Cliff Bleszinski Labels Notch a "Pouty Kid" - Updated
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
...why IS Cliff Blezinski important anyway? I know he did a lot of work on unreal tournament, but since then? I mean, i've played the Gears series a bit, I know they're good. But do you get that much credit for making a cool game, even if it starts a wave of gritty shooter and chest-high wall cover based shooters (and gritty chest-high wall cover based shooters)? I'm not saying he can't speak up if he likes, but I keep seeing his opinion getting on the front page of a lot of websites, and there's just a lot of lead developers I'd rather hear about. Are there really so few interesting (and socially capable) people in the industry?
Oh, and they should've first put the rift on the market before selling it to a company. You use a kickstarter to make the project, give the people the thing you want, and hopefully earn money yourself. THEN you can go and sell your device, or the tech, work on integrating social media, or whatever you think will earn you 19 billion. Not that facebook is really going to bank on this, there's just not a load of people who would ever buy this thing for social media. And i'm pretty sure even the gamers who don't mind that facebook bought it won't actually use it much for anything other than gaming.
Personally, I kinda regard it as 3D movies. Not a bad idea in principle, it might be worked out over time, maybe even become the norm when it's easy to do/use, but the first tries will be messy and hyped beyond proportion.
Oh, and they should've first put the rift on the market before selling it to a company. You use a kickstarter to make the project, give the people the thing you want, and hopefully earn money yourself. THEN you can go and sell your device, or the tech, work on integrating social media, or whatever you think will earn you 19 billion. Not that facebook is really going to bank on this, there's just not a load of people who would ever buy this thing for social media. And i'm pretty sure even the gamers who don't mind that facebook bought it won't actually use it much for anything other than gaming.
Personally, I kinda regard it as 3D movies. Not a bad idea in principle, it might be worked out over time, maybe even become the norm when it's easy to do/use, but the first tries will be messy and hyped beyond proportion.
So they're trolling us now. Such bastards.... Why do we buy their games?Scars Unseen said:Oh my god.... My sides, they're hurting!
While I don't give a crap about the Occulus Rift (seriously, I think it's a dumb idea that just looks like an Ouya and a Virtual Boy had a baby...)
I'm personally glad that Notch dropped out. It's nice to know that there's at least one console that won't have Minecraft shoved down it's throat.
Seriously, in terms of merchandising and spreading the other consoles, Minecraft is almost as bad as Angry Birds, but because Minecraft didn't start as an iOS game no one gives them any shit for it.
I'm personally glad that Notch dropped out. It's nice to know that there's at least one console that won't have Minecraft shoved down it's throat.
Seriously, in terms of merchandising and spreading the other consoles, Minecraft is almost as bad as Angry Birds, but because Minecraft didn't start as an iOS game no one gives them any shit for it.
We've taken designers and developers and elevated them to the level of rock stars. I find it kind of sad, but I expect this level of childish tantrum from them. Especially now that we have Twitter, which seems to bring ut the child in everyone. I expect the Pope to post something about "bitches" putting him in "the friend zone" any time now.Neronium said:
Honestly, I wish we had something more noteworthy than a couple of man-children in an internet slap-fight to read about in gaming news, but this seems to be where the attention leads. Sad, per-pubescent drama.
Has anyone considered that Notch has actually considered the possibility of a buyout for a while and already knew what he was going to do IF it happened?
And maybe, Notch doesn't like Facebook's business policies and doesn't want to be in business with them as it doesn't suit his preferences.
And maybe, Notch doesn't like Facebook's business policies and doesn't want to be in business with them as it doesn't suit his preferences.
You do realize that the Oculus Rift isn't a console, right? It's a head mounted display for use with the PC. It's a monitor. It doesn't run its own software; it can't run games.Strain42 said:
Eh I'm sure a lot of people that aren't cliffy B would be pissed Minecraft won't get a rift support version but whatever it's HIS BALL. I'm Sure he doesn't like Facebook (Though he should probably delete his facebook then) but if he was on board do you know how many facebook minecraft spinoffs there would have been by now? Hell he probably would have pulled out if steam bought the thing.
And ya giving 10k to a company only to build itself up and sell itself off before even releasing the damn product to the public is a pretty big waste of money.
And ya giving 10k to a company only to build itself up and sell itself off before even releasing the damn product to the public is a pretty big waste of money.
I have no opinion of Cliffy B at all but some of the things he has said strike me as hypocritical, didn't he chuck a fit over Microsofts reversal of the DRM policies and used games?
Besides, didn't Notch point out the mod for minecraft that allows the use of the oculus rift?
Besides, didn't Notch point out the mod for minecraft that allows the use of the oculus rift?
Given the details of my post, it's pretty obvious that No...I did not know that. Thank you for informing me (this isn't sarcasm by the way. I do appreciate being corrected on this)Scars Unseen said:
Now I can continue to be apathetic towards the thing with the gift of more knowledge about it.
People who are upset about this are lame children who need a bottle of warm milk.
Calm down. Facebook isn't going to make 3D facebook browsing games.
Calm down. Facebook isn't going to make 3D facebook browsing games.
Because, Notch brought up being upset that his $10k investment helped make a relatively unknown company into a $2billion company. They got there by taking his money and doing exactly what he hoped they'd do with the VR market. They brought their A-game and have been resolving huge issues in the VR tech ever since and that's the only reason why they hit that pricepoint. So in this aspect, Notch is coming off as pouty. He would rather Oculus had turned down $2billion from a company that had the resources to absolutely insure it would happen and in style just so that they could remain an indie hardware studio. That's incredibly unrelealistic. How many small-name indie hardware companies are you aware of that have an international market?EvilRoy said:
And by the way, Oculus already had investors to the tune of millions. Oculus had a board of investors who had put in $19 million (Spark Capital and Matrix Partners each) and $75 million (Andreessen Horowitz). I don't know if the original Oculus team had any say in this at all but these are the people who jetisoned the Oculus into what we see in the DK2 and these are likly the people who brokered a deal with FB.
Notch didn't invest though. Investment generally implies a tangible return. He donated money to a company he believed would usher in VR. That ushering being the only form of return he requested and is something the Oculus team HAS already done and is continuing to be the absolute leader in. Now, with FB's investment they'll be able to keep ahead of Sony's team who has entered a solid entry for the market.
Let me tell you, without this kind of money source, Sony would have overcome Oculus in no time. Sony's very first demo device came in at around an 8.5-9.0 where the DK2 is a 10.0. They're one of the biggest hardware companies in the world if not the biggest. They have an advantage at every stage of the market.
Sure, but that in no way applies to this situation. The comment I made that caused your comment was made back when it looked like Notch had simply pulled a game he was already making for the Rift just because Facebook creeped him out. In that scenario, his reasoning looking extremely pathetic. With my edit I pointed out that it was intended to be a free game made to support the rift as an indie company to another and had only been a couple weeks of discussion (not dev time). The better understanding of the project made his reasoning null. It was going to be a charitable thing and he wasn't obligated to do it anyways. The reasoning of "Facebook creeps me out" is still silly. But all the other reasons I suspect he has are not.
If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, then it would be cowardly to say it behind their backs. Things should only be said that would be said to a person's face.
Moral imperatives are subjective and as such are always available for questioning. It's the objective statements that aren't up for questioning. There's a shit-ton of questionable moral choices out there that lead to a lot of injustice and suffering that really should have been questioned early on. I understand that Notch's reasoning here was in no way immoral or leading to human pain, but I'm explaining that your philosophical stance that an individual's moral imperatives are somehow off limits. Some people are just going to be petty. I don't think that's the case here, but the statement that you can't question people's motivations is terribly wrong at best.
As for the investment. What I do see is that Notch has seen the people who invested a lot of money in the company make HUGE payouts (something like 20 times the investment). But his charitable donation, made at the riskiest time of all, will never see any return for him. That's got to be frustrating. But he made his contribution because he believed in the future of VR and that the Oculus was the force to get us there. His contribution has helped all of us see the progression of VR shoot forward in the smallest of time frames. So what the original goal of his contributions was, was achieved and hopefully will continue going foward. But at this moment he's kicking himself for it being a donation of support and not an investment.
But really, it's the people who invested over $100 million into the rift that made a huge difference in the company's trajectory and are the ones who are making the return. Not that $10k was trivial. But Notch gave it with the intention of the product being successful and made no arrangements for a financial return which may have been an option.
My only hope is that if they continue to develop and deliver the best VR that the world has seen then Notch will reconsider his decision. Not that I care about a free minecraft. I bought my Minecraft years and years ago. It'd just be nice to see his support return if they follow through.
That's perhaps the best thing anyone has contributed to this thread.Scars Unseen said:Oh my god.... My sides, they're hurting!
Facebook is going to shove the Rift into doing what it wants it to do, and what Facebook wants is not gaming. We all know it, we've all predicted it, and regardless of Minecraft no longer being in the cards for the Rift, it doesn't matter at this point. As soon as FB bought OR out it ceased being a tool available to all and is now firmly tucked away in Facebook's dust-collecting corner. It won't be used for anything more than a VR Farmville to squeeze out a couple more pennies in microtransactions. There's no other reason for Facebook to buyout like this, because Facebook's a friggin' social media network, not a gaming network. The vast majority of Facebook's users aren't going to be interested in the Rift.
Not to mention the fact a large portion of them wouldn't be intelligent enough to operate it anyway.
Not to mention the fact a large portion of them wouldn't be intelligent enough to operate it anyway.
He said modern social networking, and you even highlighted the sentence. Stop gabbing on about unrelated stuff that's already had a bunch of research into VR conducted.mike1921 said:
I suggested a skype-like thing, that's totally unrelated to social networking? How can you say that with any degree of certainty? I for one am not arrogant enough to assume that an extremely successful company spent 2 billion on a technology they can't use just because I can't fully think out a way they'd use it. And even if the uses are slightly out of the normal social networking boundaries: Facebook can't do things slightly outside of their current market? They can't expand?SushiJaguar said:
Come on, that guy says a user reach of billions is useless because the MAJORITY of those BILLIONS aren't interested, and you decide to rag on me because I didn't bother to notice a stupid detail that assumes a company spending 2 billion to acquire a new technology isn't going to try to expand?
Seriously , what incentive does facebook have to spend 2 billion just to acquire something that will collect dust?SushiJaguar said:
Facebook is a business. Why would they interfere with something that will increase popularity of a device they are selling? Do they hate money? Why would they even consider restricting development for it? "The vast majority of Facebook's users aren't going to be interested in the Rift", so what? Let's say the vast majority is an unrealistically low 99.9% of active users that's still a million people who ARE interested in the Rift.
It's just doom-saying to not only be suspicious but confident that this will ruin the Rift. Does facebook have a stories history of ruining things they buy out? As I recall the things they buy out mostly act the same (Instagram and Whatsapp).