Cliff Bleszinski Labels Notch a "Pouty Kid" - Updated

[Whateveralot]

I mean hell, $19 billion for an app, and I thought Balmer was crazy when he bought Skype for $8.5 billion when it wasn't really profitable, and still isn't really.

Skype was simply bought because of Lync. Microsoft was looking for a new technology to integrate into their business-market-aimed VoIP / Videoconferencing tools with, along with taking down MSN in the process.

Microsoft had a really good reason for buying Skype.

Facebook buying Oculus? I'm sorry but this makes no sense (other then Facebook searching for other, more profitable markets).

 

[Strazdas]

A petty bully is whining about other kids. and we are paying attention. well done. I don wonder does Cliff crap get reported jut for clicks, after all, its 4 pages long already!

I tried to read his words, but all I saw was shit.

Hell, I only hear shit when he actually talks.

how... does shit sound. i never imagined "listening to shit" in literal sense.

it's still the exact same product with the exact same user base.

This is competely false. While it is still same product that Mark Zuckberg himself said he want rebranded, the user base is completely different. the hardcore gamer group that backed the kickstarter is tearing it o bits. they lost their audience, and while they may gain one from facebook, its a completely different userbase.

but that really doesn't change the fact that he's right.

Do provide the irrefutable proof that its a fact. because as far as i see its only your opinion.

Pretty much. Here's a quick test to see who is being the bigger asshole in this situation.

Facebook (my interpretation): "We don't intend to interfere with the Oculus Rift's development, and have a lot of ideas for additional uses for this device"

Notch (again, interpreted): "I don't like Facebook, so I'm going back on what I said I was going to do, and I'm not going to add functionality to my game that many of my customers were looking forward to."

Oh, how nice of you to completely ignore that Zuckerberg himself said that he wants things changed. And knowing facebook history, its never for the better. Cliff is being an asshole for asshole sake, while Notch has good reasons to back out. So please redo your test with more information.

I would be more understanding if after more details on the future of OR were released but as it stands things seem to be running like normal but now with big daddy Facebook backing them up with their huge wallet. Why hurt your consumers who desperately wanted Minecraft on OR because you have personal beef with them? I don't know, maybe Notch knows stuff we don't about the whole deal. He certainly has every right to cancel the deal don't get me wrong. It just seems a bit premature to me is all.

This wrongly implies that costumers that wanted minecraft on OR actually still want OR.

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

but there is no content. only a person whining on a stage that somone else did something he didnt like.

So? Would you still feel the same way? Does looking at the above scenario from a different viewpoint give you better insight into why many feel the way they do and why many stopped supporting the OR?

actually id feel safer with NSA. At least they dont sell the data to the highest bidder but keep it for themselves. and at least on the surface pretend to catch few criminals with it.

Minecraft was a one hit wonder. WHat has he done to follow that up rather than attempting to port it out the butt to every platform besides nintendo products?

Well, he is constantly adding more content to the game and updating it. Thats like saying WOW was a one-hit wonder released 10 years ago. what has it done since. And it wasnt even ported either, so tis done even less. yet literally millions of people are playing it still.

OT: The Douchebag in chief is 100% Right in this case. The internet is acting like their favorite Wall Noise band just signed on with a well known producer and suddenly isnt cool anymore. Careful internet, Your hipster is showing.

Ironically that you took that alegory to make, its as if you didnt knew just how much studios mess with bands and how they hold the contracts to hold bands hostage. Seriuosly, you picked a very bad example.

Skype was simply bought because of Lync. Microsoft was looking for a new technology to integrate into their business-market-aimed VoIP / Videoconferencing tools with, along with taking down MSN in the process.

Microsoft had a really good reason for buying Skype.

Well, Microsoft also bought MSN before, then completely ruined it (yes, i used MSN BEFORE microsoft bought it and after all the way till they closed the servers) I also used Skype before and still use after they bought it. And lets jut say, "microsoft destroys everything it touches" cannot be more true.
The point is, MSN was a more popular VOIP service by the time they bought it then skype. however they drove their users away by taking away features, ruining the UI and adding advertisement all over the place. By the time they got around to doing anything about it the userbase was dead. Same thing with HOtmail (now known as live mail, or as of few motnhs ago, integrated into the "one" concept). While hotmail was fine for its time, microsoft bought it and sat on it doing nothing but taknig away features. Its actually pretty damn decent NOW, but noone is using it anymore.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Despite your feelings towards the man he does have a point. That's sort of the problem when people start making a name for themselves, whether it be good or bad, people will never be able to seperate the opinions from the person. If the situations were reversed I can almost coldy predict the forum chatter.

History will decide on whther or not Occulus made the right call. Frankly I think they did. It's 2 BILLION DOLLARS PEOPLE! No company would turn down that kinda cash, and it's not like they're gasing Jews to get it.
So if your living in a VR occulus powered future yo can thank Mark for it, but if the VR goes nowhere then you can just keep on hating it.

Whilst Notch is within his rights not to make it anymore, it really is turning up his nose and walking off with his ball. The only person that benefits at the end of day is him.

 

[Sunrider]

I'm not a huge fan of Notch by any stretch. He does some cool stuff, he says some silly stuff, but he is nowhere near the douchebag level of Cliff Blezinski.

 

[Adultratedhydra]

History will decide on whther or not Occulus made the right call. Frankly I think they did. It's 2 BILLION DOLLARS PEOPLE! No company would turn down that kinda cash, and it's not like they're gasing Jews to get it.

The only response you're going to get with that is "The money shouldnt matter to them." But then the people who say that probably thought oculus was going to remain independant forever. Poor misguided youth.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Cliffy B, as noted on numerous previous occasions of him saying something in regards to anything, is an asshole.

not whether it's status can count as indie or not.

Is this really what you want to use as a summary of Notch's motivations?

 

[Jandau]

First of all, I don't give two shits about the Oculus. I'm not interested in what it's offering and I don't think it'll ultimately have anything other than a small niche audience. I don't really care if it works out either way.

That being said, Cliffy is acting like a douche, but if anyone is surprised by that, well, I heard Swiper was swiping again...

 

[Rainforce]

He'd kick himself because he'd be missing out on a large user base.

while I agree that Notch is not acting based on perfect financial interest (since he can afford to make these decisions based on his standards/interests), this claim is a bit uh..."steep".
He already HAS a large user base, and there's not that many gamers left to miss out on.
Second, this somehow implies that by adding Oculus support he will gain more users for his game? How does that exactly work? Either you like Minecraft and played the hell out of it already by now or you don't, but the Rift will not change that.

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

So very much. It's a cruel world where people rather want to be people.

 

[Lightknight]

EDIT: I should mention that Notch has already directed us to a mod that allows us to play minecraft on the rift. It already exists.

He had only been in talks about making a slimmer Minecraft version for the Rift for two weeks.

http://kotaku.com/notch-says-hes-canceled-oculus-rift-minecraft-because-1551568311

People make it sound like he was coding something and popped out. 2 weeks of just having started discussing it does not equal serious development. He is concerned that games on the Rift will be forced into weird social aspects like games on Facebook were. But this is hardware, not software that it's being developed on. If that day ever comes then Notch could have backed out. But I get it, he was talking about making a few modifications to the free minecraft version and it isn't worth his time since he already wasn't going to profit off of it.

By making this he was going to support the Rift. Now that it's facebook supported it doesn't need his help at all. So he's going to tip his hat elsewhere. I get that now that I know his version was just going to be a free patch.

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.

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.

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.

On a side note... Why would anyone want to play Minecraft in 3D in the first place? It isn't graphically/visually impressive or anything (quite the opposite in fact), sounds like a recipe for an intense migraine to me.

Deeper immersion. If you're going to build stuff in a world you might as well feel like you're in that world.

Poor graphics or not, it has its own charm and there's a reason why it's so popular. It's practically the next generation's legos.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Cliffy B, as noted on numerous previous occasions of him saying something in regards to anything, is an asshole.

not whether it's status can count as indie or not.

Is this really what you want to use as a summary of Notch's motivations?

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

 

[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.