Roderick

All aboard the Molyneux crazy train! TOOT TOOT!

Recommended Posts

Is anyone else reading this like I am, or am I completely, embarrasingly full of shit?

I might agree, but you were reading this on gamesindustry.biz, which seems to be a business (or sausage-making) oriented site (although I admit I don't read that site except when something interesting on it is linked elsewhere, so I don't really know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, let me run your theories through my reality-o-meter: Independent comic book company (let's say Top Shelf Comix, run by the lovely Chris Staros). Chris decides to quit his job and run his own company with his friend. They're THE most ethically minded, "for the sake of art", generally cool people you'd ever like to meet. I send them a comic I want them to release and amazingly Chris loves it and wants to see it in print. He, personally, is driven by a love of comics, not money.

Now, he does some projections and, based on my (lack-of) fame, his experience, market factors, etc, he discovers that if they print over 1000 copies of my comic they're unlikely to make their money back.

What should he do? He LOVES comics. He LOVES art. He thinks everyone should be able to read my comic and is behind it 100%. He's not "unethical" or "evil" or anything. Should he print 2000 copies because that's what he believes in?

Let's say he does: He spends $5000 dollars printing and distributing 2000 copies. (Each issue cost $2.50 to print, package and distribute.) He sells them for $3 dollars each (making a tiny .50c profit on every copy), but he only sells 1000 (as he predicted).

He's just LOST $2,000. Basically, if my comic hadn't come along, he could have just flushed $2,000 down the toilet and gotten the same result... Of course, at least he got to publish a comic he really believed in.

But if he did that for every comic then his company would soon go bankrupt. So making money, even for this ultimately ethical, uber-nice person, HAS to be his PRIMARY concern. Even if he's just breaking even and making enough to live on, financial considerations still have to be the MOST important aspect to making a business decision, otherwise, over a long enough period, he WILL go out of business.

This is the only part I'm going to respond to, because it is unbelievable to me that you still don't know what I'm talking about.

There is a difference between doing something where money is your primary goal, and doing something where you acknowledge you need money to operate. For the four hundred billionth time, I am not saying businesses do not need money. I am saying that the primary goal of some businesses is not profit. They still also need to make money to stay open. When I brought up these examples of small arts oriented companies, I specifically stipulated they need to make enough to pay the bills and keep the lights on.. However, there is a difference between going after the most commercially viable works available, and going after the ones that will make less money, but you find more artistically worthwhile, and will not LOSE you money. Am I making myself clear? Money is not the primary goal, but it is still necessary to keep things running. I am not saying companies should, or do, deliberately invest in money-losing enterprises.

Furthermore, your example is not even very sound. There are plenty of reasons a distributor of creative works could choose to fund a project that might lose money if he has enough confidence in the artist to use that initial run to gain a foothold and follow up stronger, catching more people on in the process. A small run of a comic book is not a particularly onerous investment and in a broader portfolio does not need to break the bank if the belief is that the investment will be returned in the long run.

Ron Gilbert has talked about this, including in the interview Jake and I did with him on Idle Thumbs in 2004 (which I guess is no longer available). Based on his success at Humongous, he believes one viable strategy in games when you have a game that sells poorly but that you believe is a strong property is to simply, as he says, "Hit it again, then hit it again." Just keep going, until it finally grabs on in the marketplace. He says that's exactly how he treated Humongous' series.

In any case, I really think I'm done discussing this at this point. I don't know how I can make it any more clear that there is a difference between doing something with money as the primary goal, and doing something where money is part of keeping things running but not the primary goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok! I give up! I'm wrong!

People often give money to movie directors, just because they like their films. It happens all the time and I'm a complete jaded and cynical idiot to think otherwise. Likewise businesses are NOT all about making money. They often just like making the world a better place and, hey, if they just happen to earn some mulah along the way, then groovy baby.

Also businesses whose primary focus is NOT about making money exist and thrive everywhere.

I'm a hardened, jaded and cynical, and what I have to say has nothing to do with own personal experiences, nor my movie-making friends' experiences.

I just made it up to annoy you all. My humblest apologies.

I would like to address several inconsequential issues that will bug me if I don't:

The reason Top Shelf Comics exists is not getting a single individual independent comic book in front of 2000 people, it is getting as many such small independent comics in front of as many people as possible—funding permitting. Their business model is a constraint that Chris isn't choosing to ignore—but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that they could be doing what they're doing because they want these little comics to have a venue, rather than simply making money. If they make money, great, if they don't, too bad, they tried.

When did I "ignore" that fact, exactly? I made it clear that Chris's motivations were his love of comics, not money. I know this because I've had the opportunity to talk to him about it, and he genuinely is that cool of a guy. Also, they don't release "niche crap".

This hypothetical comic situation is silly. You are again thinking of everything as a short term investment. Hardly anyone's first 32 page comic is going to sell at all.

I can't even begin to explain what's so incredibly wrong with this sentence. It's like going, "but WHY has Judy got two oranges, and WHY did someone give her another one? Who cares that she's got three oranges, I need to know the whole situation!". FYI, my hypothetical comic was 300 pages long.

Also, thanks for explaining why Gilliam made Brothers Grimm.

David Lynch, for example, funds all his shit from largely independent artsy fartsy channels. People who invest in his films don't expect to make mad money off them. They just want to see him making more films.

Fuck me, this quote made me angry. It's the height of obnoxious ignorance. I happen to be reasonably well connected with Lynch, although I've never met him personally.

Please explain more of this intimate knowledge you have of how his films are funded through "artsy farsty" channels.

(Hint: StudioCanal is not an "artsy fartsy" channel, it's a fucking huge French distribution company.)

(Here's another hint: Lynch's movies do VERY well in France.)

I'm eager to learn more, though.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People often give money to movie directors, just because they like their films. It happens all the time and I'm a complete jaded and cynical idiot to think otherwise. Likewise businesses are NOT all about making money. They often just like making the world a better place and, hey, if they just happen to earn some mulah along the way, then groovy baby.

You're being sarcastic, but this is exactly how theatre works. There's a reason they're called "angel investors." Lots of arts funding works this way.

I made it clear that Chris's motivations were his love of comics, not money.

Sounds to me like money is not his business' primary goal, but rather simply a means to achieving the actual goal.

I can't even begin to explain what's so incredibly wrong with this sentence. It's like going, "but WHY has Judy got two oranges, and WHY did someone give her another one? Who cares that she's got three oranges, I need to know the whole situation!".

Well, to be fair, I can't understand anything at all about your sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're being sarcastic, but this is exactly how theatre works. There's a reason they're called "angel investors." Lots of arts funding works this way.

Wow. I can't believe you're trying to explain to me what an "angel investor" is. That's truly outstanding. You seriously have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should start with the word "invest" and try work your way from there.

Sounds to me like money is not his business' primary goal, but rather simply a means to achieving the actual goal.

Money is the businesses primary goal, love of comics is Chris's primary motivation. Chris != business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. I can't believe you're trying to explain to me what an "angel investor" is. That's truly outstanding. You seriously have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Maybe you should start with the word "invest" and try work your way from there.

Wow. I can't believe you're trying to explain to me what an "investor" is, etc., etc., blah blah blah. Are you going to respond to the actual point I've been trying to make again and again, or keep harping on the fringes? How about chastising me again for bringing up a cable television example, when cable television was the introductory example used?

There are people who invest in quite likely moneylosing enterprises out of the love of the art--while still obviously also hoping they make their money back and more--above all else. If you simply refuse to believe this exists, then fine. I don't know what to tell you. It exists.

Money is the businesses primary goal, love of comics is Chris's primary motivation. Chris != business.

Is Chris also != businessman? What is Chris' business, if not Chris and the people who work for him? Again, a business only takes actions as a result of the people who comprise it.

And no, the goal of Chris' business (I shouldn't speak for Chris I guess, but certainly the kind of businesses I'm talking about here) is "to publish quality comics." It's not some vague thing like "love of comics," it's a very specific thing. Money is, indeed, necessary to reach that goal and do it over a long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are people who invest in quite likely moneylosing enterprises out of the love of the art--while still obviously also hoping they make their money back and more--above all else. If you simply refuse to believe this exists, then fine. I don't know what to tell you. It exists.

I don't even know what your point is anymore, Chris. Are you trying to say that there are exceptions now? Of course there are. But this discussion started because you were "disgusted" at the idea that a business's sole function was to make money.

Is Chris also != businessman? What is Chris' business, if not Chris and the people who work for him? Again, a business only takes actions as a result of the people who comprise it.

Of course! -- I'm not even sure what we're talking about here... Let's stop talking about Chris as an example now, anyway, because it's kind of gone on too long and he's a real person. Let's say Mr. X.

Mr. X, as a person who runs a company, has to make business decisions. Decisions for the business... If his decisions kill the business (ie. loses it too much money) then he's killed the business and it's back to his day job. Would you consider him "evil" to make a decision that meant he kept to keep his company, even if he didn't want to do it in his heart? (Like say, firing someone he loved working with.)

The business necessitated that action, even though Mr. X loved having them around. So Mr. X's desires are not as important as the business's needs, even though Mr. X is making the decision.

And no, the goal of Mr X's business is "to publish quality comics." It's not some vague thing like "love of comics," it's a very specific thing. Money is, indeed, necessary to reach that goal and do it over a long term.

So you agree that money is a prerequisite then? Ie. Something that's more important to the business?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't even know what your point is anymore, Chris. Are you trying to say that there are exceptions now? Of course there are. But this discussion started because you were "disgusted" at the idea that a business's sole function was to make money.

"Now"??? I have said--quite literally, many, many times--there are many different kinds of companies with many DIFFERENT goals. A company's "sole function" need not be to make money. It is a function, but it need not be the sole function. Do you understand what "sole" means...?

Of course! -- I'm not even sure what we're talking about here... Let's stop talking about Chris as an example now, anyway, because it's kind of gone on too long and he's a real person. Let's say Mr. X.

Mr. X, as a person who runs a company, has to make business decisions. Decisions for the business... If his decisions kill the business (ie. loses it too much money) then he's killed the business and it's back to his day job. Would you consider him "evil" to make a decision that meant he kept to keep his company, even if he didn't want to do it in his heart? (Like say, firing someone he loved working with.)

The business necessitated that action, even though Mr. X loved having them around. So Mr. X's desires are not as important as the business's needs, even though Mr. X is making the decision.

I don't know why you're bringing up terms like "evil" and quoting it, because you're certainly not quoting me. No, I wouldn't consider him "evil."

However, again I'll just explain this, for the nth time. "Mr. X" has two options: one of them would make less money than the other, but is more personally appealing to Mr. X. Because Mr. X's goal in this enterprise is to pursue work he finds rewarding and worthwhile, he chooses the one that makes less money, but still keeps the doors open (I've taken great pains to ensure the bit about "paying the bills" is mentioned MANY times, so stop acting as if I'm suddenly tacking it on). The reason he does this is because money is not the goal in his enterprise. Do you understand?

So you agree that money is a prerequisite then? Ie. Something that's more important to the business?

I agree that it's a means to an end, but not necessarily the end in itself. The goal is the final result you are attempting to achieve. Money is one of the things that leads you to that goal. It need not be the goal itself. It certainly can be--there are obviously plenty of people who get involved in a business purely because they believe it is the way they can make the most money--but it need not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuck me, this quote made me angry. It's the height of obnoxious ignorance. I happen to be reasonably well connected with Lynch, although I've never met him personally.

Some of my best friends are David Lynch!

Please explain more of this intimate knowledge you have of how his films are funded through "artsy farsty" channels.

(Hint: StudioCanal is not an "artsy fartsy" channel, it's a fucking huge French distribution company.)

(Here's another hint: Lynch's movies do VERY well in France.)

It is great that auteur films are actually watched in France and as a result StudioCanal invests in them. The only place I ever see their logo is on unmarketable or funky films that normal studios wouldn't touch, so whatever. I was really thinking of the top of my head about how he funded Eraserhead, and about the final cut support he got from De Laurentiis with Blue Velvet—which is not really free money, but is very much not the top-down de-risking Molyneux talks about.

So fuck me, I am ignorant, I have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not sure any more what this whole thing is all about. I really fucking hate these internet arguments. So much unnecessary bile. :getmecoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, again I'll just explain this, for the nth time. "Mr. X" has two options: one of them would make less money than the other, but is more personally appealing to Mr. X. Because Mr. X's goal in this enterprise is to pursue work he finds rewarding and worthwhile, he chooses the one that makes less money, but still keeps the doors open (I've taken great pains to ensure the bit about "paying the bills" is mentioned MANY times, so stop acting as if I'm suddenly tacking it on). The reason he does this is because money is not the goal in his enterprise. Do you understand?

No, I didn't say "less money", I said he'd have to go back to his day job. As in "game over". The end of the business. Finito. With that in mind, please think about my example.

As I've said before (any maybe it was lost), I'm not advocating greed. I'm not saying that Mr X has to go for the "more money" option (if there was one, which there isn't in this scenario) because the "business" demands it. He's free to run the company however he wants to his own personal principals (something I've also said before).

But! That must come to an end if his own personal principals stop the company from making money... because a business cannot survive without money. It's the ONE thing it cannot survive without. So ALL business decisions HAVE to factor in money, if you don't then you will go out of business fast.

You're now changing your argument so that you're saying the "sole" function of a company need not be money. That's less extreme than what you were suggesting earlier when you said, "companies want to do a lot of things, but making money is not the only one, and in some cases it is not even the primary one".

A business cannot survive without money. Period. The idea that a business could exist that doesn't value money is absurd. But if you're going to talk about "sole" goals, then fine, sure, a business can have many different goals, but the function , its purpose, is always to make money. (Otherwise you wouldn't need to start a business.)

Double Fine's goals are to create and sell quality software. The function of Double Fine, as a business, is to make money (at least enough to pay the bills) in order to allow the goals to be realised.

I think we can agree on that, can't we?

I agree that it's a means to an end, but not necessarily the end in itself. The goal is the final result you are attempting to achieve. Money is one of the things that leads you to that goal. It need not be the goal itself. It certainly can be--there are obviously plenty of people who get involved in a business purely because they believe it is the way they can make the most money--but it need not be.

But the business needs money to survive. Without it everyone would lose their jobs. As horrible and base as it may sound, it's the most important factor in a business's life... but that doesn't necessarily reflect the ideals of the people running that business.

Edited by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, hey, HEY! Guys!

I made this topic to whimsically mock Molyneux as a team-building exercise. Not to bash in each other's brains. Now you've made little baby Molyneux cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of my best friends are David Lynch!

Lol :)

It is great that auteur films are actually watched in France and as a result StudioCanal invests in them. The only place I ever see their logo is on unmarketable or funky films that normal studios wouldn't touch, so whatever. I was really thinking of the top of my head about how he funded Eraserhead, and about the final cut support he got from De Laurentiis with Blue Velvet—which is not really free money, but is very much not the top-down de-risking Molyneux talks about.

Well he funded Eraserhead and Inland Empire (interestingly enough) out of his own pocket. (Very brave and I respect him for it!) Blue Velvet was made by DEG, which again, is far far faaaaar away from "artsy fartsy".

So fuck me, I am ignorant, I have no idea what I am talking about, and I am not sure any more what this whole thing is all about. I really fucking hate these internet arguments. So much unnecessary bile. :getmecoat

I never said you had no idea what you were talking about, it's just the example you made touched a nerve.

You should see things from my point of view: I had about five people all attacking me! At least you only had me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made this topic to whimsically mock Molyneux as a team-building exercise. Not to bash in each other's brains. Now you've made little baby Molyneux cry.

Stop trying to be all peaceable and reasonable... damn you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I didn't say "less money", I said he'd have to go back to his day job. As in "game over". The end of the business. Finito. With that in mind, please think about my example.

As I've said before (any maybe it was lost), I'm not advocating greed. I'm not saying that Mr X has to go for the "more money" option (if there was one, which there isn't in this scenario) because the "business" demands it. He's free to run the company however he wants to his own personal principals (something I've also said before).

But! That must come to an end if his own personal principals stop the company from making money... because a business cannot survive without money. It's the ONE thing it cannot survive without. So ALL business decisions HAVE to factor in money, and if you're going to repeatedly ignore the fact that you WILL lose money, then you will go out of business fast.

You're now changing your argument so that you're saying the "sole" function of a company need not be money. That's less extreme than what you were suggesting earlier when you said, "companies want to do a lot of things, but making money is not the only one, and in some cases it is not even the primary one".

A business cannot survive without money. Period. The idea that a business could exist that doesn't value money is absurd. But if you're going to talk about "sole" goals, then fine, sure, a business can have many different goals, but the function , its purpose, is always to make money. (Otherwise you wouldn't need to start a business.)

Double Fine's goals are to create and sell quality software. The function of Double Fine, as a business, is to make money (at least enough to pay the bills) in order to allow the goals to be realised.

I think we can agree on that, can't we?

But the business needs money to survive. Without it everyone would lose their jobs. As horrible and base as it may sound, it's the most important factor in a business's life... but that doesn't necessarily reflect the ideals of the people running that business.

I understand your example. You need food to live. Is the goal of your life to consume food, or is that just something you have to do to continue actually pursuing your goals? Sometimes difficult decisions must be made. That doesn't mean you don't have a larger purpose and goal.

I was providing a new example that illustrates my point, not changing your existing example. I'm sorry if the use of Mr X. made that unclear. My example was perfectly plausible. If money was the sole goal of the business in question (and certainly it could be, but once again my argument is that it need not be) then they obvious choice would be the option that is expected to return more money. If money is not the sole goal, but rather one of many factors, the choice might well be to the more satisfying, less profitable option.

For the last time (literally, for the last time I think, because I'm running out of ways to say it), I have said many, many, many, many, many, many, many times that a company needs money to run. But money does not need to be its primary goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need food to live. Is the goal of your life to consume food, or is that just something you have to do to continue actually pursuing your goals?

For the last time (literally, for the last time), I have said many, many, many, many, many, many, many times that companies need money to run. But money does not need to be its primary goal.

Your analogy is totally flawed. A business is a construct designed with a purpose... we are not. Plus you just totally ignored what I wrote... you got annoyed with me for doing that do you before.

You've indeed said it many many many times, so could please give me an example of a business that has been around for longer than 10 years that has a primary function that is NOT to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now don't get me wrong, I love a good internet debate gone wild, just like the next man. But I just feel that the both of you have exhausted this thing, whittled it down to its scraping bones, and now there's nothing left but trying to drown your opponent in the trickle of marrow poring out of the cracks.

Sad sight, that. Better to call it quits and preserve your dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your analogy is totally flawed. A business is a construct designed with a purpose... we are not.

You set goals in your life, just like you set a goal with a business. For the second time in a row, you also didn't respond to my actual example.

So, does that mean I get the last word? :P

Fine, fucking whatever. Jesus. Make one more post than I'll lock the thread and you can have the last word forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

argh.. can't be bothered to keep reading this stupid thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fine, fucking whatever. Jesus. Make one more post than I'll lock the thread and you can have the last word forever.

I've responded calmly to everything you've said and given you my answers... Why are you getting so tetchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.