Cliff Bleszinski Labels Notch a "Pouty Kid" - Updated

[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).

 

[r0seyp0m]

"Notch, your cancelling Minecraft makes you look like a pouty kid who is taking his ball and going home," he wrote. "It's a bratty and petty move and it saddens me greatly."

From that, I'd say he sounds like the angry kid himself, really. I don't really care for Notch, but the last person we should be taking words from is Cliff Bleszinski.

 

[EvilRoy]

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.

Windfalls are great, but if you gamble and win its a shining example that you could have easily completely lost. And if you have experience gambling then you must realize that the losses vastly outnumber the wins. If my financial standing vastly increases thanks to random luck then great, but I would pull that stock at the first chance I get because it is money that is waiting to be lost.

Moreover if I see large fast changes in value of stock, then it is a sign that the stock is very volatile - something I don't typically buy into due to the issues I mentioned above. If I invested in a company and it turns out to be volatile, not only don't I want my money in it, but I also need to re-evaluate the decision making process that lead me to drop money into it in the first place. So basically for me, and other conservative traders, sudden large changes in value is a sign that somewhere up the line we fucked up.

 

[Cerebrawl]

One would hope that such a staunch defender of "gimme mine" as Cliffy B is to actually be supportive of what is, besides laudable ethics, a smart move from a purely business standpoint.

Because Cliffy B is a whiny brat, who also has a financial stake as an investor in Oculus.

Seriously, everything I've ever heard from him has been whiny entitled bullshit, he's an industry joke, and the only reason he's still quoted by any media is that the garbage he spews forth makes for good clickbait.