Cliff Bleszinski Labels Notch a "Pouty Kid" - Updated

[Lightknight]

Cliff made some valid points. It's a shame his reputation for making valid points has a long history of being shot.

Notch is overreacting. It is pendantic of him to back out of support just because he doesn't like the latest investor. And yes, Facebook is an "investor" even though it invested enough to buy a controlling share of the company.

The truth is that the Occulus rift's pockets just got deeper and we just took nearly all the steps needed to make sure this actually happens.

All of Oculus Rift's promises have been kept. They've been working on improvement after improvement and have spurred all kinds of competition and interest in this area. They could not have done any better of a job. Yes, Facebook is a creepy company full of data mining that makes us squeemish. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll have to give a stool sample to log into your rift.

Let's just wait and see what facebook puts out and we'll know if it was a good or bad thing. I genuinely hope it ends up being a good thing and that facebook's contributions end up being nice optional consumer friendly options.

For example, I like the idea of using the rift to view live sporting events as if I'm in the stadium. That's not a bad idea and that's Facebook's idea.

So chill and wait. It isn't like EA got the game, then you'd know it'd be always on and require an Origin account or some crap.

 

[Vareoth]

I'm sure Notch cares as much about these statements from Cliffy as I currently do. Can't these silly people just focus on making entertainment products instead of this mud-flinging bullshit?

Also, Notch can do whatever the fuck he wants with his products. Even if it comes to bite him in the ass later on.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

I didn't know about the Minecraft thing, but it does seem like Notch is overreacting just a little there and it seems like quite a knee-jerk reaction and indeed fairly petty.
But having Cliffy B of all people call you out... and then in that fashion too, is just as childish.

 

[Lightknight]

I didn't know about the Minecraft thing, but it does seem like Notch is overreacting just a little there and it seems like quite a knee-jerk reaction and indeed fairly petty.
But having Cliffy B of all people call you out... and then in that fashion too, is just as childish.

I'd say it's fairly shameful to have a guy like Cliffy aptly call you out. He did so in a childish fashion but he isn't wrong. A big kid did come to play and Notch did respond by taking his ball home.

Facebook is a company that just invested $2billion into the Rift. That's astoundingly good for us to get a great Oculus Rift at the end of the day. Pockets that deep will compete with anything the bigger companies have been working on putting out unless Sony really steps up their game (and even then, it'll likely be married to a console).

 

[RaikuFA]

I find it funny that Cliff is the one saying that given how often he used to whine about "the internet pirating my games" all the time...only for the 360 versions to be pirated like crazy.

Don't forget the tantrum he threw when GoW3 got an 8 from a reviewer.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I think Cliff raises some good points for a business standpoint. It's true that Facebook could be a great thing for the Rift. But sadly, the name calling puts a sour note on everything he said. "I think Notch is making a bad decision," would have been enough, but no. While Notch may look like a bratty kid, Cliff now looks like stuck-up kid who thinks he's better than everyone and has to let them know it.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Hahaha. Cliffy B complaining about someone being a pouty kid is dripping with hypocrisy, given all the times he's whined about review scores or the secondhand market.

 

[Compatriot Block]

Remember kids. The rules say to judge a statement by its content...except for Cliff Bleszinski.

I don't feel any shame in agreeing with him here. I doubt Facebook really cares about Minecraft, so the only people losing here are people who wanted official support like he had promised.

 

[thewatergamer]

Great mudsliging from the pretty boy PR speaker who whined about "pirated" games on the 360,

Look I love minecraft and contrary to some other games I do like notch, I understand hes not perfect, but I completely understand and think he made the right move by cancelling minecraft, his game his decision and I think he has every right to cancel minecraft for OR

Look im not gonna pretend notch or minecraft is perfect but I think he, along with any other developer or gamer cancelling anything to do with the OR has every right to do so

You can agree or disagree with Cliffy ive stated my opinion, to me though this is just PR speak from the pretty boy of the industry

You can remain excited and interested in the OR, but don't go around calling other gamers and developers "whiny babies" when they see the direction the OR COULD (emphasis on COULD) go, also if the OR does turn out to be amazing, I guarantee developers like Notch will return to it, but for now any developer or gamer that has pre-ordered or kickstarted an OR has every right to feel a little bit betrayed right now

 

[Vivi22]

May be hypocritical and annoying at times but I have to agree with Cliffy B. I don't like the idea of Facebook owning OR but at least wait a bit and see exactly what is going to happen. The way he reacted and pulling Minecraft just because he doesn't like Facebook is petty and bratty. Notch isn't my favorite person but definitely lost even more respect points.

No longer spending money to develop for a platform that was just bought out by a company you don't like or trust until you see exactly what's going to happen isn't petty and bratty. It's smart business.

Facebook is a company that just invested $2billion into the Rift. That's astoundingly good for us to get a great Oculus Rift at the end of the day.

They didn't invest $2 billion into the Rift. They bought the company for $2 billion, most of it stock. There is a massive difference there. That being that none of that money and stock actually goes into the company to develop the tech. How much Facebook will actually spend to develop it is completely unknown right now.

Pockets that deep will compete with anything the bigger companies have been working on putting out unless Sony really steps up their game (and even then, it'll likely be married to a console).

If I were to count the number of times that revolutionary tech in the video game and IT sectors came about because of large companies investing in R&D I'm not sure I'd run out of fingers and toes. Sure, Oculus needed money to keep developing, but I wouldn't say they were having any trouble getting it before, and aside from money, Facebook brings zero synergies with the devices development to the table. So while it may be too early to say if this is a bad thing, the people saying it's a good thing because Facebook have the money to develop it are getting way ahead of themselves as well.

 

[Roxas1359]

I find it funny that Cliff is the one saying that given how often he used to whine about "the internet pirating my games" all the time...only for the 360 versions to be pirated like crazy.

Don't forget the tantrum he threw when GoW3 got an 8 from a reviewer.

A tantrum you say? I can't seem to recall that one. Can you link me to it please? :3

 

[EvilRoy]

Notch is overreacting. It is pendantic of him to back out of support just because he doesn't like the latest investor. And yes, Facebook is an "investor" even though it invested enough to buy a controlling share of the company.

Not really, stuff like this happens all the time in investments. Since smaller investors, which most of us are, tend to get a rather minimal say in the direction of a company the only effective way to signal discontent is to sell off stock. In this case there was no stock to sell, so implied support was pulled instead.

If a group I was morally opposed to took a controlling interest in one of my investments, or an investment began making policy decisions that I did not agree with, you're damn right I would sell my stock. From a moral standpoint I may not want to support what is being done by the new lead, and from a business standpoint I may not want to be associated with the new lead.

It does not necessarily have anything to do with the potential business success that may follow with FBs investment. Even if I knew for certain I could make thousands investing in rare earth metal mining in Africa, I still wouldn't because of what it is doing to that country.

You said it yourself, too. "If it were EA...", apparently implying that if EA took a controlling interest in a company you invested with you would pull support. Well, just transfer your feelings on EA to FB to get an idea of how Notch feels about this acquisition.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Seems like game developers and journalists in general (or at least the vocal ones) are a bunch of whining, immature children. Cliff would most certainly be put in to that category right along side most of the people he "calls out".

 

[McKitten]

I completely agree
The only person Notch is hurting here is his customers, all the people who wanted to play Minecraft on the Rift.
I fully understand his personal misgivings and he is perfectly entitled to them but he also runs a company which makes and produces an exceptionally popular game played by millions, their opinion should be all that matters really in such a situation.

Yeah? Since when? Whenever a company does something, all i hear is that of course they're doing it, the only job of a company is to make money. Well, if money is the only thing that matters, it's Notch's money and he's free to take it and go home. If any action is understandable when done for profit then he's got the choice to decide not to profit as well. He's not obligated to give you what you want, even if you want to pay him for it.

 

[Lightknight]

Facebook is a company that just invested $2billion into the Rift. That's astoundingly good for us to get a great Oculus Rift at the end of the day.

They didn't invest $2 billion into the Rift. They bought the company for $2 billion, most of it stock. There is a massive difference there. That being that none of that money and stock actually goes into the company to develop the tech. How much Facebook will actually spend to develop it is completely unknown right now.

From Facebook's perspective, there is absolutely no difference between the two. They invested the money to own the product and will now invest even more money. But the point is that facebook is now $2b into making sure this happens. So it will.

If I were to count the number of times that revolutionary tech in the video game and IT sectors came about because of large companies investing in R&D I'm not sure I'd run out of fingers and toes.

Then you're not very knowledgeable of tech. Perhaps this speaks more to the rarity of "revolutionary tech". But most of the time, it is people with deep pockets seeing it across the finish line.

Sure, Oculus needed money to keep developing, but I wouldn't say they were having any trouble getting it before,

Well, yes and no.

and aside from money, Facebook brings zero synergies with the devices development to the table.

Facebook offers the marketing and market access up the wazoo as well as whatever social applications they have in mind to add to the Rift's already impressive functions. Imagine the already existing VR movie theater in addition to being able to have several of your friends virtually in the same theater through some facebook app? As an option, it's great. Just hopefully you won't have to log into facebook to use it otherwise.

So while it may be too early to say if this is a bad thing, the people saying it's a good thing because Facebook have the money to develop it are getting way ahead of themselves as well.

Well, sure. Facebook can ruin this. But now there is a huge money pocket fully invested in making this product happen. It's essentially a gaurantee that this will succeed unless the most unlikely of scenarios happens. Additionally, a more reliable stream of cash can lead to a lot more resources being hired and implemented in the process. This is a good thing because of that. But it's definitely too early to divine whether or not Facebook is going to screw this up in some other way (such as crippling the device with intrusive software like EA would). If it were EA, I could go ahead and claim foul. But Facebook hasn't done a ton to change the companies they've already acquired so I have no reason to believe they'd ruin this one here.

 

[Lightknight]

Notch is overreacting. It is pendantic of him to back out of support just because he doesn't like the latest investor. And yes, Facebook is an "investor" even though it invested enough to buy a controlling share of the company.

Not really, stuff like this happens all the time in investments. Since smaller investors, which most of us are, tend to get a rather minimal say in the direction of a company the only effective way to signal discontent is to sell off stock. In this case there was no stock to sell, so implied support was pulled instead.

If a group I was morally opposed to took a controlling interest in one of my investments, or an investment began making policy decisions that I did not agree with, you're damn right I would sell my stock. From a moral standpoint I may not want to support what is being done by the new lead, and from a business standpoint I may not want to be associated with the new lead.

It does not necessarily have anything to do with the potential business success that may follow with FBs investment. Even if I knew for certain I could make thousands investing in rare earth metal mining in Africa, I still wouldn't because of what it is doing to that country.

You said it yourself, too. "If it were EA...", apparently implying that if EA took a controlling interest in a company you invested with you would pull support. Well, just transfer your feelings on EA to FB to get an idea of how Notch feels about this acquisition.

If he has a reason to specifically distrust Facebook's involvement. Then sure. Sounds like he just thinks they're creepy and uncertain though, rather than evil or something definite.

 

[Plunkies]

That Notch, valuing his integrity and creative freedom over money. How childish of him.

 

[EvilRoy]

snip

If he has a reason to specifically distrust Facebook's involvement. Then sure. Sounds like he just thinks they're creepy and uncertain though, rather than evil or something definite.

He has specific reasons, and stated them in his blog. I get the feeling that you don't think his reasons were good enough, but if that's the case then I'm not exactly certain what reasons would be. They don't need to be "evil", they don't even need to do something "bad", they only need to do things that you personally disagree with.

Because of the nature of investments, if you leave that money in and they do wrong by you or your values, you weren't just complicit in that wrongdoing, you actively supported it. That is a hard thing for many people to deal with, and I don't begrudge anyone for not giving that person or group the chance to make them guilty.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

I knew this would happen. The inevitable flaming of Cliff... Even though he's usually right. Why are people putting Notch on a pedestal? Just because he made a great game, that makes him right about everything?

The truth is, Cliff is pretty much the House of video games. He comes off like a douche but it he's got a good reason for everything he says. However, I will admit though that when he was in the gaming industry a while back, he had some learning to do.