Peter Molyneux does it again: Godus Development "No longer his focus" with features missing.

[Qitz]

So some rather happy news, Roll7, makers of Not a Hero and OlliOlli, have decided to put him in their game as well as


That's not the end though. They stated:

So, along with everyone and their mum?Roll7 read the Eurogamer article about Bryan Henderson. We kinda felt his pain?and asked BunnyLord what he would do in this situation, His answer (selected from Not A Hero?s random text generator)? 'Make Bryan a God in Not A Hero and give him 1% of OlliOlli sales to date, oh and massage a wombat.'"

Nigel Lowrie of Not a Hero publisher Devolver Digital told Polygon that the Curiosity/Godus mess reflects poorly on the industry as a whole, and so it reached out to Roll7 with the idea of adding him to their game instead. The studio was sympathetic and "immediately said they'd do it." Henderson won't actually be a god, nor will he be playable, at least at launch, but he will wield some pretty impressive powers.

Said Blog Post [http://www.roll7.co.uk/#!Bryan-Henderson-is-a-God-in-Not-A-Hero/c7ba/A7625F05-2B95-450B-A98B-37F8C6BDD7CB] I don't know if that blog link will work, I couldn't get the thing to work and their website is a bit wonky.

Nice to see someone is willing to clean up Molyneuxs' Mess. Sure as hell isn't him.

 

[Zenn3k]

People really need to stop hiring this idiot. He hasn't kept a promise since Black & White 2!

 

[Imper1um]

Peter Moleneux: "This is boring, (throws idea on the floor), let me have another!"

 

[Riotguards]

*slow clap* yes Peter Molyneux you'v yet again hit your target for all our expectations

honestly is anyone surpised that he got bored of a project and moved on

 

[Jandau]

Aaaaaaand now he's sulking. [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/13/peter-molyneux-game-designer-interview-godus]

Seriously, I have nothing against a person having games as his or her passion, making stuff they enjoy for its own sake and doing it in a way they find fun. But once you take people's money, you take on a certain responsibility, if not a legal one (Kickstarter isn't a guarantee), then at least a moral one. If you want to try out new concepts and drop them when they no longer amuse you, then by all means do so, but do it with your own resources. And if you do it with someone else's money, don't be surprised if they have a few unpleasant things to say about it.

Molyneux hasn't had a properly good game since Fable, and hasn't managed to fulfill even a fraction of his promises in, well, forever. I was kinda hoping that with 22 Cans he could do more creative smaller-scale projects. But so far, the first game was basically Cookie Clicker and a hype generator for his second game, and that second game was dropped mid-development even though it was crowd funded, i.e. paid in advance. Again, I understand that he was under no legal obligation to deliver, but that simply means people can't sue or get refunds. However, his reputation and whatever good will he had left is fast running out.

Between this and Schaefer's Double Fine "adventures", I'm starting to think that having a soulless publisher reigning you in might not be the worst thing for some people... -.-

 

[small]

i dont believe hes consciously a liar as such but one of these people with great ideas but no follow through. he did put out some original and great games back in the day but his track record definitely shows he needs a structured environment, with rules and boundaries, hes a good ideas person but needs someone over him keeping him in check which he doesnt have when he runs his own business.

basically avoid his products like the plague

 

[AntiChri5]

So is he just like a conman or something?

I'd say more someone with crazy grand visions that he can make sound amazing, but when it comes down to it is never actually capable of delivering.

Trouble is, I think he genuinely thinks he can do what he says, but the practical evidence says otherwise...

Someone with amazing vision, but little sense of practicality...

certainly a 'good' kind of failure at least, if there is such a thing. Not lacking in creativity, but no groundinvgrounding in what you can and cannot actually realistically accomplish.

More interesting than a dull paint by numbers 'play it safe' kind of bland mediocre failure, at least...

That's a good excuse the first time. Then it's an okay excuse the second time. Then a bad excuse the third time. After that, it isn't even an excuse anymore.

Making mistakes is acceptable. Making the same mistake every time, not so much.

 

[CrystalShadow]

So is he just like a conman or something?

I'd say more someone with crazy grand visions that he can make sound amazing, but when it comes down to it is never actually capable of delivering.

Trouble is, I think he genuinely thinks he can do what he says, but the practical evidence says otherwise...

Someone with amazing vision, but little sense of practicality...

certainly a 'good' kind of failure at least, if there is such a thing. Not lacking in creativity, but no groundinvgrounding in what you can and cannot actually realistically accomplish.

More interesting than a dull paint by numbers 'play it safe' kind of bland mediocre failure, at least...

That's a good excuse the first time. Then it's an okay excuse the second time. Then a bad excuse the third time. After that, it isn't even an excuse anymore.

Making mistakes is acceptable. Making the same mistake every time, not so much.

Well, it's true, but it's an easy trap to fall into.

Technology is not a static thing.

Consider promising something in 1990, then failing to deliver on it because the technology simply isn't there.

Then you get to 2000, promise something again, and having been lured into a false sense of security, by the now 'much better' technology, you again massively over-reach.

Not that it matters, if you can't learn the lesson...
Clearly at some point he should've realised to be much more careful with what he claims to be possible, but I guess that's hoping too much.

Still, someone that promises the moon, and delivers a small rock is still more interesting than someone who promises a small rock, and delivers a small rock, with no ambition to ever do anything more.

Does mean you basically can't believe a thing the first guy ever says though. Oh well...

 

[AntiChri5]

So is he just like a conman or something?

I'd say more someone with crazy grand visions that he can make sound amazing, but when it comes down to it is never actually capable of delivering.

Trouble is, I think he genuinely thinks he can do what he says, but the practical evidence says otherwise...

Someone with amazing vision, but little sense of practicality...

certainly a 'good' kind of failure at least, if there is such a thing. Not lacking in creativity, but no groundinvgrounding in what you can and cannot actually realistically accomplish.

More interesting than a dull paint by numbers 'play it safe' kind of bland mediocre failure, at least...

That's a good excuse the first time. Then it's an okay excuse the second time. Then a bad excuse the third time. After that, it isn't even an excuse anymore.

Making mistakes is acceptable. Making the same mistake every time, not so much.

Well, it's true, but it's an easy trap to fall into.

Technology is not a static thing.

Consider promising something in 1990, then failing to deliver on it because the technology simply isn't there.

Then you get to 2000, promise something again, and having been lured into a false sense of security, by the now 'much better' technology, you again massively over-reach.

Not that it matters, if you can't learn the lesson...
Clearly at some point he should've realised to be much more careful with what he claims to be possible, but I guess that's hoping too much.

Still, someone that promises the moon, and delivers a small rock is still more interesting than someone who promises a small rock, and delivers a small rock, with no ambition to ever do anything more.

Does mean you basically can't believe a thing the first guy ever says though. Oh well...

Technology is not static, but there is more then one lesson to take away from a mistake. You could take away the lesson "what i promised isn't possible with todays technology". Or you could learn to meet with the tech and business guys before making promises. Or not to make promises, just stay out of it and let someone more grounded or with a bit more distance handle PR.

I got no problem with the guy who promised a pebble and delivered a pebble. Maybe i want a pebble. Even if i don't, maybe someone else out there does. Who am i to judge? But the guy who promised a moon but delivered a pebble? Big fucking problem. Not with the fact that what he delivered was a pebble, but with the fact that what he delivered wasn't what he promised.

 

[CrystalShadow]

So is he just like a conman or something?

I'd say more someone with crazy grand visions that he can make sound amazing, but when it comes down to it is never actually capable of delivering.

Trouble is, I think he genuinely thinks he can do what he says, but the practical evidence says otherwise...

Someone with amazing vision, but little sense of practicality...

certainly a 'good' kind of failure at least, if there is such a thing. Not lacking in creativity, but no groundinvgrounding in what you can and cannot actually realistically accomplish.

More interesting than a dull paint by numbers 'play it safe' kind of bland mediocre failure, at least...

That's a good excuse the first time. Then it's an okay excuse the second time. Then a bad excuse the third time. After that, it isn't even an excuse anymore.

Making mistakes is acceptable. Making the same mistake every time, not so much.

Well, it's true, but it's an easy trap to fall into.

Technology is not a static thing.

Consider promising something in 1990, then failing to deliver on it because the technology simply isn't there.

Then you get to 2000, promise something again, and having been lured into a false sense of security, by the now 'much better' technology, you again massively over-reach.

Not that it matters, if you can't learn the lesson...
Clearly at some point he should've realised to be much more careful with what he claims to be possible, but I guess that's hoping too much.

Still, someone that promises the moon, and delivers a small rock is still more interesting than someone who promises a small rock, and delivers a small rock, with no ambition to ever do anything more.

Does mean you basically can't believe a thing the first guy ever says though. Oh well...

Technology is not static, but there is more then one lesson to take away from a mistake. You could take away the lesson "what i promised isn't possible with todays technology". Or you could learn to meet with the tech and business guys before making promises. Or not to make promises, just stay out of it and let someone more grounded or with a bit more distance handle PR.

I got no problem with the guy who promised a pebble and delivered a pebble. Maybe i want a pebble. Even if i don't, maybe someone else out there does. Who am i to judge? But the guy who promised a moon but delivered a pebble? Big fucking problem. Not with the fact that what he delivered was a pebble, but with the fact that what he delivered wasn't what he promised.

Well, I understand what you're getting at, and he really should have given it more thought.

The with it is when everyone is promising pebbles, and one guy thinks he can promise the moon, the people that would like the moon are obviously not going to be drawn to all the people offering pebbles.

That ultimately, probably nobody can actually live up to that kind of promise, doesn't stop people wanting it, and that's why they keep falling for it.

When you promise something that nobody else has ever managed, you automatically sound more interesting than the person who promises the same thing as dozens of others are promising.

It is of course, meaningless if you can't deliver what you promised, (it would be less of an issue if what you did deliver was still something more than what you usually would get).

The lure lies in the nature of the promises being quite unlike anything else.

That is both why he endures, AND why he is so dissapointing.

Because people want what he promises to be possible, and yet every time he screws it up it makes it seem as though it simply isn't possible. Which doesn't make the idea any less desirable, but makes people lose hope in the thought that such grandiose ideas are at all possible.

To lose the hope of such ideas altogether hurts almost as much as the constant failure to deliver.

 

[Qitz]

Aaaaaaand now he's sulking. [http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/13/peter-molyneux-game-designer-interview-godus]

Seriously, I have nothing against a person having games as his or her passion, making stuff they enjoy for its own sake and doing it in a way they find fun. But once you take people's money, you take on a certain responsibility, if not a legal one (Kickstarter isn't a guarantee), then at least a moral one. If you want to try out new concepts and drop them when they no longer amuse you, then by all means do so, but do it with your own resources. And if you do it with someone else's money, don't be surprised if they have a few unpleasant things to say about it.

Molyneux hasn't had a properly good game since Fable, and hasn't managed to fulfill even a fraction of his promises in, well, forever. I was kinda hoping that with 22 Cans he could do more creative smaller-scale projects. But so far, the first game was basically Cookie Clicker and a hype generator for his second game, and that second game was dropped mid-development even though it was crowd funded, i.e. paid in advance. Again, I understand that he was under no legal obligation to deliver, but that simply means people can't sue or get refunds. However, his reputation and whatever good will he had left is fast running out.

Between this and Schaefer's Double Fine "adventures", I'm starting to think that having a soulless publisher reigning you in might not be the worst thing for some people... -.-

Oooh, it gets better than that. Rock Paper Shotgun got an Interview [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/13/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter/] with him and the amount of "No that's not what I said" and "We've not done anything wrong here" that he starts to spin is just.....wow.

Perfect example:

RPS: How long should backers wait for you to deliver the game they paid for three years ago?

Peter Molyneux: I don't know. All I know is that there are people here that have been working on Godus, that we have worked on Godus for one hundred and twenty thousand man-hours. We have got three terabytes of documentary feature. We've replied to 31,000 posts and tickets. We've done 57 community videos. Do you know how many updates we've done on Steam?

RPS: I don't think anyone who paid for the game cares.

Peter Molyneux: How many updates have we done on Steam?

RPS: I don?t think anyone who paid for the game cares. I think they want the game they paid for three years ago or their money back.

Peter Molyneux: We're trying as hard as we possibly can.

RPS: I don't think you are. You've said yourself?

Peter Molyneux: John, John, John?

RPS: You said yourself, that you should not have gone and focused on the mobile version until the PC version was finished. This is all very disingenuous in light of you saying that.

Peter Molyneux: No, I actually said, "I wish I hadn't focused on," I didn't say I shouldn't have done.

RPS: [Laughs]

He just wont admit that he messed up, especially with the whole "we're going to get 53% done on PC and then do mobile."