PlugMonkey Comments

Page 1 of 82

  • The strange joy of failure in Pandemic

  • PlugMonkey 27/07/2015

    @Bander

    FFS. If you can't lose, you're not even talking about something that should be called a game!
    Amen! A game is something with variable outcomes. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. That's what makes it so you can play it again, and again, and again finding different ways to win and lose. That is what makes it a game

    The most widely accepted model for videogames at the moment gives one single outcome that is reached (eventually) by all players. They're not really, by the strictest of definitions, games at all. They are illusions of games. They create the impression that you are playing and winning at a game, but there isn't actually any game there. Gameplay, but no game.

    At the moment, I'm really hungry for more game in my games. I don't think I'm alone. I think that's why roguelike and survival games are so popular right now.

    More of that. More assymetrical multiplayer wotnot. And more losing and starting again. Losing really can be so much more fun. It's the savoury to victory's sweet.
    Reply +2
  • An hour with Randy Pitchford

  • PlugMonkey 26/07/2015

    @ronorra

    Well, that either hit the nail on the head, or rambled incoherently around the nail for two and half minutes before I turned it off.

    It's all very subjective, I suppose.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 26/07/2015

    @Shary_Phil

    Also I hate Randy because
    "We could of been"
    he can't spell.
    Randy was talking, not writing...
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 24/07/2015

    @tennocyte

    At least he didn't start by asking if he was a pathological liar...

    There's so much truth in this interview.

    When you say you've heard a lot about it, don't forget you've not actually heard anything, because you've heard speculation and noise.
    This is true.

    But the most simple and obvious answer is, they just made a game I didn't like. They tried to make a game I liked and I didn't like it.
    This is so true.

    Here's the thing: there are going to be folks for whom it doesn't matter what is said, it doesn't actually matter what the truth is. There are people who have decided I'm a villain and they're going to continue that narrative.
    if those things are the truth and you're not accepting them, then you don't want the truth. You just want me to say what you want to hear.
    This is true, and sums up 99% of the people commenting and comment voting on this thread.

    Gaming really is astonishing for the divide between how much the 'fans' think they know, and how much they actually know about how any of this crap is created. Astonishing.

    Neg away. It won't make any of it any less true.
    Reply +5
  • Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers remake now on iOS and Android

  • PlugMonkey 24/07/2015

    @Maleta

    I read an interview somewhere about how they also auditioned Tim Curry for The Joker, and his version was just too scary.

    Two really, really top voice actors.
    Reply 0
  • Hearthstone's next expansion is all about the Hero Power

  • PlugMonkey 24/07/2015

    @Alnilam

    by pointing out the ranking system that make it pretty much impossible to never win, and that many many people have shown that 100% F2P is very viable.
    I'm pretty sure I never said that free players never win. And I'm pretty sure I said that playing free is viable, just like it is in all the F2P games people are prejudiced against.

    In fact, I'm pretty sure my argument is that is one of the ways they are the same.

    'At a disadvantage' does not mean 'never win'. It means 'at a disadvantage'. I've even said that you are only occasionally at a disadvantage. That not withstanding, the game still monetises people by placing them at a(n OCCASIONAL! MINOR!) disadvantage and letting people pay to get past it.

    I 100% understand that your gf has not done this. That doesn't make it not there. It's there.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 24/07/2015

    @Gigaflop

    Actually you did:

    "I don't get how paying to avoid waiting is worse than paying to avoid losing."
    Oh, Jesus wept. I quite clearly didn't mean "pay to stop losing ALTOGETHER".

    Some cards in Hearthstone are better than others. You're seriously telling me a Legendary card isn't better, it's only different?

    You don't need to spend any money, you just play a little
    Your concept of 'a little' is flawed.

    I either need to spend money or play at a disadvantage until I have what another player could have just bought.

    Even if all the cards were equal, certain combinations are stronger and I would be at a disadvantage until I either bought or ground my way to those better combinations.

    This is irrefutable. How come people have such a hard job admitting it's there with a game they like, oh wait, I get it.

    I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm saying this is how the monetisation works, and it's the same as how the monetisation works in other F2P games people are needlessly prejudiced against.

    The new cards blizz makes are not better. They are different.
    Whether they are better or different, they are still expensive.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @Alnilam

    I know how both games work.

    CC makes you wait, HS makes you play at a disadvantage.

    HS never makes you wait, but then CC never makes you play at a disadvantage.

    Both make you pay to avoid the undesirable thing. Neither is 'better', neither is 'worse', and your girlfriend is doing exactly as well at HS without paying as I am doing at CC without paying.

    She doesn't mind the occasional unbalanced fight (and they are occasional, because most players are playing for free like her) and I don't mind occasionally running out of lives because my bus ride really isn't that long.

    They're the same.

    (Except that there is no expansion in CC that costs forty quid.)

    There is no reason to be prejudiced against other free to play games and not against Hearthstone. They are exactly the same beasts. Mostly good beasts, I think, because otherwise they quickly fail. If ever there is one succeeding, the great likelihood is they are offering a good experience at a good price, like Hearthstone is.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @Gigaflop

    I didn't say paying avoids losing, I said paying gives you an advantage.

    It does.

    I've never said paying guarantees a win, but it absolutely, undoubtedly increases your chance of winning. Some cards are better than other cards.

    How does having better cards not increase your chance of winning? You still need to build a good deck, and you still need to draw the right cards, but you still have an advantage over a same skilled player. No?
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @Alnilam

    If you feel not playing a game and doing something else is somehow more rewarding than actually playing the game then fair enough, but you're a very different gamer to me.
    Aaaaand that's /facepalm.

    Did you read my posts?
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @Percinho

    No, I didn't miss or ignore it. I acknowledged it as being different.

    I can play the game any time, but at a competitive disadvantage to people who are paying.

    That's better? It's not normally hailed as better in non-Hearthstone related discussions...

    Like I keep saying, I'm up for anything, I'm just not up for claiming Hearthstone has some moral high ground to claim. They're all the same. This one is just tailored to your gameplay preference.

    You might prefer taking ass-kickings to just sitting on your hands, but that doesn't make it objectively superior.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @BigDannyH

    I have thought many times that I could have played HS forever and never spend any money on it. I ended up spending money as I wanted to give some money to the devs, not because I needed to. That's why I'm left feeling it's generous.
    That's how all successful F2P games work.

    And if you feel your getting value for money, that really is the only metric - although it's not one that has historically been extended to Candy Crush or Clash of Clans players. They're generally painted as just being too stupid to know better, paying to play games they hate because insidious devs have made them think they have to.

    I think you'd struggle to find many more expensive ones though. It's at the premium end, although I generally find all free-to-play games offer excellent value for money compared to most pay-up-front models. I bet where you and Alnilam have paid 50 quid in a year it's because you've had hundreds of hours out of them.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @Alnilam

    Grinding and waiting fulfill exactly the same role - deferring a reward. Your level up in Diablo wouldn't feel as rewarding without the grind, just like your strawberries growing in Farmville wouldn't feel as rewarding without the wait.

    They are near identical mechanics, one tailored towards players with lots of time to play games, and one tailored towards players with little time to play games. They frustrate and gratify the player in exactly the same way, which is how come a F2P model can leverage them in exactly the same way to get you to pay to skip them.

    You mentioned grinding in reference to puzzle games, but I mentioned grinding in reference to how I unlock another go in the Arena. CC slams the door and makes me wait x amount of time until it reopens, HS slams the door and makes me grind x games until it reopens.

    Or I can just pay to open the door right away...

    It's the same, just tailored to your preference. You would prefer to grind, because you want the game to occupy all your live long day. A casual gamer wants exactly the opposite. They would be put off a grind they don't have time for just as much as you are put off a wait that ceases to occupy your time. The games themselves, however, are playing you both the same way to exactly the same degree. (Except HS is asking for more money...)
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @Alnilam

    Is that the Arena that I have to either pay to get into, or stop playing while I grind enough money to get into? See? It's the same.

    I know you prefer Hearthstone, because Hearthstone is tailored to your preferences, but under the hood it's doing all the same things.

    'Waiting' and 'grinding' are essentially exactly the same mechanic, just tailored towards a casual or core audience.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @Alnilam

    I've played Candy Crush for three years. I'm on level 660. I've never spent a penny in it. It's the same.

    Hearthstone forces me to get my ass handed to me by players with cards many orders of magnitude more powerful than anything I can throw against them. It doesn't happen very often, but it definitely happens.

    Personally, I find that more frustrating than Candy Crush limiting me to one level per day for three days. One pack of cards per day is every bit as much of a drip feed. I don't get how paying to avoid waiting is worse than paying to avoid losing.

    Again, I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's the same. I kind of hoped that the success of Hearthstone might burst people's F2P prejudice, but instead everyone imagines it's somehow doing something different just because it's now hooked up to something they enjoy.

    It's the same and, as these things go, it's a pretty pricey version of it. Forty quid?
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @BigDannyH

    Everything you've just said could be said about Candy Crush Saga, and Candy Crush Saga is apparently satan.

    I've played Hearthstone a fair bit, and I don't see how it's particularly generous at all. The content packs cost as much as full games, the card packs are expensive. Is there anything in the game I can buy for less than £1.50? I've got way more from my £40 in World of Tanks.

    What's more, opening your wallet is undeniably linked to improving your win rate. Pay walls and pay-to-win, I'm told, are the ultimate free to play taboos, but not apparently if you're targeting core gamers directly.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Hearthstone, I just don't see how it's different from all the free to play games every one else is anti-. From the outside looking in, it's not F2P done right, it's F2P done exactly the same.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    Lol. I really don't get the love this game receives from the very same people who slam anything else free to play for being overpriced and 'pay to win'.

    Forty quid? Remember when micro-transactions used to be small?
    Reply -5
  • The Amiga is 30 years old today

  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @northlondon01

    Super Cars II! That's the one I was trying to remember!

    That was brilliant, and rendered even more exotic by the fact that the disk only worked during certain planetary alignments.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    @cowell

    My Monkey Island was copied and I had a photocopy of the security wheel used to unlock the game.
    I don't remember there being a security wheel.

    I remember there being a mix-and-mojo voodoo ingredient proportion dial. ;)
    Reply +5
  • H1Z1, PlanetSide boss steps down following online harassment

  • PlugMonkey 23/07/2015

    The sad thing is I bet every one of the people attacking him imagines they are standing up for something important. Reply +66
  • Star Citizen, feature creep and money

  • PlugMonkey 22/07/2015

    I'd never heard of Derek Smart until this morning.

    These bastards, most of whom were probably running around in diapers, rubbing poo-dipped hands on their faces, when I was earning my chops as a hardcore Internet Warlord, simply donít know who theyíre dealing with,


    Sorry internet. I'm taking the rest of the day off.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @Uncompetative

    You can see why everyone doesn't follow this production model though...;)
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @RPMcMurphy

    Here's an more pertinent version
    What difference does that make? Do you actually think you've made a point there? Wow. I mean, you researched all that, loaded up photoshop, added all those notes, exported it, and at no point did your brain go "oh, hang on a minute, this doesn't make any difference"?
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @Uncompetative

    I think anyone who invests in a Kickstarter should mentally 'write off' ever getting any thing back for their investment:
    Yep! You're not pre-ordering. You're giving something you think should have a chance that chance.

    BTW, obidanshinobi's principle complaint was that development is taking too long. Your approach, laudable though it is, doesn't really address his specific concerns. ;)

    What's your game called by the way? I'd love to check it out. (If telling me outright wouldn't be insufficiently stealthy...)
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @the_rydster

    Nope. Still not a ponzi scheme, I'm afraid. A ponzi scheme is something quite specific, and that's not it.

    I'm sticking with a pig in a poke, unless someone can find a con that fits even better.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @Uncompetative

    Each to their own, but if the only way you can see to get enjoyment out of this scenario is in other people's disappointment, then that's really quite sad.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @Uncompetative

    He's also not paying out to investors 'in kind'. And nobody can 'cash out'. There aren't even any investors, just customers he's potentially hoodwinking with a mis-represented product. As I say, it might well be a con, but it's not even remotely like a ponzi.

    I've already explained at some length what I'm happy paying my 'entry fee' for. I'd much rather this ridiculous enterprise was being attempted than not being attempted. I feel kind of sad for anyone who wouldn't, to be honest with you. I'd can the schadenfreude altogether if I was you and just enjoy a free show.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @Uncompetative

    Oh, I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's just that this isn't one. Roberts clearly isn't paying out to investors from new investments to create the illusion of profits. He isn't paying out to anyone.

    If it's a con, it's much closer to a pig in a poke. People are paying out for something attractive that appears to have value, but might just be a mangy cat when they finally get to open the bag.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @MindFever

    i would say a competent developer makes a game in an acceptable time frame.
    Genuine question: what is an acceptable time frame for a game of this scale if not five or so years?

    And that would be with a team already assembled...
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @obidanshinobi

    Building a team or studio from scratch is a MASSIVELY different undertaking from the regular staff turnover of an established team coming off making a similar product. Notwithstanding the extra two hundred or so people you've got to find and task up - one per day every working day for a year! - working relationships and team cultures take time to develop. Pick your favourite AAA studio and see how long it was from its formation to them doing the thing that made them your favourite studio. I bet it took a while, and they built up to it over a number of smaller projects. Of course he's outsourcing a whole bunch of it, but still, that's a lot of studios to find, deals to broker, milestones to set and review, vision to communicate, and a lot of already established studio cultures to work with and get to gel into making one coherent product.

    Rockstar have that all in place from day 1.

    But OK, let's give him a year's headstart to do that. You wouldn't want it to take longer! The money came in for him to start doing that when the kickstarter finished in November 2012, so from November 2013 to now has been 1 year and 8 months.

    How much did Rockstar have to show of GTA V after 1 year and 8 months?

    I really don't think they're doing too bad. They're over some of the original schedule, but as Roberts says when you add stretch goals and increase the scope, that impacts everything. You can't drive the current module as efficiently as you could if you weren't also sourcing 100 people and getting them up and running on the next module, and the next.

    What I find even more remarkable than the moderate progress they've made is that Roberts appears to still be sane and smiling. What he's doing from a standing start is absolutely, 100%, completely and utterly bonkers.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @obidanshinobi

    It's been poorly managed and planned, it's not rocket science. Go figure.
    It's creating a colossal team from scratch to try and make the most ambitious video game ever made.

    Rocket science, by contrast, is just physics and engineering.

    They have the staff, they have the money and they've had plenty of time to produce far more than what they have done so far.
    Says who? You? Why should they have so much more to show after this much time than already established studios like Rockstar or Bethesda or CD Projekt would?
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @daviejambo

    Amen to that. This is why I funded the kickstarter:

    my goal is to make the journey of Star Citizen's development worth the price of admission and the final game be the best bonus in the world,
    Star Citizen is the ultimate dream game, one I've been imagining since before there was an internet for it to exist on.

    I think the technology now exists for it to be theoretically possible, and so I want someone to actually try and make it. I didn't back the project to pre-order the game, I backed it to give someone the opportunity to try to do the impossible. To make the unmakeable game we've all dreamt about.

    All evidence seems to suggest that they're giving it a bloody good go, so my investment was well worth it and any obligation to me is satisfied.

    Even money says the whole thing collapses under its own weight. Fun to watch, though isn't it? I mean, even the sceptics must surely have to admit they're glad it's happening rather than not happening. Where's the fun in that?
    Reply +12
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @Uncompetative

    You either don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, or don't know what Star Citizen is. One of the two.

    Even if it was a con, the con that it was wouldn't be a Ponzi scheme.
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    Their problem is that their whole development has been transparent. Most games of this scale are developed behind the scenes for three years before they are announced, then released a couple of years later. For e.g. GTA V was started in 2008, announced in 2011 and released in 2013.

    Star Citizen, by the nature of the funding, was announced before it was started, creating the illusion that it's behind schedule when it isn't remotely. By a more traditional development model, you might just now be hearing the first rumours of it existing, then seeing the dogfighting module up and running and getting deliriously excited. Instead they're under the pump for not having it finished already.
    Reply +19
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    @Sildur

    I think there's a fair bit of middle ground between 'awesome' and 'failure'. Speaking as a backer, I expect Star Citizen to occupy that ground somewhere.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 21/07/2015

    Large game in 'takes several years to make' shock! Palace prepares statement! Feature at 11! Reply +7
  • Meet the man cleaning up after the Godus disaster

  • PlugMonkey 20/07/2015

    @George-Roper

    Aaaaand what qualifies as fitting the billing of 'life changing' is entirely subjective. It is. You can keep saying it isn't - I get that it's kind of your whole debating strategy - but it is.

    I saw a guy at Develop this year make the case that every single game you make is life changing to every person who plays it.

    It's a theory! See, in a way, Curiosity changed both our lives. Here we are, having a conversation we'd never have had without it. Our lives have been absolutely, undeniably (ever so slightly) changed.

    Do I think that's life changing enough to fit the billing? No, not really, but it fairly ably demonstrates the grey area you deny existing.

    Your whole argument for it not being life changing still hinges on it not happening, but the way, which still has nothing to do with the intention of Curiosity. It'll do no good, but I thought I might as well point it out. Again.

    PlugMonkey, you sound like PeterMolyneux.
    That is both completely desperate and exactly what I would expect. Someone disagrees with you and your having trouble arguing with their logic, so why not craft another conspiracy to go on the pile?

    You know, your position would be a lot more tenable if we were posting this under an article about how Godus had folded rather than about the man tasked with getting it back on track. You keep saying things like "it didn't raise enough money to succeed" and yet it keeps on inconveniently not failing. Not that I think it would be guaranteed evidence of it being a con all along if it did fail, but y'know, it'd be a start.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 20/07/2015

    @George-Roper

    1) He Kickstarted Godus, going in under the amount he needed to make sure he got 'some' money. Fact. Stated and plain as day.
    1) He Kickstarted Godus for the minimum amount he needed to get it off the ground. Not the full development budget, but how much he needed up front to be able to make it happen once you include all the other avenues of funding. That's what he stated, plain as day. It's just that in this particularly instance the mob have decided that's not allowed, even though that's just how Kickstarter works. It's what Chris Roberts did on Star Citizen. You think they're making Shenmue for two million bucks? Where do you think all these stretch goals everyone has spring up from?

    2) How is that a big fuck you to the backers? Except that the mob have decided so, in this particular instance? It's no money out of the Backers' pockets. Have you heard of The Escapists? Recently EG 'Recommended', 'funded' on Kickstarter for £7,000, released on Early Access. That's when I bought it. Fuck you backers! Ha ha! Elite: Dangerous, I Kickstarted. Then they went behind my back and sold alpha passes! How dare they fuck me over! Raaargh! Attack! Attack!

    I'm on the brink of a facepalm. I can feel it building.

    You get people on board with a Kickstarter, and then you get more people on board as you go with alpha passes and early access. Why wouldn't you? It's so standard it boggles the mind that you could be angry about it happening to you, let alone people you haven't met.

    3) Well, I've finally got you to abandon the "fucked over" bit, so we'll call that progress. Yes, that's right. Nobody got fucked over, so nobody deserved a shoeing for fucking someone over. At last! We agree! One bogus excuse down, a million more to go...

    Your definition of life changing is entirely subjective. I think being a game god to thousands of players would be a pretty neat prize, if and when it happens. If you divorce the intention with the prize from the known development travails, your justification for attacks (which is what we're arguing, don't forget) once again falls flat.

    The problem here is that all your facts my be quite factual (well, two out of three's not bad), but they're also things that are only wrong because the mob has decided it to be so in this particular instance. It's a bit like when you accused me of 'selective quoting', which makes it sound all deceptive and underhand and misleading, but then you realise that my 'selective quoting' is actually just 'quoting'.

    You can't have indiscriminate quoting, nor can you reproduce the entire original text and call it a quote. You find the bit that's pertinent to the argument - say, someone categorically denying the thing they're claimed to have said - and then you select that bit and reproduce it. Quoting. See? It's a normal practice. Until the mob say it isn't.
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 19/07/2015

    @George-Roper

    You don't like concise? Let's try verbal! Verbal's good.

    You're continuing to insist that being somewhat disappointed is the same as being "fucked over". There is no way to respond to that.

    I keep trying, then I notice my head is in my hands again, and so I delete what I wrote and write that instead.

    I can't count the number of potential life changing opportunities I've had that have been somewhat disappointing...oh...sorry...have completely fucked me over.

    /facepalm /facepalm /facepalm

    You know what I do to each of those people? That somewhat disappoint me? Attack them?

    No, I wait for people on the internet who have never met me, or them, to attack them for me!

    Ta-da! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MAKES SENSE!

    /facegin

    Seriously. I can't counter that. It just hurts, right here, behind the deep crease you people cause in the middle of my brow. If it wasn't all so destructive, it would be laughable. And then I could just laugh.

    You don't like the non responses? Righto. A bonus one for you:

    So had someone bought the diamond chisel or whatever it was, would PM have given them a refund do you think?
    No, I think he would have been very surprised. That's what happens when you create something for a joke that you don't really expect anyone to buy and then someone buys it. You know, like that cocktail with real gold in it that costs £10k, and if you buy it, Tony Hadley sings Gold at you.

    It's a joke. If someone is really that rich and that daft and, with no deception whatsoever at work, throws the money at you then, so what? I was talking about the EX-PEC-TA-TION. The EX-PEC-TA-TION was that no-one would buy one and and *gasp*!

    whisperit...noonedid

    It's a really shitty idea for a con if the expectation is that no-one falls for it. I know PM is dumb, but srsly? All of which kind of lends me to believe that maybe the main idea behind it wasn't the con! But, gee. That's just me. Opinions eh?

    There. You can ignore all that too now. I know there's absolutely no point talking to you, but screaming into the abyss is kind of my life philosophy.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 19/07/2015

    @George-Roper

    He was the winner of a supposedly life changing prize. If that's not being fucked over, given what's happened to date, I have absolutely no idea how else to describe it.
    /facepalm
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 19/07/2015

    @George-Roper

    No, the mob made up a whole bunch of theories behind the motivation, and then went on the attack, because that's what the mob does.

    For e.g.

    'The Mob' didn't then fuck over the Curiosity 'winner'.
    Nobody "fucked over" the Curiosity winner. Nobody. You've made that up. It's one of many completely bogus justifications you relentlessly spout.

    I'm not blaming shifting, I'm apportioning blame to where warrants it. There was nothing wrong with Curiosity. There is nothing wrong with kickstarting and early releasing a game. Thousands of other people are doing it right now. Henderson being neglected is certainly regrettable, but is not by any stretch of any reasonable imagination a "fucking over".

    Less ambiguity please, if you know something the rest of of us don't, let's just hear it.
    PM explained the reason for Curiosity at the time. Even did a talk at Develop about it. It was all very open and candid and widely reported on. If you weren't listening then, some wild hunch makes me suspect you won't listen now - hence efforts to explain ending in me with my head in my hands.

    I don't know something the rest of us don't, I know something everyone knows but you are choosing to ignore because it doesn't fit the agenda.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 19/07/2015

    @MattEvansC3

    Where exactly did he say that? Was it here?

    RPS: You asked for less money on Kickstarter than you knew you were going to need because you didnít want to ask for too much money.

    Peter Molyneux: No, I didnít say that.
    It's what Walker repeatedly tried to put in his mouth, but it's not what he said. He said he didn't ask for any contingency money against things going wrong, which they have.

    What would you do Matt? Ask for double what you think you need and then, if all goes well, pocket the difference? That's a nice little earner. Oh, the mob would love you right up for that. They'd love you to little bitty bits.

    So then what is your contingency if things go wrong? If the concept that looked alright on paper doesn't at all pan out to a fun game? Well, you can either piss the half million up the wall with all of your 22 people working on it for nine months anyway and then fold the project, or you can scale back the production to fund fewer people on it for longer.

    Oh, wait, sorry, I'm lapsing into the realities of how games are made again. God, I keep doing that and it's not like it gets me very far.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 19/07/2015

    @George-Roper

    Milo existed. I know a programmer who worked on it for, oh, two or three years I think. It was never going to come out. It was a research project, but it existed. There's all sorts of tech floating about in Kinect projects that exists thanks to Milo.

    My #1 problem with the mob is that they are 100% convinced they are right, no matter how little they know about how games are made or the people who make them.

    Who would knowingly go into a game, with a brand new, small development team, with the intention on losing money?

    Makes. No. Sense.
    /facepalm
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 19/07/2015

    @gravearchitecture

    The way to check him isn't to attack him.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 18/07/2015

    @MattEvansC3

    Peter deceived people with Curiosity by making huge promises to get them to spend a fortune on DLC.
    A little bit more Curiosity revisionism here too. I am not aware of a single person spending a fortune on Curiosity DLC. The last I heard, the whole thing ran at a loss, as was expected.

    Peter then compounded that deceit by not even keeping in touch with Bryan Henderson.
    If the prize was always intended as a con, why make the big promise of being a game god in the first place? Why not just let him post a message to every Curiosity user and and go "I give you a mouthpiece to the world! Ta da!" and slip off with your dastardly gains?

    This entire con artist construct falls apart at the first poke. When projects go bad, communication breaks down. You put off contacting people until you have something to tell them, but then things keep going bad and you have nothing to tell them. Anybody who has ever worked on a failing project of any sort will recognise this. It is an infinitely more likely explanation than the Machiavellian deceit the mob seem determined to come up with.

    (Not least because the last thing PM has proven himself capable of in the last quarter decade of a meandering career is anything even remotely Machiavellian!)
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 18/07/2015

    @winstoninabox

    He asked people for money on Kickstarter in exchange for a promised game.
    That's almost as inaccurate a description of Kickstarter as calling PM a charity...

    He sold hammers as DLC in Curiosity (one was thousands of £s)
    The thousand £ hammers were somewhere between a joke and a thought experiment. Not a single one was expected to be sold, and the last I heard not a single one had.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 18/07/2015

    @George-Roper

    Of course you know, it's because he bigs himself and his ideas up, promises the earth, builds the hype and then doesn't deliver.
    No, I really don't. Godus should never have been funded. It was backed on reputation rather than concept, despite the fact that the reputation in question was two decades of over-promising and late under-delivery. I have no more sympathy for a Godus backer than I would have for someone who'd backed a dev with no experience or track record promising the world on a transparently inadequate budget. (I also wouldn't attack those devs either.) That's all notwithstanding the fact that while Godus might be a)late and b)rubbish, it is actually still in development!

    Or maybe you can explain how 'life changing' the thing at the centre actually was?
    Well, two years ago I'd never heard of Bryan Henderson, and now I have. That's as life changing as most 'life changing opportunities' that get billed as 'life changing opportunities'. And that's, again, notwithstanding that fact that while Godus is a)late and b)rubbish it is actually still in development!

    So, that's one person the attack was in aid of - even though in the interviews he's done he didn't actually seem all that "stung" by the "deceit and lies" - who else was it for? Perhaps you could describe how you, personally, have been "stung" so savagely that you cheered every ounce of what he got?

    Here's how I've seen this unfold: a few years ago the gaming community seemed content to let Molyneux fill the roll of the industry's loopy uncle. He'd come down from his attic, tell us he had a brilliant new invention, and we'd all roll our eyes and say "Of course you do, Uncle Pete!" and he'd sod off back to his attic again.

    Then the mob turned on him, because sadly that's how a portion of the games community operates these days. I don't understand why. I guess inventing these big, self-important struggles gives them some sense of power and worth. Then John Walker lost his mind and decided to side with the mob. This obviously went down very well with the mob. I know that. It played slightly less well with everyone else.
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 17/07/2015

    @sloth09

    I've never read either publication, I'm afraid.

    Walker's piece wasn't simply biased, it was an attack. It had no purpose other than to attack. It didn't seek answers, only retribution, and therefore it had no merit whatsoever (apart from to people who think Molyneux deserved to be attacked).

    I have never read anything previously that was nothing but an attack. I don't read that sort of hysterical tabloid bullshit. I'll keep not reading it too. If you want to do a hard hitting report into what went wrong with Godus, then fine. That doesn't start with "Are you a pathological liar?" No interview with any sort of valid motive starts with "Are you a pathological liar?"

    I'm no big Molyneux fan, but when has he ever "taken people's money"? People give him their money. Voluntarily. Why, I have absolutely no clue. How they can give him their money and then expect him to somehow miraculously stop being the world's most famously dizzy unfocussed over-promising dreamer, I have even less of a clue.

    I've followed Peter Molyneux for 25 years. In that time he has proven, repeatedly, to be a well meaning but disastrously disorganised fantasist. I wouldn't give him my money, but I also won't stand around and bray when someone decides to give him a beating for it. It's pathetic.
    Reply +7
  • PlugMonkey 17/07/2015

    @Faramis I've certainly read everything he's said with a massive dose of scepticism, which is why I never even considered backing Godus for a moment.

    I still have to give him a small amount of respect for not hanging up on Walker after the first question though, because that's what I would have done.
    Reply +14
  • The Hearthstone hand that stops your opponent from playing a turn

  • PlugMonkey 18/07/2015

    @Eraser

    I didn't way it would. I said it would confer a more significant advantage than a pair of fancy football boots.
    Reply 0