4 ms·

Yes Minecraft is awesome, however the selling of addons is just one more revenue stream to keep a server alive and the user base engaged. There has to be percei

by awjr 12y ago

Yes Minecraft is awesome, however the selling of addons is just one more revenue stream to keep a server alive and the user base engaged. There has to be perceived value in having the addon to make the user experience better. I think this sums up the sentiment from a server's point of view: http://sterlingplays.com/ http://sterlingplays.com/

dingdingdang 12y ago
Good article, just goes to show that best sentiments from the maker doesn't necessarily add up to best solution for the end users - hope these people will end up in dialogue, seems worthwhile since their goalpost (getting people to enjoy, and keep enjoying, Minecraft) is pretty much the same.
shadowmint 12y ago
However, that is EXACTLY what you’re encouraging here. Now not only will players who don’t want to pay not be able to have access to every custom-built feature or gameplay experience, they won’t have access to any of them because they won’t be able to get into the server in the first place. What kind of strawman arguement is that? Players unwilling to pay for feature X (previously unavailable to non paying customers), will now not be able have access to it as it wont exist at all. What a compelling argument. I suppose they wont have the luxury of watching other people having more fun than them now. How terrible for the players. (I suppose there are some valid points in there, but after reading that I found it hard to take seriously)
networked 12y ago
If the players come to those server networks looking for the custom gameplay experiences they provide and every network stands to lose a lot of money from the EULA change what prevents them from hiring developers to replace Minecraft with a custom client? I mean this as a genuine question.
- Negitivefrags 12y ago
  You are falling in to the very trap that this entire article is about. Nobody is losing money from this EULA change. The EULA already forbade this and always did. The EULA is only more liberal than it was before. If they were willing to flout it before than there is no reason they shouldn't be willing to continue to flout it now.
  - networked 12y ago
    In the post that awjr links to above the author claims that a Mojang employee has interpreted the previous EULA for them as allowing this ("I personally discussed our rank system with a member of your business team at Minecon last year and he confirmed we were in compliance with the EULA. The only rule was to not sell Mojang IP [...]"), although it does not make it clear as to how official their discussion was. With my question I didn't mean to imply that I have an opinion on this matter either way. I'm mostly wondering if the big server networks could try to cut out Mojang based on their shared (I assume) interpretation of how to the EULA has changed over time, whether it be right or wrong. Edit: clarified last sentence.

by awjr 12y ago

dingdingdang 12y ago

Good article, just goes to show that best sentiments from the maker doesn't necessarily add up to best solution for the end users - hope these people will end up in dialogue, seems worthwhile since their goalpost (getting people to enjoy, and keep enjoying, Minecraft) is pretty much the same.

shadowmint 12y ago

However, that is EXACTLY what you’re encouraging here. Now not only will players who don’t want to pay not be able to have access to every custom-built feature or gameplay experience, they won’t have access to any of them because they won’t be able to get into the server in the first place. What kind of strawman arguement is that? Players unwilling to pay for feature X (previously unavailable to non paying customers), will now not be able have access to it as it wont exist at all. What a compelling argument. I suppose they wont have the luxury of watching other people having more fun than them now. How terrible for the players. (I suppose there are some valid points in there, but after reading that I found it hard to take seriously)

networked 12y ago

If the players come to those server networks looking for the custom gameplay experiences they provide and every network stands to lose a lot of money from the EULA change what prevents them from hiring developers to replace Minecraft with a custom client? I mean this as a genuine question.

Negitivefrags 12y ago
You are falling in to the very trap that this entire article is about. Nobody is losing money from this EULA change. The EULA already forbade this and always did. The EULA is only more liberal than it was before. If they were willing to flout it before than there is no reason they shouldn't be willing to continue to flout it now.
- networked 12y ago
  In the post that awjr links to above the author claims that a Mojang employee has interpreted the previous EULA for them as allowing this ("I personally discussed our rank system with a member of your business team at Minecon last year and he confirmed we were in compliance with the EULA. The only rule was to not sell Mojang IP [...]"), although it does not make it clear as to how official their discussion was. With my question I didn't mean to imply that I have an opinion on this matter either way. I'm mostly wondering if the big server networks could try to cut out Mojang based on their shared (I assume) interpretation of how to the EULA has changed over time, whether it be right or wrong. Edit: clarified last sentence.