I didn't notice the (2016) tag when I first clicked and kept thinking "How long has the NYT and their readers been so out of touch that they are just understand

I didn't notice the (2016) tag when I first clicked and kept thinking "How long has the NYT and their readers been so out of touch that they are just understanding Minecraft now." I feel like Minecraft has really drifted a lot towards the description of modern lego: "Today many cultural observers argue that Lego has moved away from that open-­ended engagement, because it’s so often sold in branded kits: the Hogwarts castle from “Harry Potter,” the TIE fighter from “Star Wars.” “It’s ‘Buy the box, open the box, turn to the instruction sheet, make the model, stick it on the shelf, buy the next box,’" The way Minecraft has changed is no longer about figuring out the solution, but about saving up the specific resources needed to craft the "solves your specific problem" block. Maybe that's Microsofts influence. Maybe that's what's incentivized when the money comes from "sell this game to the kids that haven't bought it yet." When you step back and look at it, the articles surprise about what kids can figure out on their own is actually kind of patronizing. Imagine the opposite: "the voting game is finally teaching adults about how running a server really works. These are the worst people I can imagine, yet somehow they aren't falling flat on their face."