loadingreadyrun.com

Go big. Buy some jets. Sell the jets for $5.00 a piece. Spend the jet money T.G.I.Fridays.

Doesn't sound hard.

You should really add "You must receive fair market value when buying and selling assets" and "You cannot intentionally destroy assets" to the rules list, Hosk. they are rather crucial parts of the original rules.

I do like 2Stepz idea, though.

Lord Hosk wrote:Brewsters millions the 30/300 million adjusted for inflation.

Rules.
.
.
.
You must pay anyone you hire a fair amount for the services they provide.

Yeah, so zyxst heard me read that off, and got a rather NSFW idea (spinning off of paying, say, Mr. McCartney fair market value for his songwriting skills to write and release a song under Creative Commons):

"So....Mr. Cumberbatch; how much money WOULD it take to get you into my bed?

Naaaaah, she's not prepared for this sort of challenge at all.

65 mill, and then make bloody sure I get into uni.

I just thought of the perfect way to lose $65 million: Give it to Air Canada.

BADUMCHA! ^

Want me to spend 65 million dollars in 30 days? Challenge accepted.

Host a talent show, give every contestant a prize depending on how well they preformed. Since they are preforming for me and an audience, I would assume that would count as paid entertainment and not charity.

Going to 'Desert Bus is charity,' I'd use this argument. I wouldn't be giving away the money for nothing. I'd be giving it away for fabulous prizes that are one of a kind, acting as a super-octopimp. Many of these items would not have a set value. And even if we said the cost of materials counted, I could give the assets away as my 5% charity. Because I doubt all of DB's prizes combinted equal $3,250,000. Alternatively, I'd BUY Desert Bus and pull a Dengler. If this reasoning wouldn't be considered 'right,' I'd talk to the LRR crew about transferring the money straight to them as actual payment, then having them give it all right to charity.

My plan would be to 'sell' the items to the second-highest bidder for a donation equal to their high bid to Child's Play, getting the prizes myself live on-camera by flying myself out there to make sure I can get rid of them within the month. I'd give the giveaways to a random chatter or forum member I liked. I'd likely keep a few things myself if they didn't count as assets, but if they did, I'd just do this for all of them.


Alternate plan:

I hire a huge number of game makers. From the very best to the newest person. I have them all in their own allocated groups. I pay them all a huge salary, including their entire game budget up front, renting out the office space for all of them and having them pay for their own hardware programs (with an up-front bonus if they need it) so the programs and hardware belong to them.

I'd either keep rights and rights to some future profits to all games made this way, or I would put all games out under creative commons. It would be the former if the assets wouldn't count. I'd say they don't since the potential profits aren't actually worth anything until the game is finished (which isn't likely to happen in a month, since I'll always have them add more). All of the assets and development material will belong to the developers themselves, so I won't own any of that. Or, at worse, I just make the game free and, when they finally are released, do something like the Humble Bundle. You can pay anything you want, including nothing.

1) keeping the rights would count as an asset - something that earns you money, "potential profits" are still considered something of benefit. It's little different from a stock certificate that doesn't give you any benefit then and there, but has the potential to earn you money.

2) The solution to 1) is, as you said, put the games out under Creative Commons licensing, but that would narrow the field of game makers that would sign on with you; some just would NOT give up their creations for any fee or wage.

But yeah, your alternate plan has potential...

For 2, I'm sure I'd be able to find a lot of devs, mainly indies or some higher-level producers who want complete creative control, would go for it. Even if not, there's are tons of game design students who'd like the funding to basically try to get their game finished. The main problem is that I wouldn't be able to ensure each project is successful... I did the calculations, and if I paid each person (each person, not each team) $20k each total, I'd have to find 3,250 people to work for me. Though I'm sure I can also hire some talent scouts and similar things to speed up the process. I'd want to have every dev working by the end of the first week, except perhaps bigger names who will take longer to get if I even will be able to. If I also paid for them moving to one central location, including building and moving expenses (which would seem pretty much required, or have multiple branch locations in different countries with VPN set up between each site to make an interconnected dev-hub), I'd be generous and say $50k per person. Which is still finding 1,300 game developers ready and willing to go. That sounds like a lot, but that includes programmers, artists, musicians, developers, etc, etc.

EDIT: I think I just figured out a way to game the system. While I wouldn't be able to get any of the games finished by the end of the time because that'd be bad for me, I'd basically do the entire thing as a setup of 'I'm funding you to produce a demo of your game for me. If it looks good, I'll continue funding it. It'd taking some working to adjust each team's resources to enough to easily go very far with the project, but enough where I'd need to fund them to finish it afterwards (in the process signing a deal to receive a portion of the profits). But it could possibly work, even if I don't see every project come to fruition. I'd spend the 65 million and have nothing to show for it. The creators keep the rights to their games and assets; I'm basically just hiring them to actually work on the game full time. And then, after the month is up, I'll have prospects for financial gain, a bunch of new full or well-started games, and 650 million if all goes well.

I'm sure the crew would appreciate the donation but would hate you for the hours. How long would they have to bus for 3.25 million? Much less 65....
Maybe we should try and balance out the human suffering.

What about burning it?
...
What's the thought there?

Dubious_wolf wrote:I'm sure the crew would appreciate the donation but would hate you for the hours. How long would they have to bus for 3.25 million? Much less 65....
Maybe we should try and balance out the human suffering.

They'd have to bus for 226 hours with me having a little over 2.5 million left over that I'm sure I could get rid of (I'm sure handling a lot of the details would help bring that down quickly). That'd be slightly less than 3 days longer. Which is a lot mind you, but 64-some million more for 3 days is a lot too.

Don't get me wrong. Realistically, I'd try to find another way or do my alternate plan. Maybe try to talk to the crew about it first and see what they think. But none of this is going to happen anyways, so it's kinda moot.

Actually, I've had a better idea.

World's.
Biggest.
Firework.
Display.

Oh man, and dont announce it... just hire like 500 barges, show up at the coast of a big city in the afternoon and just after dusk, GO!

What could possibly go wrong?

Also, question: What if we buy something with the sole intent of destroying it? Like buying an old painting solely to set fire to it. Something along those lines. Something that no sane person would do with their money.

While not stipulated here, in the original story and movie it is stated that you can't just destroy an asset. One loophole Brewster uses to get around that is to buy extremely rare stamps and mail them. It drastically decreases their value, but as they were used for their intended purpose, it falls within the rules.

I only say Richard Pryor's version of the film so I'm not sure if it is in the original, Brewster had to have receipts of all his purchases. So burning wouldn't work.

Elomin Sha wrote:I only say Richard Pryor's version of the film so I'm not sure if it is in the original, Brewster had to have receipts of all his purchases. So burning wouldn't work.

Cool thanks for clarifying.
I know this is all moot but it's nice for the brain exercise. I've only posted a tenth of the stuff I've thought of. Lol

65 million in rare and collectors coins. Spend like normal money.
And watch as collectible coiner go insane. Muhahahahaha!

Dang. I wanted to set fire to some expensive painting. Seems like it'd have been a good time.

For purposes of contemplation, would paying for body modification count as 'having the assets' after the 30 days is over?

im going to say Tattoos are ok, piercings are fine, any implants or jewelry would count as an assets.

WE COULD START A CARNAVAL!!!!
great idea 2stepz!!

get a dude. pay him to be "world's most tattooed man"
get bearded lady other various side show exhibits, etc.
You don't own them as "Assets" but you could pay for their body mods and promise "future work".

I guess I was thinking about medical procedures: plastic/weight loss surgery w/ body lift, fixing my bone spurs, lasik surgery, a heart valve replacement and pacemaker for my grandpa... that kind of thing.

Not that I would rule out tattoos and piercings... but I was thinking a little more serious.