Couldn't agree with this more. Good to see that someone with the means to support developers took the opportunity to do so.NinjaDeathSlap said:
Notch Turns Down Free Games From Sony, Buys Them Himself
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
For all intents and purposes, they're still an independent developer. They develop their own titles in house and on their own budgets.CriticalMiss said:
But yes I also agree that at this point, given the sheer volume of content they deliver through Steam, they could also be considered distributors[footnote]Indie distributors? Could that even be a thing? They're not publicly traded but does that still edify their status as "indie"?[/footnote]
Which still begs the question: why should this be praised?
I would think that the act of turning down free stuff in favor of spending your own money; which numbers in the millions; would be something we should expect, not praise.
I mean, one can argue that this kind of move is a rarity amongst the filthy-rich of the world, but does that warrant the few times it does occur as being news or praise worthy?
On the other hand, him taking the free games still wouldn't be news worthy. So...I guess I don't get it either way.
[edit]
Just to clarify: I'm not being critical of Mr. Persson nor his motives. I do not hate him in any way nor do I begrudge him of the money he's made. I'm simply wondering why we're so quick to praise people for doing the right thing, no matter how small.
I've never understood this either.Flutterguy said:
Has it not occurred to these people that the reviewers simply can't afford to buy every single new game at launch to review them?
Game journalists and reviewers aren't paid that much. Their salaries aren't high enough to support buying several $60 games every week.
Honestly, every person I've heard ***** about reviewers being "given free games" has always come off as either an idiot that has no idea what they're talking about or as a whiny child that doesn't understand the basics of living on a salary.
Probably less than what microsoft had to do. Are you whining that its not an xbox exclusive, or because its not a pc exclusive? Please clarify your particular bias if you wouldn't mind. (Making minecraft available on every major platform is pretty fair and reasonable actually, even if it happens to be the best way to earn more money)Brian Tams said:
I find it really hard to criticize the guy for earning money, lets face it, if any of us had an awesome multi-million dollar idea, we'd sell it and fill a swimming pool with the money. I really hope Notch turns this money into another awesome idea, but if he doesn't I won't be very surprised. Notch is a bit of an anomaly in the game industry at the moment, but I like to keep my expectations nice and low.
Minecraft started out as a pretty good idea that was executed very well and became a global cult hit, and now we all know the online moniker of its primary creator. Honestly, I hate the guy too, because he's more famous and more successful than I could ever hope to be, but I'm not going to start making up reasons why he's an evil bad guy, I have other game developer celebrities and companies to do that with.
Sure this article doesn't give me the GO NOTCH OMG!!! feeling like everybody else, it seems like PR bullshit to me too, but criticizing the guy for being successful just reeks of sour grapes.
Lol good point, and you're already proven right, people are already criticizing Notch as some sort of manipulator for making a respectable gesture on his twitter account, he should have just said nothing.James Joseph Emerald said:
The single part is what really gets me about this post, like a single well executed, innovative, working, successful game is somehow cheap or easy and not deserving of praise or reward.Exterminas said:
it takes 3-6 years of hard work to develop the skills to make even a minimum tier full game then several more years to actually make the thing with little to no pay off in between. Not to mention the fact that he created and worked on a bunch of games before he finally got one that was successful. Despite the fact that he was invested in making games from the age of 8 he never actually saw any real success or reward for his endeavors until about 3 years ago at which point he was 31 meaning he spent more than half of his life leading up to this product building up to it over time through all of his previous works but yeah I guess you can just call it a 'single' game.
He didn't make millions because he created a single video game, he made millions because he dedicated his life to doing something he thought was worth while and stuck to it through thick and thin for more than 20 years then after a life time of partial successes and failed attempts he created something new that he thought people would enjoy and not some overdone, Copy paste, success formula game overall creating an entire GENRE of games that was previously untapped.
I dunno about you but I'd say that deserves at least a little bit of respect.
I have a certain amount of respect for Notch. Pretty much the same respect I have for other persons who stick to their thing for a certain period of time. Obviously not all of them receive millions as a reward. Obviously Notch was lucky. There are a lot of people who dedicate their whole life to something without receiving the kind of money he made by creating Minecraft. Just think about all the teachers, craftsmen and even doctors who spend decades on their professions without receiving a fraction of that money.Jessta said:
So while I certainly respect Notch for what he did and did not mean to imply otherwise in my post I think it should be acknowledged that he didn't become rich by making some grand gift to mankind or by working harder than many other people (even in the Video Game Industry) but simply because he was lucky.
I can see it now: Someone from Sony goes over to Valve, is like "Hey, Notch really wants Half-Life 3 to get done, and we really want him to get what he wants so he'll port his games to our system... is there anything we can do to persuade you to make that happen?" And Gaben is all "Probably not, since we're not porting our games to your console anymore... since we kinda have our own coming out soon. Conflict of interest and all that." Cue the Charlie Brown Christmas music as the Sony guy walks out of the Valve office, crestfallen.
This is unfortunately the crux of the issue. We get story after story of publishers and developers dicking costumers at their grandma's house on Thanksgiving and people eat that up, but the second we get a semi-positive story, people start with the bullshit. Bad news sells, and you don't have to look much further than here. Misery loves company.2xDouble said:
He should have accepted that bad boy and then raffled it off to his fans. Good on him though, it's a positive attitude.lynx
As far as I understand the "Reviewers Must buy Games, not be given them" Argument. It has something to do with the idea of the people who make the game possibly "Withholding" Review copies of games if a review is not positive.Vigormortis said:
For Example, http://cdn.arstechnica.net/Gaming/dukeblacklist.jpg
Things like this have popped up a few times, and each time has lead to distrust in the gaming community. Alternatively, some people believe that Reviewers will be less critical than they should be, because they didn't have to pay for the game. Which I can understand to a degree, but it is a bit of double-edged sword, you could either be completely critical of a game that you just spent some of your money on, or you can be overly defensive in trying to defend your purchase.
Take it as you will, but I believe the arguments have SOME merit, they may not be particularly true, those are the arguments I have heard, just giving you them.
I recall that fiasco. Thing is, though, that particular occurrence had nothing to do with reviewers giving "skewed" reviews of a game in light of getting the game for free. So it doesn't really play into the prevailing distrust the gaming community has for reviewers.Cecilo said:
Was still a f*cked up series of events, though. And most certainly plays into the distrust the gaming community has of publishers and developers.
This is the bit that confuses me.
It's almost a given that some reviewers, who were passionate about a series or game before purchase, will vehemently attempt to "defend" the game or series as "good" even though the game may very well be definitively bad.
However, this notion that there is some grand conspiracy between reviewers and game publishers to skew reviews of bad games in an attempt to make the games seem better than they are (with the reviewers receiving "free" games as recompense) is utter nonsense.
That's the bit that confuses me.
I appreciate that. Though, as I said above, I was aware of the arguments. My issue was that, in light of the real world, most of them don't make sense to me.