6 ms·

It would be up to Microsoft to say why they did it. It's probably buried somewhere in the sanction documents. [1] If Microsoft are complying with a sanction t

It would be up to Microsoft to say why they did it. It's probably buried somewhere in the sanction documents. [1] If Microsoft are complying with a sanction then perhaps they may have issues getting a refund, but could at least open a ticket to get an answer if they have not already. Maybe there is a corporate lawyer on here with experience in this matter? [1] - https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/iran-sanctions https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...

phone8675309 2y ago
Why the flying fuck should sanctions infringe on someone's ability to play a game they already purchased?
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Sanctions sometimes ban providing services to people in countries. Apparently Minecraft requires you to login (a service) to use the game. If the game was completely offline this wouldn't be a problem.
  - red_admiral 2y ago
    Barely a week goes by without some variant of "Iranian Hackers" in the tech/security press - maybe, inshallah, they could release a version that lets you play on Iran-hosted servers without needing to connect to the US for a login?
    - mmis1000 2y ago
      No, they don't need a 'new' client for that. That already exists. Since minecraft is basically open source, it's not really a secret that how to make a client that simply don't require login. (Surely you don't want to say it loud or legal team of MS is going to chase you hard, but lots of client just slip that function in silently) Besides that. The minecraft login is basically a license check allow you to join 'legal purchase required' server. And whether you want to enable the enforcement is up to server owner.
      - kbolino 2y ago
        Open source means the developers release the source code willingly and encourage other people to use it. Minecraft is not now and never has been open source.
        mmis1000 2y ago
        They do release the source mapping of the java version alongside the binary. Which can be used to decompile the whole game back to compilable java file. (And you can fiddle it around starting from there). It's source available if you do own the game. So I say 'basically'. The bedrock version on the other hand is completely proprietary. With very little extension api exposed. So there is very few mods of them.
        kbolino 2y ago
        That's decompiled source and while, for Java at least, it can be pretty usable, it's actually going to differ in many ways from the original source due to optimization and obfuscation. I'm fairly sure neither Mojang nor Microsoft were particularly pleased about this, indeed their use of obfuscation implies they want to make your life more difficult doing it. I think your point is that the Java version at least is easy to modify, but that's because it's in Java, not because Microsoft wants you to. "Open source" and even "source available" are terms of art which don't apply here. "Very hackable" seems more appropriate.
        mmis1000 2y ago
        The source map is released by mojang itself. Before this exists, there is a community project to de-obfuscate naming back to readable human names. And it usually took about a month after new minecraft version released. But this is no longer needed because mojang now release the actual mapping. So microsoft(mojang) do want to make modders live easier out of own willing. Not just because it is java. Or they don't really need to publish that at all.
        2y ago
- fernandopj 2y ago
  Minecraft is an online game, so in today's world, he didn't purchase the game, just a license to play it online. No server access, no game.
  - Rietty 2y ago
    Minecraft is not an online game, it has a multi-player option sure.. but it doesn't strictly need to be online. There is a single-player mode since basically forever..
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - marzell 2y ago
      I'm not arguing your point, but this is the general state of gaming today. A significant portion of "single player only" games require you to be online, contain "online" content, and access to the game can/will be effectively removed when servers/services go offline.
      - wlesieutre 2y ago
        It's a sad state of affairs that you can buy an offline game, and then the developer/publisher can push out an update that turns it into an online game and then disables your access to it
        ryandrake 2y ago
        It's sad, but people keep buying these games, so there is no incentive for the game companies to stop.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  Half the point of sanctions is making the life of average people difficult so the leaders fear them revolting over not being able to play a game or, you know, feeding their children. The other half is to reduce their ability to wage war on their neighbors. Either way, the leaders are still sipping wine and eating cheese.
  - waffleiron 2y ago
    Honest question; has that ever worked? Cause I could see it just as easily weaponised by a sanctioned state to cause one to dislike "the west" more. Would you be more likely to overthrow your government when other governments start making your life more difficult?
    - tichiian 2y ago
      Sanctions may be a very weak measure when it comes to inciting revolutions. But in general, yes, sanctions against non-military goods do work to change the minds of greedy leaderships if they can be tailored to remove a sufficient part of their income. However, that is not always the case, e.g. in Iran it is rather a measure of the "we are doing as much as we can, more than sternly worded letters, less than violence or war".
      - phone8675309 2y ago
        > But in general, yes, sanctions against non-military goods do work to change the minds of greedy leaderships if they can be tailored to remove a sufficient part of their income. Why are they not working to bring about regime changes in Russia and Iran, and why did they not work to bring about regime change in Cuba and Iraq?
        tichiian 2y ago
        Because Russia and Iran have leadership that has other sources of income outside of the sanctioning west. Cuba and Iraq had that historically (with the eastern bloc as trading partners), and the regimes began to change (at least a little) when those sources for income vanished. That they didn't immediately disappear comes from the fact that the respective leadership is caught between a rock and a hard place: uncomfortable in power at home, but no safe place for comfortable exile available.
dotnet00 2y ago
I think the bigger point is that software you pay for, which requires a bannable login to use even the offline component, should not be allowed to exist.
bastardoperator 2y ago
Microsoft has been known to get around sanctions: https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-github-is-fully-available-in-iran/ https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...
- John23832 2y ago
  Why would Microsoft want to go through the effort of securing a license to allow people to play a game? That is not worth the financial effort.
toast0 2y ago
It's possible to comply with sanctions and offer some services to people in Iran. It's been a while since I read the text, but I'd expect purchases and refunds are difficult, but allowing login should be ok in theory. On the other hand, actually doing it is a lot of compliance work, and some hosts block traffic to Iran by default. Could be that something changed in the hosting and it's going to take attention and time to get it back to opened up. Microsoft should know better, but...

phone8675309 2y ago

Why the flying fuck should sanctions infringe on someone's ability to play a game they already purchased?

ImJamal 2y ago
Sanctions sometimes ban providing services to people in countries. Apparently Minecraft requires you to login (a service) to use the game. If the game was completely offline this wouldn't be a problem.
- red_admiral 2y ago
  Barely a week goes by without some variant of "Iranian Hackers" in the tech/security press - maybe, inshallah, they could release a version that lets you play on Iran-hosted servers without needing to connect to the US for a login?
  - mmis1000 2y ago
    No, they don't need a 'new' client for that. That already exists. Since minecraft is basically open source, it's not really a secret that how to make a client that simply don't require login. (Surely you don't want to say it loud or legal team of MS is going to chase you hard, but lots of client just slip that function in silently) Besides that. The minecraft login is basically a license check allow you to join 'legal purchase required' server. And whether you want to enable the enforcement is up to server owner.
    - kbolino 2y ago
      Open source means the developers release the source code willingly and encourage other people to use it. Minecraft is not now and never has been open source.
      - mmis1000 2y ago
        They do release the source mapping of the java version alongside the binary. Which can be used to decompile the whole game back to compilable java file. (And you can fiddle it around starting from there). It's source available if you do own the game. So I say 'basically'. The bedrock version on the other hand is completely proprietary. With very little extension api exposed. So there is very few mods of them.
        kbolino 2y ago
        That's decompiled source and while, for Java at least, it can be pretty usable, it's actually going to differ in many ways from the original source due to optimization and obfuscation. I'm fairly sure neither Mojang nor Microsoft were particularly pleased about this, indeed their use of obfuscation implies they want to make your life more difficult doing it. I think your point is that the Java version at least is easy to modify, but that's because it's in Java, not because Microsoft wants you to. "Open source" and even "source available" are terms of art which don't apply here. "Very hackable" seems more appropriate.
        mmis1000 2y ago
        The source map is released by mojang itself. Before this exists, there is a community project to de-obfuscate naming back to readable human names. And it usually took about a month after new minecraft version released. But this is no longer needed because mojang now release the actual mapping. So microsoft(mojang) do want to make modders live easier out of own willing. Not just because it is java. Or they don't really need to publish that at all.
        2y ago
fernandopj 2y ago
Minecraft is an online game, so in today's world, he didn't purchase the game, just a license to play it online. No server access, no game.
- Rietty 2y ago
  Minecraft is not an online game, it has a multi-player option sure.. but it doesn't strictly need to be online. There is a single-player mode since basically forever..
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - marzell 2y ago
    I'm not arguing your point, but this is the general state of gaming today. A significant portion of "single player only" games require you to be online, contain "online" content, and access to the game can/will be effectively removed when servers/services go offline.
    - wlesieutre 2y ago
      It's a sad state of affairs that you can buy an offline game, and then the developer/publisher can push out an update that turns it into an online game and then disables your access to it
      - ryandrake 2y ago
        It's sad, but people keep buying these games, so there is no incentive for the game companies to stop.
UncleEntity 2y ago
Half the point of sanctions is making the life of average people difficult so the leaders fear them revolting over not being able to play a game or, you know, feeding their children. The other half is to reduce their ability to wage war on their neighbors. Either way, the leaders are still sipping wine and eating cheese.
- waffleiron 2y ago
  Honest question; has that ever worked? Cause I could see it just as easily weaponised by a sanctioned state to cause one to dislike "the west" more. Would you be more likely to overthrow your government when other governments start making your life more difficult?
  - tichiian 2y ago
    Sanctions may be a very weak measure when it comes to inciting revolutions. But in general, yes, sanctions against non-military goods do work to change the minds of greedy leaderships if they can be tailored to remove a sufficient part of their income. However, that is not always the case, e.g. in Iran it is rather a measure of the "we are doing as much as we can, more than sternly worded letters, less than violence or war".
    - phone8675309 2y ago
      > But in general, yes, sanctions against non-military goods do work to change the minds of greedy leaderships if they can be tailored to remove a sufficient part of their income. Why are they not working to bring about regime changes in Russia and Iran, and why did they not work to bring about regime change in Cuba and Iraq?
      - tichiian 2y ago
        Because Russia and Iran have leadership that has other sources of income outside of the sanctioning west. Cuba and Iraq had that historically (with the eastern bloc as trading partners), and the regimes began to change (at least a little) when those sources for income vanished. That they didn't immediately disappear comes from the fact that the respective leadership is caught between a rock and a hard place: uncomfortable in power at home, but no safe place for comfortable exile available.

dotnet00 2y ago

I think the bigger point is that software you pay for, which requires a bannable login to use even the offline component, should not be allowed to exist.

bastardoperator 2y ago

Microsoft has been known to get around sanctions: https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-github-is-fully-available-in-iran/ https://github.blog/2021-01-05-advancing-developer-freedom-g...

John23832 2y ago
Why would Microsoft want to go through the effort of securing a license to allow people to play a game? That is not worth the financial effort.

toast0 2y ago

It's possible to comply with sanctions and offer some services to people in Iran. It's been a while since I read the text, but I'd expect purchases and refunds are difficult, but allowing login should be ok in theory. On the other hand, actually doing it is a lot of compliance work, and some hosts block traffic to Iran by default. Could be that something changed in the hosting and it's going to take attention and time to get it back to opened up. Microsoft should know better, but...