Rock, Paper, Shotgun holds no punches on Peter Molyneux interview. (Update)

[laggyteabag]

I kinda feel sorry for the guy. It is obvious that he is really passionate about his work and what he does, but like many other famous game developers out there, he is really good with the pitch, but not too great with the delivery.

That being said, even if the interviewer was a little aggressive at times, he asked the questions that needed to be asked. I couldn't have been that hard on Molyneux myself, so good on him for having the guts to just ask the questions.

 

[Mikeybb]

Ok, they bashed on Molyneux for going back on promises and failing to meet expectations despite receiving enough money:

Why weren't they hard on Tim Schaefer?
Why not on the Yogscast controversy?
Why not even mention Grace Lynn, or Anita Sarkeesian? They've failed to deliver on their projects. Why not Brianna Wu? She bought a motorcycle with her patreon money. Hell throw, in Phil Fish and Zoe Quinn.

Have they interviewed the others in a similar hardball way?

I ask as I don't really go there anymore.
Used to a long time back.

 

[Mikeybb]

His next project could literally be titled Snake Oil and people would still line up to fund it.

Lol, now I want to make a game called snake oil.

A game about trying to con schmucks, with crowdfunding as one of the options?
Business/pr management, where the goal is to deliver on your promises with the absolute minimum cost and effort, then escape clean with your profit?

...you know, I think I'd play it.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Ok, they bashed on Molyneux for going back on promises and failing to meet expectations despite receiving enough money:

Why weren't they hard on Tim Schaefer?
Why not on the Yogscast controversy?
Why not even mention Grace Lynn, or Anita Sarkeesian? They've failed to deliver on their projects. Why not Brianna Wu? She bought a motorcycle with her patreon money. Hell throw, in Phil Fish and Zoe Quinn.

Have they interviewed the others in a similar hardball way?

I ask as I don't really go there anymore.
Used to a long time back.

As far s I know they only have done pure hardball with Molyneux.
They got snarky with Blizzard before though.

 

[Frezzato]

It's hard for me to hate on Peter Molyneux for over-promising on Godus because... well, that's just Peter Molyneux being Peter Molyneux. It's no secret that he is a career over-promiser. Hell, it's baked right into the first sentence of the second ZP Yahtzee ever made.


I'm not saying his games are bad. Fables 1-3 were enjoyable enough, but they feel far short of what he was hyping them as. They always felt like shadows of the game he was telling us about. I remember playing through the first Fable in 2005, trying to find all the cool stuff he had promised in interviews back during 2002 and 2003. By the time the credits rolled, I had learned something incredibly valuable...

Peter Molyneux has trouble delivering on his ambitious promises.

And that is exactly why he is the last person you should be giving KickStarter money to.

So now we have a whole bunch of new gamers who are learning in 2015 the same lesson I, and so many others, learned in 2005. I literally cannot feel bad for people who backed Godus. Peter Molyneux's history of unfulfilled promises was public knowledge, but that didn't stop them from throwing money at another batch of promises.

This right here. I'm with you 100%. People seem to forget that Kickstarter isn't just some ordering forum for a product. It's a form of a promise, and Molyneux's known for bending his promises.

Sorry, spoiler'd your video for space.

 

[PlayerDos]

Honestly this is a terrible interview, I'm really surprised people are going *yay sum1 holding him acountibl REKT*

I'm surprised Peter actually bothered putting up with this shit, I would have hungup after the first call.

Peter knows he exaggerates and fails to deliver, everyone knows this. It's why he needs to be held accountable, but really, some of these questions are lame as fuck.

It's true, PM needs to be held accountable to his shitty hyping (so does every company in the shitty-a industry) and for leaving an intern on a doomed project, but this was not the interview that did that.

 

[Pyrian]

His next project could literally be titled Snake Oil and people would still line up to fund it.

Lol, now I want to make a game called snake oil.

A game about trying to con schmucks, with crowdfunding as one of the options?
Business/pr management, where the goal is to deliver on your promises with the absolute minimum cost and effort, then escape clean with your profit?

...you know, I think I'd play it.

Great! But I'll need some help getting it off the ground. Will you contribute to my kickstarter?

 

[Prince of Ales]

Great way to make me side with Pete. If you're going to kick a puppy then I'll always side with the puppy. It might be a very very bad dog but I'll still side with it because I don't like to see a puppy getting kicked. You want to see both sides to an argument in full display so that a jury can make an informed accurate decision. That's just common sense. So if you start an interview with "are you a pathalogical liar" then I'm likely to side with the pathalogical liar.

 

[shteev]

I didn't find the interview particularly unprofessional. It wasn't impartial or objective, but I heartily agree with it's tone and line of questioning. Molyneux talks crap and he should be pulled up on it.

I wonder how Bryan Henderson would feel now if he'd spent $50,000 on a diamond axe...

 

[Mikeybb]

His next project could literally be titled Snake Oil and people would still line up to fund it.

Lol, now I want to make a game called snake oil.

A game about trying to con schmucks, with crowdfunding as one of the options?
Business/pr management, where the goal is to deliver on your promises with the absolute minimum cost and effort, then escape clean with your profit?

...you know, I think I'd play it.

Great! But I'll need some help getting it off the ground. Will you contribute to my kickstarter?

Sure, just let me get my walle-...

oh you!

 

[small]

while the interview didnt come across as professional. well no interview will when it opens with "are you a liar?"

that said i noticed a few things about molyneux in it, hes completely and utterly passionate about his ideas, he earnestly believes in them, but that said he overestimates his abilities and blames everything and everyone else for issues and refuses to take any responsibility. takes alot of mind gymnastics to say sorry yet not accept any of the blame

avoid projects involving this guy like the plague

 

[SweetShark]

I just started reading the interview and I must say the first question was VERY unprofessional...
It is not a good start to ask this kind of question to a person who indeed made many mistakes to his promises.
Take it slow at first, then "shoot" the heavy questions.
Also interrupting the man who wanted to give the interview while he want to say something, is a d*ck move.
I know how frustraiting is for someone to remain calm by seeing/hearing this kind of contradictions from the Mr. Molyneux, but he is a "professional" and he must remain like that.

 

[Savagezion]

I just started reading the interview and I must say the first question was VERY unprofessional...

while the interview didnt come across as professional. well no interview will when it opens with "are you a liar?"

I disagree, opening with such an aggressive question can be a tactic used to catch the person off guard from the start. First impressions and all that. It put Peter on the defensive, which is where he should be for the upcoming questions that are aimed bringing up past promises he failed to deliver on and his reputation for doing so. I would even say the interviewer did him a favor by opening with that question instead of acting casual and then "shooting" a question similar to that at him out of nowhere. The whole interview is focused and I actually find the whole interview professional.

EDIT: Though I will admit Peter claims the interviewer got "emotional". However, that could be from all the question dodging. For example:

RPS: A backer who pursued the job at your company because he was so dissatisfied with the state of the game. That?s what he said on your forum.

Peter Molyneux: No. That?s not the case. He actually joined us before we released the version, so that couldn?t have been the case.[-snip-]

RPS: Just to clarify, five days ago Konrad wrote, ?From the minute I played the alpha, I could see the direction Godus was heading in and I didn?t like it. It took half a year to develop contact with Peter personally before I was offered a design position, initially unpaid, and then another year working at 22cans to get a position there.? So just to be clear he says that he played the alpha and didn?t like it and then came to work for you guys.

Peter Molyneux: Yeah. And that?s fair enough. And he did something about it.

RPS: No, but you just told me that he started working for you before the alpha came out so that wasn?t possible.

Peter Molyneux: I think he had had a temporary? He certainly came to the studio? Let me ask. [shouting in background] Konrad!

[in distance] Konrad: Yeah?

Peter Molyneux: When did you first come to 22cans?

Konrad: [inaudible]

Peter Molyneux: December. 2013. Is that? No, that?s not before the alpha.

RPS: No, long after.

Peter Molyneux: I was wrong. But it?s not a lie.

RPS: No, but it?s frustrating.

 

[bug_of_war]

Should Peter Molyneux be called out on this bullshit? Absolutely.

Is subjecting Peter Molyneux to an irrationally over-aggressive barrage reminiscent of an entitled 5 year old screaming for a candy bar an appropriate and effective way to do this? No.

While I don't agree with how the interviewer started the interview, nor some of his other points, I do feel as though his more aggressive approach was well needed and more in lines with a person running thin on patience rather than an entitled 5 year old screaming for a candy bar. Peter Molyneux is a constant liar, watch any amount of interviews and then line it up with what is provided and you will see just that. Initially it could be chalked up to the whole "What we want to do and what we can do were not achievable", but after so many fuckin' years of his bullshit you'd have to be as dull as to really believe that he's just too over ambitious or whatever.

The people chomping at his feet have a right to, his company and he promised goods and goods still have not been (fully) delivered. Had it been 10 months after payment and still nothing, some slack could easily be given, but imagine paying someone for a piece of steak, they tell you it will take 1 year to grow the cow to maturity, kill, cut, cook and give you the steak. Only instead what happens is that they keep telling you something has gone wrong, be it the cow, the methods, the whatever springs to mind and you're now 3 years in waiting for a steak you've paid for and still not getting zilch other than say a picture of a cow. It's plain old bullshit and people are entitled to go and start getting rowdy at this man and his company.

 

[TallanKhan]

Should Peter Molyneux be called out on this bullshit? Absolutely.

Is subjecting Peter Molyneux to an irrationally over-aggressive barrage reminiscent of an entitled 5 year old screaming for a candy bar an appropriate and effective way to do this? No.

While I don't agree with how the interviewer started the interview, nor some of his other points, I do feel as though his more aggressive approach was well needed and more in lines with a person running thin on patience rather than an entitled 5 year old screaming for a candy bar. Peter Molyneux is a constant liar, watch any amount of interviews and then line it up with what is provided and you will see just that. Initially it could be chalked up to the whole "What we want to do and what we can do were not achievable", but after so many fuckin' years of his bullshit you'd have to be as dull as to really believe that he's just too over ambitious or whatever.

The people chomping at his feet have a right to, his company and he promised goods and goods still have not been (fully) delivered. Had it been 10 months after payment and still nothing, some slack could easily be given, but imagine paying someone for a piece of steak, they tell you it will take 1 year to grow the cow to maturity, kill, cut, cook and give you the steak. Only instead what happens is that they keep telling you something has gone wrong, be it the cow, the methods, the whatever springs to mind and you're now 3 years in waiting for a steak you've paid for and still not getting zilch other than say a picture of a cow. It's plain old bullshit and people are entitled to go and start getting rowdy at this man and his company.

I agree that Peter Molyneux is a constant liar but I don't believe that a capable interviewer would need to demonstrate that level of aggression in their discourse in order to make that point.

If you want a good example, check out the clip of Jon Stewart dismantling the guys from CrossFire (on their own show no less). It does get a little heated but broadly he remains calm and composed (more so than they do) and point by point pulls them apart.

 

[Verlander]

Never read RPS, but didn't like that interview at all... the interviewer was accusing PM of overpromising, and then at the end tries to get him to make a financial promise to Brian Henderson. It was also full of the Fox news tactic of interrupting the answer when it looks like the interviewee has an answer.

The root of the actual problem here is the gross misunderstanding of what Kickstarter is:

a) You're not buying a product, so you don't have the same consumer rights, and;

b) You're not an investor, so you don't have any investor rights or ownership of the product.

This is why Kickstarter (and assorted websites) are very careful not to have "Buy" or "Invest" written on the money giving button, but rather the far more ambiguous "Pledge".

Simply put, if you pledge on Kickstarter, it's at your own risk. I've not looked, but I'm certain that there's legal wording on the site to that very effect. It's up to you to take that risk.

 

[Erttheking]

Gonna have to echo people and saying that you can't really start an interview with "are you a pathological liar."

You just freaking can't. If there's one thing I've learned over the past few months, it's that you can't just blurt out whatever the hell you want to say in an interview just because people want to hear it.

 

[Verlander]

Why not Brianna Wu? She bought a motorcycle with her patreon money.

I don't particularly want to start a discussion on the other people you've mentioned, like Anita (until she officially quits, or officially finishes her series, it's all conjecture), and I think that RPS are fighting a tenuous "moral" battle if they're fussing over the timescale in which pledge money is being spent, but I'm genuinely curious as to why Brianna Wu should be criticised for buying a motorcycle with Patreon money. I don't know very much about Patreon; always assumed that the money earned was a revenue stream for content providers to do with as they wish?

 

[The Bucket]

Never read RPS, but didn't like that interview at all... the interviewer was accusing PM of overpromising, and then at the end tries to get him to make a financial promise to Brian Henderson. It was also full of the Fox news tactic of interrupting the answer when it looks like the interviewee has an answer.

The root of the actual problem here is the gross misunderstanding of what Kickstarter is:

a) You're not buying a product, so you don't have the same consumer rights, and;

b) You're not an investor, so you don't have any investor rights or ownership of the product.

This is why Kickstarter (and assorted websites) are very careful not to have "Buy" or "Invest" written on the money giving button, but rather the far more ambiguous "Pledge".

Simply put, if you pledge on Kickstarter, it's at your own risk. I've not looked, but I'm certain that there's legal wording on the site to that very effect. It's up to you to take that risk.

I dont really get how that's relevant. Sure, people have a tenuous legal right to recourse in this situation, I don't think anyone's denying that. But people dont have to just shrug and tell Peter that they're thankful he did his best with their money, they totally have the right to be angry at them for their broken promises.

 

[SweetShark]

I just started reading the interview and I must say the first question was VERY unprofessional...

I disagree, opening with such an aggressive question can be a tactic used to catch the person off guard from the start. First impressions and all that. It put Peter on the defensive, which is where he should be for the upcoming questions that are aimed bringing up past promises he failed to deliver on and his reputation for doing so. I would even say the interviewer did him a favor by opening with that question instead of acting casual and then "shooting" a question similar to that at him out of nowhere. The whole interview is focused and I actually find the whole interview professional.

EDIT: Though I will admit Peter claims the interviewer got "emotional". However, that could be from all the question dodging. For example:

Yes, but again Mr. Molyneux had agree to give the interview in the first place. If Mr. Molyneux was very sensitive about the way the reviewer acted, this interview would be a disaster.
If I was him [glad I am not] I would simple told the reviewer to leave because he don't act accordingly.
If the reviewer have a problem with Mr. Molyneux, he should had wrote it down to his site, not directly to him.