Slashdot Mirror


The Fall of 38 Studios

An anonymous reader writes "Boston magazine provides the first reasonably satisfying account of the final year of Curt Schilling's video game company 38 Studios, which was heavily subsidized by a huge loan guaranteed by the state of Rhode Island. During his career as a baseball pitcher, Schilling helped lead three different teams to four World Series, resulting in three championships. He has so far been much less successful as a video game CEO; although he has some of the stereotypical qualities of a successful entrepreneur (passion, energy level, optimism, selling ability), his company seemed utterly lacking in controls, while facing a very tough industry and economy. Schilling apparently regrets the decision to bet the company on an MMO game, but otherwise seems to accept little blame for the demise. His company burned more than $133 million over six years, mostly for headcount, according to an analysis of public documents by Providence TV station WPRI."

172 comments

  1. HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    38 steps, that's how far !!

    1. Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      38 steps, that's how far !!

      Glad it stopped there - one more, and Mr. Memory would've been toast!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jesus did one more than that.

    3. Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      38 studios wanted to use content locks on their games so that you could not resell your used game.
      (Only fanboïs and idiots support this).

      Good thing they failed, we don't need greedy companies like these. As for the employees working there: suck it up, you should have worked for a customer-friendly company if you wanted my sympathy (and before you reply "hard to get job... this economy... blahblah" - then create your own company! It's way too easy to contribute to making the world shit and then deflect all responsibility)

    4. Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by mypalmike · · Score: 2

      "It's way too easy to contribute to making the world shit and then deflect all responsibility" - Anonymous Coward

      Indeed.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    5. Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never launched -- it was scheduled for release next fall.

      The internal demos rocked :) The publicly released art was gorgeous (if you liked that art style, which not everyone did).

    6. Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by star0620 · · Score: 1

      I still think it will stand up later this fall Take game iwin

    7. Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Wonder if the folks at 37signals.com sued for defamation of character.

  2. So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is it so we feel sorry for some rich dumb fuck who's greatest achievement in life is throwing a ball around, and who only got the chance to cause hundreds of hard working people to lose their jobs because America seems to reward the former attributes above all else?

    1. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lose jobs that he gave them?

    2. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is the shit Republicans actually believe. The guy got a $75,000,000 loan from the government, blew it on terrible business decisions, and yet we're supposed to bow down and worship him for "giving" the employees -- employees that he fucked over (by cancelling health insurance without telling them, for instance) -- their jobs.

    3. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by stms · · Score: 2

      What's the point of your comment again? Do you not like this story because it threatens your political views? That not all rich people are old fat evil guys sitting in their office lighting cigars with hundred dollar bills. When some people get money they want to make something other people will enjoy. It doesn't always turn out right for the people trying to do the nice thing. The world and the people in it are not black or white they are a wonderful and confusing shade of grey.

    4. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by docmordin · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Although the story doesn't mention it, unlike others, I'm guessing it's one more subtle jab to the fact that he [Curt Schilling] is vehemently opposed to government financial bailouts and stimulus funds, yet didn't bother to eschew a tax-payer backed state loan, let alone managed his company, from afar, in the same impetuous manner as those that required government aid in the first place.

      Had Schilling really wanted to make Copernicus a reality, there were plenty of other alternative steps he and the management at 38 Studios could have taken. One option would have been to scrap the development of an MMO, something that, as the article noted, resulted in a number of years without revenue, and instead focused on an excellent single-player game from the get-go, so as to build up brand recognition before branching out. (While they, in a half-hearted attempt, did this with Kingdoms of Amalur, it really wasn't a good enough effort, which is evident in just about every facet of the game.)

    5. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When some people get money they want to make something other people will enjoy.

      The problem is that he "got money", as you say, by borrowing $75M from the state government. If he had made a spectacular failure of a company with his own money or money from private investors, it would still be unfortunate but not nearly so infuriating and hypocritical as this. Of course, the way he treated his employees towards the end was unacceptable regardless of where the money came from.

    6. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The "nice thing" in this case, was trying to get as rich as Bill Gates with the first thing he tried.

    7. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He didn't create much of it: he bought existing companies and then ran them into the ground. Big Huge Games had jobs and products before 38 Studios bought it, and would, in retrospect, have been better off if Schilling hadn't bought 'em.

    8. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are shades of grey that have more black in them. this is the case.

    9. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The world and the people in it are not black or white

      Except for Republicans where 'you are either with us or against us'.

    10. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      [Curt Schilling] is vehemently opposed to government financial bailouts and stimulus funds, yet didn't bother to eschew a tax-payer backed state loan, let alone managed his company, from afar, in the same impetuous manner as those that required government aid in the first place.

      Furthermore:

      Schilling apparently regrets the decision to bet the company on an MMO game, but otherwise seems to accept little blame for the demise.

      So, it seems, like many executives, Schilling is acutely aware that success of a business depends on the whole team's effort. Blame is distributed and diluted. While the company operated, Schilling (and all the employees) drew salaries off the government teat under a program specifically designed to foster entrepreneurship by reducing individual risk. Schilling's successes, though, are down to his personal leadership, ability to inspire his team members, and his own personal skills.

      It's a very different story than the guy who mortgages his house to buy a Subway franchise, or to open his own small business. It emphasizes the difference in risk between "small businesses" with $10M payrolls, and small businesses in the individual entrepreneur sense. The former - call then $100M businesses - need some help getting started. Venture capital seems not to be willing to jump in early in the process, so government (either state or federal) loan programs really can foster startups. Those programs are practically only available to people who are already successful and at least moderately wealthy, because no one ever prepared a credible $100M business plan while living in his car. We should recognize that small business loan programs are a public support network for 'job creators' in exactly the same way that unemployment and food stamps are a support network for employees.

      Small business success depends on taxpayer largesse and acceptance of occasional failure

    11. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must be joking. Since when do Republicans believe that government loans to business are a good idea? In a cronyism sense both parties do this stuff, but as a philosophy? You're completely wrong; it's Democrats who want to have the goverment pick winners and losers in business. See Solyndra.

    12. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small business success depends on taxpayer largesse and acceptance of occasional failure

      Which is the problem. If a small business can't get the money to gamble on whether they can get a small business up, running and profitable, why should tax payers be forced to take the risk by giving them government loans? Let those small businesses get their money from private investors. If they can't they obviously have a crappy business plan and will end up costing us, the tax payers. This applies to big businesses, too, for that matter. If they can't get money from private venture "capitalists", screw them.

    13. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro-tip: My slam at Republicans was for their blind, mindless veneration of "job creators." A habit exhibited perfectly by the post I was replying to, which seemed to believe that Curt Schilling meaningfully "gave" people those jobs, when it was actually the state of Rhode Island that is footing the bill for the pay and benefits that they received before Schilling fucked up and bailed.

    14. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [Curt Schilling] is vehemently opposed to government financial bailouts and stimulus funds, yet didn't bother to eschew a tax-payer backed state loan

      Which is why I don't blame Curt. Liberals love to jump on people like Schilling for being opposed subsidies and then taking advantage of the ones that exist. They are the first to say "we're all in this together" and suddenly forget that sentiment as soon as it applies to anyone who disagrees. Tough, we live in a society. That means people like Schilling, if they had their way would not get subsidies and neither would anyone else. They don't make the rules though and neither do I. I vote all the time to end this crap but It does not happen, in the mean time people like Schilling and I pay the same taxes to support it as everyone else; just be cause we don't think its a good idea does not mean we are any less entitled when society collectively decides to create an entitlement.

      So what we really have here is a case where Government was gambling with public monies making loans. That is not the governments job, or it should not be. Capital risk belongs in the private market. There are two really important reasons for that. The first is that when things don't work out bankruptcy can destroy private debts, sovereign debts on the other hang around and drag on the economy forever. The second is that private financing means the people making the call and taking the risk have their own skin in the game. That tends to put the breaks on ideas where the risk is outsized compared to the potential reward; money gets allocated better.

      People keep saying 38 Studios should have take a less aggressive path. They probably could not have raised 75M in the private markets and would have been forced to do just that. That would have put them on the path to grow by doing some number of less ambitious but likely more successful in ROI terms projects first. Who knows if government had not dumped a bunch of overly cheap money on them they might exist today.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    15. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, next time you might try saying what you mean -- it increases comprehension among your readers when you make that small effort. Getting the facts right is also frequently a good idea. Republicans don't venerate "job-creators" that create those jobs with government handouts. As to "mindless", what can one say about those who make strawman arguments accompanied by pseudo-humorous "Pro-tip:" tags?

    16. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time you might try actually reading the post you are replying to rather than charging valiantly off in the wrong direction.

    17. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by scarboni888 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm... must be an election year.

    18. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and Democrats are way better, right? Wrong. Get a clue and stop demonizing your opponents. You are not that different.

    19. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize that reply is the best you can do at this point, but if you want you can redeem yourself by simply agreeing that Republicans don't, in fact, venerate job-creators who create those jobs with government funds. Or you can dig the hole deeper, perhaps using your "Pro-tip:" shovel. Your choice. Mischaracterizing the position of others and then attacking it is strawman argumentation.

    20. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, he blew all his own money in the company too. $30M+. Dude's broke. He'll be living off his salary as an ESPN analyst.

    21. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, I can go ahead and continue the fully-justified belief that Republicans do, in fact, venerate job creators who use government funds. Defense contractors, the banking industry, agriculture, etc.

    22. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Enjoy living in your fantasy world. I must have missed the 'veneration' that Republicans hold for the job-creating prowess of defense contractors, banking, and agriculture. In the world I live in, aka the real one, Republicans are most frequently heard 'venerating' small businesses and their job-creating skills. While I realize it may hurt your eyeballs, not to mention cause your brain to go on tilt, to read this, you could try:

      http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs

      for a more accurate portrayal of who Republicans think of as job-creators than the incorrect opinion you have somehow picked up:

      "Since 1980, small business startups have created over 40 million jobs and are responsible for 60% of new jobs in the United States. Their success is vital to the strength of the economy and the availability of jobs for all Americans."

    23. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gosh, yes, that talking point on the official GOP website has completely changed my mind. I can't believe I was so foolish as to base my opinion on their actual voting record when I could just read a glorified press release instead!!

    24. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Raenex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since when do Republicans believe that government loans to business are a good idea?

      When they're the ones giving them out.

    25. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by amiller2571 · · Score: 1

      yep ...

    26. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're saying it's the government's fault for making the money available, and the person who took the money has no responsibility?

      Isn't that akin to blaming the person who left his car unlocked when it gets stolen?

    27. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you're saying it's the government's fault for making the money available, and the person who took the money has no responsibility?

      -Yes and No-
      He has responsibility for the business failing yes. He has no responsibility to public for the loss of the 75 million, that is what a loan grantee does after all. I also really do think that when government intercedes in the market place and makes money overly cheap, either via loan grantees or direct lending, it does lead otherwise savvy business people to make poorer decisions. It also enables unproven decision makers like these folks access to capital that nobody would give them otherwise. The outcome seems to be often calamity.

      This is an example of someone who had they been forced by nature to swim in a smaller pond for a time, might have learned, grown, and installed a team around him of proven people. What that 75Million loan did is effective let him skip from the high school team and jump directly to majors. Things might have gone better with some time in AAA

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    28. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Utterly neglecting the FACT that Curt is a LOUSY businessman

      Curt ACTIVELY SOUGHT OUT THE MONEY. It was NOT handed to him on a platter.

      Can you BE MORE OBTUSE IF YOU TRY???

    29. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your stuff's the shit Liberals actually believe. The man was a tool. So are you. "Republicans" don't believe the crap you're claiming- but don't let reality stop you now...

    30. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Rogue+Haggis+Landing · · Score: 2

      Dude, please. Agribusiness, defense and oil, the biggest welfare leeches in America, are all squarely Republican.

      Agribusiness is squarely Midwestern. Its bloc of supporters in Congress are representatives from farm states from both parties. For instance, when (oil state) Senator Tom Coburn proposed legislation to end the ethanol subsidy, a bipartisan group of Midwestern senators came up with legislation that attempted to save a subsidy of some sort. This sort of thing happens all of the time. If you're an elected representative from Indiana or Minnesota or Iowa then you're probably going to support Big Agriculture no matter what part you belong to.

      A senator may be very clear on what limits there should be on government spending, and he will also probably believe very strongly that such limits should not apply to his constituents. This is of course both a a feature and a bug of a republican form of government.

    31. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, but they don't typically give out loans. Dems give out loans. Just look at Solyndra and the Bailouts- wasn't a Republican controlled Congress, but a DEMOCRAT one that did all of that along with a Dem President that did Solyndra and the like AFTER they gave the money out to dole out.

      But...don't let the truth stop you on your quest to tar Republicans now... There's nothing "fully adjusted" about your shit.

    32. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Out of the goodness of his heart? Or did he employ those people for their specific skills? Employment is a trade of skills for money, not a benevolent gift by a kindly rich man. Why do so many righties forget that?

    33. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      And those jobs were not gifts at all since all jobs are a trade of skills for money.

    34. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the Republican party tells a good story. Look at how they vote on defense and agricultural spending and the picture doesn't match up with the rhetoric. You think Democrats are the main supporters of the likes of Lockheed, Halliburton, and Monsanto? Think again.

    35. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Big Huge Games was going to be closed by THQ if they had not been purchased.

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    36. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're any better? Why don't the lot of you take your partisan bullshit over to digg or something, they love D vs R circlejerks over there.

    37. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it's one more subtle jab to the fact that he [Curt Schilling] is vehemently opposed to government financial bailouts and stimulus funds, yet didn't bother to eschew a tax-payer backed state loan,

      Well then it sounds like he more than proved the point.

      I don't see anything wrong with telling people something doesn't work and then taking advantage of them when they do not believe you. Otherwise how will people learn?

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    38. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You missed it? Go check out Mitt Romney's escapades from last week where the businesses he was talking up had their own federal funding sources. Or check out the Republican toady who apologized to BP for Obama. Or the ones who suck up to Banks or Chik-Fil-A.

      And sure, Republicans mouth their support for small businesses, but then you actually see the results, and who benefits.

      But no, you'd rather have us read a Republican puff piece and swallow it whole.

    39. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      And really WHAT DOES IT MATTER to ANYONE that he's broke too? Does the knowledge that HE RUINED HIMSELF TOO make it any better on the others???

      He is "ruined" in a fashion that many people would envy. He will have pensions from his sporting career that will make him wealthier than most Americans.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    40. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by CodeArtisan · · Score: 2

      To be fair, he blew all his own money in the company too. $30M+. Dude's broke. He'll be living off his salary as an ESPN analyst.

      Of course, there is a school of thought that suggests his claim to be broke will last only slightly longer than any pending lawsuits against him.

    41. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      1) You're obviously jealous since you have no athletic ability
      2) He created a business venture that hired people in technical, well-paying jobs. Yea, they went under, but about half of new companies fail within 5 years. Without risk-takers and visionaries, we'd all be sitting around the stone circle talking about how Thag caught that scary squirrel with his bare hands

    42. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by pepty · · Score: 1

      You must be joking. Since when do Republicans believe that government loans to business are a good idea?

      Since always. 38 Steps got its loan courtesy of Carcieri, the Republican governor of RI. The DOE loan program was started by Republican president George Bush in 2005, and it was his DOE that advanced Solyndra as a company worthy of a loan. By the time Obama signed off on it the process had been in the works for years. The only times Republicans don't believe loans to business are a good idea are when a, Democrats might get credit for doing something useful (See GM), b, they see an opportunity to blame Democrats for something bad (see Solyndra).

    43. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Venture capitalists do not see as large a return on investment as the government does because venture capitalists do not get to tax successful companies and their employees. So it makes sense that government would be willing to fund companies that it doesn't make sense for venture capitalists to fund - the payoff is greater for government, so the acceptable risk is also greater.

    44. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how any of this vindicates Curt Schilling's ethics, which is the matter in question here. Nobody forced him to do anything, of course he was desperate to keep his company going, but a lot of people have been desperate in the last 4 years to keep themselves fed, let alone their software companies in the black. Being ethical requires more than simply doing the cheapest and most effective thing for you at this moment.

      I also really do think that when government intercedes in the market place and makes money overly cheap, either via loan grantees or direct lending, it does lead otherwise savvy business people to make poorer decisions.

      When anyone acts in any marketplace and makes certain decisions, they can create a situation where adverse selection makes people work against their long-term best interests. If you sell cigarettes for less than the cost of cancer treatment, the outcome is often calamity; if you sell gasoline for less than the price of carbon-resequestration, the outcome is often calamity -- there's nothing evil about this, it's just the way these things are priced, and people make their decisions accordingly, and everyone walks away happy, until later when the externalities catch up to them. This is not an exclusive province of government action, any market actor that is sufficiently wealthy and stupid can induce inefficiency and deadweight loss, we simply call this waste good waste because nobody forced anyone to do anything.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    45. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Dude's broke. He'll be living off his salary as an ESPN analyst.

      Clearly our definitions of "broke" are vastly dissimilar.

      Let me know when he's working at fucking Walmart shagging carts for $8 bucks an hour wondering how he's going to pay for health insurance and food at the same time.

    46. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they believe money is a skill (esp. when they inherited it) and being able to do something useful is a defect in the working class people. all they do is the usual "hey, people we can use money to abuse"-spiel

    47. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is so much easier taking risks with other peoples money and a personae who is guaranteed (through his previous claim to fame) a reasonably living no matter what (and easy jobs to get too)

    48. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Employment is a trade of skills for money, not a benevolent gift by a kindly rich man. Why do so many righties forget that?

      Because they desperately want to pretend that it's not so.

      Compare:

      If I sign a mortgage that I can't pay for, it's my fault for not reading the contract and understanding what it would mean and what my responsibilities are.
      If a company signs a labor contract that they can't pay for, it's the union's fault for threatening to withhold labor which companies are entitled to.

      If I complain about the price of good X because demand has driven up the price, well, that's just the law of supply and demand.
      If a company complains about not being able to find skilled workers at minimum wage, well that's quite alright. Let's get on those immigration laws right away, after all, they're entitled to cheap labor.

      If I complain about the quality of a good, I'm told to vote with my wallet and find someone willing to make it to the specifications I desire.
      Companies complain about university degree programs not being their personal training programs, and Republicans respond by trying to completely remodel universities instead of suggesting that their HR department stop insisting on degrees and consider vocational training or gasp training their own employees.

    49. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Someone is vehemently opposed to subsidies, yet takes full advantage of them only because they're currently legal. That's like someone being vehemently opposed to abortion, but having one every six months because they're legal. Last time I looked, part of opposing something meant you didn't partake in it yourself because you are *opposed* to it.

    50. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      - He put hundreds of people onto Rhode Island's unemployment rolls

      - Certainly he hired those people but several of them are holding the bag on mortgages after 38 relocated them and then failed to sell their house

      - "risk takers and visionaries" THIS IS VIDEO GAMES!!! WHAT SORT OF BENEFIT IS HE PROVIDING THAT EXCUSES THE LOSSES???

      All you are showing is that you are unable to use the things that matter when you draw conclusions about what is going on. When those involved in the situation see misery and bankruptcy and spoiled dreams, you pretend that he actually had some business acumen in the first place and that all would have been peachy if WHAT EXACTLY???

    51. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that doesn't make sense. It's more like all those Democrats who want higher taxes but don't give all of their money to the IRS. See: Stop Coddling the Super-Rich by Warren Buffett for an extreme example.

    52. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Which is why I don't blame Curt. Liberals love to jump on people like Schilling for being opposed subsidies and then taking advantage of the ones that exist.

      Nah, we love to jump on Cunt Schilling because he's a racist douchebag.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    53. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by AssholeMcGee+ · · Score: 1

      I had read or heard he was under investigation for getting the loan and then not using it properly/paying it back? The idiots that gave him the loan should be in federal prison. If the guy could not be frugal with his own money to start up a gaming company, why would you give him tax payers money to only flush it down the toilet as well.

    54. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF has this to do with the discussion on the article or the article itself? By your comment, though, it seems you are a Rep. in that you lump all Rep into one category thus making it a black or white description. When it comes to politics, there is no black and white. All political parties have members with various ideas ranging from liberal to conservative.

    55. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      To be fair, he blew all his own money in the company too. $30M+. Dude's broke. He'll be living off his salary as an ESPN analyst.

      I've never understood people like this. Why not invest 30M and keep back 10M just in case?

      Or do you have to be so blindly optimistic to be an entrepreneur that you can't begin to believe you'll fail?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Which is why I don't blame Curt. Liberals love to jump on people like Schilling for being opposed subsidies and then taking advantage of the ones that exist.

      Most people consider hypocrisy unacceptable.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    57. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it's one more subtle jab to the fact that he [Curt Schilling] is vehemently opposed to government financial bailouts and stimulus funds, yet didn't bother to eschew a tax-payer backed state loan,

      Well then it sounds like he more than proved the point.

      I don't see anything wrong with telling people something doesn't work and then taking advantage of them when they do not believe you. Otherwise how will people learn?

      Yes, of course he did it as a selfless act of political theatre. Of course he did.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    58. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wanting to become rich doesn't qualify you as a "visionary". And this twat risked other people's money, not his own. (Which is admittedly the definition of capitalism).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    59. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Why does the average American have over $8000 in credit card debt? Why does the government spend more money than it takes in to the point where the world is looking into alternate currencies for the central bank, almost guaranteeing the US will default on its debt when it can no longer just print money to pay them? Why do people risk everything in Vegas (or, hell, go to Vegas at all)? Why do my poor friends live on welfare and still scrape money together to buy lottery tickets every week (and seriously expect to win)?

      I think blind optimism (aka wild hope) is an epidemic in America.

    60. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      I don't think that it's a requirement, but I do think that it is a major contributing factor. With so much at risk, I think that optimism is definitely a prerequisite for entrepeneurship, since the knowledge necessary to cover all the myriad risks and turn it into a "sure thing" is tough to come by, and possibly impossible to have before plunging in and learning the business first hand.

      The vast majority of new businesses fail within the first 4 years. A lot of people go in with less knowledge of the business than others who don't own their own business. Perhaps if they knew how complex or difficult it was, they wouldn't try to start one of their own. The more you know about all the bad things that can happen, the more intimidating the idea may seem.

      But sometimes, that optimism falls into good fortune, and the business takes off before the 1000 what-if disasters materialize. Hopefully this keeps them going until they really do learn how to run the business well. Other times, even very knowledgeable entrepreneurs dive in and get burned anyway when unforeseen events blindside them.

      In this particular case, he wanted to make the MMO of his dreams. MMOs aren't easy and he knows how most of them are compared against WoW and fail since they're competing against a product with over a decade of development and endless seas of money. In order to make a product that can compete in that arena, you need to have people who have proven themselves in the industry and they don't come cheap. So if he wanted to start the project, he would need to put in enough money to give it a chance of success. Another factor, Curt Schilling's primary role in all this was as a pitchman for capital generation. He knows he's a baseball player, not a developer or writer, so he left those duties to people who know how to do those things. When he goes in front of others to ask them for capital, those other people have seen plenty of other people just like him asking for money. If he doesn't believe in the project, it may very well come through in the presentation, either in his enthusiasm, or when the VC guys ask him to match their investment as they often do.

    61. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close...it's when they're the ones receiving them.

    62. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      He was already rich, and he risked a significant amount of his own personal fortune. And I didn't call him a visionary.

    63. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Don't confuse jealousy of someone's wealth and the freedom and influence that comes with it, with the means they used to gain it.
      2) If we take it as a given that he actually deserves the position he got to through sport (hey, apparently a lot of people value your antics on a field enough to pay you obscenely to keep doing them, good for you I guess), what kind of batshit logic leads anyone to conclude he should be the CEO of a software company, as opposed to, say, one of the qualified and competent engineers he brought down with him? Can you imagine some crazy parallel universe where a bunch of geeks are selected to play for the world series because of their, um, elite programming skills? Why is the actual situation any less ridiculous?

    64. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Didn't say it was selfless. Just said the end results were not really bad.

      Something does not have to be selfless to be good. That's why the phrase "win-win" exists.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    65. Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? by bhcompy · · Score: 1

      He shouldn't have been, but he created the goddamn company, so he got to do what he wanted. How hard is that to understand? It's not like he went to Steve Jobs and said "hey dude, make me CEO of Apple when you die". He drafted the articles of incorporation, filed the correct paperwork, paid the money, and became CEO. It's not that hard.

      And you're most likely not going to make an engineer a CEO(the vast vast majority of the time you're not). That's a business executive position, who are supposed to make sound business decisions, not sound engineering decisions. Putting an engineer in at CEO is no different than putting in a fan at CEO, which is what happened here, but with the caveat that the fan created the company and it was his choice to make.

  3. Congratulation by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After reading the article, I can only say one thing.

    Congratulations mr. Shilling, for winning the "most arrogant douchebag of the century" award.
    We've still got 82 years to go, but we're pretty sure nobody will even come close.

    He wanted to outdo with half the money in half the time and no experience, what few experts dare to do.

    My whole life was spent doing things that people didn’t believe were possible, because God blessed me with the ability to throw a baseball. And I carried that same mentality into everything I did here.

    You weren't doing anything anybody thought impossible. Any league has a finite number of teams, one of which will win; this is not an impossibility.
    Apart from being CEO at Microsoft, the ability to throw objects has no value outside the baseball field.
    The mentality to do short bouts of activity for a few hours every week isn't necessarily the right mentality for anything else in live.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Congratulation by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. the real lesson is that you shouldn't have headcount for headcounts sake(headcount was necessary to qualify for the loan though but it seems they had headcount for headcounts sake even before that - this is why they hired people while they couldn't pay their bills).

      also they didn't apparently have an idea about how to make the game fun(and/or perhaps an idea about how to make it properly scale to amazing mmo). it doesn't really seem that what it lacked was just money, but the right team from the day 1.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Congratulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was bad planning. Kingdoms of Amalur sold almost half a million copies. The problem was the company planned for it to sell 3 million.

      "Our first game on a new IP from a new studio is going to be wildly successful" is not a business plan.

    3. Re:Congratulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has followed Curt Schilling's career, both during and after baseball, knows that the man is a gigantic and total tool.

  4. why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they gave him the money they were probably expecting some shit like "Curt Schilling's World Of Baseball" or some shit with MMO style seasons and whatnot. Instead he tries to make some shitty WOW knock-off? Why would you do that? Also he says "The only multibillion dollar games are MMOs"...well that's just wrong. CoD4 made a bill easy and it's just a humble old shooter. Also, he looks like a shit in that photo, I mean we all have to age but he does not look like a former pro athlete, then again he was getting swarmed by paparazzi so maybe not his best look.

    1. Re:why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Because that's pretty much the only stuff you got money for in the IT world a few years ago. Seriously. Walk into some investor's office and tell them you're gonna make a computer game, they'll wait until you add "and it's an MMO like WoW" and suddenly their eyes will light up and they shower you with money. For some odd reason they seemed to think every MMO is an instant success like WoW. For some odd reason they thought the market wasn't saturated. It seems they had no idea how the success of WoW came to be and that they could easily recreate it just by fiat. I wanna, so I can.

      I guess that's how he got the money. Greedy investors without a clue what they invest in.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't believe I'm defending Schilling, because I think he is a raging asshole, but I must point out that "making a baseball game" is not nearly as simple as you portray. For a new fantasy IP like what he created with Kingdoms of Amalamadingdong, it wasn't necessary to do anything other than hire people. For a baseball game, he would need to negotiate a licensing deal with MLB, and I'm guessing the extant high-budget baseball game developers would do everything in their power to keep him out.

    3. Re:why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Choosing an impossible project is not exactly good business practice.

  5. yeah, but what was his gearscore? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone have a link to his main on the wow armory?

  6. 1/4 of the RI budget deficit by kenorland · · Score: 0

    This is how these people advertise themselves: http://www.riedc.com/

    Governor Chafee and the RIEDC Board Move to Revitalize and Rebrand Urban Communities, Help Small Businesses

    So, in the best case, they would have made a bunch of high tech workers wealthier, and in the (more likely) worst case, they ended up being out $75 million.

    For comparison, $75 million is about a quarter of Rhode Island $300 million budget deficit.

    Chafee is co-chair of Obama's reelection campaign. These are the kinds of policies that are supposed to help the US economy?

    1. Re:1/4 of the RI budget deficit by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Informative

      The loan wasn't given out under Chafee, it was given out under his predecessor. Chafee was only governor during the time the company was publicly imploding. Try researching things before posting next time, ok?

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:1/4 of the RI budget deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you don't want to tax a job creator like Schilling do you? I mean he made 90 million playing baseball and we know everyone in that income bracket creates jobs. And since taxing job creators hurts the economy then giving subsidies to them must help the economy, right? Now if they were socialists like Obama they would have used the 75 million to hire a bunch of blacks and catholics to pave roads or something. So I'd say the people who gave the money to Schilling were just letting freedom ring!

  7. State of the MMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious to know what the state of the MMO was like, knowing the Studio burnt through most of it's cash developing it.

  8. Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Idea: use tax money to make a retired baseball pitcher into a software CEO.

    --
    Gently reply
  9. Game Code & Resources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what happens to the game code, 3d models, textures, maps, storyline, etc?
    It's going to be hard to sell. They should just open source it and at least let the people of RI recover some enjoyment out of it.

    1. Re:Game Code & Resources by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering that most of the money is from the US taxpayer, I guess it would fit to give it to the public...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Lesson: Your ability to throw a curveball... by outsider007 · · Score: 2

    Does not predict success as a tech CEO, particularly when you are a right wing ultra-religious asshat.

    --
    If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  11. No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    The companyâ(TM)s death was grisly: Before going under, it defaulted on the $75 million guaranteed loan that the state of Rhode Island had used in 2010 to lure it to Providence. As the money ran out, the company encouraged its 379 employees to continue coming into work, even though it knew it could not pay them. Staffers realized theyâ(TM)d been stiffed only when they noticed the money missing from their bank accounts. A pregnant woman had to find out from her doctor that her healthcare benefits had been cut off.

    - like all the other government loan guarantees, and all other types of moral hazards created by the government, this business was failing with a much bigger bang because of them.

    Without gov't loan guarantees, the guy couldn't spend that much money on a losing business, the tax payers wouldn't be footing the bill, the taxes didn't have to be collected, the money could have stayed in the private hands, banks or VC firms, the risk would have been managed better.

    Companies must go bankrupt, they must blow up, it's a healthy thing - that's how the free market allocates the scarce resources (land, capital, labour) efficiently. This means that money is not wasted further, once the profits stop and losses start, the company has to restructure, it has to be made more efficient, it has to be made profitable or it has to die.

    So many people don't understand that profitability is the only true indicator of whether the scarce resources should be spent in any particular way. The problem with government getting into any business is precisely this: there is no price discovery and there is no accountability because the profits don't matter for much longer (until the company in question or the entire economy tanks).

    1. Re:No profits = no accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If only the American economy actually worked that way. Instead we have socialism for the rich and socialism for the poor all funded off the backs of the middle class. The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of others people's money. The middle class can't carry both the rich AND the poor.

    2. Re:No profits = no accountability by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The middle class can't carry both the rich AND the poor.

      Probably true. I just wonder which will get thrown overboard first.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:No profits = no accountability by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      There are some areas where government is right to interfere. Just think about things people can't do without. Like food or power.

      If the government just let market forces take over, then most food and power would be produced in neighboring countries. Which wouldn't be that bad if nothing changed.

      But what happens if the neighbors notice that your country is missing such critical items? They can raise prices to whatever they want, and there is not much you can do about it until you rebuild your own power plants and grow your own food, but by that time they can again drop prices to the point where your production is again unprofitable.

    4. Re:No profits = no accountability by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Curt Schilling ACTIVELY SOUGHT OUT THE MONEY after EXHAUSTING OTHER REVENUE SOURCES.

      Tell us more lies about how the state pushed money into his hands

    5. Re:No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      What are you, that dense? Terse even? The government shouldn't be taxing some people to give it to others, including these 'guaranteed loans', he shouldn't be able to find money for his ideas in government if no private enterprise wants to fund him.

      There is a REASON why he couldn't find private money for his stupid ideas and this story just proves that the private sector was right, and you are as dumb as they come, it's staring right into you, and you still don't get it.

    6. Re:No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The only place the government is 'right' to interfere is where it is authorised, and it's not authorised to interfere in any business activity, it's not the purpose of the government and it can never be a legitimate role.

      Not food, not power, not health care, not insurance, not housing, not banking, not finance, not construction, not education, not anything that is outside of why the government is actually needed - protection of individuals from foreign powers and ensuring that the government does not abuse its own power. That's right, the real legitimate reason to have a Republic is to ensure that a dictatorial or a totalitarian form of control does not arise to power, it's to DISMISS power, not to invite it.

      As to power and food being produced elsewhere - if the government interferes with the market, it's exactly what's going to happen - all things will be made elsewhere, and you'll have no savings at all to restart any industry, you'll be back to subsistence farming and gathering or hunting, good luck having any sort of progress then.

      You know what your problem is? You are completely perfect for this system.

    7. Re:No profits = no accountability by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      So why are there still US farmers? There have been subsidies in place for nearly 100 years, and the farmers haven't moved out of the country yet.

    8. Re:No profits = no accountability by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Can you read THE SUBJECT OF THIS STORY???

      38 studios failed BECAUSE CURT SCHILLING IS A BAD BUSINESSMAN

      Telling us that it's Rhode Islands's fault is BOGUS

      As to your complaints about POLITICS: READ THE TITLE TO THIS STORY.

    9. Re:No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      First of all, when the industrial revolution happened in USA, the farmers didn't leave, the outcome was that much fewer people (under 6%) could feed the country, so this was a huge productivity spike, the output became much cheaper because of it, it is the US farmers who could produce food much cheaper than others, that's the point of productivity gains - you can have more productivity with less effort.

      All US farm bills have been combating the problem of the Federal reserve and Treasury debt, the problem of growing government and regulations. Unfortunately for the USA, its people are so stupid, that they turned the Republic into this nightmarish democracy, which voted for the lowest common denominator type of politician - the politician who promises more government, more regulations, theft from those who produce in order to subsidise those who don't.

      The reason that it's cheaper to produce food elsewhere rather than in USA is simple - the government is too big, and so US production is inefficient, it's expensive, it is uncompetitive.

      When USA became the industrial country, it didn't lose its farming, it just could do it much more efficiently. USA gov't subsidises the farming corporations by taxing and growing government on one hand, on the other the prices of food are much higher than they should be, there is huge amount of artificial demand as well through individual subsidies, like the Food Stamps, so the real tax payers (those who actually truly foot the bill), they are hit many times over.

      First they are taxed to subsidise the inefficient overly expensive food producers in USA.

      Then they are taxed to subsidise the inefficient and unproductive people who get various food subsidise, like the food stamps.

      Then they are taxed some more, because all of the money that could go into efficiencies, into building an actual economy in USA is spent by government on all these projects that shouldn't be done in USA if USA cannot do them.

      Saying that other countries would raise prices of food if they were the only ones selling it to USA. Well, 90% of all sea food comes to USA from Asia. 90% is not 100%, but it just as well could be.

      The reason anybody would stop trading wouldn't be out of spite, that's irrational. The reason would be this: they couldn't GET anything back from this trade. And today it's the truth already - nobody can get anything from USA for all the stuff they supply it with, they are piling up the dollars and bonds, what are they getting in return?

      So that's why foreigners are buying up whatever assets from USA that do have some value, that's why Deutsche Boerse was trying to buy NYSE (of-course USA gov't is blocking all such attempts, which only signals to the rest of the world - don't take US money, you can't get anything for it).

      The farmers didn't move out of USA over the last 100 years because the government is subsidising them specifically, it's the OTHER business that left USA, the business that is TAXED to subsidise the farmers. Didn't you notice?

      There is no difference between pre-industrial and post-industrial economy, they are the same type of economy.

    10. Re:No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yeah, don't you have any sense to read into the story more beyond what is on the surface? The money that the guy got was not his, he didn't care about it, he didn't care about the profit.

      You are saying he is a 'bad businessman', so that is why the private money market recognised it and DID NOT GIVE HIM MONEY FOR THIS NONSENSE VENTURE.

      The government shouldn't be in business subsidising any businesses, the 'good' business will have private investors who will recognise it as such, take the risk and maybe make money if they are right, but there will be ACCOUNTABILITY TO THOSE INVESTORS.

      Where is the accountability to the general public - the tax payers who got fleeced? He is a 'bad businessman' you are saying? So why is the tax payer subsidising him?

      It is the fault of the government for STEALING MONEY from tax payers to give it to any business, never mind 'good' or 'bad'. What, you didn't have enough bank bailouts? What a tool.

    11. Re:No profits = no accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, the government isn't authorized to interfere in [b]any[/b] business activity? Really? You want to go with that? Do you not realize how hyperbolic your own words are?

      Because while that might possibly in the charter of whatever government you live under, the charter of the government I live under is explicitly chartered to do just that. In several separate and distinct layers. And no, they aren't limited to just your concept of their purposes, but have a multitude of other purposes. As stated in their own provisions.

      For example, the US Federal government has the explicit power to regulate commerce among the states, to coin money, to set up rules for bankruptcies and debt collections, my state's constitution has other provisions including the explicit provision of internal improvements, and my city's charter covers the issue of business licenses and the public safety.

      Try not to confuse the tenets of your ideology with the actual reality. The government(s) I live under and support is authorized by the public to interfere in many ways with business, and you haven't convinced the rest of us to change it.

      You are putting the cart before the horse. Try not to be so presumptive.

    12. Re:No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Regulating an act of commerce, not business, not businessmen, not the way companies operate, the act of interstate commerce, the act of trade itself. The government did usurp the power over businesses, labour, etc., but it's unconstitutional, of-course given the right people in the Congress, Senate, White House and SCOTUS, everything can be changed to mean something else.

      Coining money does not mean 'printing', it means defining how much weight of gold or silver is in a coin, what the coin looks like, actually minting the coin for you out of your own gold or silver.

      Rules for bankruptcies do not regulate the business itself, they regulate the priority of payments, how the bankruptcy is carried out, who gets what in what order.

      Your State Constitution I am not interested in, that's why there are 50 States, so that your crazy State is just one of them and people can move from one to another, that's why so many people are moving nowadays to Texas and Florida out of crazy Connecticut or California.

    13. Re:No profits = no accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said used the word "any" which includes each and every single thing that impacts business. That's an all inclusive term that has no limits. Bankruptcies, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and more. It's hyperbole, and you really should own up to it. You can say you don't want government to be authorized to do those things, but don't falsely claim it isn't, when it very obviously is. And you are really quibbling when you say they can regulate an act of commerce, but not business or businessmen. If you were objecting to making a specific law for a specific person, I'd concur with that (several states to forbid such private acts, FWIW), but to regulate commerce, you will inevitably be regulating the operations of a company. It's unavoidable.

      And you can not be interested in my state, but your words, again, were quite expansive. Not limited to just one specific operation of government, but all of them, and while you can personally be comfortable that others don't live by your laws (though I doubt it), that doesn't change the fact that your words are untrue. You really do need to speak in an accurate form, express it as what you want, not engage in misrepresentation. Take responsibility for your words.

      Though for what it's worth, my state constitution also explicitly says we can change the charter of government, so I don't have any objection to the idea of changing everything. That's actually one of the principles of our government. So even if I accepted your limitations, which I don't, I'd consider them subject to change. That's actually the only part that is what I consider to be an absolute.

    14. Re:No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      and you really should own up to it.

      - actually I absolutely AGREE, I would NOT have ratified that type of Constitution.

      There were things in the Constitution that are against my principles, starting with the definition of blacks as being not fully persons and getting into the entire Interstate commerce regulation thing, I wouldn't have allowed it at all.

      AFAIC even the original Constitution takes too many freedoms away from individuals and does not limit the government enough, what can I say, I wasn't the one writing it. However the original intent was absolutely different from what is happening right now, if the original intent, the spirit, the idea that the government shouldn't be meddling with business (except for those SPECIFIC authorised powers), there wouldn't be an economic disaster on everybody's hands today.

      And you can not be interested in my state,

      - I don't care about YOUR State, I would choose a State that didn't get into everybody's business. Texas, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada are getting less into other people's business, I wouldn't choose New York, Connecticut, California for example.

    15. Re:No profits = no accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then the next time you feel a desire to say something, instead of saying something like "and it's not authorised to interfere in any business activity" say somethling more like that you feel it should not be authorized.

      As I said, the point is not what you want, or desire, but the untrueness of your expressions as you made claims that are false. The governments I live under are authorized to do many things that interfere in business activity.

      You may not agree, but say you don't agree, don't misrepresent it as if it wasn't actually authorized when it has been explicitly stated in the written charter. Your use of such expansive claims take things from actual discussion and beliefs to a point where you're just saying things that so widely diverge from reality that they detract from your argument.

      A little moderation would go a long way.

    16. Re:No profits = no accountability by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      You may not agree, but say you don't agree, don't misrepresent it as if it wasn't actually authorized

      - what is happening TODAY is NOT authorised.

      What exactly is authorised? Printing of money? It's not. Setting of the interest rates? It's not. Creating all these agencies, from FBI and Fed and IRS to HUD, dep't of energy, dep't of education? They are not authorised. SS, Medicare, EI, welfare, any income redistribution is not authorised (and you can see the journal entry linked from my sig., you may learn something, that at least the personal income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally by IRS from the start).

      What is authorised? The undeclared wars? Not one has been declared since WWII.

      The bank bail outs?
      The stimulus packages?
      The minimum wage laws or any other labour related laws?
      EPA? FDA? FAA? None of this is authorised.

      Congress cannot take its own powers and delegate them to a third party, that is unelected, yet Fed exists.

      So I am going to say once again: everything that governments do today is unauthorised.

    17. Re:No profits = no accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but being able to come up with things you believe AREN'T authorized does NOT prove "and it's not authorised to interfere in any business activity" is true.

      All your examples serve to show is you believe that there are things they shouldn't be doing, or that you object to how they're doing things. Perhaps you are right on those respects, perhaps not, I am refraining from arguing with you on that, as I feel it would be a distraction.

      My problem is with your overly expansive hyperbole to say what you did, which was to claim any interference in any business is not authorized. Please recognize your hyperbole is a problem and exercise some moderation. Heck, you aren't even specifically limiting your comments to just the Federal government, even though your examples are focused in that direction, and now you're doubling down by saying "everything that governments do today is unauthorised." which isn't true at all. Governments include city, county, and state as well. Even Indian Tribes. Many of the things they do are authorized. Quite explicitly.

      But you would have us believe that everything they do is unauthorized. Your intemperate phrasing is to your detriment. Try to get some perspective, pick better ways to say things, add qualifiers, don't just blast out with bold rhetoric that actually lacks in truth. Why? Because it takes your words from an attempt to persuade which would have legitimacy, to a false declaration that others simply do not believe.

      And no, blaming others for being ignorant or however you want to phrase it won't work either. It'll just antagonize others and that won't help you at all.

      Take some responsibility for yourself.

    18. Re:No profits = no accountability by techsimian · · Score: 1

      Well the poor are lighter and therefore easier to throw overboard, but there sure are a lot of them...but...they ARE poor. My money's on the poor getting the shaft.

    19. Re:No profits = no accountability by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Yeah right the government should stop paying for NASA
      they should stop paying companies to design better asphalt
      they should stop paying for software at all, because you can get it for free on the internet

      in fact you give a great reason for dissolving the government entirely
      it's just not right for them to be spending money

  12. Can't stop reselling in the EU by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I note that recently the Court of Justice of the European Union rejected an attempt by Oracle to stop the sale of secondhand licences on software downloaded over the internet. It seems to me that reselling of games software should also be allowed under the same ruling.

    1. Re:Can't stop reselling in the EU by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

      Whoops ... I got this story mixed up with the one about Gamestop! I'll repost.

  13. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Same shit with the "Make an MMO first because it makes you the most money!" thing. What a retarded, arrogant, idea. When you are new in business, best not to try and shoot straight for the most financially risky stuff because good chance you fail. Had he really wanted to make games and been smart about it he would have started small, maybe with something he could self-fund, and then as he learned moved on up.

    Just as you don't start pitching for the majors, you don't want to start on an MMO. It is a shit ton of work, a lot of money, and easy to fuck up. Even for the big players it can happen. Look at The Old Republic. Bioware was doing the design and story on it, and they have a history of very solid single player MMOs, EA was publishing and controlling it, and they have a few MMOs to their name (Ultima Online, DAoC, and Warhammer Online) and yet they still screwed it up fairly badly and it is questionable if they'll manage to break even.

    He just thought he was such an amazingly smart motherfucker that he'd go straight to the top, fuck all that noise of learning the business or anything. Instead, it was straight to the bottom.

    1. Re:No kidding by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Single player MMOs"? Derp?

    2. Re:No kidding by Post-O-Matron · · Score: 1

      I guess he means "Single player big-world adventure games".

      "Single player Massive Multiplayer Online" is an oxymoron. But nobody would understand what you say if you said "Single player BWAG"...

  14. Re:Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    I just don't get why he didn't make what he knew. I mean I personally don't care for sports but I bet a baseball game where every player is a real person and you have teams and leagues and work your way towards the World Series would probably sell, a hell of a lot more than yet another WoW ripoff.

    I mean how damned many more MMOs filled with elves and dragons and crap do we really need anyway?

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  15. Re:Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    It would also give basically free publicity, of an actually good kind. "Curt Schilling making a baseball MMO" gets you into both the tech press and the sports pages, and probably would build interest and anticipation even without having a product yet. "Curt Schilling is making a WoW clone" also produces some press, but more of the puzzled/curious kind.

  16. why don't you do some research yourself? by kenorland · · Score: 1

    Try researching things before posting next time, ok?

    I did, and I quoted it: Chafee put his name on the agency, meaning that he believes in these kinds of programs in principle. The idea that such an agency under Chafee will make any better investment decisions than it did under Carcieri is silly; the problem is that such agencies exist and have the power to give away large amounts of tax dollars in the first place.

    And if you do your research, you'll see that Chafee failed to minimize losses and instead just let the whole thing collapse in on itself; why should he bother doing more, the tax payer is just going to pay for it and he can just blame his predecessor.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/28/technology/38-studios/index.htm

    1. Re:why don't you do some research yourself? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Don't be so fucking dumb. It's not like you can walk into office with a bottle of Tippex and erase all the checks that your predecessor wrote; they've already been cashed.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:why don't you do some research yourself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chafee put his name on the agency

      What does that even mean?

      The fact is he publicly opposed the loans when they were made.

      PROVIDENCE — Lincoln Chafee has not been allowed to address a Rhode Island state board meeting about his opposition to a $75 million loan guarantee offered to Curt Schilling’s video game development company.

      http://articles.boston.com/2010-08-24/business/29310188_1_loan-guarantee-studios-meeting

    3. Re:why don't you do some research yourself? by kenorland · · Score: 1

      Don't be so fucking dumb. It's not like you can walk into office with a bottle of Tippex and erase all the checks that your predecessor wrote; they've already been cashed.

      No, but he could have prevented the company from completely self-destructing, thereby reducing RI's liability by tens of millions of dollars. RTFA.

      Furthermore, to prevent a repeat, he should have shut down the agency responsible for it. Instead, he is just moving out his predecessor's staff, moving in his own, and putting his name on it.

      I don't get why you're defending this guy.

    4. Re:why don't you do some research yourself? by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      "he could have prevented the company from completely self-destructing,"

      WOW someone is arguing that the state should be MORE involved in business.

      "to prevent a repeat, he should have shut down the agency responsible for it. Instead, he is just moving out his predecessor's staff, moving in his own, "

      So you say the governor can abolish agencies he doesn't like because he feels like it?

    5. Re:why don't you do some research yourself? by kenorland · · Score: 1

      WOW someone is arguing that the state should be MORE involved in business.

      No, I'm saying that RI should sell the business as quickly as possible, but minimize losses for RI taxpayers in the process. But Chafee just threw away many more millions by not paying attention and letting the asset fall apart under his watch. RTFA.

      So you say the governor can abolish agencies he doesn't like because he feels like it?

      He can't abolish them overnight, but he can certainly work toward that goal, and he can start by not putting his name on an agency that is guilty of wasting tax dollars in this way. Instead, Chafee actually seems to like these kinds of efforts: he apparently thinks that handing out tax dollars in order to attract businesses is a good idea, and that's why he puts his name on the agency. And in that, he is making the same error as his predecessor.

  17. Just edit his words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I did, and I quoted it: Chafee put his name on the agency... you'll see that Chafee failed to minimize losses an"

    In other news Obama failed to fix the economic mess the Republicans got us into. He put his name next to President and failed to stop the Bush TARP frantic bailout to Wallstreet. Vote Republican! Same logic.

    If you're so desperate to make a sound bite why not just edit out some words like Romney does?

    "Loan...it was given out under....Chafee... during the time the company was publicly imploding...ok?"
    There you go, now trot along back to Fox News with your new expose!

    1. Re:Just edit his words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obama voted for TARP as a Senator. And he used TARP funds to bail out the auto industry, which he has been taking credit for in campaign ads.

      Not that anyone in America cares about facts during this election cycle.

    2. Re:Just edit his words by cwj123 · · Score: 1

      Let's be honest here, nobody in America ever cares about facts.

  18. Uh, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a cronyism sense both parties do this stuff, but as a philosophy?

    Both parties do it.

    Got it.

    Democrats do it and it's part of their philosophy. SO they do as they preach.

    Republicans say they are for less government but in practice take all they can get just like the Democrats.

    Got it - hypocrites.

    Same for "Big" government and paying for it.

    TO paraphrase Jesse Ventura (L), Democrats are cash and carry. Sure they want big government but they're have no problem finding ways to pay for it with immediate revenue - usually higher taxes and many times cuts somewhere else to get the Republicans on board (at least in the past before this current Rep "Our way or the government and economy or we'll take them both out!").

    Republicans borrow for big government. Republicans want big government (but say the opposite) and they want fiscal responsibility and smaller government (but do the opposite).

    Sure the Democrats are big shits too, but at least they aren't two faced about it.

    Yeah yeah yeah, I'm a "Libtard" or whatever.

    Oh, Obama killed Osama!

    He deserves a second term just for that.

    Obama killed Osama! Obama killed Osama! Obama killed Osama! Obama killed Osama! Obama killed Osama!

    Huzzah!

  19. Wrong, Brett Close Was the CEO by eldavojohn · · Score: 1
    Don't know where the summary or you got that idea from. Brett Close was the CEO. You are write about nepotism though. From the article:

    It lacked MMO development experience at the top. “Curt was not the CEO,” Dagres says, “but you could see he was quite involved and had a lot of control. I was a little nervous.” He also took note that the COO was Schilling’s relative.

    I wrote out what I think should be done in my journal but of course the formatting looks like crap with italics. I think Rhode Island should get what they paid for and do what they want with most of the assets (including the source).

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Wrong, Brett Close Was the CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FYI, Brett Close was the original CEO, staying for about half of the company's lifetime, Jen MacLean was then CEO until about a month before the end, when she left for maternity leave (which officially was unrelated to the company's financial issues).

      Curt was indeed very involved, but involved does not equal control -- he showed up and gave motivational speeches frequently, but that's not the same as setting deadlines or making decisions.

    2. Re:Wrong, Brett Close Was the CEO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Boston magazine article (and previous reporting) suggests that Schilling was the de facto CEO, making the final decisions on a daily basis on issues large and small. The titular CEOs signed the legal paperwork.

  20. Jocks & Nerds by scarboni888 · · Score: 0

    Look we don't go trying to play sports or get laid so hopefully this jock has learned his lesson and will stay out of the computer business.

    1. Re:Jocks & Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This "jock" is probably a bigger gaming nerd than you ever were -- he was leading a major guild in everquest one back when playing professional baseball (as pitcher, he had plenty of off days when he could lead raids!), and he's still got active max level characters in several MMOs.

      He's a hard-core player of tabletop boardgames, and rescued the company that publishes the advanced squad leader franchise when it was having financial problems; he sometimes wore t-shirts from boardgame conventions around the office, and occasionally stayed late to play boardgames with employees.

      I'm hoping he hasn't learned his lesson, because 38 studios was a great place to work, and I'd be happy to work for him again if he starts another company.

    2. Re:Jocks & Nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you worked at 38 Studios.

      No doubt the parent here is out of bounds with his comments. Everything I've read about Schilling makes it seem that he was fairly hard core gamer and was passionate about entering the market. The leaked screenshots and flybys from Project Copernicus do look intriguing to me as an MMO player, honestly. I like the art direction and overall aesthetic. Too bad there are no details on game play, because I'm really interested in what the game would have been like compared to similar titles had it been released.

      By all accounts, it sounds like Schilling tried hard to make 38 Studios a kick ass place to work. It is no wonder why employees held him in such reverence. It'd be hard for me not to love my employer if I had all the perks Schilling was dishing out. At the same time, all these accounts also make it seem like he had zero experience actually running a business and had an overly optimistic view of the marketplace. While he clearly has experience playing games, it seems he was quite naive in believing that he could make a game that rivaled WoW. I'm certain that many 38 studios employees were very talented, but it sounds like there was no cost management. While MMOs slip release dates all the time, it also seems like Schilling had originally wanted the MMO to launch in 2010. When 38 shuttered, while there was clearly progress on the graphical side of things, there was no indication to the public that the game was even playable at an "Alpha" level. All this time working on the game, and there was very little info released about it for potential players to be hyped about.

      I think numerous strings of failures and disappointments over the past several years have proven that making a successful subscription based MMO is a difficult prospect for anyone, and replicating the success of WoW has proven to be very hard (not even Bioware was able to replicate it using the Star Wars IP). Even when you have done almost everything right at launch, convincing gamers to leave behind their established characters in WoW will be a challenge. Even if Copernicus ended up being completed and had a solid launch, if the game just ended up being just like WoW but with prettier graphics, it likely wouldn't do as well for that reason.

      To be honest, when 38 shuttered a lot of people threw hate Schilling's way and that he screwed over a lot of people. I don't know if this is a fair way to put it. Personally, it seemed to me that everyone had willingly placed themselves in a reality distortion bubble and were shocked when it finally popped and they saw reality. Schilling included.

    3. Re:Jocks & Nerds by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping he hasn't learned his lesson, because 38 studios was a great place to work, and I'd be happy to work for him again if he starts another company.

      Of course it was a great place to 'work': you got paid and didn't have to do shit.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:Jocks & Nerds by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping he hasn't learned his lesson, because 38 studios was a great place to work, and I'd be happy to work for him again if he starts another company.

      Of course it was a great place to 'work': you got paid and didn't have to do shit.

      _this_. everyone liked him since he was spewing money everywhere, hiring too much at the wrong stage of development for funs sake and so forth, too bad he didn't in the end actually have that money. 38 studios was probably a great place to hang out.. work..? not so much.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Jocks & Nerds by Bobtree · · Score: 1

      In other news: making games is much harder than playing them.

    6. Re:Jocks & Nerds by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there might be many things the guy can do. Hit a ball. Throw a ball. Level up an Orc hunter. Sure. Running a multimillion dollar software studio? Not so much.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  21. Remember Casey at The Bat? by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    This loss reminds me of an old Disney cartoon as saw as a kid. Casey at The Bat.

    http://youtu.be/erfSed2MUsA

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
  22. Great Power points though by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 2

    Not a flippant comment. I suspect that this guy gave a presentation like no 100 geeks could give. Because of his sports fame and no doubt an ability to have access to the corridors of power he was able to convince the government that they could "pick a winner". I have watched and dealt with people like this my whole career. They see money being made and they insist on getting a "taste" Then they use their one schmoozing skill, round up an obscene amount of money put on a great show which usually is designed to impress and round up even more money. Then since their single driving focus wasn't putting out a great product they fail.

    In fact I have long suspected that these guys don't usually want a product out as then the product would potentially drive the success well beyond their simple abilities.

    The real drag in these situations is that not only do they waste taxpayer's money but they drive legitimate start-ups out of business; this is through their eating much of the available investment money, eating up the local talent, overpaying for rent, and then leaving a sour taste in everyone's mouths in the area for tech start-ups with the whole once bitten twice shy thing. In my area there was a famous flameout of an educational business. Same deal these guys literally had top government education people working for them "on secondment". Then boom it all blew up over a decade ago. The lawsuits and criminal charges are still working through the system.

    Any good tech business need some business savvy people near the top; but It all boils down to whether there are tech people making the decisions. The showmen should be the head of marketing, not the head of the company.

    1. Re:Great Power points though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While no doubt you've dealt with people as you've described, there are a couple points about Schilling that make this seem not to be a slightly different situation.

      Schilling seems to have been an avid fan of video games, MMOs, tabletop games, etc. for a long time. It is widely reported that when he wasn't playing baseball, he spent quite a bit of of time on these activities. Schilling was known to play EQ, EQ2, and WoW before starting his own company. So it seems he was trying to pursue something he was generally interested in. Given this, while certainly a lot of this was driven by his ego and desire to make even more money, I suspect that part of this whole scenario is that Schilling essentially formed a studio so they could make him his ideal MMO. I think he honestly wanted the product to be produced.

      A lot of hard core MMO players, myself included, have ideas of what they'd like to see in their "perfect" MMO. The difference between most of us and Schilling is that we don't have millions of dollars at our disposal to even begin trying to do it. That, and some of us do realize that IN REALITY, our dream MMOs would be ridiculously difficult and expensive to make with current technology.

      The fact that Project Copernicus was in development for something like 5+ years and there is very little to show for it suggests that possibly Schilling told his developers to "make my dream MMO" without room for compromise. And while these developers were well rewarded for a time in hopes of getting this done, eventually the company simply ran out of money because Schilling was naive to the amount of time, effort, and expense his vision would really require. He probably thought that if an MMO was built to his exact specifications, it would undoubtedly be a success that would rake in billions. Unfortunately, he didn't have the technical know-how to even fathom how difficult a task he had set his team out on.

      Ultimately, I believe you're right and that they needed someone with more technical know how and a realistic view of game development (especially MMO development) calling the shots and making sure that the work was actually reaching important milestones towards becoming an actual playable product in a decent time frame. It seems that they were endlessly toiling on Schilling's pipe dream as far as I can tell.

    2. Re:Great Power points though by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Shame. There's guys like me who decided to make an 'interesting enough' MMO on their own time on evenings and weekends using almost no money at all. It wasn't a huge commercial success, but it was a minimum-wage hobby for five years, and it made a lot of players happy in the meantime. Sometimes you don't need to go big to do something good.

  23. Partisan Politics by RudyHartmann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The comments venturing over into partisan politics are getting lame and mean spirited. This is a story about a tech failure and an unqualified CEO. Comments about that are interesting. All the "Republican this" or "Democrat that" replies are irrelevant and pointless.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    1. Re:Partisan Politics by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Politics are already involved. People like you who desire to remove the political implications from arguments are the real problem here.

    2. Re:Partisan Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the "Republican this" or "Democrat that" replies are irrelevant and pointless.

      I'd disagree, but you have a point buried in there. The partisan comments are of course trying to sway people to their particular political party. Recruitment/advertising/propaganda, whatever you want to call it, it may be offtopic but it's not pointless.
      But since economics, politics, and culture are things that get their weedly little tendrils into every facet of life, it's arguably on-topic. The subsidy from Rock Island is sure to rise the ire of the political folk around here.
      But you have a point. The endless banter between the two sides gets really fucking old after a while, and it becomes background noise. I believe the best method to make a political point, while staying on topic, is to point out the fundamental issues that are at the base of the debate while ignoring which political party that re-enforces.
      You can't ignore politics, it's in everything. But you can certainly try to tone down the partisanship.

  24. Why are you liberals censoring me!!?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh why o why o why are you evil liberals censoring me with your -1 mod points??

    It's true I tell you, the economic collapse of the USA is a liberal plot to undermine the Republican Party! Mitt Romney is a job creator, why only yesterday he created a video editors job! Republicans are not at war with women, they love women, sometimes 2 or 3 of them at a time!

    You liberals can't face the truth!

  25. This question is based in semantics by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    He may have all the superficial characteristics of an entrepreneur, but the difference ends up being what you mean by the word "lead". TL;DR: enthusiasm may win a game. It doesn't build a business.

    A pitcher LEADS a team through his performance. Perhaps even through his attitude. He doesn't manage the team, he doesn't recruit talent, he doesn't set salaries, he doesn't run practices.

    To have a successful business, you CANNOT lead simply through your own performance - you have to do all those other things successfully. Or, recognizing your own shortcomings, hire the right people to do them. That's where the software-development company failed.

    KoA is a decent game; in fact, I'd say it's quite a good game. But building a new-IP AAA title in a software world of Bethesda, Rockstar Games, Blizzard, etc is no small challenge; it's probably only an order of magnitude down from assuming one could just 'step into' the major-brand automobile manufacturing industry. Burning through your capital unsustainably is almost the most-likely result.

    So ultimately, Schilling was very much like *most* entrepreneurs in every way but one. He had a good idea, enthusiasm, charisma, and willingness to work hard, but also found that ballooning that idea into a company that could make it work was beyond his skill set.

    The only exception is that he started with piles of $$, when most entrepreneurs don't get that far, or only get that far with hard, hard work.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:This question is based in semantics by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Erm, hate to burst your bubble, but Curt already has experience running a business, he's the founder of Multi Man Publishing, who produce boardgames and started out as a hobby project of his when he bought a license for some Avalon Hill properties after the Hill was bought up by Hasbro.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    2. Re:This question is based in semantics by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Yeah that hobby project experience comes in real handy when the head count passes the 100 point.

    3. Re:This question is based in semantics by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      Actually, no, you're entirely mistaken. From Brian Youse, one of the ACTUAL founders of MMP: (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/9253202#9253202)

      "...MMP began in 1994 when we released Backblast, an ASL fanzine, and was comprised of four AH ASL playtesters and a guy who had some layout skills. Avalon Hill had made the decision that ASL was "dead" and we wanted to keep seeing some new scenarios, etc.

      Curt didn't become involved until sometime around the end of 1995 when he was also attempting to buy the rights for ASL from Avalon Hill. We had been working with AH by then on the restarted ASL and Avalon Hill didn't want to sell the rights (read: they thought geez, we can fleece this guy, lets ask for the moon!) but wanted him involved (name value, something the Dott's - the owners of AH - did recognize, having put Tom Clancy on the AH Board of Directors somewhere around then as well). So, to make a long story short, AH told Curt about us, we met, he joined the company, and its been that way since then..."

      So essentially Curt, having an interest in ASL, bought his way into MMP.
      So *no* management/business experience at all. But lots of cash, and interest.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:This question is based in semantics by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Eh, that's close enough to count as a founder to me, even if not the actual founder. I don't remember seeing much MMP activity until 1995 anyway.

      And you're still selling him short. Curt was fairly active in the day-to-day activities of the company, he did not just bring in the cash.

      Note, for the slow among us, I'm not saying he's a good businessman. Just that 38 Studios is not his first venture. And veteran ASLers will not be surprised at the failure mode of 38 Studios, Curt's been enthousiastic about more projects that didn't quite pan out or had a heavy delay; and neither was the way he handled licensing and third-party publishers for ASL worthy of a prize.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  26. Games developed: none I'd heard of by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

    The summary was missing something important: a list of games from 38 Studios. So here you are. I haven't heard of Kingdoms of Amalur, or Project Copernicus (unreleased). Sorry they went out of business, but it is a tough industry and they clearly weren't delivering.

    1. Re:Games developed: none I'd heard of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kingdoms of Amalur:Reckoning was fairly high profile post release. It got decent pre-release buzz due to having the world created by R.A. Salvatore.
       
      After release it sold well, especially considering it was an unknown IP from an unknown studio and reviewed extremely well. It was a very solid game.
       
      If you haven't heard of it, and you like action-RPGs, you should do yourself a favor and check it out!
       
      It's because the game was so well received and sold so well that these stories about the company going under are interesting... usually when you hit gold with gamers with something like Kingdoms of Amalur:Reckoning, you don't go out of business 2 months later!

    2. Re:Games developed: none I'd heard of by TomOTooleNZ · · Score: 1

      I've seen Amalur for sale in the local EB Games, for I think ~NZ$70. I'm unsure about buying it mostly because I have no idea if there's any call-home DRM in place or servers left to call home to. If I buy it, will it run?

      --
      as any fule kno
  27. Fascinating psychology by FranTaylor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's fascinating about this is that Curt Schilling (and apparently many Slashdot readers) think that you can IGNORE poor business practices by PRETENDING it's the fault of those who make those poor business practices available.

    To these people it's not Curt's fault he took the loan, it's the fault of the people who offered it to him.

    Equally fascinating is the implication that Curt Schilling is DUMB AS A STUMP if he JUST CAN'T STOP HIMSELF FROM TAKING THAT MONEY.

  28. Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning by RudyHartmann · · Score: 1

    I didn't know if this company had ever shipped a product. I like playing PC games and I had not heard of them, so I thought I would investigate. I discovered they released a game called Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. So, I decided to look into what it was all about.
    It's another elves and demons knockoff of the Lord of The Rings books or The World of Warcraft game. There are a bunch of games like that. It appears to me a "Me Too" game. I found nothing to make me choose it over World of Warcraft and I read all those books and saw the movies already. I already own WOW and a few other similar titles given to me as gifts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdoms_of_Amalur:_Reckoning

    Yawn. Sorry, I have to conclude that they sure picked a difficult genre with lots of other similar titles to develop as a first product. I hate to see anybody fail after trying so hard, but they picked a pretty risky road to travel.

    --
    Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
    1. Re:Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      it's a me too game all right.
      but fyi - they bought a different studio to make the reckoning. the original 38 studios never shipped anything, but apparently they had some test versions running at least..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  29. Curt didn't even know the basics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "if you want to build something that’s a billion-dollar company, the only game to do that with is an MMO.”

    Really?! Ever heard of EA or Activision?

    Another sucker dreaming up get rich quick schemes - only the taxpayer got the shaft this time around.

  30. I knew by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    When they started telling people via the media that 38 Studios was coming to Providence that it was going to end in disaster. I mean, who the hell thinks a baseball player has any business experience? For example, I've been in the I.T. field for 20 years and I wouldn't even begin to think I could lead a team to create a game like that. But former Governor Carcieri, the Embarrassment got star struck and moved his administration to make the deal.

  31. When is someone going to jail? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    As the money ran out, the company encouraged its 379 employees to continue coming into work, even though it knew it could not pay them.

    Most jurisdictions consider that a criminal offense.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    1. Re:When is someone going to jail? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well why do you think one of the bosses bailed out of the firm earlier in the spring?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  32. cycle of life ... by swframe · · Score: 2

    Maybe they will open source their code and the IP won't entirely go to waste. As for the money, well, it is in someone's bank account. It is not lost, just redistributed. Every day we make bets that seem stupid later but such is life. Sometimes stupid bets payoff (I'm looking at you instagram).

  33. What you didnt know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that 38 studio was in talks with LEGO to open up a studio in Denver Colorado just after LEGO closed its doors. (Creators of LEGO Universe)
    This happened in December of 2011. The goal was to hire over a handful of employees from LEGO and start up a second studio for 38. Just as the deal was going to go through, it fell through with no warning of any kind. We had no idea what happened. I guess now we know.

    I was a former employee.

  34. Textbook Dunning–Kruger Bias by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Time and again, though, Schilling emerged from meetings like this one thinking he’d hit a home run. “There was never a single one that he didn’t walk out of saying he absolutely killed it,” says a former employee who attended a number of investor meetings. But over and over, there was no investment. Still, Schilling remained optimistic.

    You couldn't wish for a more textbook example of narcissism-derived Dunning–Kruger bias.

    --

    Da Blog
  35. Re:Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    And you'd think the sports nuts would eat that shit up wouldn't you? I mean you get to play left field for the Padres or second base for the Rangers and play out the season and try to make a run for the Series? I mean its not like HS baseball, even right field is a damned hard job in the majors and every player can make winning or losing plays so it would require some real team work to get your team up the rankings. Hell you wouldn't even need your whole team online as it'd have your stats for the various positions and other teams could offer you a slot to fill out their roster, so you could raise your stats when your friends weren't playing. Seems like a baseball nut's ultimate fantasy baseball to me.

    But to make a WoW style elves and dragons MMO is just suicide! Its like competing with FB, the only way someone is gonna take that over is if FB royally fucks it up, same with WoW. Too many people play it because "that is where all my friends are" and the MMOs are such a time sink most people only play 2 at most, with many sticking to a single one. It just doesn't make any damned sense.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  36. Project Copernicus by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    Anyone knows what happened to "Project Copernicus"?

    It supposed to be the mmo that beats all other mmo but I've yet to see its debut
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !