3 ms·

Hmm, I bought every single game developed by John Carmack...

by fx1994 8y ago

EpicEng 8y ago
And Carmack is worth $40M, so I guess it's working?
- njharman 8y ago
  That is low. Really!? I would think his net worth was a lot more than that.
  - Skunkleton 8y ago
    Ignoring the ridiculous sums that some people are worth, doesn't $40 million seem reasonable?
    - simonh 8y ago
      It depends. If he was significantly more wealthy, he'd have more opportunities to fund new projects and companies. Imagine Steve Jobs had been worth only a few million back in 1986 (who really needs more than that, right?), he wouldn't have been able to found NeXT, or bankroll Pixar. Funds flowing to proven creators, successful entrepreneurs and shrewd investors is a good thing because those are exactly the people who know how to deploy those assets productively. Having said all that, I've no idea specifically about Carmack.
      - Skunkleton 8y ago
        That's a good point. Seems like a bit of a hole in the system though. Why does it have to be so hard for an organization succeed without an existing connection to success? If Steve hadn't funded Pixar, then we wouldn't have gotten a bunch of cool stuff. I would guess there are hundreds of Pixars that had no Steve. Of course there is no obvious answer to this problem, and the system we have is way way better than what was available historically.
        simonh 8y ago
        Pixar came out of the Lucasfilm digital arm and didn't really have any existing connection to Steve Jobs. How to link investors up with startups and growth opportunities in businesses is an old problem that ideally needs multiple solutions available. [rant]I think the success of capitalism has partially been the reward mechanism, but it's also been that it allows and encourages multiple mechanisms for capital to link up with investment opportunities. The alternatives have all offered grand ideal, theoretically perfect mechanisms for the distribution and allocation of assets. It's not that those mechanisms are necessarily all useless, I do think a degree of state capitalism and central planning for really big, long term or essential projects have their place, but they can't be the only solution. At it's core capitalism is about individual freedom, and that includes the freedom to own your own small business, or to aggregate together into large group enterprises like banks and corporations, or to vote for governments that fund essential services. These are not natural opposites IMHO, and ideologies on the left or the right that force them into opposition do so only because they themselves are flawed.[/rant]
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - njharman 8y ago
      It's more than a reasonable amount of money. But Carmack is not a reasonable amount of developer. For the guy who popularized an entire genre of video games, no.
  - mrob 8y ago
    Carmack did his best work when the industry was a lot smaller than it is now.

Hmm, I bought every single game developed by John Carmack...

by fx1994 8y ago

Hmm, I bought every single game developed by John Carmack...

EpicEng 8y ago

And Carmack is worth $40M, so I guess it's working?

njharman 8y ago
That is low. Really!? I would think his net worth was a lot more than that.
- Skunkleton 8y ago
  Ignoring the ridiculous sums that some people are worth, doesn't $40 million seem reasonable?
  - simonh 8y ago
    It depends. If he was significantly more wealthy, he'd have more opportunities to fund new projects and companies. Imagine Steve Jobs had been worth only a few million back in 1986 (who really needs more than that, right?), he wouldn't have been able to found NeXT, or bankroll Pixar. Funds flowing to proven creators, successful entrepreneurs and shrewd investors is a good thing because those are exactly the people who know how to deploy those assets productively. Having said all that, I've no idea specifically about Carmack.
    - Skunkleton 8y ago
      That's a good point. Seems like a bit of a hole in the system though. Why does it have to be so hard for an organization succeed without an existing connection to success? If Steve hadn't funded Pixar, then we wouldn't have gotten a bunch of cool stuff. I would guess there are hundreds of Pixars that had no Steve. Of course there is no obvious answer to this problem, and the system we have is way way better than what was available historically.
      - simonh 8y ago
        Pixar came out of the Lucasfilm digital arm and didn't really have any existing connection to Steve Jobs. How to link investors up with startups and growth opportunities in businesses is an old problem that ideally needs multiple solutions available. [rant]I think the success of capitalism has partially been the reward mechanism, but it's also been that it allows and encourages multiple mechanisms for capital to link up with investment opportunities. The alternatives have all offered grand ideal, theoretically perfect mechanisms for the distribution and allocation of assets. It's not that those mechanisms are necessarily all useless, I do think a degree of state capitalism and central planning for really big, long term or essential projects have their place, but they can't be the only solution. At it's core capitalism is about individual freedom, and that includes the freedom to own your own small business, or to aggregate together into large group enterprises like banks and corporations, or to vote for governments that fund essential services. These are not natural opposites IMHO, and ideologies on the left or the right that force them into opposition do so only because they themselves are flawed.[/rant]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - njharman 8y ago
    It's more than a reasonable amount of money. But Carmack is not a reasonable amount of developer. For the guy who popularized an entire genre of video games, no.
- mrob 8y ago
  Carmack did his best work when the industry was a lot smaller than it is now.