Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Fall of 38 Studios

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the high-stakes-gambling dept.

Businesses 172

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

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806595)

38 steps, that's how far !!

Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806641)

38 steps, that's how far !!

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

Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807021)

Jesus did one more than that.

Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807761)

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

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

Re:HOW FAR DID IT FALL ?? (2)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808313)

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

Indeed.

So what's the purpose of this story again? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806607)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806653)

lose jobs that he gave them?

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806675)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806825)

You dumb ass republican v democrat people are the dumbest fucking morons in the country.
Democrats are the ones subsidizing the most business anyhow. Why blame your arch enemies for it?

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806859)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (2, Insightful)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807167)

Hmmm... must be an election year.

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

amiller2571 (2571883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807477)

yep ...

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (2)

Rogue Haggis Landing (1230830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807783)

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

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806997)

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

Uh, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807045)

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

Both parties do it.

Got it.

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

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

Got it - hypocrites.

Same for "Big" government and paying for it.

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

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

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

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

Oh, Obama killed Osama!

He deserves a second term just for that.

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

Huzzah!

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807047)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807125)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807145)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807195)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807275)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807331)

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

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

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807345)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807795)

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808145)

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

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

Ah, the myth of "Who controls Congress" that comes up.

The loan program that Solyndra used was part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It was proposed in the House by Representative Joe Barton from Texas. A Republican. It passed the House with 208 Republican votes in favor, and 41 Democrats. The Senate voted 85 in favor, with 12 opposing, 7 Democrats and 5 Republicans.

I'm sorry, but the evidence shows that that program was a Republican baby. The truth isn't yours.

Or do you believe that the Democrats secretly added the creation of a loan guarantee program into the law and fooled the Republicans over it? Even in the original version which Barton put into effect? That's really quite cleaver of them.

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (4, Insightful)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807427)

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

When they're the ones giving them out.

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807767)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806863)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808359)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (2)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806685)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806783)

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807239)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (-1, Troll)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807673)

"his own money"

SO WHAT??? He NEVER appreciated it in the first place!

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806823)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806867)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806881)

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807173)

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (5, Interesting)

docmordin (2654319) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806757)

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (2)

tburkhol (121842) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806981)

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

Furthermore:

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

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

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807041)

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807069)

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

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

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807567)

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807663)

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

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

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

Re:So what's the purpose of this story again? (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807683)

Utterly neglecting the FACT that Curt is a LOUSY businessman

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

Can you BE MORE OBTUSE IF YOU TRY???

Congratulation (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806661)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Congratulation (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806769)

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

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

Re:Congratulation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806917)

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

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

No kidding (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806797)

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

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

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

Re:No kidding (4, Funny)

charlesbakerharris (623282) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808265)

"Single player MMOs"? Derp?

why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806665)

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

Re:why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806777)

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

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

Re:why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807077)

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

Re:why the fuck didn't he make a baseball game (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807695)

Choosing an impossible project is not exactly good business practice.

yeah, but what was his gearscore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806681)

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

1/4 of the RI budget deficit (0)

kenorland (2691677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806683)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:1/4 of the RI budget deficit (3, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806703)

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

why don't you do some research yourself? (1)

kenorland (2691677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806975)

Try researching things before posting next time, ok?

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

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

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

Just edit his words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807001)

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

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

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

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

Re:Just edit his words (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807039)

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

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

Let me edit that for you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807235)

"Obama... as a Senator...used TARP funds...for...campaign ads."

There you go, another zinger for Fox.

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

But Obama's was secretly not born in America right? Right? You believe in facts, but Obama's birth certificate is a forgery and Obama ruined the economy and Bush got Bin Laden using Intelligent Design? Right?

Why are you liberals censoring me!!?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807583)

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

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

You liberals can't face the truth!

Re:Just edit his words (1)

cwj123 (16058) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808153)

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

Re:why don't you do some research yourself? (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807283)

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

Re:1/4 of the RI budget deficit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806721)

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

State of the MMO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806695)

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

Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806713)

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

Re:Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806821)

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

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

Re:Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806873)

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

Game Code & Resources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806737)

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

Re:Game Code & Resources (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806781)

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

Lesson: Your ability to throw a curveball... (2)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806749)

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

Wrong, Brett Close Was the CEO (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807091)

Don't know where the summary or you got that idea from. Brett Close was the CEO. You are write about nepotism though. From the article:

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

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

Re:Wrong, Brett Close Was the CEO (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807231)

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

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

Re:Wrong, Brett Close Was the CEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808301)

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

No profits = no accountability (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806751)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806773)

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (2, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807303)

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807453)

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

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807899)

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

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

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808035)

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808167)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40808347)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807721)

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807875)

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808055)

Can you read THE SUBJECT OF THIS STORY???

38 studios failed BECAUSE CURT SCHILLING IS A BAD BUSINESSMAN

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

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

Re:No profits = no accountability (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808211)

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

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

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

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

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

Can't stop reselling in the EU (1, Offtopic)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806785)

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

Re:Can't stop reselling in the EU (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40806887)

Interesting comment, you should post it on another story ...

Re:Can't stop reselling in the EU (2)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#40806903)

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

Jocks & Nerds (0)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807163)

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

Re:Jocks & Nerds (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807291)

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

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

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

Re:Jocks & Nerds (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807645)

It sounds like you worked at 38 Studios.

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

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

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

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

Remember Casey at The Bat? (1)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807351)

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

http://youtu.be/erfSed2MUsA [youtu.be]

Great Power points though (2)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807485)

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

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

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

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

Partisan Politics (3, Insightful)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807521)

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

This question is based in semantics (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807613)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Games developed: none I'd heard of (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807615)

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

Fascinating psychology (4, Insightful)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807771)

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

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

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

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning (1)

RudyHartmann (1032120) | more than 2 years ago | (#40807777)

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

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

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

Curt didn't even know the basics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40807825)

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

Really?! Ever heard of EA or Activision?

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

I knew (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 2 years ago | (#40808257)

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>