5 ms·

I think the common theme is Minecraft's ecosystem. Mojang addresses a problem (EULA-breaking monetization within the ecosystem) by changing the rules to address

by grrowl 12y ago

I think the common theme is Minecraft's ecosystem. Mojang addresses a problem (EULA-breaking monetization within the ecosystem) by changing the rules to address the problem. What they should do is circumvent the immediate problem by redefining the ecosystem itself. Furnishing developers with a stable, predictable API redefines the ecosystem, and creating an "app store" for mods (et cetera...) could finance it, with ongoing revenue. With Mojang's current attitude I see it being more of a "google play", especially given the ease that mods could be repackaged. Still, better than having kids pull executable code off forums.

nl 12y ago
This. You said it better than I could.
jiggy2011 12y ago
I don't see how an app store model would necessarily help people monetise running servers.
- VLM 12y ago
  I don't think you've played minecraft and done modding. If your server requires 1.6.4 and railcraft 1.2.3.4.5.6 well then anyone who connects requires MC 1.6.4 (free, no problem) and ALSO requires railcraft 1.2.3.4.5.6 and mods are stereotypically hosted on the scummiest pr0n-iest adfest drive by download sewers of the internet (sorry, but its true) So say you want to host a server called "jiggy's minecraft". Simply require a mod to log into your server called jiggy-2014 for the entire year of 2014 and sell it in the in app store for "annual fee". Maybe drop the price by 1 / 12 every month thru the year. Guess the mod name you'll require in 2015, yes your mod will be called jiggy-2015 and be priced at your annual fee. The mod might even provide something useful to the players. Maybe. This will probably kill/damage the ecosystem, maybe you'll never get to play railcraft, TE, and buildcraft on the same server ever again. That would suck. It is possible "real mods" won't be balkanized and only "subscription mods" will be balkanized.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Wouldn't it be more profitable to simply develop and sell mods rather than running servers since your costs will be lower? Unless you mean just using the mod as a key to access the server in which case you'd be better off just charging for passwords to the server because otherwise you have to worry about people using pirate copies of your mod to connect.
    - VLM 12y ago
      Most of the people running servers are doing it as a desire to be the part of the ecosystem who runs servers. They aren't interested in making money off the ecosystem as much as becoming a part of the ecosystem, and as server ops have been since the first days of IRC and the earliest dialup BBSes decades ago, there's more than a little power trip involved. If they wanted money they'd spend time on mturk and easily make more, unless they somehow go pro and make it into the really big leagues. Much like pro sports. I'm guessing the pirate effect wouldn't be an issue because the "pro mod writers" would be about 10x more excited about the topic than "pro server operators" for obvious reasons so the mod store writers wouldn't do anything too dumb... I hope. One rather trivial and easy to implement solution is MC currently has a centralized auth system for MC users that existing servers talk to (I have a server in my basement, and I am made well aware from my kids when the MC auth servers are down), and extending that a tiny bit to auth both MC and mods isn't much work other than a bit more traffic to the auth server, which they can probably afford by skimming off mod sale prices. So you can tell the server all day that you have a copy of mod name jiggy-2011, but when the server turns around and asks the existing centralized MC server if username jiggy has actually paid for mod name jiggy-2011, then ...
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        Do you mean the people providing servers, or the people who are operating them?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      No one buys mods, which is why they are hosted on terrible sharing services - it's the only way the developer can get any money.
- nl 12y ago
  I wasn't really thinking of it as targeted at servers only - more improving the Minecraft ecosystem. But since you mentioned it - Minecraft has a central authorisation system. It would be trivial to sell subscriptions to particular servers through an app store and have Mojang enforce that via the central authorisation. That are lots and lots of benefits that could come form this, not least locking young kids down to play only on "family friendly" servers (which is pretty much impossible at the moment). Damn.. I think this is even a better idea than my original one. Someone on HN must know someone at Mojang? Please tell them to do this!!

by grrowl 12y ago

nl 12y ago

This. You said it better than I could.

jiggy2011 12y ago

I don't see how an app store model would necessarily help people monetise running servers.

VLM 12y ago
I don't think you've played minecraft and done modding. If your server requires 1.6.4 and railcraft 1.2.3.4.5.6 well then anyone who connects requires MC 1.6.4 (free, no problem) and ALSO requires railcraft 1.2.3.4.5.6 and mods are stereotypically hosted on the scummiest pr0n-iest adfest drive by download sewers of the internet (sorry, but its true) So say you want to host a server called "jiggy's minecraft". Simply require a mod to log into your server called jiggy-2014 for the entire year of 2014 and sell it in the in app store for "annual fee". Maybe drop the price by 1 / 12 every month thru the year. Guess the mod name you'll require in 2015, yes your mod will be called jiggy-2015 and be priced at your annual fee. The mod might even provide something useful to the players. Maybe. This will probably kill/damage the ecosystem, maybe you'll never get to play railcraft, TE, and buildcraft on the same server ever again. That would suck. It is possible "real mods" won't be balkanized and only "subscription mods" will be balkanized.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Wouldn't it be more profitable to simply develop and sell mods rather than running servers since your costs will be lower? Unless you mean just using the mod as a key to access the server in which case you'd be better off just charging for passwords to the server because otherwise you have to worry about people using pirate copies of your mod to connect.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Most of the people running servers are doing it as a desire to be the part of the ecosystem who runs servers. They aren't interested in making money off the ecosystem as much as becoming a part of the ecosystem, and as server ops have been since the first days of IRC and the earliest dialup BBSes decades ago, there's more than a little power trip involved. If they wanted money they'd spend time on mturk and easily make more, unless they somehow go pro and make it into the really big leagues. Much like pro sports. I'm guessing the pirate effect wouldn't be an issue because the "pro mod writers" would be about 10x more excited about the topic than "pro server operators" for obvious reasons so the mod store writers wouldn't do anything too dumb... I hope. One rather trivial and easy to implement solution is MC currently has a centralized auth system for MC users that existing servers talk to (I have a server in my basement, and I am made well aware from my kids when the MC auth servers are down), and extending that a tiny bit to auth both MC and mods isn't much work other than a bit more traffic to the auth server, which they can probably afford by skimming off mod sale prices. So you can tell the server all day that you have a copy of mod name jiggy-2011, but when the server turns around and asks the existing centralized MC server if username jiggy has actually paid for mod name jiggy-2011, then ...
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      Do you mean the people providing servers, or the people who are operating them?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    No one buys mods, which is why they are hosted on terrible sharing services - it's the only way the developer can get any money.
nl 12y ago
I wasn't really thinking of it as targeted at servers only - more improving the Minecraft ecosystem. But since you mentioned it - Minecraft has a central authorisation system. It would be trivial to sell subscriptions to particular servers through an app store and have Mojang enforce that via the central authorisation. That are lots and lots of benefits that could come form this, not least locking young kids down to play only on "family friendly" servers (which is pretty much impossible at the moment). Damn.. I think this is even a better idea than my original one. Someone on HN must know someone at Mojang? Please tell them to do this!!