or maybe you're not, in which case you're just non-objective.
Also you seem to have a difficult time differentiating between discussion of Microsoft as a whole and discussion of the Xbox and its musical chairs progression through various divisions and reorganizations. Do you suppose there's a reason they steadfastly refuse to break out profit-and-loss for the Xbox business?
And finally, if I'm a fanboy, Mr. Wizard, what am I a fanboy of?
Come on Dubs, you're a Sony Fanboy, and if you can point out one post you've ever made to this forum where you give Sony the same sort of battering that you give M$ then i will happily retract that statement.
Will this do? I'm really not a Sony fanboy.
Yes, yes you are.
Is not liking the cosmetic changes to the last XMB update really the best you can do? Where's the venom seen any 360 related post? Come on, it's not like Sony are saints, how hard can it be?
As a matter of interest why do you hate M$?
Sony gets no free pass from me. I'll try to make this more apparent in future.
And there's no short answer as to why I hate Microsoft; suffice to say it's not like I just woke up one day and decided they suck. They have done a great deal over many, many years to earn my scorn. They succeed not by building quality products but by buying, bullying and leveraging their way into markets.
The fact that more people don't realize this lends credence to the assertion that Microsoft is much more a marketing company than a technology company.
Focusing on the negative isn't going to do you any good in the long run, nobodies perfect after all. What has made you so bitter? There will always be things that some people will like and others dislike, it's just life! All you can do is be pragmatic and not let the little things get to you.
Regardless of their shortcomings, you do have fun on your consoles don't you? You can't tell me that there isn't the odd occasion where you think "I really like what they've done here" or do you feel the bile rising as you switch on the machine? I'm sure we all could this ten things about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft that we don't like. But be damn sure that if we did we would set ourselves up for people who may have a difference of opinion, which is fair enough. Hardware is the least import aspect, You can forget about all the fancy whistles and bells, it's about the games surely?
You have to understand that the three big console manufacturers are running a business, they don't have to please everyone all of the time. As long as people are buying their products and a large proportion are happy then things will carry on as normal. Sadly Dubs you are in the minority, an install base of millions of users speaks for itself. It would be supremely arrogant to label them all stupid, based on the choices they've made wouldn't it?
Who REALLY cares? Honestly...
i don't...microsoft,sony and nintendo are all the same.they only care for money i only care for good games...
HEY SHANE KIM I hear that Resident Evil 5 is coming out on Xbox.
rats leaving a sinking ship
That's assuming he's leaving voluntarily.
Maybe he will be rembered for delivering a console that took on and beat the established and entrenched market leader. The majority of gamers seem to not share you opinion that the 360 is 'a dogs dinner of a console', quite the opposite actually.
There are only 10 people who own a 360. The things just keep breaking down so often that it works in MS' benefit.
Nope, just the majority of intelligent gamers.
Are you seriously saying that unintelligent people buy a 360 and smart people buy ps3? What a dumb comment.
Nope, that wasn't what I was saying. Seriously.
SDF moron.
LOL, you're doing it wrong.
The "Dogs Dinner" comment was a bit strong! Although the initial One in Six failure rate gave the 360 a reputation that has been hard to shake (also the basis of most of the MS vs. Sony flame wars). That's not to say it's been a bed of roses for it competitors.
Personally, I've not had to deal with a console with an RROD issues (although friends of mine have). Although, it's a different story with the my PS3. I've had a replacement due to BRD failure (error 800 codes), a second replacement for a blown power supply. So I'm now on my third. Certainly a good advert to the Sony's "Continuos Play" service.
What has impressed me most is they speed of which the Sony got a replacement to me within two working days. I have heard similar reports from friends with Microsoft customer services, being similarly impressed with the speed of replacement.
I wouldn't say that a fault that requires replacement, is a reason not to be deterred from purchasing either consoles. As there service speaks for itself.
Even with the high failure rate, you can't take away the fact that it's trounced the PS3 in many respects, being that it's hugely popular and you can't argue with the price. That's a whole lot of system for £150!