Idle Thumbs 198: Missing Molyneux

[Jake]

Idle Thumbs 198:

Missing Molyneux

On Mars you don't have to turn around to take a selfie, thanks to recent developments from our trading company's offworld patent lab. Pardon the cough.

Things Discussed: Doom, Sid Meier's Railroads, Offworld Trading Company, Imperial 2030, Besiege, Godus

• Listen on the Episode Page
• Listen on Soundcloud
• Listen in iTunes
• Subscribe to the RSS Feed

[Turgid]

I haven't got it yet but I've been watching Offworld Trading Company on the Mohawk youtube channel and it looks amazing! Can't wait to hear the discussion. Here's some video of Soren Johnson showing the basics:

 

[Jordan A]

Chris was doing some delightful laughter this week.

 

Ha-haaaa!

[Henroid]

The Soundcloud link doesn't seem to be working, just a heads up.

[Henroid]

Okay, so the RPS interview thing.

 

I would rather have a bad attempt at not-softballing an interview than a bunch of glad-handing "hey good times" when it's appropriate to dig in that manner. What's going on with Godus does warrant that kind of digging. As far as hostility goes, I don't think John Walker was as bad as people were reacting. He had two questions that were super out of line, both as far as decency toward other people goes and in the way of digging toward an objective in an interview. (The opening question, and then a question about Linux support in which he said it was "shitty" of Molyneux to promise)

 

I listen to a lot of radio and TV interviews, beyond the realm of video games, and this was really 'normal' to me. That is, it isn't some new, outrageous thing. I've seen it before over and over again, and most of you have seen it before too if you're avid fans of The Daily Show - you just probably don't recognize it because (I'm stereotyping here) you probably agree with Jon's position to begin with. Walker's interview with Molyneux was really 'off the cuff' with how they both spoke to each other too. It wasn't a formal "Here we are on ABC news!" affair. It was a moment of, say, Jon Stewart having Bill O'Reilly on his show.

 

Part of the reason I'm okay with what happened is because there's a sort of "politician personality" that happens in interviews where people give non-answers, even on easy questions, even on questions that everyone in the world knows the answer to but the one person involved won't own up to it. I expect it from politicians, not to say it's okay for them either, but what the hell does it actually serve anyone else in any field, any level of fame, to engage in?

 

To be clear, Molyneux was not an innocent in that interview that got blind-sided. Walker caught him in some BS answers, and a guy on Molyneux's end of the phonecall even corrected Molyneux at one point. It's not what the misinformation or derailing answers are that get me (like the issue of when a particular guy started working at 22 Cans isn't THAT big of a deal), it's why he's giving them in the first place that matters. He really loses nothing in saying the truth, or if he doesn't know just saying, "Hey I don't know."

 

I probably wrote this out like I care so much about it. I don't. My fascinations in this are 1) seeing what people think about a guy who fails to deliver on a contest prize and 2) learning a bit more about Molyneux, as his ass is now closer to the fire than it's ever been (regarding popular opinion). He should be held accountable, and Walker blundered that interview, but he was at least going in the right direction rather than playing the game of always-neutrality in an enthusiast press.

[Mathias]

Oh, I so disagree with the sympathies for Molyneux! That the interview would be confrontational was (or should have been) clear given the context of it (given in the beginning of the article).

 

Then the (uncomfortable) connection to GaGa is there but in a very different sense: John Walker was the RPS guy who really put himself out there during the summer and received his share of abuse for it.

 

I do not think the confrontational tone of the interview and preceding article about Godus are simply a pro-consumer stance calling out 22cans. The way they conducted the kickstarter and subsequent treatment of backers is directly damaging for this way of financing game development, in my opinion. I think one can say projects like Godus are detrimental for other indies who have to work so much harder in the future to proof they have the integrity to deliver on promises.

 

Multiple times it is asked if backers would receive their money back, and the correct response is never given: 22cans doesn't owe their backers their money back because kickstarter is not a preorder system. But Molyneux never comes out and says that.

 

In the past, dealing with these bets and risks has always been on the publishers' side and they reap huge rewards for taking on those risks. In this light, I find it only fair that when now interacting commercially directly with the consumers prior to product delivery that developers are taken to task and are confronted by their promises.

 

Lastly, maybe how the interview was received on this episode is also a cultural thing? It's funny to me that the analogy was "Obama on the Daily Show" that way. Anyway, people who put themselves out as public figures get asked confrontational questions like that opening one all the here in Germany. English press is traditionally not any less harsh, I believe.

 

Also, consider that a 'yes' to the question would have absolved him from any malicious intent^^

[Mathias]

Double post but I don't think that first question was a blunder... Walker loops it back around in the end when he deliberately states that he didn't ask if Molyneux is purposefully trying to mislead people.

 

As an industry professional, I am particularly annoyed by the constant blame shifting and whining that game development is oh-so-unpredictable because you know Creativity! and all. I find that attitude so super unprofessional and disrespectful.

It's something that gets propagated by many renowned figureheads and I think it's really bad for the industry as a whole.

[Hermie]

I haven't listened to the Molynuex part yet, but quick note about Besiege: Rather than Kerbal Medieval Programme, it compares much more closely to Banjo & Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. And that's a great thing.

 

 

Anyways, carry on!

[CrimsonMajor]

The original (excellent) interview with the 'God of Gods' was from Eurogamer btw http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-11-the-god-who-peter-molyneux-forgot

 

Also - is there going to be a new version of the theme tune for episode 200?

[Merus]

I'm guessing not because it sounds like Chris has got other things on? In the lead-up to the debut of the current theme, Chris mentioned he was working on it several times, so I'd imagine it's way too late to have something done for Idle Thumbs 200.

[Henroid]

I'm guessing not because it sounds like Chris has got other things on? In the lead-up to the debut of the current theme, Chris mentioned he was working on it several times, so I'd imagine it's way too late to have something done for Idle Thumbs 200.

The trumpets will be replaced with bird noise.

[SecretAsianMan]

I will confirm Jake and Chris's suspicions regarding the selfie stick.  The last time I was in China I saw those things all over the place, mostly in the hands of trendy young women.  I was rather surprised that there was a market for a camera that was pretty much designed only to take pictures of the user.  And this was a few years ago, well before they had a name here.

 

Also while listening to the talk about the Doom selfie mod I was thinking about what other games it would be weird to put selfies into.  I thought about a Zelda game, and then remembered that Wind Waker HD actually did that.

[Jake]

There is space between that RPS interview and softball/glad-handing. If those are the only two types of communication that we see as viable games industry interviews we should pack it all in.

The good, meaningful version of this interview is one that doesn't open by cathartically berating Molyneux, and manages to get him to say things on his own. Maybe that's too idealistic to hope for but I did not like what I read.

[********]

You how when you hear a word a whole bunch in a short period of time, and it stops making sense and stops sounding like an actual word?  It only took like 3 times for me with "selfie stick."

[Craymen Edge]

Getting the flippant remark out of the way: Game devs don't like game devs being asked hard questions. Or that's how it's felt around the internet this week.

I felt you did a pretty poor job summarising the Molyneux situation, getting attribution wrong and missing out little bits of the story, etc. You're not in the video games news business, so there's no expectation for you all to be highly informed about it all. But, setting up a rather vague definitely of events and getting grumpy about that version didn't sound great.

I read the Eurogamer interview, and it sounds like 22 Cans have treated the Curiosity winner poorly from the beginning, and if it hadn't been for they story they would still be ignoring him.

That story doesn't really have much to do with the RPS interview other than the aforementioned fact they were ignoring him until found out. The interview was more about the reports that Molyneux had quietly washed his hands of Godus, and moved onto another project taking most of the studio's resources with, leaving the prospect of it being completed (or delivering any of the other backer rewards) looking very unlikely.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/09/oh-godus-what-the-hells-going-on/

I found the interview very uncomfortable reading, but also gripping and in a way, necessary.

[Jake]

The Soundcloud link doesn't seem to be working, just a heads up.

Fixed, thanks.

Getting the flippant remark out of the way: Game devs don't like game devs being asked hard questions. Or that's how it's felt around the internet this week.

I felt you did a pretty poor job summarising the Molyneux situation, getting attribution wrong and missing out little bits of the story, etc. You're not in the video games news business, so there's no expectation for you all to be highly informed about it all. But, setting up a rather vague definitely of events and getting grumpy about that version didn't sound great.

I read the Eurogamer interview, and it sounds like 22 Cans have treated the Curiosity winner poorly from the beginning, and if it hadn't been for they story they would still be ignoring him.

That story doesn't really have much to do with the RPS interview other than the aforementioned fact they were ignoring him until found out. The interview was more about the reports that Molyneux had quietly washed his hands of Godus, and moved onto another project taking most of the studio's resources with, leaving the prospect of it being completed (or delivering any of the other backer rewards) looking very unlikely.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/02/09/oh-godus-what-the-hells-going-on/

I found the interview very uncomfortable reading, but also gripping and in a way, necessary.

I have no problem with 22 Cans and Molyneux getting called out for their continuous shitty behavior. I just don't like the air of cathartic glee and bullying. I am sad that people treated Molyneux as a lovable prankster when he was taking publisher money but treat him like a lying demon now that he's croudfunding. His behavior is not actually different, but people notice now that it's their money being taken at both ends instead of just one end, so now he's bad? It's understandable and predictable but nobody seems to care. Get the pitchforks. I am sad that the piece that gets the most recognition is the interview, which I found really vile in tone, and not the original piece about the Curiosity winner who has been totally left out in the cold. That feels like the actual new, emotional truth of the story. I don't expect every interviewer to be Errol Morris or to get incredible, revealing truths out of their subject the way he does, but holy shit is that a better way of going about it than poking someone over and over. There's no long lasting gain from the RPS story that will actually cause anything to improve, unless pushing Molyneux's head underwater for a few months counts (I do not think it does).

Maybe John Walker's interview was the only way to get Molyneux to say the things he said, but that doesn't mean I have to like that that is the case.

It gets so fucking complicated to me, to think about. If people really actually hate Molyneux and feel like he's just taking them for a ride, maybe they could just stop talking to, and talking about, him? That seemed to work pretty well to get Derek Smart entirely out of the conversation. But the truth is, people are fascinated with Molyneux and can't help but love him a little bit no matter what, so he will always be written about, and always enrage people, and they will always blame him for that. That chaps.

Sorry there is no coherent throughline or thesis to this post.

[mikemariano]

You how when you hear a word a whole bunch in a short period of time, and it stops making sense and stops sounding like an actual word?  It only took like 3 times for me with "selfie stick."

 

I was annoyed two years ago when "selfie" became popular. "I say 'self-pic,'" I'd say, "'Selfie' sounds so much more shameful."  But then I realized that taking a picture of yourself should carry some shame with it, so I could live with the popular term.

 

But a selfie stick celebrates the selfie!  Now I hate the word again.

[Chajusong]

I'm really, really bummed about Offworld Trading Company. I loved Civ IV, think Soren Johnson is a cool dude, and this game sounds extremely my shit.

 

But I'm not, ever, under any circumstance, buying something that says "Stardock" on the box, so I'm going to have to pass on it. It's the worst.

[Craymen Edge]

I haven't got it yet but I've been watching Offworld Trading Company on the Mohawk youtube channel and it looks amazing! Can't wait to hear the discussion. Here's some video of Soren Johnson showing the basics:

Soren Johnson was talking about the game on last week's Gamers With Jobs podcast, what I've heard about it so far sounds great. I added it to my Steam wishlist & followed straight after listening, with the intention to pick up when it's out of Early Access.

[Argobot]

I listen to a lot of radio and TV interviews, beyond the realm of video games, and this was really 'normal' to me. That is, it isn't some new, outrageous thing. I've seen it before over and over again, and most of you have seen it before too if you're avid fans of The Daily Show - you just probably don't recognize it because (I'm stereotyping here) you probably agree with Jon's position to begin with. Walker's interview with Molyneux was really 'off the cuff' with how they both spoke to each other too. It wasn't a formal "Here we are on ABC news!" affair. It was a moment of, say, Jon Stewart having Bill O'Reilly on his show.

 

The problem with Jon Stewartand the way this RPS interview was conducted, is exactly that they play to a certain crowd. Stewart gives horrible interviews (unless they're with fiction or neutral non-fiction authors) because it's clear that he's not really there to ask questions. He's there to posture for his audience and make everyone feel good that he's going to yell at the Bush exec who wrote the torture memo for 20 minutes. It can be incredibly cathartic when, as you say, you are predisposed to agree with Stewart's viewpoint, but in terms of adding information and clarity to a complex situation -- the whole point of an interview -- it does nothing. It's just hot air, the same as having Bill O'Reilly interview any left-leaning person on his show.

 

Compare that to the way people like Terry Gross or Diane Rehm interview their subjects. The questions are hard, but the interviewee has a chance to explain themselves, which in turn allows the interview to ask for further clarification on those explanations and you generally walk away from an interview having a better understanding of the personal actions that went into making a decision. In Stewart/Walker's version, you come away knowing exactly what you did when you started reading, which is whatever your negative opinion on the interview subject was. The press shouldn't be here to mollycoddle famous people, but they also shouldn't be just another voice of unconsidered, rabid judgement. If it's hard enough to get developers to open up about the difficulties of the industry, this kind of grandstanding, playing to the audience form of interviewing is just to going to guarantee that no developer will ever offer anything actually interesting or complicated about the work they do. We're trading access to information for a the momentarily satisfying, but ultimately useless, emotion.

[Jake]

The problem with Jon Stewart, the way this RPS interview was conducted, is exactly that it plays to a certain crowd. Stewart gives horrible interviews (unless they're with fiction or neutral non-fiction authors) because it's clear that he's not really there to ask questions. He's there to posture for his audience and make everyone feel good that he's going to yell at the Bush exec who wrote the torture memo for 20 minutes. It can be incredibly cathartic when, as you say, you are predisposed to agree with Stewart's viewpoint, but in terms of adding information and clarity to a complex situation -- the whole point of an interview -- it does nothing. It's just hot air, the same as having Bill O'Reilly interview any left-leaning person on his show.

 

Compare that to the way people like Terry Gross or Diane Rehm interview their subjects. The questions are hard, but the interviewee has a chance to explain themselves, which in turn allows the interview to ask for further clarification on those explanations and you generally walk away from an interview having a better understanding of the personal actions that went into making a decision. In Stewart/Walker's version, you come away knowing exactly what you did when you started reading, which is whatever your negative opinion on the interview subject was. The press shouldn't be here to mollycoddle famous people, but they also shouldn't just another voice of unconsidered, rabid judgement. If it's hard enough to get developers to open up about the difficulties of the industry, this kind of grandstanding, playing to the audience form of interviewing is just to going to guarantee that no developer will ever offer anything actually interesting or complicated about the work they do. We're trading access to information for a the momentarily satisfying, but ultimately useless, emotion.

Yeah, that, exactly.

[Chris]

Yeah, that, exactly.

Yes.

[clyde]

Diane Rehm is a boss. I love how she moderates discussion.

[BigJKO]

The problem with Jon Stewart, the way this RPS interview was conducted, is exactly that it plays to a certain crowd. Stewart gives horrible interviews (unless they're with fiction or neutral non-fiction authors) because it's clear that he's not really there to ask questions. He's there to posture for his audience and make everyone feel good that he's going to yell at the Bush exec who wrote the torture memo for 20 minutes. It can be incredibly cathartic when, as you say, you are predisposed to agree with Stewart's viewpoint, but in terms of adding information and clarity to a complex situation -- the whole point of an interview -- it does nothing. It's just hot air, the same as having Bill O'Reilly interview any left-leaning person on his show.

Compare that to the way people like Terry Gross or Diane Rehm interview their subjects. The questions are hard, but the interviewee has a chance to explain themselves, which in turn allows the interview to ask for further clarification on those explanations and you generally walk away from an interview having a better understanding of the personal actions that went into making a decision. In Stewart/Walker's version, you come away knowing exactly what you did when you started reading, which is whatever your negative opinion on the interview subject was. The press shouldn't be here to mollycoddle famous people, but they also shouldn't just another voice of unconsidered, rabid judgement. If it's hard enough to get developers to open up about the difficulties of the industry, this kind of grandstanding, playing to the audience form of interviewing is just to going to guarantee that no developer will ever offer anything actually interesting or complicated about the work they do. We're trading access to information for a the momentarily satisfying, but ultimately useless, emotion.

[Korax]

I fully support using "jammer" instead of "gamer," and I demand that the switch is instituted immediately.