You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in terms of monetizing content consumption. It's very clear Bitcoin investors, (which makes up 98% of the STEEM market), are paying content creators. How much the content creators are paid by these Bitcoin investors is determined by the curators. That's the entirety of the system in its current form. So I wrote the article asking, "What tangible value do Bitcoin investors get in return for STEEM."

In the context of professional content creation, where independent creators are a subset, the entirety of one's living is earned through selling produced content. For a filmmaker this is charging people to see their movie, for a author this is charging people to read their work, for a game developer it's people buying and playing their game. Steemit in no way in its current form gives Bitcoin investors any direct value. Sure, you may say professionals dabble in Steemit as you stated above, but it will in no way facilitate the development of professional content. If a Bitcoin investor can directly broker a deal with a producer for a cut of a production's revenue, vs buying STEEM power... From a strict investment point of view, buying STEEM power as a Bitcoin investor looking to make a legitimate ROI (one procured from actual productivity), is essentially a gracious donation to STEEM users.


>But he fails to understand that the value of a social network is not its content, but its users ongoing use of the site due to their investment in the communities of the site.

Shut the fuck up for a second, and stop making assumptions. A social network is not valuable at all. If so Reddit would be profitable already (after  a decade or something), and it wouldn't have taken Facebook a quarter of a billion dollars and a decade to become profitable. Social networks are indicative of bubbles. Just because Facebook was able to avoid having their bubble completely popped doesn't make them a success story. In fact research has shown consuming large amounts of social media usually reduces critical thinking and overall intellect, so trying to attribute ANY value to a social network seems retarded. How about people actually go outside and socialize, instead of sitting behind a computer screen pretending to socialize?

There is no value to be mined from Steemit from the "users' ongoing use of the site", because they aren't producing anything of value. Using Steemit will not yield flying cars, or cold fusion.

>He fails to understand that indie content can be a lot more interesting and precisely targeted to smaller audiences (coteries) than Hollywood content.

Dude. You are so uninformed in regards to the entertainment marketing machine. Most indie artist who do it out of love, say Diggable Planets, still have to eat, they just care less about the monetization of their content. They are the ones where "enough" is an reachable goal. For these people the most efficient machine for distributing their work is the best machine. Steemit is not one of them.

Lets say the value in Steemit is the eyeballs attached. Well how do you get eyeballs to see your content? Steem Power. So you go and buy a bunch of Steem and conver it to Steem Power just to upvote your content visibility. It makes the front page of course, but you find that there is a 1% click through rate, that is only 1% of people convert to your personal website from Steemit. On top of that only 10% of that 1% actually purchases something. Until there is a sane market for Steem, (which I doubt there ever will be), the PPC bids for Youtube, Google, etc. ads are far more efficient, and produce far more revenue per dollar invested. Even then the targeted nature of internet advertising has to be done with a great deal of finesse or you end up losing money on your advertising campaign due to low conversion rates.

If brand advertising becomes the bread and butter of Steemit, then the indie creator automatically gets pushed out of the trending stack. In this case large corporations are the STEEM power whales and use Steem as essentially a giant billboard.

Either way, STEEM has a lot of problems to figure out before its valuable. And honestly due to lack of acknowledgement of them or outright denial, I don't see it becoming valuable ever.

Your idealistic assumptions are myopic. I'm only making realistic evaluations, with valid concerns. Not one person has convinced me I wouldn't be a bagholder if I were to buy STEEM, and it seems other BTC investors are realizing this as the price dropped 0.0059 to 0.0041 since the release of my article.

It's on it's fucking way. Chill out.

https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/tx/d8e60a0979024cce9159bd7b59594eae7dec627db5ac6bd088866afea533b0e9/

Maybe pester a miner to mine the thing.

Jurov is extremely flexible for services provided, and extremely helpful. I've been a customer for a long time, and his customer service continues to amaze.

For people wanting AWS for BTC, this is the offer to go. He was originally only offering to L2 people.

How can you expect me to vouch for you?

I put 21 coins into an operation and WITH interest got 4.4 back. As stated before it was a 83% loss on the principal. I might as well have just deleted the coins. What you did with them is on you. But there is no way I can honestly going to say, "usagi is a great fund manager and I trust him whole heartedly with my money."


Aren't you just some guy on the net. Did you not lose money? How can you prove you will make investors whole if you have yet to do it with your FIRST investors? How can I ever reasonably trust you again?

Can't say that for BingoBoingo. Don't even have money directly invested in him, yet he's making me money.

I understand you've said several times "this will get resolved in years as people who owe me money pay me back blah blah blah", but these sound like nothing but empty promises. I can't trust you, or take you for your word, because you've broken my trust.

If someone cheats in a committed relationship, it's like someone blaming the alcohol, the party, the other person involved, instead of taking responsibility for the choices they made. You are willing to make every excuse as to why you aren't wrong. But we will come back to this in a moment.


That has nothing to do with my original statement on IRC? You lose people's money. Tell me how I am lying. I have 4.4 (with interest) of the original 21 coins I invested. How is this anything but a loss? Are you living in a world where 4.4 > 21 ?

So MPCD was closed after two months of operating even AFTER the original toy exchange closed:
http://trilema.com/2012/bitcoin-still-not-quite-ready-for-cdos/

Also unsurprisingly 6.5 BTC of interest was paid from NYAN.A and 0 BTC of capital was recovered.

Additionally MPCD was far superior to NYAN. Out of 1100 BTC invested 520.5260665 BTC was recovered.

We dive a little deeper at the closing (after two months August-October of 2012)


MPCD.A had 21 BTC interest paid out plus 350 of recovered capital:


...


So based on Mircea's books MPCD.A was resolved at 371 BTC of initial 350 BTC invested. That's a 6% gain.

NYAN.A a 86% loss.

MPCD.A wasn't even insured, but Mircea made sure the fund was made whole before closing the account. In the process MPOE-PR outed the scammer known as Patrick Harnett.

So yes MPCD definitely lost money. But MPCD.A made money. Yes NYAN lost money, but NYAN lost so much capital NYAN.A become underfunded and worthless.

Where are your excuses now?

You messed up. Own up to your mistakes.

No I said you lost money, and am saddened to see individuals still believing in you despite losing so much money time after time after time. (Don't fucking twist my words with commentary if you're going to quote me.) It might have been cool if it were just one time, (we are all human) but this has been ongoing since 2012. Aren't you a little tired of failing with no real success in sight? How does this not motivate you to change your perception of the situation and do useful shit? You got burned by 3 exchange shut downs now? GLBSE, BTCTC and Bitfunder? I would attribute one to bad luck, but three times? Have you learned nothing?

It's like watching a child burn their hand repeatedly on the stove after being told by multiple adults the stove will burn your hand. Stupidity as an entity will never run out of hit points, but one day you as a person will.

You see the issue here is more why you lost money. The simple answer is you were negligent, possibly lacked the necessary experience, and ultimately would rather place blame than own up to your mistakes as a person. This makes you untrustworthy, maybe not in the same light as a scammer, but I honestly will never invest money with you again. This is coming from me being one of your first investors.

We are all n00bs at one point, but it's been two years man, and you're still making the same dumb mistakes.


I know what's going on. You lose a bunch of money. Make excuses to how it's not your fault. And move onto the next thing.

I want no other soul to experience what I experienced if they don't have to. But unfortunately as long as you have breath in your body you'll find a way to lose people's money.

smickles is a full time Dad and still found time to resolve the issue. Sure there were issues involved, but his books were sound. Sure I got a little frustrated, but he still did his job, and is a good friend. But one thing he never did: lose my money.

At the end of the day his books indicate 3.41 of 21 btc invested was liquidated out of NYAN.A. This is an 83% loss in value. 100% of the BTC on smickle's books owed to me were paid in full. He made his books available to me, even offered to transfer his ASCII files into spreadsheets. For you it's more sporadic IRC conversations when you feel like talking. I had to seek you out in the Bitfunder channel in order to start a conversation.


So your underwriting practices cost you money? Do you not have underwriters and actuaries to assess and manage risk? Why were CPA's insurance contracts backed by debt and assets rather than liquid capital?

Insurance ALWAYS needs adequate collateral to payout the contract in case of a claim, otherwise it's just a promise and not a contract.

Bitcoin has the added liability that there is no "bankruptcy" to quote BingoBoingo (a successful fund manager):


From: http://www.thedrinkingrecord.com/2014/01/01/how-silicon-valley-could-learn-to-bitcoin-part-2/

So at the end of the day you scammed NYAN.A holders. You should have never over extended yourself and made a contractual obligation to insure the shares' value.


You are THE ONLY one to lose me money. You are the "LOT of OTHER investments." But really it was me who lost my own money by making the decision to invest in you. But as a wise person said, "n00bs pay for their lessons".

Sure you want to do the right thing, but given your recent derping, is it even beneficial for you to pay back your early investors if it means losing future investors money? This seems to be the pattern.




Your earliest investors (like myself) lost money. To say otherwise would be me lying. I cannot truthfully say, "usagi's ventures have made me a profit." Your venture is the only item in my portfolio still in the red. So how am I lying?

Once all investors are made whole (however long that takes), then it won't be the case.


Could you take ownership of your mistakes? And why do you continue to make ridiculous mistakes when you've had ample failure to learn from the past?

What the actual fuck? Are you memory impaired to your own contracts? The IPO of NYAN.A stated it was insured. Or at least you claimed for it to be insured. This means that if the underlying assets depreciate in value the correlating insurance contract pays out the difference. If none of this took place you violated your own IPO's terms...can you not take ownership for this or do you have an excuse for why it's not your fault?


Yet you still post it?


So you lost 100 BTC on scam exchanges instead of directly paying back investors? You are operating on a loss if none of your investors have yet to be made whole.

Usagi was supposed to liquidate the holdings...but I only got 14% of the principal. On IRC usagi claimed as BMF increased in value he would pay back NYAN.A holders with that money, etc. etc.

Was I scammed yet Usagi is using politics to not be labeled as a scammer?

Wow. I'm sorry MPOE-PR, you must have quite the patience to deal with this all day.

Wasn't Facebook valued at $85 billion while bringing in less than a 1% of that in revenue in 2011?

I don't see the issue here to be honest.

Isn't MPEX the only place you can reliable underwrite and buy options against the USD value of BTC?

I would say this is value enough, given April 2013 would likely have been a lot worse had MPEx not existed.

The shareholder report for March: http://trilema.com/2013/mpoe-march-2013-statement/ kinda shows that.

Additionally, those who bought MPEx accounts in 2012, and as well bought S.MPOE before the 2nd batch of the IPO are likely all millionaires (in USD terms) at this point.

So to be honest, I really don't see how it is a scam. Perhaps the other businesses in their infancy seem a tad questionable, but MPOE-bot I think has proven itself as a valuable asset to the Bitcoin world as a whole.

I'm getting an "Access Temporarily Denied Error"

Is this actually temporary?

Over a decade ago I started learning DirectX 8, (my how time flies), the original Xbox had just been released, and flash games started becoming popular on the internet. A perfect storm was brewing for aspiring game developers; a climate not seen for nearly a decade was developing around us. http://www.gamedev.net started hosting incredible articles, and any and all knowledge to create a video game was finally surfacing on the world wide web, instead of being locked away in expensive books. Thus began the era of the indie developer.

In 2006 EA started to become one of the worst companies to work for, and soon defectors started to arise. Of these defectors Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel founded a company 2D Boy on their limited savings, approximately $10,000. Starbucks was their office. Kyle drew pretty pictures, and Ron programmed.

In 2008 they released World of Goo, a critically acclaimed independent game. A few months after the release I emailed them while working on my first game with a good friend of mine. Here is a response from Ron, the programmer:

A simple greeting, and "you got dis here/go for it" encouragement:

There is something profound about the support available in the indie community. Everyone is willing to help each other reach a mutual goal.

You've come into our house, not the other way around. So what can S.MG contribute to this community they are attempting to disrupt?

Um sure? You're going the route of stepping on everyone's heels with stilettos in a foreign community (the gamedev community), and expect to acquisition worthwhile talent. This won't play out well.

I've met with many in the community in an attempt to direct them to MP in relation to working with S.MG, posted their concerns, and have been met with dismal results. This being the case, S.MG has a big hill to climb.

This hill is made even steeper:


Hopefully someone with game industry experience hurries in and performs a Mary Poppins-like miracle for you, in the same way Rockstar saved Team Bondi from themselves. But Rockstar could only do so much, and only saved their flagship title, unfortunately they couldn't save the studio.

In a recent Trilema article it seems even Mr. Popescu has a hint of concern:

I really wish you all the luck and hope everything works out.


If you're really serious about this statement here are two games the lead designer for my current project made in recent years:
http://www.cosmicadventuresquad.com/projects/planetration/
http://www.cosmicadventuresquad.com/projects/leave-me-alone/

The latter is already pretty successful with 100,000 plays, and is currently sponsored. The former is still in development. Give them a play, leave a comment, etc. (Perhaps he'll create a btc tip jar address). If they gain popularity they'll add features, and push for publication, but for now they're out there waiting for people to play them.

In the future we'll be releasing some more games on multiple platforms. Hopefully my posts have piqued some interest in their development.

I leave you all with the Jabberwocky:

As a preface: this is mainly directed at MPOE-PR.

I wanted to wait for two things before I made another post on this topic: 1) the release of MP's game design dossier, and 2) the release of GTA V's gameplay video.

As a quick anecdote, a few years ago before I owned a 360, I was playing GTA IV at a friend's place. He stated something that has stuck with me ever since, "Every action in this game is so satisfying." At that moment I realized the depth and subtlety of the design of that game. Something so profound I couldn't even begin to fathom the man hours that went into even the simplest of actions.

In the GTA IV artbook that comes with the special edition there is a short commentary from the art director, Aaron Garbut. He does a quick postmortem of the evolution of GTA, but goes on to state the following:


This is the exact opposite of what I gathered when I read MP's statement. "Do not form an expectation and you won't be disappointed" and "nothing will work at first". This is garbage, I'm sorry to use such a blanket statement, but what's the point of promoting a flagship product, then releasing a buggy alpha?

Personally I feel as though I'm being served a glorious turd all dressed up in fancy clothes, and being told it's an innovative next generation action figure, or that it will one day grow into that innovative action figure. Maybe this isn't exactly the case, but the evidence presented isn't very convincing.

The issue I brought up to begin with:


This has been reiterated:

ThickAsThieves philosophically disagrees with me saying, "Just wait and see, you'll be surprised" or as he posted in the forum:

SimCity tried this, players realized they were being served a turd, and Maxis is losing fans, as I stated in a previous post.

GTAV's first gameplay video came out, and the final judgement can already be made this game will be nothing short of extraordinary.

How do you make a game fun? You listen. And you clearly don't want to listen to your would be fans:



Game designers very much do care what FanFic says, because FanFic is a fan. It's probably a disservice to the designers to shield them from Internet people, as they will never be able to hear legitimate criticism. You'll probably state, "Internet people don't count as real critics" for one reason or another, but that dismissive nature further digs this hole, that I have no idea why is being dug.

When I had a discussion with ThickAsThieves about my concerns on IRC with MP present (I don't keep logs so I'm quoting/paraphrasing by memory), it seemed as though development would be open to players, as stated in the dossier announcement on Trilema. But what became clearly evident is the allure of the game will be provided by emergent gameplay, particularly based on interactions between players. Your example of "sword renting", would be an example of this emergent behavior. The main problem is this depends on veteran players, and a well maintained community. I brought up the example of Eve, and The Battle of Asakai which involved more than some 3000 players. There is an entire player based history (much like the history of the Bitcoin community), as to why this Battle occurred.

Eve turned 10 in May, thus it's taken years to develop the intricate emergence that allows for a player driven war to occur.

A few days later we went on to discuss Elite after I jokingly brought up Roomba Simulator 2013 as being the next Game of the Year (which may surprisingly get a few thousand downloads due to it's ridiculous nature). Soon after I see this post:
http://trilema.com/2013/have-you-played-elite-back-in-the-80s/

Relating to Eve, and subsequently a post relating to the scams in Eve created from it's emergent gameplay. Eve of course is a reimplementation of Elite, and the original developers of Eve state Elite was the inspiration for developing Eve.

Perhaps the untitled S.MG flagship title will be able to attract a player base capable of creating such an emergent experience, but without following fundamentals, this dream will never become a reality.

But if a battle of Asakai were to occur in in S.MG's lets hope it goes a bit better than in Eve, as this player who was there stated:

A game needs to be fun, period. Don't lose sight of that, and perhaps S.MG will be able to make something of itself. But that is a difficult endeavor. With public acknowledgement of a lack of artists (they are in constant recruitment from what I can tell), a mysterious if not absent designer, and a PR rep telling me "it's gonna be fun don't you worry", while arguing:


I'm hard pressed to have faith S.MG has competence in this field. S.MPOE is successful, MPEX is successful. But the endeavor that MP is undertaking as his flagship for S.MG dwarfs the former two monuments in scope and burden. To think otherwise is delusional.

To conclude this, my biggest concern comes from the public relations department of S.MG dismissing the "aesthetics" of game design as a whole. Maybe that wasn't the initial intent, and perhaps there is a true appreciation for them, but I don't see any belief or adherence to them thus far.

Again maybe the statement:

was just to say "it's just a game" and a game is just some abstraction. Maybe you don't give a fuck about gaming. Or perhaps you think the argument is moot.

But Rockstar publicly released this in relation to the postmortem of GTAIV, the point I've been trying to get across:


While you public released:

Now don't take this the wrong way, but if this is the mindset S.MG is taking in their approach to making games, (that is what S.MG does right?), Farmville the MMO will arise from this clusterfuck, and the ~9000 BTC raised will have been for naught. I hope to God, this isn't the case, but the evidence isn't very convincing.

Maybe some people liked the grinding in WoW, but it was definitely manifested in a different way. There is no absolute dependency on a party. What occurs in WoW is the romantic solo-quest. When partying occurs it's just an extension of this mentality, as well skill really isn't truly necessary. If you watch someone in a WoW dungeon, they rapidly hit keys as if they are trying to refresh reddit when it's down. FFXI is far different due to the timing requirements. Press a button too quick and you fuck-up, press it too late and you fuck up. The entire action of fighting was designed to be fulfilling, holding true to the Final Fantasy franchise, and in turn the process of grinding became fulfilling. It's a sort of emergent gameplay built on a fundamentally sound concept.

In WoW this was highly diluted, for the sake of difficulty. FFXI turned a lot of would-be players off because they had trouble acclimating to the skill level. However many veteran players (which I definitely would not include myself in this category), would say this barrier to entry made the social aspect of the game more fulfilling because the game punishes incompetence.

WoW was always an endeavor to the end level, as the end content was the treat everyone wanted. Maybe in the beginning the journey was fulfilling, but after some time, this became increasingly more "rote" due to the allure of the endgame. This became so pervasive, Blizzard created several "events" and "bonuses" which gave the player double XP. Where in the original incarnation of WoW it would take a least a few months of heavy play time to get to max level. It is said a player can reach max level in the most current incarnation in a matter of weeks.

usagi adequately stated "the journey not the destination". WoW focuses on the destination, FFXI the journey. WoW became more accessible, and subsequently extremely profitable.

I ultimately think you're game will have similar principles to FFXI, focusing on skill rather than rote mundane tasks. Ultimately that's more fulfilling to the player.

You're focused on the effects of farming, the inflationary nature of resources being infinite. This is a definitely and interesting point. As you state in the quote below, when there is only enough money to buy one "Super Awesome Sword of Chaos" in the entire game, it creates an entirely different mindset. If this sword only can have on instance of itself within the entire game as a limitation, this definitely creates a different mindset from the traditional "lets get money by killing shit". I guess you and MP were baffled and annoyed that monsters dropped gold coins in the traditional RPG. I don't blame you.

As stated above with FFXI this isn't constrained to merely an RCE game. This is particularly clear in Dark Souls which is a game in-which the fundamental level of play is dependent on how skilled the player is with his or her character. You see the same signs, the player is more attentive to his items, his movements, his actions, and his growth. Completing tasks/quests within the game bring a certain "fuck yea" level of satisfaction, unlike a simple quest in WoW.

Perhaps it's purely the difficulty, but that seems to be simplifying it too much.

Adding something such as permadeath for the hardcore player usually instantly raises the player's awareness. But that doesn't create any more depth to the existing experience.

Depth is ultimately achieved through the content. Everything within the game attributes to the player experience. This attention to the level of detail is why the GTA franchise has become so successful.

I hope you're not saying I'm saying that, because I'm not.

Just because an individual doesn't have the capacity to perform a task themselves, doesn't mean this person can't procure the necessary resources. This is moot. Perhaps S.MG goes up in flames, but if this is the case, it will be a Hindenburg-like explosion that will be witnessed for miles, and not a puff of smoke. I believe in fundamentals in game design. I play devil's advocate here because I hate when designers use a lot of smoke and mirrors to mask bad design.


They do listen, and in particular Mr. Popescu is willing to listen to reason. Perhaps the reason S.MG is hyperfocused on the business plan is because whatever the designer is doing will not be seen by us unless approved by Mr. Popescu. The designer (if they have one yet), is locked in a box, far way from the public. MPOE-PR even stated that as one of the benefits of being a developer in contract with S.MG.

I'm flattered at people thinking I should be a game design consultant, but I'm just pointing out the fundamentals. Anyone significantly more experienced than I, and is a designer by trade will point out similar things.

I had a few round table discussions with the interesting points that came up. I must say some interesting things came to light.

First off something unrelated to S.MG:

You bring up this point in one of your "legacy" posts as well in relation to starting a "Bitcoin business". I let this swirl around for a good bit and after speaking with one of my buddies in the film industry about a project we are producing for Mr. Popescu, I recognized a pattern I hadn't recognized before. It goes back to your quote:


You always find those naturally intuitive in this field. That one uneducated fellow who happens to make a small fortune "running the streets". He starts with $20 dollars, turns it to $100. Soon that turns into $1000 dollars, and before you know it, a new kingpin is born.

However I started thinking about the failures in this field, every burnt out weed dealer who can barely manage to keep his operation running. They always seem to be running incredibly late, never giving an accurate time estimate. When they take out product on credit they always come up short. But these are symptoms of a deeper problem Mr. Popescu alludes to in his Trilema article titled aptly:  http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/youre-the-guy-who-wasnt-good-enough-to-sling-dope/

You have the burnt out high school dropout, who can't deal drugs, calling himself a drug dealer. On top of this, not only do they believe they are a drug dealer, they wholeheartedly have faith in their abilities despite the contrary evidence to their obvious failures. They reek of undue arrogance. Subsequently like Kayne West, you "can't tell [them] nothing".

But more importantly, these are the type of people in any industry who will bring down the team. They wish to be the ones with fans without truly earning it. I recall an IRC chat log:

More importantly those who understand their limitations and strengths intuitively find a way to sling dope. They are the street urchin who one day pops up as the new kingpin. Many will claim Popescu fits the category of arrogance, but even he follows the old saying, "Know Thyself", in regards to his limitations:



Onto the good stuff:

So I did a little reading, a little round table discussing, and a lot of researching.

What I discover also answers:

Definitely. But the most likely reason grinding has become so deeply ingrained in the video game based RPG is due to the limitations of the classic consoles such as the NES. Anyone who has programmed on one of these understands these limitations are pretty extreme in comparison to modern day computers. The designers of Dragon Warrior, one of the first non-text based video game RPG's, is iconic for the slime monster kicking your ass at the start of the game. This immediately forces the player to grind. The designers intention was to create a feeling of "training" or forcing the player to train in response to strong creatures. In a DND campaign where one isn't limited by computational power, an elegant storyline of the party going to a dojo can exist, and levels are disbursed through a scenario where grinding needn't exist.

Saying grinding is "bad by design" is a little blanketing. In FFXI, a notorious game, grinding was the main feature of the game. A lot of people hated it, but just as many people loved it. Grinding came second to the storyline and "quests", making it a game of training, and subsequently discovery once strength was developed. Grinding wasn't mindless, but required skill, it required a party to work together in a harmony not seen in many other games. Each person played their role.

If a healer healed to fast while fighting a mob, he ran out of MP, the tank died, and mob went on to attack the rest of the party, and everyone died.
If the tank didn't maintain the aggression of the mob, the creature went after the healer (since healing aggravates mobs), who died, and subsequently everyone died.

The examples can go on and on and on. I wasn't trying to say grinding must exist for a game to be called an RPG, but merely it has become a part of "tradition" for a lack of a better word. Moreover there are ways to design grinding so it's done well. And when I say grinding I mean the act of killing mobs for no other reason than to gather drops or experience.

Rote and repetitive gameplay is the problem which is generally what grinding amounts to. In the case of Final Fantasy, your role (as whatever job you decided to be), changed depending on the structure of your party. This created a more dynamic feeling to the act of grinding and made it not tedious for the more experience player due to the rewarding nature, rather than it being a rote repetitive task. One quote that sums it up is: "Every battle is like a boss fight." When grinding in FFXI the slightest fuck-up resulted in cataclysmic failure.

Again I'm not saying grinding is necessary. That's definitely not the case, I'm just saying it shouldn't be written off as "bad design".

I think this circles back to the strength of the finite ability of bitcoin. Finite being the keyword. How the cash flows within a game from player to player is a different beast entirely, but games have been very successful in making usable resources finite within the game system.

Star Wars Galaxies, many years back (in the 2004 era), had a system where every "usable" item in the game (weapons, clothes, armor, everything really), was crafted by another player in game. As well, all the resources items were created from, were very limited. This created a very profound emergent effect on the gameplay. Like people digging for oil, various resources on planets would start to deplete over time as people mined them. This created an economy where a lot of people bartered with resources rather than the in game currency.

SWG is a terrible example, for a multitude of other reasons, but for the sake of example I used it. I would think that a system where everything is finite would completely change the mindset of players from trying to "rape the planet" via farming, to becoming efficient hunters as you spoke of earlier. Perhaps I'm simplifying the solution, but I'm trying to understand your mentality on this one.

As scandalous as it was, the China-farmers were breaking the ToA by selling Gil. The management took an active approach to the ever inflating economy by deleting accounts which were selling Gil "illegally", in term deleting their Gil. This in turn did work, very well in fact, deflating the prices in the auction houses by nearly 100%.

Was this a good solution? Probably not, it's like putting a band-aid on a wound that requires stitching. As you stated previous the China-farmer is exploiting something that is already broken. The designer is to blame, not the farmer.

Sure. They went the same route as Eve, except using real money to fund the economy. Eve seems to be more successful, and it's emergent gameplay seems to be far more profound and captivating. Perhaps this is what you're describing?

Yea Spiral Knights is free to play, but it funds the in-game currency through "real cash" in the same way Entropia does. It was the only thing I could think of off the top of my head without Googling.

I've seen it first hand, in production, in an experimental environment, for the purpose of such discussions for companies (like MG I suppose) to evaluate player behavior. It's very easy to control the cashflow in the game. Handling the game currency isn't the issue, it's what players do with it, which you can't control. Sometimes this is good, sometime this is bad.

It was a bad example, I apologize, but it's been cited many times as an RCE game, in many discussions on the subject. Usually people think you incompetent when you use less than the best examples, like calling Kenny G a jazz musician in front of Miles Davis.




An RPG by design requires grinding, some force it by design. You can't beat a boss, you grind levels until you're strong enough to do so. Farming, (if you're defining it as the act of grinding mobs for the sole purpose of acquiring loot), on it's own accord doesn't inflate the economy. When it's combined with mass sell-offs, like anything else, then the economy in the game tanks due to inflationary reasons. This I completely understand. Final Fantasy XI suffered massive inflation due to Chinese farmers selling Gil as a business. The only option Square had was to delete some billion+ Gil to force deflation.

This occurred due to 1) drops not being finite, 2) the currency not being finite.

Bitcoin will definitely solve 2), and I assume you're going to limit 1) as you see fit.

Definitely, but isn't this more due to the finite nature of resources in the game (money included)? When a player has to efficiently utilize "what I got" instead of endlessly farming to "get what I need", it creates another layer to the game due to the absence of farming.

However I would argue there will always be some form of farming, perhaps not on the scale of WoW or FFXI, but perhaps for small things. But then again you can make everything an "elixir", and increase the anarchistic capacity for the gameplay, which I would say creates some profound and emergent results.

Programmers may tell you they will write everything from scratch, but there will always be copy-paste.

I've already seen it first hand...not your product in particular, but definitely the experience you've described.

Ha. That gave me a good laugh, thanks for that. Very true. But that wasn't my intention to illustrate. Critically acclaimed success in a piece of art has an element of timing involved. For this reason actively trying to please the public is very much a moot endeavor. But at certain points in time someone develops something cool like Minecraft and everyone loves it. Repeating the formula never works because the timing no longer exists. "Right place right time" sort of thing I suppose.

That's usually the point of a publisher, even though the author still gets sent hate mail. C'est la vie.

I like to be thorough when it comes to my profession, even though I've been out of the industry for a few years. I am also very much enjoying the discourse.

This biggest one of these right now, and most successful (that I know of) is Spiral Knights. The in game currency "Energy" is used to play the game, and can only be purchased. Energy can be traded on an open market for goods and other things, but all energy spawns from users purchasing it.

Another less successful game using this model is Diablo III. All items can be traded for fiat, thus all the items correlate to a real cash value.

The reason there are few examples isn't because there "were a lot of problems with handling of game currency", but because once the mechanic is introduced it creates optionalism for the players:


Bitcoin doesn't automagically solve this issue, it solves the payment issues in the background, but not the mechanics themselves. When you add any kind of optionalism to a game, you're essentially saying "I've added a cheat code activated by money", no matter how you try to dress it up.

Spiral Knights did RCE well because they utilized economics inside the game as opposed to game subscriptions. Buying Energy amounts to buying subscription time. They didn't make it a gameplay bypass.

I understand the desire to cash in on the whole MMO cash cow:

World of Warcraft went live in 2004. A monthly subscription is/was $15.
That means for every player that plays a year, they generate $180 of revenue.
Multiply that by the peak 15 million actively subscribed players: $2,700,000,000/year

A lot of studios joke about how in the morning the Blizzard developers and managers would collectively first grab a wad of cash, throw it on the floor and roll in it for the first two hours of their work day.

I know that there are some standard deviations in there to get a more "reasonable" number (they had specials, yearly deals, etc. that changes this generalized number), but this still clearly shows the cash to be made from a successful MMORPG.

Now lets be generous and say 1/10th of those 15 million players have been playing the past 8 years:
That's $2.16 Billion they've made from that group of players.

Again I understand the desire to capitalize on such a product, but don't let this blind you from other important issues.

Bitcoin is it's own financial space, the financial giants have no reign here, what they say generally doesn't matter in relation to Bitcoin, because they've never used it. The ones that have still haven't used it as extensively as say MP.

What game industry legends have to say about the game industry definitely applies to any and all games.

To answer your rhetorical question: There is an invaluable educational value to Bitcoin if you're willing to sit and listen. As an anecdote, I've learned more from MP and others about business, than the so called MBA's learned during their "education". I've applied a few of MP's models to physical businesses that has been met with success.

MP wrote in his FAQ:

Everyone yearns for the pre-September days of computing. And alas here it is. Unfortunately it seems inevitable, the flood of college students will come and dilute the intellect, but hopefully not for awhile longer.


Are you saying the revenue model is merged in the process of developing the product? Or are you saying that you figure out what you're going to sell and how to sell it, then you create a product within those bounds?

That just seems like it over complicates the nature of selling games. Lets take the anomaly of Minecraft for example, and I use the term anomaly because there was a lot of luck involved in its success. But Notch started by first demoing a prototype on an IndieGame forum, much in the structure of this one. He got good feedback, so he continued developing it. Eventually he started charging 5 dollars per download. Unexpectedly the game was an overnight success, so he took the numbers to someone he thought best fit the role of "Manager". At that point they sat down and discussed what you described above. From this they made a simple authentication server to track purchases, similar to the functionality of Steam.

Yes, I understand it's an anomaly, but games tend to follow: "lets make cool shit now, if people like it we'll figure out what to do". The whole concept Valve popularized of, "Keep coding and the rest will take care of itself", is a sound plan. This is why you're likely confused, you know from a realistic standpoint this generally doesn't work, but in the world of games it tends to defy reality's logic.

This is why there is a mystique surrounding the entire process. You could argue the reason it worked for Mojang is due to it being an anomaly, but they aren't the only ones who took that path and succeeded.

Isn't this the same way Satoshi got Bitcoin started?

That's exactly what I was trying to say in so many words. If you have a great game and a poor business strategy you go up in flames. If you have a great business strategy and a sucky game, you go up in flames. You definitely have to do both well.

No, but I know that when business hands start trying to do creative work it ruins the creative process in the same way when artistic hands start handling money they get paint all over bills.

This is very hard to do with games generally due to the fickle nature of gamers.

Lets take Legend of Zelda for example. The first 3-4 grew into a snowball of a franchise. Then, Ocarina of Time Comes out on the Nintendo 64, the first Zelda game to be done in 3D. A critically acclaimed success people still rave about today. A year or two later, Majora's Mask, the spiritual sequel, comes out. Fans are disappointed, the game is still well designed, uses the same fundamentals used in Ocarina of Time, but it just didn't catch on with fans. Still financially successful, but fans are now on the fence with the franchise. Okay, so Miyamoto takes a step back and says, "lets mix up the art a little, go back to the cartoon-ish roots". Windwaker is announced for the GCN, and fans go fucking bonkers, foaming at the mouth in anger. Game is still excellent, and critically acclaimed, still didn't hit fans the same way as OoT. Fans state clearly, "We want a more realistic approach", so Twilight Princess comes out, fans again foam at the mouth.

The moral of the anecdote is not that you can't please everyone, but that fans are fickle and sometimes it's a "certain place / certain time" aspect to garner both commercial and fan based success. This is why I said revenue and fan-base health hang in a balance, rather than naturally align. I applaud your optimism, but don't underestimate the fickle nature of a neckbeard gamer, nor his ability to get a large portion of the fanbase foaming at the mouth in rage.

This reaches back to what I stated above, sometimes the fanbase is too fickle to please at some particular time. You can have healthy sales but upset fans, and the fanbase dwindles over time, the two do not correlate. Revenue from direct game sales generally correlate to how many people purchase the game, in the same way the box office numbers correlate to how many people paid money to see the movie. It doesn't reflect how many people walked out the theatre pissed off, in the same way healthy game sales don't reflect the attitude of the fans.

The recent reboot of SimCity is a perfect example of this trend. The game was financially successful, however you'd be hard pressed not to find long term fans who have given up on the franchise due to their disappointment in the reboot of the game. Some fans who have followed the franchise for over 20 years, being long term buyers, will likely not be buying anymore Maxis games. This is a problem, a problem that EA caused by putting too much emphasis of milking revenues from a new model they applied to SimCity relating to DLC.

S.MG won't initially have this issue, as there are no games out there to have fans, (yet). But like a good drug dealer, your income is on the "come back": recurrent customers. As a game company produces games, and people become fans of those games, they also become fans of the studio. You don't have to put as much effort of convincing as many people to buy the game since there's already loyal fans who will buy the game despite what anyone tells them.

As I said, ideally you'd like for the revenue and fanbase to align, but it rarely ever does, thus it leads to difficult compromises.

That's definitely good to hear. Giving open doors to the game development community is a good way to bring in worthwhile talent. Indie developers generally know they'll make terrible managers, that is why S.MG has so much potential. S.MG needs a good development community to surround it, the development community needs people to tell them when they're fucking up. I would say it's Win-Win if the attitude stays this way.

Which is why I called it a flamewar, no one truly cares. It's a debate for neckbeards to get into so they feel they are standing up for something they believe in: a fruitless and unproductive endeavor.

Take what the wrong way? Sounds like a compliment, and I appreciate the discourse. I don't particularly feel strongly about these topics one way or the other, just trying to illuminate some of the fundamentals. Again you gotta make your free throws: they're free points.

Curious, what points did I raise in particular that were interesting?

Maybe I am, but I literally just finished an article in GameInformer on microtransaction/RCE video games, titled "Red Flags". Perhaps not the best magazine to take gamedev advice from, but the fact even GameInformer is touching on the issue, means it's pretty mainstream.

Maybe I did read into it a bit too much, but it feels like you guys took a quick look at the marketplace, said "RCE based games seem to be the winners!" and are running with that without further research.

Maybe I'm underestimating the depth in which MP's research has gone into this, but with some of the blanket statements you've made, it definitely isn't showing.


Why is it preferred? Because it seems more fiscally sound based on what you know about the game industry as of right now, or because it really is the best option?

The RCE model is something most will cite in their essay: "What is wrong with modern video games?" Why MG is pursuing this model when so many reputable industry giants have flat out stated the many flaws in this system baffles me completely.

Are you really too cool to stick to fundamentals? You happen to be taller than everyone else and can dunk, so you have no reason to learn to shoot free throws? One day you'll be at the line, in a tied game, with no time on the clock, wishing you had practiced more free throws.

You're confused because you have never worked for/with a game company. There's no way in hell you can convince anyone with a brain in the game industry that a revenue model is more important than a game that will sell. That's exactly how the Atari brand failed multiple times.

Squaresoft (of Final Fantasy fame), made several games before creating the first Final Fantasy. None of these games sold. They had a solid revenue model, solid business plan, solid team. Yet no one wanted to play their games. Okay, so they give it one last shot, an RPG: their Final Fantasy. The game sells very well, generates a pretty big fanbase. It alone saved the company from imminent doom.

What do I mean by this? You can focus all day on your revenue model, solid business plan, etc. But if your game sucks, no one is going to willingly play it. In game development the traditional business process is in reverse, you start by making sure your game won't suck, then do everything else.

You have no way to prove to anyone what you develop won't suck. So lets suppose your game does suck that you spent a year, maybe 2, or perhaps 3 years, and some thousands of BTC developing. Any and everything you planned for it, including your RCE model, and overall revenue plan is irrelevant.

Then you join the ranks of Team Bondi.

You can dodge details all you want, but from the gist of what you've posted it sounds like you're creating a business plan around, "fuck the user as long as we get paid."  


It's not particularly divorced, but they hang in a balance for a game company. There will be many a decision that helps the revenue stream, but hurts the fanbase. They oppose each other by nature. Ideally everyone would love a healthy fanbase and revenue model/stream to refelect one another, but that's rarely the case. Every time someone has the bright idea to merge the two topics, they may end up making a bunch of money, but turning away a long term fanbase (EA), or growing a large happy fanbase but going defunct due to lack of revenue (Sega).  

Why is Nintendo so successful? In short it's because of long term fans. People who grew up with Super Mario Bros. on the NES are buying Mario Galaxy for their kids today. They didn't always put the fans first, but it was certainly one of their top priorities.

At the end of the day you'll be given choices that are divorced, "do I piss off the fans, or do I hurt the cash flow". There has to be a balance.


Creating a AAA title requires intensive long term labor, and large teams. Mainly due to issues revolving around structuring the game engine for the title. You either have to purchase licensing (which is $1 mn off the bat), or you have to spend n years developing an inhouse engine. As well, you usually have to put together resource allocation which amounts to a small-med animated film depending on the game: voice actors, animators, concept artists, motion capture, etc.

Lets say John Carmack didn't have access to capital, or any leverage at all. Carmack, I would say is a very skilled programmer. You ask him to develop a triple AAA title. There is no money to be found. He can't recruit a team based soley on "dreams". It'll take him a decade to create everything on his own.

The monetary budget reflects the scope a game may reach.

Yes, they can still create a great game despite lack of funds, but the scope will be drastically cut in comparison to something like Alan Wake.

So let me rephrase: MP has both the capital and leadership ability as a producer to congregate a team together capable of creating a title to compete with current AAA titles.


I'm pretty sure you said

That either means you literally don't know, or you don't care. Perhaps you don't have to know or care because you aren't designing the games. But it is an important distinction to make.


So at some point I should also look at a masterpiece painting and notice it's just oil and pigment on a canvas? Is a good book just ink on a piece of paper? Sure that's all it is, but at the same time it's much more. The whole is more than just the sum of the parts...

You clearly asked, even if rhetorically to deflect "going into detail", "why is it so important to establish conceptually what is or isn't a game?" while spearheading the PR for a game company. You represent S.MG no? S.MG = Video Company. No game company worth mentioning, in their right mind, would say such a thing, even as a joke. That was my point.  

Every year at the GDC, you'll have schmuck saying the same thing when arguing "games aren't art" which has been debated for years, becoming the new micro/monolithic kernel flamewar for the game industry. Yes your brain is just making you click a mouse or press buttons on a controller. What your brain does in between seeing the screen/hearing the sounds, and pressing buttons is what matters, not the action itself.

Like the painting, gameplay is a representation of something else. Play as a cultural phenomenon in itself is a representation.

You refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. However as your team comes together, if any of them are worth anything of value to the industry, someone will bring it up.

Edit:
John Carmack not Richard Carmack. Yesterday twas a long day.

I feel like S.MG is unprepared at this moment. Mainly due to the general consensus of the game community in regards to marketplace models, and if you fully represent S.MG, some of the things you've stated are contrary to the reality of the game industry. I don't want to rehash what many individuals smarter than I in the game development community have already analyzed in depth (http://www.bogost.com/blog/cow_clicker_1.shtml), so I'll briefly reference the attached article as needed.

Item malls are secondary revenue streams and have failed plenty of times due to this new developer mantra of "Fuck the user as long as we get paid." The reason games such as Team Fortress 2 have been successful in applying the mall-model is due to a previously developed user base surrounding a quality game. Sacrificing quality for revenue always leads to disaster, one may profit initially, however this always catches up to you (see NASDAQ:ZNGA).

A quote that really hits home:

In recent years, massively multiplayer online games (MMOs) frequently have been accused of doing little more than compelling players to keep playing; amounting to "brain hacks that exploit human psychology in order to make money"

This insults the user, and ostracizes would-be fans from what could be a very successful brand.

You stated:

I don't think this metaphor applies to video games in the way the above individuals were pointing out. Of course no one buys VHS's anymore, but they still buy movies. Games are still distributed, Lord British (Richard Garriot), of Ultima Fame still creates old school point and click RPG's alone at his home, and has quite the audience. He has enough of a fan-base, albeit niche, in order to continue his independent developments, likely indefinitely.

At every game meetup you'll find some schmuck preaching about how his new "item mall micro-transaction revenue model" is going to revolutionize the game industry, attempting to recruit developers blindly to work toward a vision that has already been proven a failure by those much smarter than him.

If Mircea is trying to develop a game in house, why not start with a quality game first before moving onto revenue models? With nearly $1 million (USD) raised (or will be raised) from the IPO (extrapolated from the initial 15%), Mircea has more than enough capital to compete with AAA titles.

Taking the metaphor literally, it still doesn't apply. Companies still release products for dead consoles, (games are still being released for the Dreamcast), players still buy them, the cycle continues.


With your logic you should have Miyamoto, Inafune, and Kojima all lining up to head up the lead design role for S.MG. Alas they are not, I understand the quote was meant to be slightly humorous, however all three of the listed individuals were once novices, and during the infancy of their tenure, they certainly faced failure on a daily basis. At one point in time their names meant nothing.

Most designers and developers worth hiring who have the potential to reach this capacity care most about their artistic vision and how those leading them affect the realized version of that vision.


That's not entirely true...(I'm referring to the "If people play it, that's all it takes"). In fact many game critics and highly regarded designers would completely disagree. The anecdote of one playing ET for the Atari 2600 is the classic example of something that can be played that is far from a game.

What makes a game? Johan Huizinga answered this long ago before any of us were born: http://www.nideffer.net/classes/270-08/week_01_intro/Huizinga.pdf

This has subsequently become a standard in the game development community, a very good read for anyone claiming to be a game designer.

By not making this distinction you are again insulting the player, the one person you'd best not to insult. The player may never know or care about the distinction, but they will feel it in the game. This distinction allows the designer to create an experience that is fun, rather than depending on "brain hacks." It is subconscious by nature.

The user originally asked:

You replied by insulting the would be player:


Come on. Really? The article I referenced at the beginning of this post by Dr. Bogost, analyzes the distinction you are willingly ignoring. I'll start with a quick quote from the attached article by Dr. Bogost:

"Non-trivial effort to play" is the key phrase here. This distinguishes the "brain-hack", from legitimate forms of play.

By ignoring the distinction or an effort to find a distinction, you are not doing your homework, and a disservice to the end user. This goes back to, "I know a game when I see it." I can't implore how critical it is to have well-thought design in the play experience. Nintendo in the 1980's with the release of the Famicom (known as the NES in the west), focused on a fun play experience. A young Miyamoto, was given the task of designing "fun" games, as opposed to trying to drop a flood of games on the market to produce cash flow. Instead, he brought us Donkey Kong, Mario, Metroid, and The Legend of Zelda, all in under a decade. He focused on fundamentals - fundamentals that you seem to be ignoring based on what you are saying.

The user above was clearly comparing Farmville to say a game like Dark Souls.

Farmville's mechanics can be broken down into a very simple "click the cow" action, whereas a game like Dark Souls or Nethack require strategy, tactics, and skill.

Cow Clicker (referenced in the Bogost article), was created as a satire of games like Farmville. You are given a Cow on your Facebook games page, and you are allowed to click it every 8 hours. You can post that you've clicked your cow, trying to get your friends to click it, to gain the in game currency, Mooney, which you use to buy decorated cows. You can pay real cash for all this to go away, bypassing the gameplay entirely. (All of which is described very well by Dr. Bogost in his article). The game became successful, as many people didn't realize it was satire. As well people who wouldn't be caught dead playing Farmville, started playing Cow Clicker because they understood the comedic and satirical nature of the game. All of this was merely an experiment for Bogost, who created a "Cowocalypse" where everyone's cow was raptured...essentially killing the game: he never intended it to be a "real game".

That's all a game like Farmville amounts to, clicking a cow every 8 hours, or paying money to make the tedious gameplay optional. What kind of game is that?

However Harvest Moon, the game Farmville and others are inspired/based on, is a lot more fun than Farmville, came out nearly two decades ago, and still has a cult following. Why? Because the design is superior, and not following the "fuck the player" mantra.

In contrast to Farmville, despite it's difficult nature, people pick up Dark Souls just to submit to the challenge.

Yes, at some point there will be someone who defeats a world champion at Street Fighter by button mashing, but the probability of that happening is very slim.


This is as easy as going to a list of defunct game companies (like the glorious Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_video_game_companies), and picking your lot.

I'll cater to this curiosity, but 10 of each is a large number as you'll see below.

So I'll compromise, I've interleaved a few companies: successful companies that cater to their developers and companies that piss of their developers and have felt the repercussions in business results.

EA)
Okay so you started us off with EA. They do regularly piss off their developers, and had good business results...until recently. EA was extremely successful over the past decade, but as stated above with Zynga, the "fuck the user (and additionally fuck the developers)" mantra will and is catching up to the company. EA is successful by essentially buying fans through acquisitions: Maxis, Bioware, and Popcap to name a few. This definitely is a valid business tactic, until the developers who made the IP successful jump ship due to frustration (Will Wright as a prime example).

The most recent CEO resigned due to issues involving long term fan base growth, rather than financial reasons.

News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22801311

Mojang)
The studio that grew from the success of Minecraft. Notch hired staff, including his management (and Officers etc.), based on their ability to contribute to his vision, and making the process "fun". There have been a few hiccups, but one could argue that the company caters to developers on all fronts, (for example: their physical studio setup, lack of deadlines, freedom in adhering to the designer's artistic vision etc.), and maintains profitability vs. company size. (Minecraft has over 10 million purchases as of now if I am not mistaken).

Atari (3 Failed Subsidararies)
Atari's console the 2600 has the exclusive rights to quite possibly the worst "game" on the planet: ET. I don't want to lecture on what has been thoroughly discussed, someone else can beat the dead horse.

This product (ET) is a microcosm of some of the bad decisions Atari took in terms of growing a great development staff. Atari instead focused on making money off of the licensing process, rather than moving quality games. This contributed to the dark age of games, where companies that had no business developing games were getting published by Atari and sent to market. This is the exact reason how ET made it to shelves. ET should have never made it to shelves. (See the legend of the landfill filled with ET cartridges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_video_game_burial).

Kojima Productions)
This formed from the division of Konami that became "The Metal Gear" team. The original Metal Gear Solid was a hallmark for the video game industry at the turn of the century (the late 90's early 2000's, Metal Gear Solid was released in 1998), and has grown into an extraordinarily successful franchise. Before Kojima had his own dedicated studio, Konami gave him free reign to develop the first Metal Gear Solid. There were barely any restrictions to the allocated resources. This was essentially unheard of during this time period, as few designers were given this degree of freedom with the amount of resources allocated. Metal Gear Solid is nothing but revolutionary, and is the product of not only experimental freedom, but sheer hard work. Many will argue Metal Gear Solid did for video games what Citizen Kane did for film.

Double Fine)
Double Fine is a company with a lot of heart. Tim Schafer's company known for Psychonauts and Brutal Legend, is the epitome of a company that caters to developers and succeeded against the odds. Double Fine was formed by Schafer after gaining experience from being a lead designer at Lucasarts, spearheading projects such as Monkey Island, and Grim Fandango. During the production of Psychonauts the company technically failed: Microsoft who had originally invested in their first game Psychonauts, backed out of the deal completely. Double Fine was left in a state where they were developing a game without a publisher, and had acquired much debt due to Microsoft pulling their original investment deal. The company was so broke due to Microsoft's decision, there was no money to pay anybody. After this news was announced to the staff, Schafer expected everyone to quit, and began talks with his leadership staff of liquidating the company and filing for bankruptcy. The following day, the staff still came into work and continued working on the game. It took several months before Majesco picked up the publishing rights to the title. This was in 2004-2005, since then Double Fine has become successful on it's own accords, and currently maintains profitability.



Tim Schafer negotiates a publishing deal.


Lets switch it up:

Team Bondi)
Team Bondi is kind of up in the air as to their treatment of developers. Some said the loved working there, others state it was hell, putting in 80 hour weeks etc. etc. Either way the company catered to them monetarily, and with technical resources. They eventually made a game with revolutionary facial capturing technology (see L.A. Noire), however this took them a nearly 8 year development period. During this period they burned through cash like the Joker in that movie everyone likes. A simple Google search can easily bring up the problems Team Bondi faced, and their subsequent forced liquidation.

Rockstar)
Rockstar treats their employees like shit at times. Some will claim to work 60+ hour weeks, rarely see their families, and suffer from anxiety disorders, etc. Yet Rockstar consistently produces hit, after hit, after hit. They push the bounds of both the technology, ethics, and mechanics of games. Between the production of GTA: San Andreas and GTA IV, EA bought Criterion Software, the makers of Renderware, which powered the GTA III era of many of Rockstar's games. EA promised to honor a grandfather like clause for all Renderware licensing, but reneged on this promise. This motivated Rockstar's development of RAGE, and licensing Euphoria. Some say EA was trying to sabotage old Renderware contracts in order to cripple older IPs for easier acquisition, but there isn't a lot of substance to these claims. It wouldn't surprise me if evidence surfaces in the future.

Valve)
Valve is kind of an anomaly. Gabe Newell was one of the first 100 employees of Microsoft, making him a millionaire in the 90's. In 1996 he left to form a video game company. Half-Life was made, Steam was invented to play/distribute Counter-Strike 1.6, and the rest is history. Valve is a lot like Google for games, they have intense cashflow and a relatively small staff, so they always maintain a surplus in their budget. This creates an R&D wet dream, and one could argue, with "disposable" cashflow one can afford to pamper the developers.

This doesn't even scratch the surface.

It's in Mr. Popescu's best interest to recruit the best developers/designers possible in regards to game development, and keep them close, perhaps loyal. Maintaining a good relationship with a team that always makes the playoffs is far easier than trying to reconstruct a new team every season.

When I spoke with Mr. Popescu, I asked if a team brought him a game he believed in, would he manage them without compromising their artistic vision, and he said in fewer more concise words, "sure, as long as they have a product."

S.MG has a lot of potential, but it seems you are a bit unprepared at the moment. I hope S.MG takes a more traditional route, and helps to invest in delivering quality products to shelves, and a quality team, rather than trying to invest in profits to impress investors (the EA route). Developers need management, they aren't managers, hence how could they manage themselves? Many designers and developers realize this, but no leadership team wants to be onboard a company funded by dreams.

As stated, I agree wholeheartedly that most Indie developers that fail, or even most studios that fail is due to poor management, hence the inception of S.MG, but I would argue that you have mismatched priorities. You seem to be focused on the revenue plan, and less on the question "will players become fans?"

Many game companies have brought in defacto management, who have good leadership, and failed. Traditional leadership doesn't translate well into the game industry, it never has, it never will. Zynga has been the most recent company to prove that. The good leadership translated into great initial profits, but with the decline of a true fanbase, their business model completely buckled underneath them.

My opinion alone may not matter, but I can guarantee any game developer/designer worth hiring will have the same concerns. People can argue all day, "the underlings don't matter", but in a game company they do.

Doesn't bitcoin-qt/bitcoind have wallet encryption built in? The walletpassphrase feature uses strong encryption via a passphrase to unlock it before letting the system see the private keys in the wallet.dat

If your wallet.dat is encrypted with a strong passphrase this should be all you need. You can back up as many times as you want and even if you lose your wallet.dat to someone else, they can't open it without your passphrase. (So choose a strong one so they can't brute-force it).

When generating a paper wallet via a unix terminal or some other program. Make sure the private key generated with the public/private key pair isn't stored in the system history. For instance with Unix, sometimes even the clear command can leave remnants of printed data to SystemOut in programs like xterm, or even a traditional tty.