Topic: Peter Molyneux is going to shut up

[PyroMenace]

He's walking away from the press for good.

Some background for those that haven't heard recently. Over the passed couple days, the press has been all over him and his project Godus which came out of that iOS thing called Curiosity. After about a year, the game isn't looking good at all and many of it's features have been cut back and more have yet to even show up as promised. Obviously backers are pissed.

It's actually kind of depressing. He's pretty self aware of his reputation and acknowledges he does go over his head on projects. So on one hand sure, he kind of did this to himself, on the other, the dicks of the internet will do what they do best by going too far and threaten his life and family.

In my opinion, if people knew better, they shouldn't have backed that project in the first place because of Molyneux's habits. Anyway, I do wish him the best of luck, he has made some pretty awesome games.

[Quemaqua]

I feel bad for him. One could easily get upset and see it as his own mess, which it is, but I still think he's a likeable human being who just never learned how to turn off his brain and its many ideas when it came time to talk to the public. It's also a shame that he never quite had the time or talent under him to make some of his ideas turn out the way he wanted. I think he's a good designer in principle, and you can't lay the blame solely on him for some of his games not turning out quite as envisioned. If the team can't make an idea work while the idea itself seems like a good one, then part of the blame has to go to them for some of these features ending up on the chopping block.

Either way, I think if he does stop talking to the press it would be the best thing. Have someone else in his company act as press liaison maybe, and work harder to just keep things under wraps. Because honestly, a lot of his games would have been better received and more "impressive" had we not thought they'd be more than they ended up. Most of his games really weren't bad. They just weren't as good as their imagined potential. I've largely stopped paying attention to him just because he wasn't doing anything I cared about all that much, but I still think Godus actually has potential to be a pretty solid game. It seems like what's there is pretty good, it's just missing combat and multiplayer, which are sort of essential to what most people expect (though me personally, I couldn't care less about either one ... I enjoy the combat elements of god-games the least, generally, and multiplayer doesn't traditionally sway me one way or the other).

I wish him luck. The internet certainly is a bag of dicks. Even if you can't stand the way the guy has handled things, and who would blame you, you can still voice your displeasure without being a complete asshole or threatening violence.

[K-man]

Molyneux is one of those guys that needs to be reigned in.  In no way should he ever be in charge.  I find him a likable enough person, but think he's exhausted most of his good will with gamers.  I enjoyed quite a few of his games, but then I was able to avoid buying into the hype for the most part.

But really, dude, just shut up and let your games do the talking.  Don't promise anything.

[W7RE]

Rock, Paper, Shotgun did a particularly brutal interview with him around the same time. I can only read what I've seen quoted though because for some reason I can't get the page to load. The interview starts out something like "Are you a pathological liar?"

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/13/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter/

[Quemaqua]

You can get to it from the site itself, not so much from the link.

It's a pretty shitty interview, honestly, and if that were me, I'd be way too ashamed to print the thing in its entirety. Which is much less a defense of Molyneux and more a criticism of the interviewer. Jesus.

Some of it is sort of backward, too. He talks a lot about 22Cans "taking people's money", but that's what Kickstarter is. There's never any guarantee of a finished product. You aren't buying a game, nor are you really and truly promised anything, you're investing in something that you want to see exist. Just because people have turned it into a preorder machine doesn't mean that's what it actually is. And it's entirely fair for people to still be waiting on physical rewards and such. There's generally not a promised timeframe and the game isn't finished being developed (and it's not that uncommon for another revenue stream to need to kick in before some of those things really get going in earnest). I've backed only a few projects, many of which have been ongoing for years now, and I'm still waiting on rewards.

Peter Molyneux: They, they, they actually did make me realise that I hadn’t checked up on it, it’s true. I am a very flawed human being, as you are pointing out, and I totally accept that I’m a flawed human being.

RPS: Everyone’s a flawed human being, that’s not my point at all.

What is his point? Molyneux may have really failed to live up to expectations here, but so what? I mean fuck, if every person who came up short or went over budget got grilled like this, the entertainment press in general would be pretty unpleasant. I think this interview crossed a number of lines a number of times and really was just kind of taking a piss on the poor guy. I've been as critical of him as anyone in terms of how he's handled stuff, and again, I don't really even have that much interest in the games that he makes or has made for the last decade, but I don't think he deserved that interview.

[W7RE]

Yea, see, if you wanted to approach the same interview in a more respectful manner, that opening question could have been more like: "Are you aware of the general of the opinion by some that you are a pathological liar?", with a possible follow up along the lines of, "you understand why people might think this, don't you?" and then bring up examples. This would tackle the accusation of him being a pathological liar, without really coming out and calling him one to his face.

I'm not defending Molyneux here (I don't really care, I've never been into his games so I've never been "burned" by him"), but you can make a point without being so confrontational. But hey, I guess that's just a product of spending too much time on the internet.

[MysterD]

Hasn't Molyneux said this before that he'll stop talking to the press?

I really don't think it's in him to "Shut up". He just loves being the hype-man, talking about his games & what he's working - even if the end product is much different than what he originally planned and/or lacks features he had planned; i.e. see Black & White 1 and Fable series. Namely, b/c his scope on his games are usually utterly ridiculous. I just honestly think he loves what he does so much, he doesn't know how to filter anything. He dreams big and actually tells us everything, unlike most in the industry.

So, yeah - I'll believe it (him stopping to talk to the press) when I actually see it...i.e. he release a game w/ not releasing much info about it out there.

[Cobra951]

I've never felt burned by Molyneux either.  I liked the Fable games for what they were.  I think most internet pricks who throw around the word "entitled" like confetti have no idea what it means; but in this case, they'd be right.  What makes so many idiots feel so entitled to get everything that comes out of his mouth?

I found an equally non-working link to that interview at another site yesterday.  I didn't bother to find my own way to it then, but maybe I will now . . .

Edit:  Actually, the link here works just fine.  I was going on what Que said.  Maybe it is the same, but got fixed?  Doesn't matter.  Off to read it.

Edit 2:  The interviewer is clearly not impartial.  He's browbeating his subject, which is unprofessional.  I'm surprised Molyneux took it so well.  It's an interesting read.  From personal experience, I know how impossible it is to know how long software development is going to take.  What ends up happening is that you end up working way more hours per day than healthy, and the end result still has some compromises.  I sympathize with him on that.  On the other hand, saying a game like this was going to be done in seven months is ridiculous.  (Did he say that, or did he just say an alpha build would be out in 7 months?  I don't know the backstory at all here.)  He definitely should know some ballpark timelines after 30 years.  Saying he doesn't, then using house repairs as an example strikes me as disingenuous, or skirting the issue.

I don't know.  I can see it from both sides, in the case of Godus anyway.  That whole fiasco would have pissed me off if I had been an eager backer.

Edit 3:  And it goes on and on, like torture.  Wow.  The last half of it was wholly unnecessary.  Molyneux wasn't being interviewed; he was getting hanged.  OK, so the guy says a lot more than he should, and has a manipulative attitude toward the truth.  Not excusing that, but I don't think he deserved this kind of treatment.

[gpw11]

Holy shit, that interview.  I don't really have an opinion on Peter Molyneux - I've liked his games that I've played, that's it.  I thought Fable would be more than what it ended up being, but that's just kind of the name of the game with these things and seeing that I'm not 18 now I understand that a lot better.   

Walking away from reading that interview, however, I have way more respect for the man.  That interviewer was terrible.  Absolutely astonishingly bad.  Like, I don't even know what he was trying to accomplish but he just comes off as a complete prick.  He doesn't try to understand when Molyneux tries to explain the logistics of the industry and delivery of the product, he just tries to grind the guy down - "you were at the Mayfair for 6 hours!  You go to events!"  And why?  Because a fucking kickstarter project (that hasn't been abandoned) hasn't produced the product he wanted to date. 

The interviewer in another article said something like "The game changes when it's the gamer's money you ran off with!" Right, it does - when gamers literally just give you money over kickstarter there are far less controls in place.  As much as the interviewer and all his neck-beard brethren want to believe that we live in this magical new world where creative departments can directly appeal to the fans to fund their projects without any downside, it's simply not the case.    There's a huge difference between "I better hit this milestone or I might piss off the small select portion of my fanbase who decided to give me money for a product which doesn't exist yet" and "I better hit this milestone or else the publisher will cut funding and implement the clause in my contract to levy penalties against me".  This "brave new world" is full of shoddy Kickstarter project, unrealized products, vaporware, and shit quality Greenlight projects and naive idiots like this interviewer aren't catching on.

The interviewer's indignation may be heartfelt but really at the end of the day it comes down to this:  You gave Peter Molyneux a long leash and you knew who you were dealing with. You took a gamble and you lost, but don't pretend the guy conned you or took your money and ran; take some credit for your naivety.   This guy comes out hard and like an asshole and I think he's doing it because he thinks he's standing up for the rights of the consumer, which sure, I guess in a way he is - BUT he's also living in a fucking fantasy world, I'm guessing because he's a video games journalist and doesn't actually have any real perspective outside of blog posts.

Also, he's an asshole. I feel that the interview would have been more effective if he stuck to more neutral language and tone while still addressing the same subject matter.  As it is, being someone who doesn't give a fuck, three questions in and I already think he's too emotionally invested to properly serve his function.  By the end of it I just felt that he had that "entitled" attitude Cobra mentioned and that really took the focus away from why exactly it is that Peter Molyneux's products at delivery are so much different than they were at conception and development.   This does nothing to convince me that I'm wrong in my opinion that the videogame journalism industry is infantile at best.
 

[Cobra951]

No question the interviewer was a scathing asshole.  I need to remember his name (John Walker), so I treat anything he says in the future with the hostility he deserves.

Here is a related story focusing on Kickstarter as promoting over-promising and under-delivering.

[MysterD]

I've never felt burned by Molyneux either.  I liked the Fable games for what they were.  I think most internet pricks who throw around the word "entitled" like confetti have no idea what it means; but in this case, they'd be right.  What makes so many idiots feel so entitled to get everything that comes out of his mouth?

Oh, I absolutely loved Fable 1: TLC + even liked Fable 3 (despite my laundry list of complaints with it). Damn, I wish Fable 2 would get a PC port!
As great as Fable 1 was - Fable series still never got those trees that would actually grow & age over time + other AI heroes running in the game-world along w/ you.

I loved Black + White 1 for the first few islands, but after 10 hours - was bored & tossed in the towel.
And same thing happened w/ Black & White 2 - loved about my 1st 10 hours with it, then I felt game was still going and got repetitive; and I threw the towel in.

But, damn - did John Walker totally + brutally take on Molyneux head-on. Some of it, fair (i.e. questioning about the over-promising + under-delivering); some of it, unfair (i.e. "Are you a pathological liar?" opening). And Molyneux stood in there like a champ, dancing & evading some of his questions + flat-out answering some of them. Molyneux just took the beating and wouldn't quit no matter what, standing in there like a warrior until that interview was done. One of the most passionate interviews from both sides w/ opposing views, that I've ever read in gaming.

[K-man]

Fable 2 getting a PC release is one of the very few things keeping me in possession of a 360.

[Quemaqua]

Very interesting article, Cobra, thanks for the link. That's pretty much how I've felt about it. It's like people don't understand what Kickstarter actually is.

[MysterD]

All Kickstarter is, to me, is place for us fans to try to help fund games fully + partially & to also get my pre-order in.

If you DO NOT care much about the outcome of a game, features it may have or not have, cancellations of reward teirs, etc - and you want to fund these guys so they at least hopefully get something to fruition, go right ahead. This is what you're getting into, if you want to help fund these projects. Nothing is guaranteed here.

I'm not much on buying Early Access stuff (like Steam sells), either. No thanks. Not unless the game's ridiculously cheap, in a sale price.

Me, I'd rather at least wait for product to be (supposedly) Version 1.0 - and even then, I often still won't buy ASAP. Game-buyers who buy early get so boned these days so often, it ain't even funny.  Even these days, with games feeling often so cut-up where full games wind-up w/ tons of DLC's, I don't even like buying games near or close to its original V 1.0 release - unless it's a game that likely has tons of content + hours involved (think of a Bethesda RPG or BioWare RPG).

Even then, we still get games that get HD Re-Releases w/ Every DLC + Extra Content/Changes, that screw Original version owners, especially if they bought DLC's on original versions - see HD re-releases of Sleeping Dogs: Definitive + Deus Ex: HR Director's Cut, and Dark Souls 2's upcoming HD re-release edition, for starters.

[Quemaqua]

That doesn't necessarily screw anyone. Dark Souls 2 is getting a graphical upgrade on systems it wasn't originally available on with the exception of PC, it will include all the released DLC plus new content, and all the old content will be re-tooled to be, in the developer's own words, a very different game from the one that was originally released (DLC monsters and weapons will be spread through the normal campaign, monster placement will have changed, etc.). I do find most of these re-releases to be a case of annoying double-dipping, but I don't think it's fair to throw that at the new DSII edition. Given what we've been told, I want to finish my run through the old version AND pick up the new one.

Regardless, I don't think there's anything wrong with Kickstarter or early access games if you're going into it with the right attitude. It should only be for something you consider truly special that you really just want to exist and are paying a few bucks to help ensure that it does, not just trying to buy another game that looks sort of cool. For instance, I backed Darkest Dungeon because it was an amazing premise, very unique in that premise and just about everything from gameplay to artwork to core design ideology, and the people seemed like the kind of people one could trust to carry it through. I really loved what that game was trying to do and I wanted it to exist, so I jumped in. Given the state that Diablo 3 was in for quite a while, I was painfully aware of a lack of solid action RPGs in that vein, so I backed Grim Dawn for a lot of the same reasons, even though the game itself probably isn't quite as "special". I somewhat regret that now because of the fact that D3 turned out to have fixed its most glaring issues and now gives me what I want out of a game of that type, and so Grim Dawn, while still a cool-looking game and one I will probably enjoy playing, is no longer the big deal for me that it was when I invested in it. But I already chalked that money up as lost the minute I spent it, because I was simply making a choice at the time to give some help toward something I wanted to see happen. It's nice that I'll get a copy of the game, but that was far secondary to the fact that I just felt like the game should exist.

[MysterD]

That doesn't necessarily screw anyone. Dark Souls 2 is getting a graphical upgrade on systems it wasn't originally available on with the exception of PC, it will include all the released DLC plus new content, and all the old content will be re-tooled to be, in the developer's own words, a very different game from the one that was originally released (DLC monsters and weapons will be spread through the normal campaign, monster placement will have changed, etc.). I do find most of these re-releases to be a case of annoying double-dipping, but I don't think it's fair to throw that at the new DSII edition. Given what we've been told, I want to finish my run through the old version AND pick up the new one.

It's one thing on the consoles, since platforms change & they don't offer backward compatibility anymore on new consoles - but it's another story entirely on the PC. Our games on the PC, ranging from very old to brand new, likely still work here on our Windows platform.

That's exactly it, where you said "with the exception of the PC" - on the PC, this could be sold as a cheap "upgrade" to original-version game-owners via Steam (since DS1+2 officially now only use Steam) - should be a better discount for those who own original DS2 base-game, even more so for DS2 base-game + some DLC owners on the original version + the highest for those who own the entire game + All DLC's / Season Pass, as well. If they actually do go this route, I doubt the discount will be anything worth re-buying the game for ASAP, anyways. For original game-owners of the base-game + especially those who own all of the DLC's, better to wait on new version - and wait down the line for a killer Steam sale, down the line.

Luckily, I ain't bought DS2 original on the PC. So likely, unless it's very dirt-cheap, it'll be a skip. I'll just likely get the new version.

Regardless, I don't think there's anything wrong with Kickstarter or early access games if you're going into it with the right attitude. It should only be for something you consider truly special that you really just want to exist and are paying a few bucks to help ensure that it does, not just trying to buy another game that looks sort of cool. For instance, I backed Darkest Dungeon because it was an amazing premise, very unique in that premise and just about everything from gameplay to artwork to core design ideology, and the people seemed like the kind of people one could trust to carry it through. I really loved what that game was trying to do and I wanted it to exist, so I jumped in. Given the state that Diablo 3 was in for quite a while, I was painfully aware of a lack of solid action RPGs in that vein, so I backed Grim Dawn for a lot of the same reasons, even though the game itself probably isn't quite as "special". I somewhat regret that now because of the fact that D3 turned out to have fixed its most glaring issues and now gives me what I want out of a game of that type, and so Grim Dawn, while still a cool-looking game and one I will probably enjoy playing, is no longer the big deal for me that it was when I invested in it. But I already chalked that money up as lost the minute I spent it, because I was simply making a choice at the time to give some help toward something I wanted to see happen. It's nice that I'll get a copy of the game, but that was far secondary to the fact that I just felt like the game should exist.

D3 with the Loot 2.0 Patch + especially with RoS totally revamped the PC version and finally made it great. Still sucks that it requires always online connection on the PC version, though.

I have no problem w/ people backing dev's to get a game going - but, they should know & realize what the hell they're getting into, if they want to go this route. Don't expect miracles + promises might be broken. A lot of stuff often winds up on the cutting room floor or even ends up completed as DLC's these days, but w/ Kickstarter - probably b/c they're often so open about they want to do, who knows if it'll all come to fruition.