The Story of Microsoft's Minecraft Buyout(wired.com)
wired.com
The Story of Microsoft's Minecraft Buyout
http://www.wired.com/2015/06/minecraft-book-excerpt/
121 comments
> Both are to be extremely passionate about the simple but massively playable games.
Have you ever even looked at Dwarf Fortress? It is the most complex non-trival game I have ever layed my eyes on. It takes over 100 hours just to understand the ascii art.
Quoting: "Dwarf Fortress is one of the most complex computer games in the history of computer games. How complex? In the game's discussion forum, one player asserts that after 120 failed games, he can finally "get into the swing of things."
[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/dwarf-fortress-ten-hou...]
Have you ever even looked at Dwarf Fortress? It is the most complex non-trival game I have ever layed my eyes on. It takes over 100 hours just to understand the ascii art.
Quoting: "Dwarf Fortress is one of the most complex computer games in the history of computer games. How complex? In the game's discussion forum, one player asserts that after 120 failed games, he can finally "get into the swing of things."
[http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/02/dwarf-fortress-ten-hou...]
That's a bit of a dramatic exaggeration for theatrical effect. The ASCII art definitely does not take 100 hours to understand.
If you use a beginner's guide, you can get the basics in a couple hours - after that, you start having fun but of course it takes a very long time to learn and understand all of the subtleties of the game (but that's true of any good strategy game).
O'reilly has published a book about the game, I highly recommend it. You can start really grokking the game within an afternoon.
If you use a beginner's guide, you can get the basics in a couple hours - after that, you start having fun but of course it takes a very long time to learn and understand all of the subtleties of the game (but that's true of any good strategy game).
O'reilly has published a book about the game, I highly recommend it. You can start really grokking the game within an afternoon.
The basics, yes. But you are gauging the wrong complexity here.
Dwarf Fortress has no concept of 'hit points', for instance. A character (monster, undead or whatever) can die for several reasons. For instance, they hemorrhage to death, or a vital organ is hit. The can be crippled for life. All 32 teeth in a dwarf are modeled, and they can all be individually damaged/lost.
It has complex social interactions. One reddit thread was asking why one of his engravers was engraving pictures of rats over and over in a room. He got asked to check if said dwarf had a grudge against whoever owned that room. Sure enough, he did - the owner was a noble that happened to be afraid of rats.
There's a legal system, dwarfs can commit homicide and you need to try to track down the perpretator and bring to justice, assuming there are no witnesses.
Heck, even the world generation is way more advanced than anything I've ever seen.
Dwarf Fortress has no concept of 'hit points', for instance. A character (monster, undead or whatever) can die for several reasons. For instance, they hemorrhage to death, or a vital organ is hit. The can be crippled for life. All 32 teeth in a dwarf are modeled, and they can all be individually damaged/lost.
It has complex social interactions. One reddit thread was asking why one of his engravers was engraving pictures of rats over and over in a room. He got asked to check if said dwarf had a grudge against whoever owned that room. Sure enough, he did - the owner was a noble that happened to be afraid of rats.
There's a legal system, dwarfs can commit homicide and you need to try to track down the perpretator and bring to justice, assuming there are no witnesses.
Heck, even the world generation is way more advanced than anything I've ever seen.
Hah, I think you are gauging the wrong complexity :)
Sure, all these things lead to an incredibly deep universe, but you're meant to discover them as you're playing the game. In a way, the metagame (posting on reddit, reading wikis, etc) is just as important as the actual game (which is also true for Minecraft, when it comes to sharing your creations, learning red stone, etc). But knowing these things is certainly not required to start playing the game or to get in the "swing of things".
Sure, all these things lead to an incredibly deep universe, but you're meant to discover them as you're playing the game. In a way, the metagame (posting on reddit, reading wikis, etc) is just as important as the actual game (which is also true for Minecraft, when it comes to sharing your creations, learning red stone, etc). But knowing these things is certainly not required to start playing the game or to get in the "swing of things".
The fact still remains that someone can turn on Minecraft, mine a few blocks, and "get" the game, especially if they've played with LEGOs. Dwarf Fortress not so much.
Think of the children.
I would imagine a good example of this is when my ten-year old decided to try Minecraft, I only had to show her the basics before she was off and running on her own. She's now up there with mods and console commands with no input from me. She then taught her five-year old sister to play without my involvement at all.
I can't imagine the two of them playing Dwarf Fortress.
I would imagine a good example of this is when my ten-year old decided to try Minecraft, I only had to show her the basics before she was off and running on her own. She's now up there with mods and console commands with no input from me. She then taught her five-year old sister to play without my involvement at all.
I can't imagine the two of them playing Dwarf Fortress.
You'd be surprised. I've worked a lot with kids, and I've seen pre-teens get into Dwarf Fortress very independently. It's not necessarily true that all kids will have the interest/attention for it, but it's still not that crazy. People routinely underestimate kids.
I happily admit that at its core, Dwarf Fortress is ANYTHING BUT simple. And yes, I've played the hell out of it for years and years.
However, the concept of Dwarf Fortress is extremely simple- you're a band of dwarves, you start out with limited supplies, here's this open world for you to go live in, now try not to die. Minecraft is the same way in that regard- here's this world you've been plopped down in, it's theoretically infinitely big, try not to die.
However, the concept of Dwarf Fortress is extremely simple- you're a band of dwarves, you start out with limited supplies, here's this open world for you to go live in, now try not to die. Minecraft is the same way in that regard- here's this world you've been plopped down in, it's theoretically infinitely big, try not to die.
In Minecraft, "not dying" is very simple. Make a well-lit underground wheat farm and you can survive forever. If you have never heard of minecraft you can get to this point in less than an hour of gameplay.
That "minimum viable strategy" is a baseline from which you can ramp up difficulty at your own pace.
That "minimum viable strategy" is a baseline from which you can ramp up difficulty at your own pace.
Sounds like that player had a lot of FUN.
But in all seriousness, getting to a point where the game is playable takes 2 or 3 failed games at worst (assuming you do some reading). The game just continues to offer complexity you can explore.
But in all seriousness, getting to a point where the game is playable takes 2 or 3 failed games at worst (assuming you do some reading). The game just continues to offer complexity you can explore.
Ha ha reading the article it seems the author intentionally didn't do any reading of anything other than the info included with the game. I can see that without reading a noob guide or checking out the DF wiki at the very least a player would have absolutely zero idea about what the heck is going on.
Yeah. It didn't take me that long to get the hang of Dwarf Fortress. The hardest part is figuring out that you can't control any of the dwarves directly in Fortress mode, so anything you want done involves changing the work orders for the whole fortress.
The closest you can get to individual control is by putting one dwarf in a military squad, and even then there are limits.
It's almost like a perverse version of the Sims, where if one of your sims has a full bladder, rather than directing it to use the toilet, you have to queue "urinate" and "flush" jobs on the toilet itself, and a "wash hands" job on the sink. Then you have to mark the toilet such that it can only be used by that one sim. Otherwise, the sim with the largest and emptiest bladder rushes in, does the assigned jobs in seconds, and rushes out again, foiling your plan. And then you have to suspend the "wash hands" job until after the "flush" job is done, because the sink is closer to the door, and the sim would otherwise do that one first. Then you forgot that you didn't mark the "urinator" and "flusher" jobs as active on the sim, so you do that, and wait. You have to wait, because before emptying that full bladder, the sim now wants to "take a break" and guzzle a keg of mushroom wine and a pot of kitten livers.
Ok, maybe a little hyperbole is warranted.
The closest you can get to individual control is by putting one dwarf in a military squad, and even then there are limits.
It's almost like a perverse version of the Sims, where if one of your sims has a full bladder, rather than directing it to use the toilet, you have to queue "urinate" and "flush" jobs on the toilet itself, and a "wash hands" job on the sink. Then you have to mark the toilet such that it can only be used by that one sim. Otherwise, the sim with the largest and emptiest bladder rushes in, does the assigned jobs in seconds, and rushes out again, foiling your plan. And then you have to suspend the "wash hands" job until after the "flush" job is done, because the sink is closer to the door, and the sim would otherwise do that one first. Then you forgot that you didn't mark the "urinator" and "flusher" jobs as active on the sim, so you do that, and wait. You have to wait, because before emptying that full bladder, the sim now wants to "take a break" and guzzle a keg of mushroom wine and a pot of kitten livers.
Ok, maybe a little hyperbole is warranted.
Yeah 120 ties is probably about right then. I can't imagine learning all of that by trial and error. They probably settled in some terrible places too, which makes everything harder.
For anyone interested in Dwarf Fortress, here are the chronicles of Boatmurdered, a legendary Something Awful thread:
http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress-Boatmurdered/Introductio...
Highly entertaining read and somewhat of an internet classic.
http://lparchive.org/Dwarf-Fortress-Boatmurdered/Introductio...
Highly entertaining read and somewhat of an internet classic.
I'd say it takes maybe 8 hours max to start understanding the interface and art. With regard to learning the mechanics that can be hugely accelerated if you know how to save scum. Basically you move your save files out of the default save folder regularly and then if something happens that you don't like you can restore a previous snapshot of your fortress.
This is good for newbies because it allows you to try out different ways to avoid or recover from various things like tantrum spirals, invasions, etc before the fortress is completely ruined and the game ends. Rather than taking 120 different games to master the mechanics you can master the mechanics over 120 save and restore iterations on the same game, so you don't have to waste time rebuilding from scratch.
It's also fun to try to never let a single dwarf die (from anything other than old age) or get a significant injury, and never let a single strange mood go unsatisfied.
This is good for newbies because it allows you to try out different ways to avoid or recover from various things like tantrum spirals, invasions, etc before the fortress is completely ruined and the game ends. Rather than taking 120 different games to master the mechanics you can master the mechanics over 120 save and restore iterations on the same game, so you don't have to waste time rebuilding from scratch.
It's also fun to try to never let a single dwarf die (from anything other than old age) or get a significant injury, and never let a single strange mood go unsatisfied.
I would say eight hours is a figure you've derived in hindsight. I have walked at least a handful of people through playing DF (without DFHack or other mods), and eight hours playtime is not sufficient for learning some of the things necessary for survival (e.g. a military), even sticking with the same save and therefore having a kind of prescience about invasions and such.
I guess I'm always the type to read the wiki so I quickly learned the "exploit" way to train up an impressive fighting force: build mechanisms and set up a room full of poor quality light wood spikes linked to a lever that is being continuously pulled by another dwarf, then station your squad of unlucky soldiers inside that room with the door locked (keeping a careful eye on them to remove anyone with excessive bruising so they don't pass out and get slowly poked to death). Eventually your dwarves get ninja level dodging skills.
At that point they are pretty much invincible because they can't be hit by enemies and can just punch the goblins to death while dodging every attack. (I once had a dwarf trained in this manner kill a forgotten beast inside one of the underground cave levels with a silk sock taken from the corpse of a less skilled worker dwarf who had been slaughtered by the beast). It took forever but he survived.
But anyway, speed of learning aside there is practically endless variation in techniques to take advantage of in Dwarf Fortress, and if you choose you can discover them all yourself through slow experience, or you can read up in the wiki to get a jumpstart, but either way you end up having a lot of FUN.
At that point they are pretty much invincible because they can't be hit by enemies and can just punch the goblins to death while dodging every attack. (I once had a dwarf trained in this manner kill a forgotten beast inside one of the underground cave levels with a silk sock taken from the corpse of a less skilled worker dwarf who had been slaughtered by the beast). It took forever but he survived.
But anyway, speed of learning aside there is practically endless variation in techniques to take advantage of in Dwarf Fortress, and if you choose you can discover them all yourself through slow experience, or you can read up in the wiki to get a jumpstart, but either way you end up having a lot of FUN.
Agree with that. Hell knows that I have spent more than eight hours in that game and still haven't been able to defeat a goblin invasion through a decently trained military. There are other ways though, I usually go the overly-complicated-lava-filled-valley-trap route.
> to walk away from this and go back to making fun games in the basement
... a basement of a pretty sweet house, of course: https://homes.yahoo.com/blogs/spaces/minecraft-founder-notch...
... a basement of a pretty sweet house, of course: https://homes.yahoo.com/blogs/spaces/minecraft-founder-notch...
Wow, what a hard life he's got, poor guy. [/sarcasm]
The reason for DF remaining niche is:
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png
http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png
This might be a strange parallel to try and draw, but I wonder if you could put Steve Wozniak into that category as well. I mean, he is a electronics nerd not an indie game developer, but at his core he was never built to be an executive at a successful company any more than Notch is.
Just certain personality types that are suited to certain things but not to other things. I count myself amongst them. I'd never want to be a "front man" for anything, I prefer to work invisibly behind the scenes.
Just certain personality types that are suited to certain things but not to other things. I count myself amongst them. I'd never want to be a "front man" for anything, I prefer to work invisibly behind the scenes.
Honestly, I feel a little bad for Notch: he got insane amounts of flak and wound up operating a mega-brand... I think his basic goal was to put together a fun game and run with it for a while - lifestyle business if you will.
It's interesting to me how entitled the employees come across as. Minecraft was making millions, but they were only getting a regular salary. (Aside from luxury trips to Monaco with their families, and an extremely laid back and pleasant work environment.)
I remember that Notch was doing Minecraft development all alone for the longest time, even after it had become hugely popular, and users had been begging him to hire people to speed up development. So these employees join as regular employees, getting a regular salary, taking none of the risks of the founders, yet they are pissed off because they don't own shares of the company.
I suspect this is very common in successful startups, and in a way I understand it: They see the founders, guys their age, rolling in the dough, on the back of their work. I've felt the same way as an employee, when stuff I come up with and implement ends up making the company a lot of money and the most I get, if I'm lucky, is a pat on the back.
But, as a founder? Where the fuck do you get off expecting to take a piece of my company, that I have literally sacrificed blood, sweat and tears for, taken time away from my life and my family, risked huge amounts of money, relationships and years of my life, without any guarantee that I would ever succeed. And you take an interview, walk in the door from nine to five and do your job, which you get fairly compensated for, and would not be paid anymore for anywhere else, you can, and probably will, leave whenever you feel like it with no stress or loss. Yet because the company succeeds, somehow you are entitled to own parts of it for simply being there and doing your job?
I remember that Notch was doing Minecraft development all alone for the longest time, even after it had become hugely popular, and users had been begging him to hire people to speed up development. So these employees join as regular employees, getting a regular salary, taking none of the risks of the founders, yet they are pissed off because they don't own shares of the company.
I suspect this is very common in successful startups, and in a way I understand it: They see the founders, guys their age, rolling in the dough, on the back of their work. I've felt the same way as an employee, when stuff I come up with and implement ends up making the company a lot of money and the most I get, if I'm lucky, is a pat on the back.
But, as a founder? Where the fuck do you get off expecting to take a piece of my company, that I have literally sacrificed blood, sweat and tears for, taken time away from my life and my family, risked huge amounts of money, relationships and years of my life, without any guarantee that I would ever succeed. And you take an interview, walk in the door from nine to five and do your job, which you get fairly compensated for, and would not be paid anymore for anywhere else, you can, and probably will, leave whenever you feel like it with no stress or loss. Yet because the company succeeds, somehow you are entitled to own parts of it for simply being there and doing your job?
You forget that the employees are also taking a risk. A Fortune 500 is stable, and steady work can be found in many city hubs.
Startups are sometimes spread quite afar, Mojang was in Stockholm, and are not always likely to survive. While Notch was "rolling in the dough" there was no guarantee that it would continue indefinitely.
That risk is why employees, especially early employees, feel like they should get some equity. It's a trade-off: they are accepting a percentage chance that they are joining a company that could fail, but there's also a chance it could be wildly successful. The difference between equity and wage represents an assessment of risk and riskiness. And, of course, offering lower wages and higher equity shares creates positive incentives for employees to go above-and-beyond and ensure that the company is not just a mild success, but a multi-billion-dollar-buyout success. This is opposed to the perverse incentive that wage-only compensation creates, where a buyout potentially means losing your job. After all, if you weren't valuable enough to deserve equity, you may not be the talent the new company was seeking to acqui-hire.
In this case, it is almost certainly the case that any Mojang employee would have better off foregoing all wages in exchange for a small amount of ownership.
With hindsight biases, I suspect every Mojang employee would say they'd be willing to give up some wages for some equity. But before the acquisition, it was nowhere near clear that the company was worth $2.5 billion, so I wonder how many employees might still be willing to take that offer.
So, like I said, trade-offs. I think the tone at the end of your post represents how a lot of founders might look at it, and I realize it's hypothetical. But stepping back from the situation, there are complicated incentives involved in wage and equity compensation, and balancing those as a founder or an employee can be difficult.
Startups are sometimes spread quite afar, Mojang was in Stockholm, and are not always likely to survive. While Notch was "rolling in the dough" there was no guarantee that it would continue indefinitely.
That risk is why employees, especially early employees, feel like they should get some equity. It's a trade-off: they are accepting a percentage chance that they are joining a company that could fail, but there's also a chance it could be wildly successful. The difference between equity and wage represents an assessment of risk and riskiness. And, of course, offering lower wages and higher equity shares creates positive incentives for employees to go above-and-beyond and ensure that the company is not just a mild success, but a multi-billion-dollar-buyout success. This is opposed to the perverse incentive that wage-only compensation creates, where a buyout potentially means losing your job. After all, if you weren't valuable enough to deserve equity, you may not be the talent the new company was seeking to acqui-hire.
In this case, it is almost certainly the case that any Mojang employee would have better off foregoing all wages in exchange for a small amount of ownership.
With hindsight biases, I suspect every Mojang employee would say they'd be willing to give up some wages for some equity. But before the acquisition, it was nowhere near clear that the company was worth $2.5 billion, so I wonder how many employees might still be willing to take that offer.
So, like I said, trade-offs. I think the tone at the end of your post represents how a lot of founders might look at it, and I realize it's hypothetical. But stepping back from the situation, there are complicated incentives involved in wage and equity compensation, and balancing those as a founder or an employee can be difficult.
Employees are always taking risk; no company lasts forever, and even seemingly stable companies frequently get rid of people for reasons unrelated to performance.
If early employees feel like they should get equity, then they should ask for it on hire. That Mojang apparently found plenty of employees on a cash-only basis suggests that equity was unnecessary here.
There is a separate feeling, which is that in retrospect they feel like they deserve a share of the big money because there was big success. That's a reasonable feeling. But I think it's very different than having worked for a successful company, getting paid regularly, getting bought by a major tech company, and then saying, "Gosh, that was too risky!"
If early employees feel like they should get equity, then they should ask for it on hire. That Mojang apparently found plenty of employees on a cash-only basis suggests that equity was unnecessary here.
There is a separate feeling, which is that in retrospect they feel like they deserve a share of the big money because there was big success. That's a reasonable feeling. But I think it's very different than having worked for a successful company, getting paid regularly, getting bought by a major tech company, and then saying, "Gosh, that was too risky!"
>> You forget that the employees are also taking a risk.
I don't know how it is in most countries, but in the United States, an employee gets unemployment when they get laid off. A founder gets nothing when the company goes under.
Also, I know of a lot of companies that consider self-employment the same thing as unemployment. I've made more money as a freelancer in the last 3 years than I ever made working for anyone, and I've produced more code in that time to boot, so I think it's been a pretty good measure of my productivity. But as far as your run-of-the-mill cunsoltoware company is concerned (and let's face it, the long-tail of such companies is the majority of places where your average software developer can expect to get hired), I might as well have been on a 3 year vacation.
So IDK, seems like there are a lot more implicit risks to being a founder other than just "everything could go belly up and I have no retirement".
I don't know how it is in most countries, but in the United States, an employee gets unemployment when they get laid off. A founder gets nothing when the company goes under.
Also, I know of a lot of companies that consider self-employment the same thing as unemployment. I've made more money as a freelancer in the last 3 years than I ever made working for anyone, and I've produced more code in that time to boot, so I think it's been a pretty good measure of my productivity. But as far as your run-of-the-mill cunsoltoware company is concerned (and let's face it, the long-tail of such companies is the majority of places where your average software developer can expect to get hired), I might as well have been on a 3 year vacation.
So IDK, seems like there are a lot more implicit risks to being a founder other than just "everything could go belly up and I have no retirement".
> I don't know how it is in most countries, but in the United States, an employee gets unemployment when they get laid off. A founder gets nothing when the company goes under.
The $350 I got a week when I was unemployed three years ago doesn't affect much of anything compared to a developer's salary. I am fortunate in that I received 2 weeks severance and was able to get a new job within about a month; but not everyone is going to find a job within a time frame that having a drastically reduced income is trivial.
The $350 I got a week when I was unemployed three years ago doesn't affect much of anything compared to a developer's salary. I am fortunate in that I received 2 weeks severance and was able to get a new job within about a month; but not everyone is going to find a job within a time frame that having a drastically reduced income is trivial.
In Sweden (which is where the employees in question were), most workers are entitled to unemployment benefits of 80% of their full salary for 200 days, after which it's reduced to 70% for the next 100 days [1].
So a Swedish programmer will definitely be making much more than $350/week for almost a year while unemployed. Like someone else said, Mojang's employees did not take any real risks.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits_in_Sweden
So a Swedish programmer will definitely be making much more than $350/week for almost a year while unemployed. Like someone else said, Mojang's employees did not take any real risks.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits_in_Sweden
It's up to 80% of the full salary. While your typical Swedish programmer would get more than $350/week, they're not going to get 80% of their salary since they cap out well before that.
Oh, you're right. I missed the part about the 680 SEK / day cap.
Is that per calendar day or workday? I guess calendar day. That means the average programmer would get about 50% of salary on unemployment. (Just taking a wild guess that a programmer in Sweden makes 40k SEK / month.)
Is that per calendar day or workday? I guess calendar day. That means the average programmer would get about 50% of salary on unemployment. (Just taking a wild guess that a programmer in Sweden makes 40k SEK / month.)
Wow, quite a little bit different from folks in mexico:
0%. Zero. Nada.
I lived in PA at the time, so maybe it's different in your state, but I got a lot more than $350 a week when I was on unemployment 4 years ago. It was about 1/2 of my previous wage. Considering I wasn't driving into an office every day, eating out all the time, etc., the money went pretty far. The rest of the shortfall was covered by just... not putting money into my retirement account.
And regardless, $350/wk is a lot more than the $0/wk a founder would get.
And regardless, $350/wk is a lot more than the $0/wk a founder would get.
"I don't know how it is in most countries, but in the United States, an employee gets unemployment when they get laid off."
Thats assuming they were officially laid off, not let go for performance reasons even though it was actually company downsizing, and are eligible to collect unemployment. Since companies usually have to cover some of the unemployment payments they will fight unemployment claims or even fire a employee for a BS reason. So unemployment is far from guaranteed. IIRC IBM recently used those tactics in their latest mass layoff.
Thats assuming they were officially laid off, not let go for performance reasons even though it was actually company downsizing, and are eligible to collect unemployment. Since companies usually have to cover some of the unemployment payments they will fight unemployment claims or even fire a employee for a BS reason. So unemployment is far from guaranteed. IIRC IBM recently used those tactics in their latest mass layoff.
Competent developers near economic hubs like Stockholm should find jobs pretty easily (unless I'm mistaken). I fail to see the risk for employees, especially in a nordic wellfare state like sweden.
Some thoughts:
1. My understanding is that by the time Minecraft _utterly_ blew up they had a full fledged company going. Some people were probably there from the "a million or two" to "hundreds of millions" of dollars transition.
2. Notch didn't really have a lot of risk going. He wrote a game and it blew up and he hired people off the preorders.
3. Notch got lucky. It's not clear that he's an especially savvy business person, or manager, or etc. He owned most of the IP, but… he had an idea that was waiting to happen, and then it went supernova and infected the minds of most children in the western hemisphere.
If you sacrificed nights and weekends to get the thing to ship, and massaged it into production, and wrote most of the code, and strung most of the deals together, and basically made it work beyond a crashy demo… and it was all just dumb luck anyways, I think it's perfectly natural, human reaction to be resentful that your boss made an insane killing when he rage quit and didn't share much of it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tricky to navigate
1. My understanding is that by the time Minecraft _utterly_ blew up they had a full fledged company going. Some people were probably there from the "a million or two" to "hundreds of millions" of dollars transition.
2. Notch didn't really have a lot of risk going. He wrote a game and it blew up and he hired people off the preorders.
3. Notch got lucky. It's not clear that he's an especially savvy business person, or manager, or etc. He owned most of the IP, but… he had an idea that was waiting to happen, and then it went supernova and infected the minds of most children in the western hemisphere.
If you sacrificed nights and weekends to get the thing to ship, and massaged it into production, and wrote most of the code, and strung most of the deals together, and basically made it work beyond a crashy demo… and it was all just dumb luck anyways, I think it's perfectly natural, human reaction to be resentful that your boss made an insane killing when he rage quit and didn't share much of it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tricky to navigate
> Notch got lucky.
Lucky that he made a product that millions of people were willing to pay hard cash for? Luck is a funny word, and it can be used to dismiss people's sacrifices and hard work too easily.
If I plunk down 1 dollar to buy a lottery ticket and I win the jackpot, that's very lucky. Sure, I sacrificed a dollar, but that has very little impact on me. The risk is low. If, however, I plunk down a couple million dollars to buy lottery tickets and I win, it's less lucky because my chances of winning are greater and of course my risk is much higher.
In spending his time working on Minecraft when he could have been doing any other number of things he was putting the equivalent of the amount of money he could make working for someone else down on the table as stakes. Sure, there's an element of luck, but it doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to reap the benefits of his risk having paid off.
Lucky that he made a product that millions of people were willing to pay hard cash for? Luck is a funny word, and it can be used to dismiss people's sacrifices and hard work too easily.
If I plunk down 1 dollar to buy a lottery ticket and I win the jackpot, that's very lucky. Sure, I sacrificed a dollar, but that has very little impact on me. The risk is low. If, however, I plunk down a couple million dollars to buy lottery tickets and I win, it's less lucky because my chances of winning are greater and of course my risk is much higher.
In spending his time working on Minecraft when he could have been doing any other number of things he was putting the equivalent of the amount of money he could make working for someone else down on the table as stakes. Sure, there's an element of luck, but it doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to reap the benefits of his risk having paid off.
There are lots of people that work hard and nothing comes from it. Working hard is not the only variable in the formula. Luck does have a great deal to do with it. I would say not considering luck as a factor implies a dismissal of the hard work of someone who didn't have a successful outcome. History is full of people who worked hard and someone else got the glory for numerous reasons.
[deleted]
Picking the right project to work hard on is not a matter of luck.
It can be. You can be lucky to meet the right co-founders. You can be lucky to have the right idea at the right time. You can be lucky in the sense that working on your current mediocre startup allowed you to luckily come upon a problem or idea that is even bigger. There is and always will be an element of luck to success. What it comes down to though is nurturing an environment where that luck is more likely to happen than not.
It was a hobby. Something he did for fun, as a leisure activity. Life is not about working, and for most people leisure time is not fungible with more work.
A hobby is just work you like doing. Countless companies have been started as "hobbies". So in that respect, life is about working, so you might as well try to find work you like to do.
By any sane measure, Minecraft was a "successful" product by the time even the first developer was hired. The risk was over.
This is a pretty inaccurate description of life in a game studio.
Games are incredibly unpredictable. Even after Minecraft blew up in popularity, there were tons of risks. Plenty of games have blown up, only to fall off in popularity quickly. Minecraft has been far stickier than most games, which is an easy thing to acknowledge in hindsight, but a pretty challenging thing to predict.
Games are incredibly unpredictable. Even after Minecraft blew up in popularity, there were tons of risks. Plenty of games have blown up, only to fall off in popularity quickly. Minecraft has been far stickier than most games, which is an easy thing to acknowledge in hindsight, but a pretty challenging thing to predict.
You're right. The 9-to-5 employees only sacrifice blood and sweat. The tears are worth so much more.
Quite a lot of that previous argument rests upon the axiomatic assumptions about "fair compensation". I would argue that quite a lot of employees are not compensated fairly, and not just in software companies. The remainder rests upon axiomatic assumptions about the origins of company value. It's almost like you subscribe to the labor theory of value insofar as it benefits founders and owners, then shift back to price theory the instant it becomes a liability to them. Those are not mix-and-match.
If you argue that your vast personal sacrifices entitle you to a vast ownership share in the work-product, you cannot then reasonably argue that lesser sacrifices, made after yours, should not result in lesser ownership shares. Likewise, if you argue that your ownership share is based on the fact that your contributions increased the overall wealth of the company by that amount, you cannot then reasonably argue that the folks who methodically replaced your hasty prototype with something scalable and maintainable should not also receive partial ownership.
You may note from the article that great pains were taken to keep the Mojang line employees from quitting en masse. If they were not responsible for a significant fraction of the current value of the company, that measure would not be necessary.
When you say "where the fuck do you get off...?" I feel it necessary to ask that you reexamine your premises. What you said treads very close to, "Fuck you; I got mine." And I also recognized several common misperceptions of management, such as the idea that regular employees bear no risk of loss when they take a job, and suffer less stress than owners and managers.
In short, where the fuck do you get off discounting so deeply the value of non-owner employees? Does the fact that it happened to someone in their past justify that person doing it to someone else later?
Quite a lot of that previous argument rests upon the axiomatic assumptions about "fair compensation". I would argue that quite a lot of employees are not compensated fairly, and not just in software companies. The remainder rests upon axiomatic assumptions about the origins of company value. It's almost like you subscribe to the labor theory of value insofar as it benefits founders and owners, then shift back to price theory the instant it becomes a liability to them. Those are not mix-and-match.
If you argue that your vast personal sacrifices entitle you to a vast ownership share in the work-product, you cannot then reasonably argue that lesser sacrifices, made after yours, should not result in lesser ownership shares. Likewise, if you argue that your ownership share is based on the fact that your contributions increased the overall wealth of the company by that amount, you cannot then reasonably argue that the folks who methodically replaced your hasty prototype with something scalable and maintainable should not also receive partial ownership.
You may note from the article that great pains were taken to keep the Mojang line employees from quitting en masse. If they were not responsible for a significant fraction of the current value of the company, that measure would not be necessary.
When you say "where the fuck do you get off...?" I feel it necessary to ask that you reexamine your premises. What you said treads very close to, "Fuck you; I got mine." And I also recognized several common misperceptions of management, such as the idea that regular employees bear no risk of loss when they take a job, and suffer less stress than owners and managers.
In short, where the fuck do you get off discounting so deeply the value of non-owner employees? Does the fact that it happened to someone in their past justify that person doing it to someone else later?
It's extremely simple.
When you start something like Minecraft, you initially do the work without being paid. That may mean you don't draw a salary for months or years depending.
When you take a job, you get paid to do the work. If you're Markus, you kept working despite the lack of a paycheck. If you're an employee, and the business stops paying you, you're almost always going to quit.
Beyond the straight-forward legal basis, it is precisely that initial risk that gives morally credibility to the ownership held by the founder.
What I've personally been building for the last six months, I draw no income from. Are you going to attempt to claim that a typical employee would take that risk? That they'd forgo a paycheck for six months to keep building the product to get it to launch? No, exceptionally few employees would be willing to do that. They'd all quit when the paychecks stopped. I'm willing to suffer and absorb risk in ways a standard employee never will, to get what I'm building to completion, and I morally deserve the ownership accordingly.
What you seem to have a problem with are the concepts of ownership in general.
I can in fact reasonably argue that employee contributions after the founding do not and should not automatically entitle someone to shares based on proportional effort. That is all decided by the employee, and what terms they're willing to accept to part with their labor/time. Don't take a job where you don't get equity, if you want equity. That's a matter of taking personal responsibility for your own life and well-being.
When you start something like Minecraft, you initially do the work without being paid. That may mean you don't draw a salary for months or years depending.
When you take a job, you get paid to do the work. If you're Markus, you kept working despite the lack of a paycheck. If you're an employee, and the business stops paying you, you're almost always going to quit.
Beyond the straight-forward legal basis, it is precisely that initial risk that gives morally credibility to the ownership held by the founder.
What I've personally been building for the last six months, I draw no income from. Are you going to attempt to claim that a typical employee would take that risk? That they'd forgo a paycheck for six months to keep building the product to get it to launch? No, exceptionally few employees would be willing to do that. They'd all quit when the paychecks stopped. I'm willing to suffer and absorb risk in ways a standard employee never will, to get what I'm building to completion, and I morally deserve the ownership accordingly.
What you seem to have a problem with are the concepts of ownership in general.
I can in fact reasonably argue that employee contributions after the founding do not and should not automatically entitle someone to shares based on proportional effort. That is all decided by the employee, and what terms they're willing to accept to part with their labor/time. Don't take a job where you don't get equity, if you want equity. That's a matter of taking personal responsibility for your own life and well-being.
I find ownership of property to be a critical foundation stone of modern civilization.
But I also believe the labor theory of value to be complete bunk. You are again apparently endorsing it, but only for your own labor.
All that pain and all that sacrifice are worth exactly zero. You have ownership of the company because your name is on the incorporation papers, and your investors haven't diluted you too much yet. There is no moral justification there. You deserve the money because you have some combination of luck, money, and business acumen that got you to the right place fastest. You don't deserve it because you have a sad-sack sob-story about how hard it was for you to get it. Just be happy it's yours and not your closest competitor's, and try not to pat yourself on the back too hard. You're not a better person, you just got there first.
I am not disputing that you are legally entitled to all the fruits of your business. I am disputing that there is any moral justification whatsoever for you to be an asshole to the other people that helped it grow. You can rationalize it to yourself all you like. The money is yours because your name is on the paperwork, period. That's the way it has to be, because otherwise all the 7 billion idiots, each with different ideas about how ownership and valuation should work, would add too much friction to business.
Your justifying arguments sound to me like Divine Right of Kings or Manifest Destiny. It's the crap you feed to the proles to keep them from getting mad at you. You're not the boss because you work harder or you are more skilled. You're the boss because your name is on all the documents. You don't actually need to work harder or better or longer to justify your ownership. Your name is still on the paper. You do all that to justify your market share.
It's nice that you can afford to go six months with no paycheck. But you're not, really. You're not wasting your time; you're investing it in something you own in the hope that you will earn a return on it. The typical employee won't work for free, because they have no actual equity in the business, and they still have living expenses to pay. You're not stupid, and neither are they.
There is no moral principle in play here. No matter how much or how little an employee feels justified in wanting a percentage instead of a constant, the owner decides who gets what, because their name is on the paper, and the compromises we have made as a society in building up trade law have determined that is the important factor.
So if you sold out, you too could take the cash and walk out without saying goodbye. It would be completely legal. Your employees (and much of the rest of the world) would still be free to think you are a morally bankrupt prick. Scratch that. A rich, morally bankrupt prick, who might yet start a new business and hire them again. So they won't burn any bridges with you. But you won't make any friends that way either.
Compare Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Jobs got stinking rich, and everybody thought he was an insufferable pantload. Wozniak got less in cash, and far more in respect. Jobs was better at the names-on-papers game. Woz is better at the human empathy game.
In the end, your moral calculus will always have your own personal perspectives as a factor. Just forget about that. You're not a better person, you just have your name on more papers. And above all, stop trying to bullshit us into believing that the people who own morally deserve to get all that they take. You get what you get because our system would break in unpredictable and probably horrible ways if you didn't.
It isn't because you're awesome. It's because you put your own name on your own papers, and the business world hasn't yet decided that they're worthless.
But I also believe the labor theory of value to be complete bunk. You are again apparently endorsing it, but only for your own labor.
All that pain and all that sacrifice are worth exactly zero. You have ownership of the company because your name is on the incorporation papers, and your investors haven't diluted you too much yet. There is no moral justification there. You deserve the money because you have some combination of luck, money, and business acumen that got you to the right place fastest. You don't deserve it because you have a sad-sack sob-story about how hard it was for you to get it. Just be happy it's yours and not your closest competitor's, and try not to pat yourself on the back too hard. You're not a better person, you just got there first.
I am not disputing that you are legally entitled to all the fruits of your business. I am disputing that there is any moral justification whatsoever for you to be an asshole to the other people that helped it grow. You can rationalize it to yourself all you like. The money is yours because your name is on the paperwork, period. That's the way it has to be, because otherwise all the 7 billion idiots, each with different ideas about how ownership and valuation should work, would add too much friction to business.
Your justifying arguments sound to me like Divine Right of Kings or Manifest Destiny. It's the crap you feed to the proles to keep them from getting mad at you. You're not the boss because you work harder or you are more skilled. You're the boss because your name is on all the documents. You don't actually need to work harder or better or longer to justify your ownership. Your name is still on the paper. You do all that to justify your market share.
It's nice that you can afford to go six months with no paycheck. But you're not, really. You're not wasting your time; you're investing it in something you own in the hope that you will earn a return on it. The typical employee won't work for free, because they have no actual equity in the business, and they still have living expenses to pay. You're not stupid, and neither are they.
There is no moral principle in play here. No matter how much or how little an employee feels justified in wanting a percentage instead of a constant, the owner decides who gets what, because their name is on the paper, and the compromises we have made as a society in building up trade law have determined that is the important factor.
So if you sold out, you too could take the cash and walk out without saying goodbye. It would be completely legal. Your employees (and much of the rest of the world) would still be free to think you are a morally bankrupt prick. Scratch that. A rich, morally bankrupt prick, who might yet start a new business and hire them again. So they won't burn any bridges with you. But you won't make any friends that way either.
Compare Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. Jobs got stinking rich, and everybody thought he was an insufferable pantload. Wozniak got less in cash, and far more in respect. Jobs was better at the names-on-papers game. Woz is better at the human empathy game.
In the end, your moral calculus will always have your own personal perspectives as a factor. Just forget about that. You're not a better person, you just have your name on more papers. And above all, stop trying to bullshit us into believing that the people who own morally deserve to get all that they take. You get what you get because our system would break in unpredictable and probably horrible ways if you didn't.
It isn't because you're awesome. It's because you put your own name on your own papers, and the business world hasn't yet decided that they're worthless.
>Your justifying arguments sound to me like Divine Right of Kings or Manifest Destiny.
Those who forget the past ...
From a different market segment: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/30/americas_never_ending_war_on...
For entrepreneurs who think they are a special class, see "Entrepreneurs are the new Labor": http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepre...
Those who forget the past ...
From a different market segment: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/30/americas_never_ending_war_on...
For entrepreneurs who think they are a special class, see "Entrepreneurs are the new Labor": http://www.forbes.com/sites/venkateshrao/2012/09/03/entrepre...
That's a very thoughtful analysis. Way to separate the reality from the moral drapery attempting to justify it.
The analysis itself is pretty old. I got sick of people painting over ugly reality with pretty rationalizations a long time ago.
My in-laws had somewhat of a dispute over a matter of a few thousand dollars some years ago, when their mother died. One of the sisters wound up in control of a certain bank account, and after the burial she simply kept all the money left in the account. My spouse was angry, until I explained that we were never entitled to a dime of it, because my mother-in-law is the one who failed to manage her estate properly. We could either accept it or go to the graveyard, argue with a tombstone for a few hours, and then accept it anyway.
The fact remained that the sister-in-law did what was legal instead of what was right. She kept the money, and lost the trust and respect. We haven't forgotten. That's why if my spouse and I die unexpectedly, the guardianship of our minor children is now separated from the trusteeship for their inheritance. If they choose to live with any of my spouse's siblings, whoever that is may have to submit their expense receipts to my sister and parents in order to get a check. We were simply fortunate to have learned something about the moral fiber in the family before it impacted anything actually important.
The worst part of the whole affair for me was listening to the person whinge on and on about how much she deserved that money. She didn't. She just had her name on the paper. And that's why I was okay with her keeping it. It wasn't mine. It wasn't my spouse's. It never was. Not getting money that was never mine is a very, very, very small price to pay to learn whether someone is trustworthy. And it is now a perfect illustrative example, separating the two realities of legal contract terms and implied or traditional moral obligations.
If you want something to be fair, write the contracts to make it fair, because even a seemingly trustworthy person can bullshit himself into thinking he's doing the right thing, even while screwing everyone else over.
My in-laws had somewhat of a dispute over a matter of a few thousand dollars some years ago, when their mother died. One of the sisters wound up in control of a certain bank account, and after the burial she simply kept all the money left in the account. My spouse was angry, until I explained that we were never entitled to a dime of it, because my mother-in-law is the one who failed to manage her estate properly. We could either accept it or go to the graveyard, argue with a tombstone for a few hours, and then accept it anyway.
The fact remained that the sister-in-law did what was legal instead of what was right. She kept the money, and lost the trust and respect. We haven't forgotten. That's why if my spouse and I die unexpectedly, the guardianship of our minor children is now separated from the trusteeship for their inheritance. If they choose to live with any of my spouse's siblings, whoever that is may have to submit their expense receipts to my sister and parents in order to get a check. We were simply fortunate to have learned something about the moral fiber in the family before it impacted anything actually important.
The worst part of the whole affair for me was listening to the person whinge on and on about how much she deserved that money. She didn't. She just had her name on the paper. And that's why I was okay with her keeping it. It wasn't mine. It wasn't my spouse's. It never was. Not getting money that was never mine is a very, very, very small price to pay to learn whether someone is trustworthy. And it is now a perfect illustrative example, separating the two realities of legal contract terms and implied or traditional moral obligations.
If you want something to be fair, write the contracts to make it fair, because even a seemingly trustworthy person can bullshit himself into thinking he's doing the right thing, even while screwing everyone else over.
Yeah, I agree. It makes me think of advice my very wise fiance gives people: "Don't do more for a company than they would do for you."
In a lot of cases, sacrificing anything for a company just isn't worth it. The rest of your life is more important than your job, IMO. To be fair though, I'd have felt the pangs of greed that the Mojang employees felt, seeing all that money. In the end I would calm down and remind myself that I signed on for a fixed salary though, and be happy there was a retainer bonus in it for me.
In a lot of cases, sacrificing anything for a company just isn't worth it. The rest of your life is more important than your job, IMO. To be fair though, I'd have felt the pangs of greed that the Mojang employees felt, seeing all that money. In the end I would calm down and remind myself that I signed on for a fixed salary though, and be happy there was a retainer bonus in it for me.
To quote Don Draper, "That's what the money is for".
I think this is situation dependent. If you have people walking in and getting a normal salary, a reasonably good sense of security, and a good work/life balance then it's reasonable to expect that they would get less elsewhere. I'm not sure I agree with less being 0.
Of course the opposite is also true. If you take a risk you deserve to get a share of the reward. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to view founders as magic beings who should be worshipped and get all credit for a company.
I think this is situation dependent. If you have people walking in and getting a normal salary, a reasonably good sense of security, and a good work/life balance then it's reasonable to expect that they would get less elsewhere. I'm not sure I agree with less being 0.
Of course the opposite is also true. If you take a risk you deserve to get a share of the reward. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to view founders as magic beings who should be worshipped and get all credit for a company.
LITERALLY (!!) blood, sweat, and tears.
I am always amused when the founder glorifiers accuse employees of feeling entitled, and proceed to rattle off the list of sacrifices which they don't realize everyone in the company must make in order to have success. Companies are a team effort. Good luck getting to 100-million-anything with only the founders' sacrificies.
I am always amused when the founder glorifiers accuse employees of feeling entitled, and proceed to rattle off the list of sacrifices which they don't realize everyone in the company must make in order to have success. Companies are a team effort. Good luck getting to 100-million-anything with only the founders' sacrificies.
Sure. But they still stand the have the most to lose. If a company goes under, an employee loses a job. The founder loses... well... who knows. Everything they've put into it. The equity, the time, the money. All gone.
That's the whole thing. As an employee, you agreed to the terms of your hiring.
When the company I worked for was bought out, employees with 401K's were given a sizable (but hardly enormous) contribution to that as part of the owner's sale. We weren't owed that, but I did appreciate it. But it was never promised to me and I was paid for the work I did.
That's the whole thing. As an employee, you agreed to the terms of your hiring.
When the company I worked for was bought out, employees with 401K's were given a sizable (but hardly enormous) contribution to that as part of the owner's sale. We weren't owed that, but I did appreciate it. But it was never promised to me and I was paid for the work I did.
I literally have lost blood to some of my projects, but I have a hardware component to my tinkering.
Yes, literally.
Employees are not essential the way a founder is. That is obvious.
Employees are not essential the way a founder is. That is obvious.
No, not literally. The founder did not cut himself on the keyboard.
That's not really worth answering, but I have literally bled in several different ways from health consequences of high stress mental work.
Blood = health. There's no question running a startup often takes a toll on your health to some extent.
So, you're saying that blood is a metaphor for health? Is that what you're saying? "Literally" means the opposite of "metaphorically".
In my experience, early employees at startups don't usually just work from nine to five. They usually _do_ make large time sacrifices. I would say that early employees generally _are_ entitled to a fraction of the profits.
They are entitled to exactly what is in the contract they signed and nothing more.
Who would join a company on an assumption that they have equity if it's not written into the contract?
Who would join a company on an assumption that they have equity if it's not written into the contract?
Unless they are getting paid below a fair market rate, I don't see why this would be the case. Plenty of jobs require more than 9-5 hours.
A: Fair market rate hasn't been fair for a while, due to non-poaching agreements.
B: Nevertheless, "fair market rate" typically includes gaining equity over time at a company. More equity the younger the company is and the more it is growing while you're working there. If you work for "fair market rate" at Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. you get stock grants, stock options, the whole nine yards. If you work for "fair market rate" at an up and coming startup you'd expect to receive stock as well, and in comparatively larger chunks.
B: Nevertheless, "fair market rate" typically includes gaining equity over time at a company. More equity the younger the company is and the more it is growing while you're working there. If you work for "fair market rate" at Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, etc. you get stock grants, stock options, the whole nine yards. If you work for "fair market rate" at an up and coming startup you'd expect to receive stock as well, and in comparatively larger chunks.
Except that fair market rate has been depressed by collusion and shady hiring practices almost universally.
In Minecraft's unusual case, it was already seriously de-risked when the first few employees were hired. The additions however, did keep the momentum going, and deserve a cut for that. Jeb immediately comes to mind.
I'd agree it would have been nice to have given at least some stock options to employees. The $300k bonus for staying 6 months, though, is a lot more than what one should expect to get when joining a startup. (Zero would be the usual amount because most startups fail)
They signed a contract. They made a deal to work without having that kind of cut.
We can enter in the sympathy realm after this, but no one was entitled to anything. If they didn't like the job, or felt underpayed, they should've done what everyone else does: Try to find a comfortable solution with their company, and if that doesn't work, leave and find a better job.
We can enter in the sympathy realm after this, but no one was entitled to anything. If they didn't like the job, or felt underpayed, they should've done what everyone else does: Try to find a comfortable solution with their company, and if that doesn't work, leave and find a better job.
I see you are part of the "written word only" style of ethics. This is where you declare only those things prohibited by written law or contract to be unethical, and then grant inventive persons the status of geniuses when they find new ways by which to exploit you.
I am not, and despise exploitative use of law. I believe human behavior is so complex, that defining what is acceptable or not in paper for all the possible cases is borderline impossible. Written, clear laws have their place, as does human judgement.
That being said, it really seems clear in this case.
Compensation for work is one of the things defined at the beginning of a work relationship, comfortable for both parties. Minecraft was already big when anyone was hired, I assume that if any extra compensation besides salary was expected, it would be asked for when the work started. Disgruntlement seems a bit out of place, and seems to be used in the piece to adorn a non-story.
Plus, note that my course of action would be talking to your employer to try and find a solution that works, not just "suck it up".
That being said, it really seems clear in this case.
Compensation for work is one of the things defined at the beginning of a work relationship, comfortable for both parties. Minecraft was already big when anyone was hired, I assume that if any extra compensation besides salary was expected, it would be asked for when the work started. Disgruntlement seems a bit out of place, and seems to be used in the piece to adorn a non-story.
Plus, note that my course of action would be talking to your employer to try and find a solution that works, not just "suck it up".
Everyone wants more money. That is the nature of capitalism. They should be applauded for rationally looking out for their self interests. Just as Markus and crew should be applauded for their ability to retain staff without having to share equity. As long as people are safe, aren't being abused, aren't starving and have a home to go to in the night I say let the game go on.
I've received equity at most of the software development jobs I've ever had. For everyone, any offer must be compared against the other opportunities they have.
> you can, and probably will, leave whenever you feel like it with no stress or loss
And you can, and potentially will, fire your employees or make them relocate whenever you feel like it with no stress or loss.
Everyone should get fired from a job they love, and get to quit a job they hate. It gives you a totally different appreciation for the nature of business.
> you can, and probably will, leave whenever you feel like it with no stress or loss
And you can, and potentially will, fire your employees or make them relocate whenever you feel like it with no stress or loss.
Everyone should get fired from a job they love, and get to quit a job they hate. It gives you a totally different appreciation for the nature of business.
I have to admit that I don't really understand the spirit of some of the commenters here that feel that the rank and file employees were wronged.
Every year my company has to decide how much bonus and equity to give me, if any, and I have to decide if I want to continue to work for them. If the work is interesting, my skills are growing, and the compensation is adequate, then I'll probably continue to stick around. If other companies offer me a sufficiently better gig then I'll leave.
Wow, this comment is sooo crazy. I am really surprised to read it.
I've never worked 9 to 5 at a startup. There are real sacrifices "just employees" make all the time to make the founder's vision real and to scale.
The other side of the story is that notch contacted Microsoft about the sale in the first place, and he was pretty transparent about the reason why, after it was done: http://notch.net/2014/09/im-leaving-mojang/
Notch didn't contact Microsoft, they contacted him.
“Anyone want to buy my share of Mojang so I can move on with my life?” he asked. “Getting hate for trying to do the right thing is not my gig.”
"Mojang CEO Carl Manneh was sitting at home with his family when he first saw the tweet. Within 30 seconds of his reading it, his phone rang. A Microsoft executive who coordinated with Mojang wanted to know if Persson was serious. “I’m not sure–let me talk to him,” said Manneh.
"While Persson originally wrote the message as a half-joke, the realization that he could disassociate from Mojang took hold. The man who once publicly pledged that he would not sell out to evil corporations now had his head turned.
"In the week that followed, Manneh’s phone rang constantly with interest from Microsoft, Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard and others. Talks with Activision petered out. Persson, cryptically, won’t discuss what happened with EA but says that Mojang ruled out potential buyers “who did game play in a way we didn’t like.” Microsoft, however, apparently passed muster."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/03/03/minecraft-mar...
“Anyone want to buy my share of Mojang so I can move on with my life?” he asked. “Getting hate for trying to do the right thing is not my gig.”
"Mojang CEO Carl Manneh was sitting at home with his family when he first saw the tweet. Within 30 seconds of his reading it, his phone rang. A Microsoft executive who coordinated with Mojang wanted to know if Persson was serious. “I’m not sure–let me talk to him,” said Manneh.
"While Persson originally wrote the message as a half-joke, the realization that he could disassociate from Mojang took hold. The man who once publicly pledged that he would not sell out to evil corporations now had his head turned.
"In the week that followed, Manneh’s phone rang constantly with interest from Microsoft, Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard and others. Talks with Activision petered out. Persson, cryptically, won’t discuss what happened with EA but says that Mojang ruled out potential buyers “who did game play in a way we didn’t like.” Microsoft, however, apparently passed muster."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2015/03/03/minecraft-mar...
Oh, right, I could've sworn it was the other way around, sorry for the confusion.
Either way, it was pretty clear he wanted out, with what I think are valid reasons. The article makes it look like a "take a money and run", leaving a dissatisfied bunch of employees behind.
First, the employees seemed dissatisfied before (why that is relevant to the sale, I am not sure), and it seems to me the deal was pretty good for them.
Second, and this is just my impression, is that Minecraft, from the community's PoV was already completely outside the hands of Mojang's founders, so they didn't exactly abandon the product.
Either way, it was pretty clear he wanted out, with what I think are valid reasons. The article makes it look like a "take a money and run", leaving a dissatisfied bunch of employees behind.
First, the employees seemed dissatisfied before (why that is relevant to the sale, I am not sure), and it seems to me the deal was pretty good for them.
Second, and this is just my impression, is that Minecraft, from the community's PoV was already completely outside the hands of Mojang's founders, so they didn't exactly abandon the product.
Ah, I had forgotten about this posting when I posted my earlier comment. He says flat out that it's gotten too big for him to deal with and that it's not fun anymore.
It's kinda the double edged sword of making something awesome- on the one hand, you've made something awesome. On the other hand, now you're in charge of your awesome thing that's way too big for one person to handle alone, so the bigger it gets the more people you have to bring in to run it, and the further and further away from being directly involved in the day to day. Unless you're Steve Jobs, but not everyone can be or wants to be that way.
It's kinda the double edged sword of making something awesome- on the one hand, you've made something awesome. On the other hand, now you're in charge of your awesome thing that's way too big for one person to handle alone, so the bigger it gets the more people you have to bring in to run it, and the further and further away from being directly involved in the day to day. Unless you're Steve Jobs, but not everyone can be or wants to be that way.
"It's not about the money" - then why didn't he open source it and/or hand it down to another Mojang employee?
Several items from the article jumped out at me, such as:
"Everyone at Mojang was made the same offer: whoever stayed on board for at least six months after the sale would be rewarded with two million Swedish crowns, approximately three hundred thousand dollars, after taxes."
While it pales in comparison to the payday Mojang's founders received, I'd be happy to get that much. Especially if:
"The three founders were yet to make anyone else a shareholder in the company, not even those who had been with Mojang from the start. This meant that the massive profits generated by Minecraft still went straight into their pockets, even though Markus himself hadn’t done any actual work on Minecraft for over two years now. ... Many no longer regarded Markus, Carl, and Jakob as their equals, as part of the team, but simply as management. Mojang had long since ceased to be anything but a workplace."
Sounds like if you were a working stiff at Mojang, your options were simply "find a new job" or "enjoy a $300,000 bonus after 6 months of continued employment". Compared to what had been happening, this sounds like an improvement.
I can't blame Mojang's founders for selling the company; hell, I'd do the same when offered that much money. Markus (Notch) can spend the rest of his life quietly making games mostly to amuse himself. That sounds like a dream. But when I read something like this:
"When Microsoft sent a delegation for its first official visit to Mojang in Stockholm, Markus wasn’t around. Few if any of his employees knew for sure, but it was rumored that he’d just returned from a few days in Vegas with Jakob. Either way, he was either too tired or too uninterested to show up in person. The task of representing Mojang to its new owners fell on Carl."
and:
"The day before, Markus had put in his last day at work. Several others were in the office as he stood up to leave. He hesitated, not sure how to say goodbye. So he decided not to."
...I can't help but think, "geez, what an ass." You've got your big payday, but you can't even be bothered to see the thing through or say goodbye to some of the people who helped make your big payday happen?
This is only one side of the story, of course, and as rilita notes elsewhere in this thread this is largely a promotion for a book. After reading this and having watched Minecraft's lack of progress over the last year (compared to its previous 2), I think that perhaps the acquisition by Microsoft may be the best thing that happened to the game.
"Everyone at Mojang was made the same offer: whoever stayed on board for at least six months after the sale would be rewarded with two million Swedish crowns, approximately three hundred thousand dollars, after taxes."
While it pales in comparison to the payday Mojang's founders received, I'd be happy to get that much. Especially if:
"The three founders were yet to make anyone else a shareholder in the company, not even those who had been with Mojang from the start. This meant that the massive profits generated by Minecraft still went straight into their pockets, even though Markus himself hadn’t done any actual work on Minecraft for over two years now. ... Many no longer regarded Markus, Carl, and Jakob as their equals, as part of the team, but simply as management. Mojang had long since ceased to be anything but a workplace."
Sounds like if you were a working stiff at Mojang, your options were simply "find a new job" or "enjoy a $300,000 bonus after 6 months of continued employment". Compared to what had been happening, this sounds like an improvement.
I can't blame Mojang's founders for selling the company; hell, I'd do the same when offered that much money. Markus (Notch) can spend the rest of his life quietly making games mostly to amuse himself. That sounds like a dream. But when I read something like this:
"When Microsoft sent a delegation for its first official visit to Mojang in Stockholm, Markus wasn’t around. Few if any of his employees knew for sure, but it was rumored that he’d just returned from a few days in Vegas with Jakob. Either way, he was either too tired or too uninterested to show up in person. The task of representing Mojang to its new owners fell on Carl."
and:
"The day before, Markus had put in his last day at work. Several others were in the office as he stood up to leave. He hesitated, not sure how to say goodbye. So he decided not to."
...I can't help but think, "geez, what an ass." You've got your big payday, but you can't even be bothered to see the thing through or say goodbye to some of the people who helped make your big payday happen?
This is only one side of the story, of course, and as rilita notes elsewhere in this thread this is largely a promotion for a book. After reading this and having watched Minecraft's lack of progress over the last year (compared to its previous 2), I think that perhaps the acquisition by Microsoft may be the best thing that happened to the game.
> perhaps the acquisition by Microsoft may be the best thing that happened to the game.
I can't believe I'm saying this - as a previously long time avowed Microsoft hater (I used to be an Amiga user - it's in my blood...) - but I agree. My 6 year old son plays a lot of Minecraft, both the PC version, mobile version and Xbox version, and it's just amazing how stagnant the official versions are compared to the thousands of mods my son watches reviews of.
It also boggles my mind how little has been done to enable extra paid content, given how incredibly excited he is about texture packs and skins and mods. For the PC version there's a thriving eco-system that Mojang was not part of. For the other versions there's a very limited set of extra content for the Xbox version (which we now have all of...) unless you want to go through the hassle of storing maps on an external storage device and modding it on a PC.
Who knows yet if Microsoft will do much more with it, but they can hardly do less.
I can't believe I'm saying this - as a previously long time avowed Microsoft hater (I used to be an Amiga user - it's in my blood...) - but I agree. My 6 year old son plays a lot of Minecraft, both the PC version, mobile version and Xbox version, and it's just amazing how stagnant the official versions are compared to the thousands of mods my son watches reviews of.
It also boggles my mind how little has been done to enable extra paid content, given how incredibly excited he is about texture packs and skins and mods. For the PC version there's a thriving eco-system that Mojang was not part of. For the other versions there's a very limited set of extra content for the Xbox version (which we now have all of...) unless you want to go through the hassle of storing maps on an external storage device and modding it on a PC.
Who knows yet if Microsoft will do much more with it, but they can hardly do less.
Part of why minecraft is so stagnant goes straight back to the original awkwardness mentioned in the article- Seemingly everyone with power in the minecraft system stops communicating, gets overly defensive about something, and causes the rest of the community to splinter, while forcing them to rebuild everything to avoid IP claims.
" it's just amazing how stagnant the official versions are compared to the thousands of mods my son watches reviews of."
Preach it, fellow parent and Amiga user! :D
It's like Mojang hit upon success and didn't know what to do next. From an outsider's point of view, by late 2013 the company didn't seem to really have any vision or direction besides arranging the next Minecon. That year saw the release of versions 1.6 and 1.7, which both contributed greatly to the game's content and replayability.
Then 2014 rolled around, and it took pretty much the entire year for Mojang to release one version that added a couple of blocks, flags, and still didn't contain the long-requested and (supposedly) long-worked-upon Plugin API for modders.
Makes you wonder where Minecraft would be today if they had kept their initial energy and focus.
Preach it, fellow parent and Amiga user! :D
It's like Mojang hit upon success and didn't know what to do next. From an outsider's point of view, by late 2013 the company didn't seem to really have any vision or direction besides arranging the next Minecon. That year saw the release of versions 1.6 and 1.7, which both contributed greatly to the game's content and replayability.
Then 2014 rolled around, and it took pretty much the entire year for Mojang to release one version that added a couple of blocks, flags, and still didn't contain the long-requested and (supposedly) long-worked-upon Plugin API for modders.
Makes you wonder where Minecraft would be today if they had kept their initial energy and focus.
The Forge and FML 'mods' are effectively the defacto modding API at this point. Sure, something official might be released, or maybe MS will do what Mojang should have done and somehow integrate this project in to the core; however at this point the modding community has momentum.
Given the demographic here on HN, we probably all dream of being in this situation. But I honestly have no idea how I'd react. I'd probably take the money and run, too.
I worry about these things sometimes. I have a few subcontractors working part time for me. I'd prefer to make them employees, have our own office together. But I also wonder how that would change our rapport.
I started out on my own specifically because I was dissatisfied with the way business was operated at all the places I had been before. But when reading stuff like this, or about O'Rielly Press, or Valve, it makes me wonder if it's possible to maintain ones ideals. The me that exists right now would hate to be the person that was the cause in another person of the same sort of anti-jumbo-corp feelings I harbor.
I worry about these things sometimes. I have a few subcontractors working part time for me. I'd prefer to make them employees, have our own office together. But I also wonder how that would change our rapport.
I started out on my own specifically because I was dissatisfied with the way business was operated at all the places I had been before. But when reading stuff like this, or about O'Rielly Press, or Valve, it makes me wonder if it's possible to maintain ones ideals. The me that exists right now would hate to be the person that was the cause in another person of the same sort of anti-jumbo-corp feelings I harbor.
There is this article about Notch sharing $3M with employees previously - can't imagine there being that many employees, and don't know how equal the sharing was.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-02-notch-share...
Which strikes me as pretty awesome, because with that much money you don't really know what to do with it -- except maybe outbid Beyonce for a very very expensive house (which strikes me as excessive and better used elsewhere).
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-02-notch-share...
Which strikes me as pretty awesome, because with that much money you don't really know what to do with it -- except maybe outbid Beyonce for a very very expensive house (which strikes me as excessive and better used elsewhere).
And if true, it is a nice gesture on the part of Notch. Because none of us outside of Mojang (and likely only a handful within Mojang) know the full story, I wanted to temper my criticism Markus a bit. It's easy to demonize a guy who strikes it rich and moves on to other things.
It will be interesting to see if he has a public Act II, or if he will essentially retire to obscurity.
It will be interesting to see if he has a public Act II, or if he will essentially retire to obscurity.
0x10c [0] was starting to become his public Act II, but he dropped the project because he was no longer interested in it.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0x10c
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0x10c
>. ...I can't help but think, "geez, what an ass." You've got your big payday, but you can't even be bothered to see the thing through or say goodbye to some of the people who helped make your big payday happen?
I hear you, and I had the same reaction initially. But honestly it probably stems more from a complete lack of social skills and empathy for other biological entities than some air of entitlement or disregard. He probably just doesn't get how people feel, didn't know how to negotiate the social aspects, and found it easier to simply slip away.
I hear you, and I had the same reaction initially. But honestly it probably stems more from a complete lack of social skills and empathy for other biological entities than some air of entitlement or disregard. He probably just doesn't get how people feel, didn't know how to negotiate the social aspects, and found it easier to simply slip away.
Plus, how do you say goodbye in that situation? How do you not just completely break down from the overwhelming emotion of it all? Pride, guilt, relief, worry about the future, probably worry about all the remaining employees... I think anyone would be hard pressed to keep a stiff upper lip at a time like that.
In such a situation, the benefits of trying would accrue to the human who risks trying and is changed by the experience.
> After reading this and having watched Minecraft's lack of progress over the last year (compared to its previous 2), I think that perhaps the acquisition by Microsoft may be the best thing that happened to the game.
I don't follow: why is it a good thing that the game has suffered a lack of progress?
I don't follow: why is it a good thing that the game has suffered a lack of progress?
I think the implication is the Minecraft had stalled under Mojang, and that hopefully Microsoft can get things going again. Which is usually the opposite of what's expected when a large corp buys a small shop.
Yes, that was my intended point. Mojang was going nowhere fast with Minecraft in 2014. Perhaps with Microsoft at the helm, we'll see some action.
"Everyone else had to do with a normal salary, plus whatever perks or bonuses Markus decided to throw their way when he felt generous."
To say that Markus had been generous with employees, would be an understatement.
https://twitter.com/notch/status/175174949277941760
To say that Markus had been generous with employees, would be an understatement.
https://twitter.com/notch/status/175174949277941760
It certainly seems like for some reason (I assume the success of the game) that employees think they are entitled to more than a reasonable salary. I've worked plenty of jobs where I've received a decent salary and no perks. The one company I worked for was doing really well, I received a good salary and we received perks. No trips anywhere but catered lunches or desert bars or other things about every other month or so. Things like that show that you are appreciated, not sure where the entitlement comes from.
It sounds like nothing more than run-of-the-mill envy and fear of change.
Someone else is getting rich. I don't think people anywhere - Sweden or otherwise - are immune to it. I believe it's an extraordinarily common human attribute. I think the culture at Mojang amplified, perhaps even was responsible for, the sense the employees had that it was their baby.
I inherited a business with a dozen employees when my parents died at a young age. The tenure of the employees was long, averaging ten or so years. The employees believed the business belonged to them (they had never been promised ownership, they didn't own it in any regard), that their jobs were perpetual, and that their roles were to never change. For the next year, they were fond of quoting that "well, I was told that my job was x y z by the previous owners." I've never met more entitled people in my life, and this was at a small business that didn't make tons of money. That extreme atmosphere of entitlement, in that case, came from how the former ownership had, basically, allowed the inmates to run the asylum and never have to deal with change. It became, as the years went by, an increasingly entrenched mindset that it was their business, and they were all very afraid of change at their ages (average age of 45).
Someone else is getting rich. I don't think people anywhere - Sweden or otherwise - are immune to it. I believe it's an extraordinarily common human attribute. I think the culture at Mojang amplified, perhaps even was responsible for, the sense the employees had that it was their baby.
I inherited a business with a dozen employees when my parents died at a young age. The tenure of the employees was long, averaging ten or so years. The employees believed the business belonged to them (they had never been promised ownership, they didn't own it in any regard), that their jobs were perpetual, and that their roles were to never change. For the next year, they were fond of quoting that "well, I was told that my job was x y z by the previous owners." I've never met more entitled people in my life, and this was at a small business that didn't make tons of money. That extreme atmosphere of entitlement, in that case, came from how the former ownership had, basically, allowed the inmates to run the asylum and never have to deal with change. It became, as the years went by, an increasingly entrenched mindset that it was their business, and they were all very afraid of change at their ages (average age of 45).
If your employees were basically running the shop with little-to-no control from your parents, then it's only natural they would feel a sense of ownership. It's a very human reaction.
And when someone much younger takes over and wants to implement changes, that's going to be scary to employees aged 40+, who depend on the job for their mortgages, kid's college, and retirement. And who are going to have a hard time getting a new job of equal pay, thanks to age discrimination in many industries, if your changes lead to them being let go.
I'm sure the situation was incredibly frustrating for you. I've been where you are, in the sense of working with middle-aged people terrified of change. Quite maddening. But now that I'm middle-aged myself and fighting similar tendencies, I can have a lot of empathy for them. I hope you can have at least a little.
And when someone much younger takes over and wants to implement changes, that's going to be scary to employees aged 40+, who depend on the job for their mortgages, kid's college, and retirement. And who are going to have a hard time getting a new job of equal pay, thanks to age discrimination in many industries, if your changes lead to them being let go.
I'm sure the situation was incredibly frustrating for you. I've been where you are, in the sense of working with middle-aged people terrified of change. Quite maddening. But now that I'm middle-aged myself and fighting similar tendencies, I can have a lot of empathy for them. I hope you can have at least a little.
It's unbalanced. There's really no good reason why management should be getting orders of magnitude more profits than the employees just for being there first.
I think the cooperative model[1] should really be the natural order of things. Too bad it's not very common, especially in software.
[1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
I think the cooperative model[1] should really be the natural order of things. Too bad it's not very common, especially in software.
[1]: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
In this case, "management" (ie, Markus and one or two others) has done 95% of the work of making and selling a hugely successful product. Everyone else was brought on later for support and maintenance.
People are talking about startups, but this is nothing remotely like a typical startup scenario.
People are talking about startups, but this is nothing remotely like a typical startup scenario.
They made the initial product, but it sounds like they hadn't done much of the work in a few years.
And 5% of billions would still be a lot.
And 5% of billions would still be a lot.
Yesterday, LEGO launched Minecraft's competitor LEGO Worlds: http://videogames.lego.com/en-us/lego-worlds/about/screensho...
What a terrible launch page. Video not front and centre, video trailer doesn't load and the 'more info' button displays copyright information. Because that's what grabs kid's attention these days - a wordy rights statement asserting WB's ownership of '...the Brick and the Knob configurations'.
this really shocked me. He must have been filled with all sorts of mixed emotions to not even say goodbye to the team. (or he did, and for whatever reason that's not public ..).
>> The day before, Markus had put in his last day
at work. Several others were in the office as he stood
up to leave. He hesitated, not sure how to say goodbye.
So he decided not to. He made his way past the desks
outside where his employees sat working, past the shelves
stacked with awards and prizes. He took a left out the
door, went down a small stairwell, and stepped out of the
building.I guess Notch wanted to try the rockstar life, something he couldn't do representing Mojang. I hope he gets tired of it and comes back to the gaming scene, or at least starts blogging again. He has a really great analytic mind when it comes to games.
He actually quit his day job to start making games on how own. (He already made games for a living). And decided to make Minecraft because he knew it was easy money he could use to keep afloat.
Jens already had his own successful game studio when joining Mojang. It was a pretty good hire ... I guess he's not that good at negotiating, considered he didn't get any ownership. But I guess he's happy enough to be the lead on the greatest games of all time, besides Tetris. :P
He actually quit his day job to start making games on how own. (He already made games for a living). And decided to make Minecraft because he knew it was easy money he could use to keep afloat.
Jens already had his own successful game studio when joining Mojang. It was a pretty good hire ... I guess he's not that good at negotiating, considered he didn't get any ownership. But I guess he's happy enough to be the lead on the greatest games of all time, besides Tetris. :P
Always thought he'd opensource Minecraft and then sell it to Unicef (or Unesco) for 1 dollar. But alas it was not to be :-(
I wish it had put "book excerpt" in the HN header because I was looking for the rest of the article when I got to the bottom. Not satisfying.
It's always an opportunity to sell to someone how is desperate and has deep pockets, especially when you're currently looking for an exit. Minecraft, Wunderlist, ...
Any story about Minecraft needs to mention Zachary Barth.
Interesting, but this is just a huge advertisement for a book. Also; it says nothing about what Microsoft is doing with Minecraft in the last year. There is no new news here in this blurb as far as I can tell. Move along.
Some people read things simply because they are interesting, even if they do not contain any "new news"
Who cares? I love reading some of these book exceprts. Got me to buy and read the history of Marvel. This stuff is pretty interesting.
"Also; it says nothing about what Microsoft is doing with Minecraft in the last year."
That is accurate. Nothing so far. At least in public.
When the news of the purchase went out there was a lot of theory about how they will get rid of all console ports but the msphone/xbox ports, get rid of the osx and linux port, somehow find a way to make it un-runnable on anything but windows 8 which I'm sure with effort is technically possible, or monetize the heck out of it like buy diamonds for real world cash or whatever.
I'm not sure if they're wisely waiting for things to quiet and calm, or if they're actually making no progress.
The modding community is busy enough. I don't think its possible for one human to keep up with absolutely everything in the FTB DW20 pack, for example. It would just take more wall clock time to gain expertise than there is wall clock time between new releases and new mods.
That is accurate. Nothing so far. At least in public.
When the news of the purchase went out there was a lot of theory about how they will get rid of all console ports but the msphone/xbox ports, get rid of the osx and linux port, somehow find a way to make it un-runnable on anything but windows 8 which I'm sure with effort is technically possible, or monetize the heck out of it like buy diamonds for real world cash or whatever.
I'm not sure if they're wisely waiting for things to quiet and calm, or if they're actually making no progress.
The modding community is busy enough. I don't think its possible for one human to keep up with absolutely everything in the FTB DW20 pack, for example. It would just take more wall clock time to gain expertise than there is wall clock time between new releases and new mods.
There was a lot of hoopla from the community right when it happened. The head of forge quite, leaving the guy under him to make the next forge version. The one guy in bukkit sunk the whole project due to it also.
I would like to know what if anything Microsoft has done to help Forge to keep the community strong. My guess: nothing as you say. If they have done something that would be news.
There is speculation that nearly all Minecraft mods right now are illegal due to reverse engineering of the obfuscated core.
I would like to know what if anything Microsoft has done to help Forge to keep the community strong. My guess: nothing as you say. If they have done something that would be news.
There is speculation that nearly all Minecraft mods right now are illegal due to reverse engineering of the obfuscated core.
Regardless of intent, at some point if someone comes along and says "hey we'll give you $2B to walk away from this and go back to making fun games in the basement and never having to worry about money ever again" it will be a more attractive offer than trying to deal with the headache that comes with running a large company (which would be compounded by never desiring to have a large company in the first place).