I mean some people would rather play their games on the move than be sat down at a console or pc. Its just the hardware is completely outdated, hell even their flagship games struggle with it a bit like BOTW and TOTK do have some frame dropping problems.
Not even talking about the switch portability but I think there must be people out there who only have a Nintendo switch to play game and if they wanted to play mk (and not buy a PS5/Xbox) then there was only one option left… Sad thing is that they didn’t even release it to the PS4/Xone gens console.
I love my switch and most of what I got for it. But I try to get stuff I know will run well, and to this day I still can’t understand people who played Bloodstained switch and consider it “fine”.
Even with all patches, it’s still an unstable mess with terrible input lag, second-long freezes and constant loading that sucks all the fun out of it. I don’t care much about compromises in the graphics area, but that shit is practically unplayable.
When I backed that game, it was supposed to run on Wii U, what a joke. I am still convinced the reason they delayed the switch version one week at launch was just so it would not tarnish their glowing reviews.
There’s games I wouldn’t even consider getting for the Switch. Like MK and Doom. They’re such graphical powerhouses and that’s not what the Switch is for. I play those on my PS5.
To be fair, I mostly use my switch for first party Nintendo games and like another user has said the Switch sometimes struggles even with those (I’m looking at you TotK).
Unity fucked everything up and will no longer be the den facto engine. But they can upgrade to sell on switch and still gain more money than they pay, it’s not required that they upgrade every version of the game. However, it will be a lot of annoying paperwork and they’d have to maintain two branches so I guess that may be why they chose not to.
Having the scumbag of a CEO in the headline may have been a mistake. Riccitiello sold the least shares in the recent transaction history of the company. Also, I don’t know where you get your "retaining over 3000000 shares’ from. The source says Riccitiello sold all his shares in his possession.
The article mentions two others:
Tomer Bar-Zeev who sold 37.5k shares on 1st September, for around $1.4m. Shlomo Dovrat, meanwhile, sold 68k shares on 30th August for around $2.5m.
Bar-Zeev sold 37500 shares of ~1300000 owned on automated sell. That’s a factor of ten and a fair bit away from 2k sold from 3 mil, but that might be normal. It was automated, after all.
Dovrat’s transaction is mostly the same, roughly double the shares sold and roughly double the shares owned. However, it was not automated.
I believe the article mentioned them because they sold the most, but they clearly weren’t taking the amount retained into account. The third most sold, however, by Robynne Sisco was a sell of 25768, retaining 14700 (sold ~64%).
There are a fair number of other sells, but if the Bar-Zeev and Dovrat sells don’t look suspicious, nothing else will stand out.
What does seem a little odd- and I have no idea if this is at all unusual- is that in the last twelve months, more shares have been bought than sold (net shares almost 10,000,000), and in the last 3 months more shares have been sold than bought (net shares almost 3,500,000). In the last 3 months, the number of insider traders is a little over 1/3 of the amount of insider trades over the last 12 months (under the assumption it should be about 1/4). All of the insider buys seem to be the options granted for working for Unity. I assume it isn’t too odd for the board of directors to sell and never buy, but they have increased selling a fair bit in the last 3 months, and it seems specifically the last two weeks.
More confusing accounting that I’ve never learned, and probably never will.
At first I thought it was because of direct/indirect ownership. But what is the point of “5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 3 and 4)” being 3mil with no transaction, but the 2000 stock transaction showing they owned none? I see nothing on the form or in the definition showing that direct or indirect ownership show be reported differently. They are all owned by the ‘reporting person’. But clearly this is all me just not being able to read how they filled it out.
I agree $80k is nothing to $100mil, I do believe that if they have 3mil of securities, then it doesn’t matter, no matter how high or low the securities are worth. I disagree with the idea that automation makes it not suspicious, though. If the stocks were all automatically sold off, then the company devalues itself afterwards, it has the same intent and outcome as any other insider trading.
Ok, so the report is on the person (CEO in this case). Only directors and certain executive levels are required to report.
Table I shows ‘non-derivative securities’ (regular stock). The CEO holds in their own name 3 million+ shares. No transaction was reported for those, but they have to be listed.
The CEO’s spouse aquired 2000 shares at a cost of $1.425 each. After this transaction, they had 2000 shares total (column 5).
They then sold those shares for $40 each. After, they weren’t holding any stock, so column 5 shows 0.
The CEO financially benefits from this, so the transactions are listed on their form, as (I) for indirect. If the spouse also had a position within Unity which required reporting this would be listed on their own SEC form as well.
eurogamer.net
Aktywne