Cliff Bleszinski Labels Notch a "Pouty Kid" - Updated

[Lightknight]

If it was one of those things where it had been a bit after the acquisition, then it could be argued that maybe Notch didn't like the new direction the Rift was going with Facebook overseeing it, or maybe they were forcing the Rift to use applications and tools that Notch felt took away from the experience, then I'd give Notch the benefit of the doubt and would say he probably had his reasons. Considering he did this almost immediately after the announcement, when there is no telling what the Facebook acquisition actually means, then I have to assume that Notch's reasons have to do more with status than it does practicality and technology

It's quite simple. Notch had only been in talks about developing a free slimmer version of Minecraft (like the current PI edition). They'd only been talking about it for two weeks and it would have been to support what was presently a fellow small company (something rare in the hardware industry).

The moment Facebook bought it, the need for Notch to support it became null. Why spend time and development resources on a free game to support Facebook?

Having not sunk any costs in the charitable project, he just dropped it.

It is weird to have someone complain that a company they supported got too big by doing exactly what they promised they'd do with the investment. But Notch not giving facebook something for free makes sense.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Cliff Bleszinski is popping up from behind his chest-high wall again?

Doesn't he know that the internet will shoot him in the face when that happens?

Really it seems to be here on the Escapist community that gives him hate, which is a vocal minority at best.


OT:

As Northerlion would say :SHOTS FIRED!

Cliffy B's been in the gaming industry since he was 17 and no matter how you feel about him, he's contributed paradigm shifts in the way gammes are made and played.

I do find Notch's instant ending of Minecraft on the Oculus to be a major snap judgment seeing as how he had no idea of what Facebook had planned. He probably could have cancelled the game later on but it was a pretty premature call to make.

Then again its only Minecraft and that game has been milked as much, if not more than games like Halo.

Maybe its just me, but I find it funny that people automatically line up to defend Notch due to his indie beginnings. Minecraft is probably the most corporate game on the market at this point with how many companies have their fingers in that pie.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The only point I'll grant CliffB is that Facebook is a powerful avenue for getting the device spread out.
...And then I'll turn around and shoot that point down, because popularity alone does not define how it will be used.

At the buyout announcement, I was pretty ambivalent. Still am to a degree.

But having read Notch's expanded statement on the reasoning behind his decision, I can definitely understand why he pulled support on account of the Facebook buyout; In his own words, they are a company who only cares about user numbers and that much is very very true.

That is a good reason to fear Facebook taking the focus away from gaming: They aren't a game company and aren't invested at all in video games beyond how they might bring more people into their bloated social honeypot.
If I were a backer for the Oculus Rift, I think that alone would be a good reason for me to be upset.

Speaking of...

The kickstarter backers haven't been screwed out of their product, they've been screwed out of their vision; which I maintain, is just as important as the product if not more. Investment in vision is what distinguishes crowd-sourcing from regular stock investment (and why I'm sick of people equating crowd-sourcing with stock investment, or arguing that one should be just like the other; get it through your thick skulls: Money is not the only motivator).

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

If it was one of those things where it had been a bit after the acquisition, then it could be argued that maybe Notch didn't like the new direction the Rift was going with Facebook overseeing it, or maybe they were forcing the Rift to use applications and tools that Notch felt took away from the experience, then I'd give Notch the benefit of the doubt and would say he probably had his reasons. Considering he did this almost immediately after the announcement, when there is no telling what the Facebook acquisition actually means, then I have to assume that Notch's reasons have to do more with status than it does practicality and technology

It's quite simple. Notch had only been in talks about developing a free slimmer version of Minecraft (like the current PI edition). They'd only been talking about it for two weeks and it would have been to support what was presently a fellow small company (something rare in the hardware industry).

The moment Facebook bought it, the need for Notch to support it became null. Why spend time and development resources on a free game to support Facebook?

Having not sunk any costs in the charitable project, he just dropped it.

It is weird to have someone complain that a company they supported got too big by doing exactly what they promised they'd do with the investment. But Notch not giving facebook something for free makes sense.

This is a very fair point. The grip I think people have with Notch on this issue though is the way he cancelled Minecraft on the Oculus. Specifically his attitude. People hate on Cliffy B (I think in an irrational manner) but he does make a fair point. Notch didn't need to be obnoxious about cancelling Minecraft on the Oculus Rift. Cliffy B has also put the work in to the industry. Notch's success is really off of the back of the community that took a hold of Minecraft. Majong hasn't done anything noteworthy since. I get that Notch's opinion of Facebook is his own and I have no problem with him not liking the company. But at the end of the day his cancellation of Minecraft on the Oculus is only going to hurt the Oculus, not Facebook.

I'm glad to see industry veterans calling each other out on stuff like this. Personally I think it keeps people's heads in check on a PR perspective. If this happens more often we'd see less guys like Phil Fish running around with swell heads after creating literally one game that sold well.

 

[Cursed Frogurt]

I'm totally with Cliff on this one. Notch, and a lot of the man-children hemming and hawing over this are doing so only because of their baseless assumptions.

"Facebook sucks. I hate facebook. They're gonna ruin everything."

...

Instagram.

 

[EvilRoy]

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.

Well, I don't read his blog so maybe there's something more to it (edit: commented on this above). But his official statement was that he finds Facebook creepy. If he has managed to better articulate what triggered his reaction then ok.

Facebook's statement is that the OR team will continue to operate autonomously just like all of their other acquisitions have. So maybe Notch is just allergic to not being as indie as possible? That may sounds like a shot at him. But the hipster community that shirks big business are a valid community and shying away from big business is a valid personal choice. But this is still Notch walking away from the rift and the rift users for minor reasons. It's one thing to remain indie in the development arena. It's quite another to try to remain competitive in the hardware industry.

Since you added an edit above I don't have too much to comment on - I'm not sure why you left in the bit about being allergic to not being as indie as possible, but meh.

I will say one thing though: never ever ever tell an investor that his reasons for giving or pulling support for something are minor. It carries the implication that you understand their reasons or motivations for action better than they do.

If somebody decides to change their position, by giving or pulling support, then the reasons that lead to that decision were exactly good enough for them to change their position. There is no major or minor, just a reason.

But for every Notch it seems there's several other developers who certainly aren't going to jump ship for some very specific allergy to big business:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/25/notch-oculus-facebook-minecraft/

With Sony entering the market, this was a good move for them.

That's not really relevant to what we were discussing.

 

[crispskittlez]

I definitely agree with Cliff. Notch seems to be acting very shortsighted with this call.

 

[agent9]

oh Cliffy B, you really are funny and sad all on the same note. If Notch doesn't want to support a company he does not like then thats his call, much in the same way that people don't buy certain products because they don't want to support that group and their message. but hey, can't expect too much since it's cliffy B.

 

[Lightknight]

Since you added an edit above I don't have too much to comment on - I'm not sure why you left in the bit about being allergic to not being as indie as possible, but meh.

Sorry, that was my original post and I was trying to get the edit out quickly. Shortly after I put the first edit I got an assignment that needed a fast turnaround and I stopped mid-second edit to get to work.

Anyways, there are two things that happened here. One is that Notch pulled back plans to develop a game. In light of the edit I made, his choice makes perfect sense. The second thing is that Notch complained that his investment was seed money.

To wit, I bring up his allergon to large companies. Who complains that a small company they invested in got huge delivering on exactly the promise you invested in? Facebook has already announced that the rift is still going to be autonomous in developing the Rift and that all their other visions for the product and company will come after a gaming device is made. Did he think the Occulus Rift team wasn't trying to make money while working on tech they love? Because they were trying to make money. This takes an otherwise unprofitable business, throws a ton of money in their pockets and lets them continue working on it. Then, if Facebook goes off the deep-end after this agreed upon autonomy, they simply leave the company and work on something else until their non-compete is up.

But getting pissed that you invested in a small company that exploded by doing everything right is silly.

I will say one thing though: never ever ever tell an investor that his reasons for giving or pulling support for something are minor. It carries the implication that you understand their reasons or motivations for action better than they do.

No, some people have shitty reasons for the choices they make. You can absolutely make judgements on that.

E.g. an investor who pulls their money out of a company because the skin of the CEO that was just hired is "too dark" in their eyes is being dumb. Doesn't matter if I know their motivations better than them or not. Not that Notch's pullback was anything so crazy as that, I just went with an easy example to discount the "never ever ever" in your phrase. But we had Notch's complaint that he's mad his money went to a company that would eventually get purchased by Facebook. That hasn't changed and I'm basing my statements off of his statements. Can't go on anything but his words.

If somebody decides to change their position, by giving or pulling support, then the reasons that lead to that decision were exactly good enough for them to change their position. There is no major or minor, just a reason.

That's not true. People do not all live in their own private vacuum. I agree that there is a significant degree of subjectivity but I have no less of a right to call his reasons minor than he has a right to call his reasons major. That's silly.

 

[crispskittlez]

I find it funny how many people here are criticizing a guy because he decided to do something based of his own personal reasons.Not everybody is going to be motivated by money and I respect the folks who stick to their principles far more than those who sell out for a paycheck.

Also Cliff is the same one who whined about people bashing the XBONE and the used game market,he's nothing more than a corporate stooge so I'll ignore anything he says anyway.

You obviously don't know much about how the game industry works, do you?

 

[mike1921]

"Your device is only as good as the store and community around it; if users can't say shut up and take my money, if developers can't post their work then the device will ultimately flounder," Bleszinski wrote on his blog. "Facebook can assist with this sort of thing, as well as having a multi billion user reach. That's pretty damned important."

This statement is utter garbage. There is nothing Facebook can offer as far as getting developers on board that wasn't already happening. Unless people think shitty Facebook games qualifies. The first adopter type consumers who were most excited about this are also exactly the type to be wary of Facebook being involved in anything, and I would be willing to bet are less likely than they've ever been to put down their hard earned cash for the Oculus Rift now. And that multi billion user reach is worthless since the majority of those people aren't going to give a shit about VR for vidya games, and this tech has literally no useful application in modern social networking.

How can you be so sure about that? How can you be so sure that a screen that covers your entire field of view and adjusts as you move your head has absolutely no use outside of videogames? There's no way that a skype-like service can use that? There's no way anything in the medical field can use that? How can you possibly make such a statement with any degree of certainty? I want the technology to have a chance to find any use for itself, not just gaming.

Everyone uses facebook, not just first adopter type hyper-enthusiasts, you can't survive off of first adopters (generally). I know plenty of people who don't know anything about the Occulus rift, people who knew about the Ouya , people who build computers just for gaming. I think you have mentally exaggerated the reach of the OR because the people who do know about it are generally very excited.

 

[crispskittlez]

I know enough to know that there are developers who make great games for the love of it and not the money.Yet people are criticizing one of those very devs because he refused to invest in a company he has personal problems with.

Sorry but not everyone is willing to sell out for that big paycheck and some even have self respect and standards,crazy I know.

I'll take that as a 'no,' then. There are devs who make games for the love of it. That would happen to be most of them. If you think otherwise, you must have never spoken to any of them.

 

[Lightknight]

I find it funny how many people here are criticizing a guy because he decided to do something based of his own personal reasons.

"Own personal reasons"? What kind of justification is that? People have died terrible deaths because people "decided to do something based on their own personal reasons."

Sorry but personal reasons are just as up for criticisms as actions. In fact, motivations can often be even more criticiseable than actions.

However, as I stated earlier, the whole minecraft bit was a free slim-version that Notch was going to do to support the Rift. He'd only just entered talks with them two weeks before the acquisition was announced. So why would he give something free to Facebook? Him backing out is more of a no-brainer with that information.

Also Cliff is the same one who whined about people bashing the XBONE and the used game market,he's nothing more than a corporate stooge so I'll ignore anything he says anyway.

Sure, and John Carmack also claimed that the XBO was almost exactly as powerful as the ps4.

There's a few other things Cliff has said that have upset most people. Don't remember those things at the moment but I know I don't particularly like the guy's comments. That being said, if my worst enemy said the house was on fire I'd at least pay some attention. He's at least right that initially it looked like Notch was being childish. Post Notch's web elaborating on the arrangment the comment no longer makes sense.

 

[crispskittlez]

I know enough to know that there are developers who make great games for the love of it and not the money.Yet people are criticizing one of those very devs because he refused to invest in a company he has personal problems with.

Sorry but not everyone is willing to sell out for that big paycheck and some even have self respect and standards,crazy I know.

I'll take that as a 'no,' then. There are devs who make games for the love of it. That would happen to be most of them. If you think otherwise, you must have never spoken to any of them.

I would appreciate it if you did'nt try to tell me what I think or don't know... thanks.

Sure there are plenty of devs who make games for the love but there are only a few who can resist the temptation of foregoing their morals in pursuit of a massive paycheck.

The temptation of foregoing morals sure isn't what's going on here. I don't like Facebook, but attributing nobility to Notch's actions because he's creep-ed out by Facebook is nowhere near "resisting the temptation to forgo one's morals."

 

[EvilRoy]

Anyways, there are two things that happened here. One is that Notch pulled back plans to develop a game. In light of the edit I made, his choice makes perfect sense. The second thing is that Notch complained that his investment was seed money.

To wit, I bring up his allergon to large companies. Who complains that a small company they invested in got huge delivering on exactly the promise you invested in? Facebook has already announced that the rift is still going to be autonomous in developing the Rift and that all their other visions for the product and company will come after a gaming device is made. Did he think the Occulus Rift team wasn't trying to make money while working on tech they love? Because they were trying to make money. This takes an otherwise unprofitable business, throws a ton of money in their pockets and lets them continue working on it. Then, if Facebook goes off the deep-end after this agreed upon autonomy, they simply leave the company and work on something else until their non-compete is up.

Not to be rude, but I don't know why you're telling me this.

But getting pissed that you invested in a small company that exploded by doing everything right is silly.

No its not, its business.

Believe me when I say that I have investments that I absolutely do not want to see blow up. For them to do so would not only disrupt long term plans, but create a need to re-evaluate the basis of many short term decisions. The only thing that I could do that is silly with respect to my investments is be upset when things go precisely according to plan. In all other cases it is completely reasonable to be pissed.

That's not true. People do not all live in their own private vacuum. I agree that there is a significant degree of subjectivity but I have no less of a right to call his reasons minor than he has a right to call his reasons major. That's silly.

I think you misunderstood my statement. Yes, you have whatever rights your country allows with regards to how you address people, but there are certain things that are inadvisable to say. If I wanted to keep all the blood inside my body - or even just a general neutral relationship with the person - I would never refer to their personal moral imperatives as 'minor reasons'. Not to their face at least.

 

[mike1921]

But getting pissed that you invested in a small company that exploded by doing everything right is silly.

No its not, its business.

Believe me when I say that I have investments that I absolutely do not want to see blow up. For them to do so would not only disrupt long term plans, but create a need to re-evaluate the basis of many short term decisions. The only thing that I could do that is silly with respect to my investments is be upset when things go precisely according to plan. In all other cases it is completely reasonable to be pissed.

Please tell me I'm mis-reading this. Please tell me you're not saying that you don't want things to happen that will improve your financial standing because you would need to re-think your next steps to accommodate for it.

 

[PinkiePyro]

my two cents...

is it a bratty move? yes..

is it a totally justified move? yes because Mark Zuckerberg is a doushbag

 

[Callate]

Y'know, first time around I somehow missed that Cliff was an investor in Occulus- that is, he has a financial stake which is being paid off handsomely because the company he invested in just got bought out for a ridiculous sum.

...And in a small way, Notch deciding to pull back on Mojang's support of the Occulus is a threat to the long-term viability of the company he invested in.

So if it's fair to call Notch a "pouty kid", it seems about equally fair to suggest Cliff is a sellout who's decided that financial payout trumps artistic integrity; that decisions should be made on the basis of bank- not in the interest of company survivability, not in the interest of furthering the tech, but just in what will mean the biggest payout.

It's a tad ridiculous, if not hypocritical, to go off about how Kickstarter backers get the level reward were promised and should expect nothing more in return and then turn around and suggest that one of those backers somehow owes Occulus their company's continued support.

 

[Elijin]

And today we learned that if you take an active interest in who your company and IP works with, and decline to work with a company you dont find palatable, you're a 'bratty kid'.

I mean sure, he is taking his ball and going home. But thats the point, its his ball. If he doesnt want to play with facebook, thats his choice.

 

[mike1921]

Y'know, first time around I somehow missed that Cliff was an investor in Occulus- that is, he has a financial stake which is being paid off handsomely because the company he invested in just got bought out for a ridiculous sum.

...And in a small way, Notch deciding to pull back on Mojang's support of the Occulus is a threat to the long-term viability of the company he invested in.

So if it's fair to call Notch a "pouty kid", it seems about equally fair to suggest Cliff is a sellout who's decided that financial payout trumps artistic integrity; that decisions should be made on the basis of bank- not in the interest of company survivability, not in the interest of furthering the tech, but just in what will mean the biggest payout.

It's a tad ridiculous, if not hypocritical, to go off about how Kickstarter backers get the level reward were promised and should expect nothing more in return and then turn around and suggest that one of those backers somehow owes Occulus their company's continued support.

There's a difference between owing a company continued support, and discontinuing support for petty reasons. That's what calling Notch a pouty kid means, it does not mean "He does not have the right to do this", it does not mean "he needs a more valid reason to do this" and it certainly doesn't mean "he doesn't have the legal right to do this". It simply means "his reasons for doing this are bad".

I can and have every right to withdrawal support for a kickstarter because they hired an abrasive disagreeable person as a community manager, but that would be petty and stupid because a community manager doesn't have much power in a project and what I kickstarted is a video game.

I think the facebook buyout was a good thing, now the tech isn't as tied down to gaming, and while I'm excited about OR's implications for gaming, if there is another consumer use I want it to be found as utilized ASAP. Seems to me like Cliffy agrees with me. If you're calling him a sellout based on other things: can't really speak to that but Cliffy and I both make the argument that facebook is better for "furthering the tech" and "company survivability" than if OR was alone or god-forbid bought by a gaming company (even valve).