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

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Molyneux and Bullfrog pretty much defined 90's PC gaming, and reading that quite painful article that repeatedly badgered the same tired point in the name of 'sticking one to the man' was simply needless. Sad state of affairs when journalists need to attack industry giants just to retain credibility.

Molyneux hasn't been a giant since the 90's, he's an irrelevant leftover today and the only reason any of his entourage cuts him some slack is because of Bullfrog. Yeah, those were awesome days but the man's basically a lying conman at this point so there's every reason to hit him hard and make sure he doesn't get up again.

I guess I still have enough fondness for Bullfrog to forgive Molyneux his, er, 'eccentricities'. The wild ideas, the tall tales, the outlandish ambition, they're kinda what you expect with Molyneux. I'm not saying he deserves a free pass from getting called on his wild claims, I'm just saying that this article came across more as bullying than an interview.

EDITed because of words.

>snip<

1) How is Molyneux still a 'giant' after 4 fable games and other mess ups?

2) Yes the reporter went at him probably harder than he should have but Molyneux also don't have this 'credibility' you speak of.

Side note I'd love the reporter to go after Capcom next.

I can't comment as to the Fable games but regardless of what the guy is doing now it doesn't change what he has done in the past. Romero and Carmack haven't exactly covered themselves in glory in recent years, but that doesn't diminish their past accomplishments. And I was commenting as to the reporter's credibility, not Molyneux's - seemed he was just trying to score cheap points by having a pop at the guy.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

It's a piece of trash being interviewed by piece of trash

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.

Probably because this is the umpteenth time Molyneux has done this.

He's gone back on promises, but isn't this the first time he's received money for a kickstarter project?

 

[And Man]

It's a piece of trash being interviewed by piece of trash

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.

Probably because this is the umpteenth time Molyneux has done this.

He's gone back on promises, but isn't this the first time he's received money for a kickstarter project?

Yes, but after delivering so many games without promised features, he should have a general idea of what he can do with a set budget in a set amount of time, where as the other people didn't have as much design experience as him (or experience without a publisher in Schafer's case, and while he didn't get an interview like this, he still received a lot of backlash).

 

[Qizx]

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...

Opening with "are you a pathological liar?" is ALWAYS unprofessional unless you're a lawyer and you're using that as a defense for your client.

Seriously this guy does need to be held accountable but for crying out loud if you start an interview with a COMPLETE insult (Based in reality or not) don't expect a good response. It was terrible interviewing and one of the least professional things I've read in a while.

 

[Haerthan]

It's a piece of trash being interviewed by piece of trash

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.

I mean after all, when Max Tempkin was accused of rape it was a big deal to RPS.
Instead we get complaints about female bodies in games made by Blizzard and CDProjekt.

Oh yeah, because last time people asked them to be objective we got this
https://twitter.com/botherer/status/511485177051512832

John Walker can fuck off.

Tim Schaefer's games we are getting them at least, this trainwreck that was shown in the interview is one not even EA would pull (and I saw the shit they pulled). I am not going to go into the whole budgetting thing. I agree with old Peter there that you can't exactly budget dollar for dollar. And I have no idea what Yogscast is to be honest.

I am going to ask you for a source on the "She bought a motorcycle with her patreon money". Also Brianna Wu released her game for iPad first, then Greenlit it for Steam. So we are getting that.

Anita Sarkeesian is working and we are getting them. I am quite patient when it comes to such things, university tends to make you that way. And lets face it I have been gaming since the late 90s. Anita Sarkeesian got nothing on Peter Molyneux. Oh and let us not forget that we are getting Anita's videos, Peter's game Godus, whatever hes finished on there right now is what we are getting.

Phil Fish and Zoe Quinn are completely different situations. How about get educated on their respective situations? Cause i am quite sure that Zoe Quinn's game was FREE.

So you just proved why nobody outside of Reddit and 8chan takes GG seriously. Cause of lies and libel (libel is written, slander is spoken or gestured)

Instead we get complaints about female bodies in games made by Blizzard and CDProjekt

Maybe they valid. Have you played Warcraft 1 through 3 and WOW? I have. Dudes had proper armour while dudettes had skimpy outfits. This was really downplayed in WoW, but it is still present. Hell Blizzard itself came out and said that they had an issue with that. and what do you know, it was on this very site http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138500-Blizzard-Avoiding-Making-Female-Characters-in-Team-Based-Shooter-Overwatch-Too-Sexy

OT: Good for them for ripping into Peter Molyneux. Now on to Gearbox and Sega for Colonial Marines, Ubisoft for AssCred Unity, Sega again for Total War, EA for their usual bullshit (take your fucking pick) and Activision again (again take your pick). To all screaming "unproffesional" the guy has been hyping up his shit for 20 years at least now. ANd every single time he failed. It is time somebody put a mirror to his face and showed him the bloody truth. He should at least either keep his mouth shut or just go out of the industry all together. I sure won't miss him and whatever fans he had sure won't either.

Thank CHrist I have no loyalty to the gaming companies, beyond Blizzard and Bioware (thanks for the cheques guys, the new computer is running spiffy /S). Now if this brutal honesty could also happen when dealing with politicians. It would definitely solve some issues.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

snip

My point was that multiple issues surround multiple people. RPS chooses to focus on the easy target. Not that the issues were equated.

Yogscast had an endorsed kickstarter that failed and no one got their money back.
Brianna Wu admits she bought the motorcycle with patreon money, https://twitter.com/spacekatgal/status/561957926500577280

So you just proved why nobody outside of Reddit and 8chan takes GG seriously. Cause of lies and libel (libel is written, slander is spoken or gestured)

yes, because I take issue with these people, of COURSE I must be part of GG.
I bet your next comment will be about my avatar.

 

[EHKOS]

The interview was harsh? No, that's what we should be doing. Not just in gaming, but in politics as well. It may not change anything calling people out on their bullshit, but this is the appropriate response to a situation like Peters.

 

[Haerthan]

snip

My point was that multiple issues surround multiple people. RPS chooses to focus on the easy target. Not that the issues were equated.

Yogscast had an endorsed kickstarter that failed and no one got their money back.
Brianna Wu admits she bought the motorcycle with patreon money, https://twitter.com/spacekatgal/status/561957926500577280

So you just proved why nobody outside of Reddit and 8chan takes GG seriously. Cause of lies and libel (libel is written, slander is spoken or gestured)

yes, because I take issue with these people, of COURSE I must be part of GG.
I bet your next comment will be about my avatar.

And don't know how to respond without a lot of snark and angry gesturing to your link. But I will try.It is quite clear to even a bloody first grader that the tweet is no bloody admission of buying a motorcycle out of Patreon money. Damn those people she hired must be the best paid people in the indie gaming scene. And yes I am 100% sure that your a GGer since you parrot the same BS and libel that the rest of the movement does.

Your issues seem to be based simply in misogyny. When an actual breach of journalistic ethics (Doritosgate, Shadow of Mordor and Dying Light Youtube BS, and Christ knows how many others prior to 2014) GG is silent. But a woman slept with another man who was a journalist(btw unless you can prove it Zoe Quinn can sue your ass and win in court- also might I suggest to stop believing every piece of shit on the Internet?) and shit goes ballistic.

Oh and let us not forget that old Peter has been hyping up his games for 20 years now and failed to deliver every single time. Hell he himself said that Microsoft's PR tried to shut him up, thats how much damage he did. SO yea I am going to distrust the person who bullshits constantly and I am going to trust the people that have delivered on their promises. And btw I don't give a damn about Yogcast, first time I heard of them. But I don't think I need to tell you what I believe of them, after some research right (hint hint nudge nudge)?

 

[Lovely Mixture]

snip

You're projecting hard. You make so many assumptions about me and others that you might as well have created the boogyman.
Someone disagrees or carries a certain opinion? Better accuse them of being GG! But no matter what I say, it won't matter, you've chosen what you want to believe about me.

Bonus points for calling me misogynist.

 

[Haerthan]

snip

You're projecting hard. You make so many assumptions about me and others that you might as well have created the boogyman.
Someone disagrees or carries a certain opinion? Better accuse them of being GG! But no matter what I say, it won't matter, you've chosen what you want to believe about me.

Bonus points for calling me misogynist.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't make assumptions about you and others. I have seen what GG is all about. If your opinion wasn't a clearly parroted line that GG uses all the time, I wouldn't have cared at all. Also comparing Tim Schaefer, Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu to Peter Molyneaux is stupid. Different situations where people are receiving the product they have been promised (and with Tim Schaefer we even have a breakdown of what happened). RPS hasn't focused on them because there is nothing to focus on (beyond the harassment they have received).

 

[AntiChri5]

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...

Opening with "are you a pathological liar?" is ALWAYS unprofessional unless you're a lawyer and you're using that as a defense for your client.

Seriously this guy does need to be held accountable but for crying out loud if you start an interview with a COMPLETE insult (Based in reality or not) don't expect a good response. It was terrible interviewing and one of the least professional things I've read in a while.

If it's true ("based in reality") then it isn't an insult.

 

[Micalas]

What an awful, shit-ridden excuse for an interview.

Don't get me wrong, Molyneux seriously needs to consider looking at how reality works and make promises accordingly. He has repeatedly been bad at estimating how much effort is involved in bringing his pipe dreams to actually work.

That being said - isn't the whole point of an interview to try and get some sort of information from someone? Starting it off with "are you a pathological liar?" is fucking idiotic, to put it mildly. You've chosen to go down shit-creek from the start and the following questions are barely any better.

A better interview would have questions on the lines of "which stage of the development process is causing these many problems? Can those problems show up again when you promise something? Is it a lack of resources or overly-inflated goals that's causing this?", which is something that could provide information, but is still kinda hard hitting.

This so-called interview on the other hand, is just a shit-show. What a fucking prick that interviewer is.

Yeah, that was beyond ridiculous. I'm honestly surprised that he didn't end the interview after the first question. Peter over-promises a lot and there are definitely question that need to be cleared up about the shit with his Kickstarter, but god damn. It's because of things like this that I could never be a high profile person. I would've told the interview to suck my dick and walked off. And that never looks good in press.

snip

Hot

 

[Qizx]

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...

Opening with "are you a pathological liar?" is ALWAYS unprofessional unless you're a lawyer and you're using that as a defense for your client.

Seriously this guy does need to be held accountable but for crying out loud if you start an interview with a COMPLETE insult (Based in reality or not) don't expect a good response. It was terrible interviewing and one of the least professional things I've read in a while.

If it's true ("based in reality") then it isn't an insult.

This just in, saying true things about a person isn't an insult.... Wut?


Also I'm not defending Peter in any way, he DESERVES to be held accountable and some of the questions placed were quite good. However leading with the pathological liar bit is a horrible way to start things off, and I would expect MOST people would have gotten up and left at that point.

EDIT: The harshest insults are always based in reality.

 

[faefrost]

If no one has seen it this is kind of interesting and relevant. Please forgive that it is KiA and feel free to skip past any GG comentary, but the interesting part is this developer talking about the industries reaction to the Molynieux interview.

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2wdnqo/im_sdoctmdplays_anon_dev_friend_ask_me_anything/

Short answer they are appalled and inflamed at the gaming press.

 

[AntiChri5]

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...

Opening with "are you a pathological liar?" is ALWAYS unprofessional unless you're a lawyer and you're using that as a defense for your client.

Seriously this guy does need to be held accountable but for crying out loud if you start an interview with a COMPLETE insult (Based in reality or not) don't expect a good response. It was terrible interviewing and one of the least professional things I've read in a while.

If it's true ("based in reality") then it isn't an insult.

This just in, saying true things about a person isn't an insult.... Wut?


Also I'm not defending Peter in any way, he DESERVES to be held accountable and some of the questions placed were quite good. However leading with the pathological liar bit is a horrible way to start things off, and I would expect MOST people would have gotten up and left at that point.

EDIT: The harshest insults are always based in reality.

A statement with negative connotations is not an insult if it is true. It is simply a fact. If someone is insulted by an ungarnished truth, they got problems.

 

[Flammablezeus]

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...

Opening with "are you a pathological liar?" is ALWAYS unprofessional unless you're a lawyer and you're using that as a defense for your client.

Seriously this guy does need to be held accountable but for crying out loud if you start an interview with a COMPLETE insult (Based in reality or not) don't expect a good response. It was terrible interviewing and one of the least professional things I've read in a while.

If it's true ("based in reality") then it isn't an insult.

This just in, saying true things about a person isn't an insult.... Wut?


Also I'm not defending Peter in any way, he DESERVES to be held accountable and some of the questions placed were quite good. However leading with the pathological liar bit is a horrible way to start things off, and I would expect MOST people would have gotten up and left at that point.

EDIT: The harshest insults are always based in reality.

A statement with negative connotations is not an insult if it is true. It is simply a fact. If someone is insulted by an ungarnished truth, they got problems.

That makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that the only things people should be insulted by are things that are untrue? They're the things that people shouldn't be insulted by.

 

[Qizx]

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...

Opening with "are you a pathological liar?" is ALWAYS unprofessional unless you're a lawyer and you're using that as a defense for your client.

Seriously this guy does need to be held accountable but for crying out loud if you start an interview with a COMPLETE insult (Based in reality or not) don't expect a good response. It was terrible interviewing and one of the least professional things I've read in a while.

If it's true ("based in reality") then it isn't an insult.

This just in, saying true things about a person isn't an insult.... Wut?


Also I'm not defending Peter in any way, he DESERVES to be held accountable and some of the questions placed were quite good. However leading with the pathological liar bit is a horrible way to start things off, and I would expect MOST people would have gotten up and left at that point.

EDIT: The harshest insults are always based in reality.

A statement with negative connotations is not an insult if it is true. It is simply a fact. If someone is insulted by an ungarnished truth, they got problems.

Wow sorry but you're just extremely wrong on that one:
in·sult
verb
in&#712;s&#601;lt/
1.
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.
"you're insulting the woman I love"
synonyms: abuse, be rude to, slight, disparage, discredit, libel, slander, malign, defame, denigrate, cast aspersions on, call someone names, put someone down; More
antonyms: compliment
noun
noun: insult; plural noun: insults
&#712;in&#716;s&#601;lt/
1.
a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.
"he hurled insults at us"

"Speak to or treat with disrespect of scornful abuse" fairly certain opening with "are you a pathological liar" is rather disrespectful.'

EDIT:

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...

Opening with "are you a pathological liar?" is ALWAYS unprofessional unless you're a lawyer and you're using that as a defense for your client.

Seriously this guy does need to be held accountable but for crying out loud if you start an interview with a COMPLETE insult (Based in reality or not) don't expect a good response. It was terrible interviewing and one of the least professional things I've read in a while.

If it's true ("based in reality") then it isn't an insult.

This just in, saying true things about a person isn't an insult.... Wut?


Also I'm not defending Peter in any way, he DESERVES to be held accountable and some of the questions placed were quite good. However leading with the pathological liar bit is a horrible way to start things off, and I would expect MOST people would have gotten up and left at that point.

EDIT: The harshest insults are always based in reality.

A statement with negative connotations is not an insult if it is true. It is simply a fact. If someone is insulted by an ungarnished truth, they got problems.

That makes no sense. Are you seriously suggesting that the only things people should be insulted by are things that are untrue? They're the things that people shouldn't be insulted by.

This guy gets it.

 

[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.

See, if I was Molyneux, I would have laughed and admitted I deserved that. People can think I am a dick for laughing at it but someone jabbed me when I deserved the jab. I wouldn't get all puffy and be outraged at such a claim. I would be aware of my unkept promises I had made because everytime I didn't follow through with what I said I was going to do, I would feel like an ass. Look at how Peter basically "breaks" when he says he is a flawed human being, like that is some hard pill to swallow? DOes he normally see himself as flawless? Why is it so hard for him to admit he is flawed? He has no humility. Which means he is arrogant. "Are you happy, now?" Peter cries out defeated.

The interviewer replies "No. We are all flawed human beings, that isn't the point of this interview" despite Peter thinking it is all the way through. He has no idea what this interview could possibly be about despite it being apparent to each and every one of us. Well, I thought it was apparent, but apparently some people see it exactly as Peter does. He is sure it is to slander his name, but if you look at it, it is to actually get his side. His name is ALREADY being slandered, because of these same promises. All through this thread and EVERY Peter Molyneux discussion look at everyone going "He is delusional, don't trust him with your money, he lies again - surprise, surprise, etc." Here he has an opportunity to show the other side with the interviewer being "devil's advocate". Here is a chance to explain why he has that history. You know what he does? "You're going to drive me out of the industry, you're trying to ruin me, you're trying to make me out to be a bad man".

This interview was about having him talk about his track record and why people are worried he won't follow through on Godus. His perspective of his track record. And he has no idea what people are talking about when they joke about Peter Molyneux. He sees nothing wrong with his track record... well, he gets dates wrong. So you can bet he will continue to promise the stars and deliver flashlights, maybe Christmas lights, because he sees absolutely nothing wrong with his track record. People are just being mean.

When he hypes his games as revolutionary with the mechanics, then delivers run of the mill gameplay - we should all just be happy he worked hard and the bullshit he spewed out just wasn't possible, but hey, thanks for buying into it and making him a millionaire so he can do it again. If you are willing to sell something you can't deliver and get people to buy it, you will get rich in this world. Apparently, that doesn't deserve someone calling you out on it.

*Sorry in advance if I didn't understood your post. My English isn't my main language*

I didn't said the reviewer don't have any right to judge him and express his weaknesses, but not like this.
For example Jim Sterling in my Opinion did a greater Job than the reviewer of RPS.
Also the reviwer could had use a different approche and having the same results.
The funny thing is the reviewer DID used this kind of approche near the end or the interview, but again it was too late.

 

[Savagezion]

I didn't said the reviewer don't have any right to judge him and express his weaknesses, but not like this.
For example Jim Sterling in my Opinion did a greater Job than the reviewer of RPS.
Also the reviwer could had use a different approche and having the same results.
The funny thing is the reviewer DID used this kind of approche near the end or the interview, but again it was too late.

I am sure many will disagree with my view on this but when being honest, I see no need to sugar coat. Pathological liars can pass lie detector tests because they believe the lies they tell. Now, if you consider this line:

"I think a lot of times, especially a few years ago, I would say things almost as I thought things, and the team used to really get aggressive, that they would say, ?Oh god Peter, this is the first time we know that we?re going to have this feature in the game.?

That would actually be a lie. They weren't working on this, this is in no way part of the project thus far and yet he is advertising it as if it is. You remember the Early Access game War Z? Same thing, they advertised features as part of the game that were not part of the game because they wanted it to be part of the game in the future. No one working on the game even knew of the idea existing and Peter just spouts it off to the press as if it were already a planned part of the product. He believes that lie. So, really by his own admission, he is a pathological liar. The previous statement I posted about Peter and Kickstarter that even Jim pointed out in his video has Peter saying he will "say anything" to get people to buy into his products.

I have the sort of personality that finds it very, very difficult when faced with members of the press, and talking about my game, to be, not to get excited.

And like a child, when this guy gets excited, he will make stuff up and lie - by his own admission.

RPS: Which is Linux. You made it a stretch goal; that was pretty shitty of you, wasn't it, when you know you couldn't do it?

This one I will concede to. This was one that is really out of 22cans hands and more on Marmalade. It wasn't shitty for Peter to be unaware that Marmalade wouldn't follow through with things that were all over the gaming press at the time. SteamOS for Linux is still being talked about to this day but as far as I know, there is nothing in concrete the way it once appeared to be.

However, using the same defense being used to defend Peter, it's OK for a "professional" to get excited and exaggerate, no? That does not excuse it, as I am aware I am arguing against that point but it does shine light on a double standard being presented. People are slandering the interviewer for slander Peter for misrepresentation on both accounts.


Another quote I saw earlier in the thread I want to bring up is this:

RPS: At Rezzed in 2012, you said that what?s in the middle of the cube is ?so valuable, so life-changingly important, I don?t want to waste the value of what?s inside that cube.? Could you have done more to waste it?

Lets be clear, the winner got flew out to 22 cans, signed some paperwork, played Godus for 3 hours, and then went to the pub with the dev team. All the while mostly being ignored by the dev team. Then they dropped communication and ignored all his attempts until the press recently called them out on it. Additionally, they have recently presented concerns on the multiplayer Seriously, could they have done more to waste it?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-11-the-god-who-peter-molyneux-forgot

The only thing he could have done to waste it more is to completely never acknowledge the winner.

This article tackles some harsh truths about Peter's career and directly addresses them to Peter. The Linux thing and the comments about people getting their money back were definitely jabs. Aggressive journalism that can easily be turned against the journalist by explaining kickstarter and the past politics behind Steam OS. Everything else though is just cold hard truth. A journalist posing things to a developer many consumers want to see addressed. The questions posed in such a way that its hard to PR speak or buzzword your way out of. IMO, a very good strategy for journalist to employ. Being professional doesn't mean sugar coating everything, especially in journalism. If you want honesty, you have to accept the sting that comes with offensive perspectives. Otherwise you are just employing selective hearing which is a tool for self delusion.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

It's really sad to see the people who should be best suited to using Kickstarter, (Molyneaux, Schafer) abusing the platform.

Very similar story there. Known for being innovated and putting out great products at a time. Now mostly shuffling money and resources aimlessly from one uncompleted project to the next and somehow hemorrhaging it at the same time.

I just hope that the gaming community becomes more willing to hold its "names" accountable. When these things flop again and again and again, the big "names" of the gaming industry shouldn't just be allowed to dust themselves off and start again. Maybe once or twice, but after a certain point, they DESERVE to be black-balled.

And Molyneaux has had more than his fair share of chances based off good-will alone. Peter Molyneaux SHOULD be black-listed. No more media coverage for his stupid projects. No more Kickstarter funding. That's it, he's done.

Granted, this interviewer isn't the picture of professionalism either. But that's another problem for another day.