3 ms·

I'd agree, but remember that the others weren't all in it from the beginning. Notch had already done all the groundwork and the game was massively successful be

I'd agree, but remember that the others weren't all in it from the beginning. Notch had already done all the groundwork and the game was massively successful before "Mojang" was even a thing. I think $240,000 bonus on top of their (I assume at least competitive) salaries seems incredibly generous to me - not to mention that they're all still gainfully employed after the sale. Don't get me wrong - I'm not really a fan and don't have any loyalty either way, it would be good to hear from someone on the inside.

elixerprog9 11y ago
I'm not trying to hate on Notch, just observing that even a small % of equity would have been enough to cover his employees.
- SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
  I certainly see your point of view, I'm a big believer in equity. Just mulling over the other side of the argument out loud I guess.
rootlocus 11y ago
From what I heard, his "groundwork" was a terrible mess of spaghetti code that was awfully hard to work with. Most likely the only thing he left behind was the IP and fan base.
- SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
  I meant more the initial marketing and community involvement that helped the game get popular in the first place. Much as it pains me to say it as a developer, code quality isn't everything...
  - rootlocus 11y ago
    You're right. I'm positive that every time a large company acquires a small one, it's because of their community and IP. Code is easily rewritten, and startups aren't making breakthroughs in algorithms. It's not like microsoft didn't have engineers capable of making a minecraft clone. They didn't have the rights to do so.
    - andrepd 11y ago
      Exactly. Obviously MS didn't pay 2.5bil for a messy Java codebase. They paid for the brand, the IP, and the fanbase.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  So? It obviously did its job well enough and if it no longer does then you refactor it. It is so, so much more difficult to make a game successful than to make successful game.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  If you go look at my githb account you will see lots of spaghetti code that will never be sold for $2.5 billion ;-) It doesn't matter how poor the code was, it was incredibly valuable before anyone else joined the company.

elixerprog9 11y ago

I'm not trying to hate on Notch, just observing that even a small % of equity would have been enough to cover his employees.

SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
I certainly see your point of view, I'm a big believer in equity. Just mulling over the other side of the argument out loud I guess.

rootlocus 11y ago

From what I heard, his "groundwork" was a terrible mess of spaghetti code that was awfully hard to work with. Most likely the only thing he left behind was the IP and fan base.

SmellyGeekBoy 11y ago
I meant more the initial marketing and community involvement that helped the game get popular in the first place. Much as it pains me to say it as a developer, code quality isn't everything...
- rootlocus 11y ago
  You're right. I'm positive that every time a large company acquires a small one, it's because of their community and IP. Code is easily rewritten, and startups aren't making breakthroughs in algorithms. It's not like microsoft didn't have engineers capable of making a minecraft clone. They didn't have the rights to do so.
  - andrepd 11y ago
    Exactly. Obviously MS didn't pay 2.5bil for a messy Java codebase. They paid for the brand, the IP, and the fanbase.
tomjen3 11y ago
So? It obviously did its job well enough and if it no longer does then you refactor it. It is so, so much more difficult to make a game successful than to make successful game.
mikekchar 11y ago
If you go look at my githb account you will see lots of spaghetti code that will never be sold for $2.5 billion ;-) It doesn't matter how poor the code was, it was incredibly valuable before anyone else joined the company.