Great, so the new server EULA exception says that you can't charge for ranks or game mechanics, just for entry. So now servers will be charging for entry. No money, no entry. I thought Mojang was a small indie company that got rich off of a wildly successful game but still humbly acts as an indie developer. INDIE DEVELOPERS DO NOT DO THIS CRAP! I hate OP donations as much as anybody... but I'll hate being charged to play servers even more!
If the server would charge for entry, nobody would join, and the server would die. So they would not charge for entry.
Don't worry about servers charging for entry, it is not a good idea for any server to do.
I've seen (and play(ed) on) so many servers that survive well without charging for items. You can donate to them, but you do not get any OP reward, just a thank you and maybe a colored name. And they survive well!
so, most of the servers are going to die, even the most popular ones?too bad, couldn't care less even if I tried. well, I never wanted to waste my hard earned money for nothing anyway.
Mojang fails to realize what our community is; a majority of younger kids.
ugh.
MINECRAFT END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT
In order to protect Minecraft (our “Game”) and the members of our community, we need these end user licence terms to set out some rules for downloading and using our Game. We don‘t like rules any more than you do, so we have tried to keep this as short as possible. If you break these rules we may stop you from using our Game. If we think it is necessary, we might even have to ask our lawyers to get in touch.
If you buy, download, use or play our Game, you are agreeing to stick to the rules of these end user licence terms ("EULA”). If you don‘t want to or can‘t agree to these rules, then you must not buy, download, use or play our Game. This EULA incorporatesthe terms of use for the mojang.com website (“Account Terms”), our brand and asset usage guidelines and our privacy policy. By agreeing to this EULA you also agree to all parts of these three documents, so please read through them carefully.
No that is totally false, you can make a server that never runs any Minecraft code, if they are hosting MC clients then those clients are bound by the client-side EULA, but that does not mean you are running the client code, that's simply not how network technologies work.
As an example, I can write a program that opens .PSD images but never touches any Photoshop code, the way network packeting works is the same operation, both ends must talk the same stuff otherwise it's garbage (The application must talk the .PSD file, otherwise it's garbage! Like right-click, open with notepad)
I understand that. I'm not suggesting the server is running client code. Rather, I'm suggesting that somewhere in the process, Mojang code is involved. Someone uses it and is thereby bound to the EULA. If the server is not, the clients still are. if the clients aren't and the server is not, it isn't Minecraft.
Edit: This is all yet another reason for copyright/intellectual property law reforms, imo. To me that is pretty much at the heart of this issue. Should Mojang, as the owner of these legal rights, also 'own' any of the user-created content? Whether or not you think they should, it's definitely an issue a lot of services, software, and user-content based systems will need to address.
If the server would charge for entry, nobody would join, and the server would die. So they would not charge for entry.
Don't worry about servers charging for entry, it is not a good idea for any server to do.
I've seen (and play(ed) on) so many servers that survive well without charging for items. You can donate to them, but you do not get any OP reward, just a thank you and maybe a colored name. And they survive well!
The majority of players that donate just for the "Thank you" is super low. More then half the players want something back.
Think about it. 7 million people living in this world, and I'm guessing 200 out of those 7 million people would donate. Welcome to the real world, people want to benefit out of these things (Unless it's for like charity, lol)
Yeah, welcome to the real world, where EULA is law and if people don't donate to a server purely to keep it up because they enjoy it then they won't have a server to play on. Either people will support a server through donations (that will now be legal), servers will try to do illegal activity, OR people will play on servers where the server owner can fund the server themselves.
[color=#282828][font=Verdana, Geneva, Tahoma, sans-serif][size=small][background=rgb(234, 233, 220)][size=x-large]I thought they didn't want P2P [/size][/background][/size][/font][/color]
If I have to start paying money to join servers, burn my hard drive, then run over it with my truck, Then I will strap some fireworks to it and launch it into a lone standing brick wall. Then I will upgrade to a new one without downloading minecraft.
I already paid for the game, I am not going to pay again.
Yes but the difference is people who own the server are putting time and effort into it. Mojang has decided paying to play on the server, as long as it applies to everyone, is legal... So I don't understand your point?
Mojang don't have the rights over software that they didn't develop, their EULA can't cover that as it is covered over competitive industry laws and software license restrictions (Which the EU seem to be keen on these days).
So minecraft has no working economy, but they can say you can't have people pay for money?
Hypixel himself said their server was fine, and this was around the time that the whole EULA thing was taking place, which is obvious. Yes, of course, he provided no evidence, but still. I will admit, though, that Hypixel's server may even go down if Mojang decides that it violates the EULA.
Here's a tweet from Notch: "One of the core principles of Minecraft is that you don't pay for gameplay, and we've done free updates for years."
If donations for perks such as kits, fly, etc. are outlawed, but P2P is alright, call me crazy but I think that P2P will become more common. Servers need money somehow, and if P2P is allowed, they'll do it. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this EULA change completely contradicting Notch's statement?
The EULA says that it is not allowed to grant any sort of extra feature to players that non-donating players don't have. This means there can be literally no distinction between a paying player and a non-paying player.
Did you not read the FAQ posted at all? -.-
I'm pretty sure it says that aesthetic features like colored names are allowed to be a payed perk. Just not capes.
I understand that. I'm not suggesting the server is running client code. Rather, I'm suggesting that somewhere in the process, Mojang code is involved. Someone uses it and is thereby bound to the EULA. If the server is not, the clients still are. if the clients aren't and the server is not, it isn't Minecraft.
We're lucky that a client isn't expected to be hosting a server where this EULA would be a problem XD
Although (with a large amount of concern) Saerge tweeted that any software that allows a Minecraft client to connect is bound by the EULA (even if they have never heard of Minecraft), so that means they want your operating system, operating system's network stack and any network technologies used to be bound by the EULA as well as your server-side's routing software :/
I really think Mojang are making a mistake here...
If the server would charge for entry, nobody would join, and the server would die. So they would not charge for entry.
Don't worry about servers charging for entry, it is not a good idea for any server to do.
I've seen (and play(ed) on) so many servers that survive well without charging for items. You can donate to them, but you do not get any OP reward, just a thank you and maybe a colored name. And they survive well!
Not allowed to to do that in the old or soon-to-be-new EULA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Github ด้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้дด็็็็็้้้้้็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้
We're lucky that a client isn't expected to be hosting a server where this EULA would be a problem XDAlthough (with a large amount of concern) Saerge tweeted that any software that allows a Minecraft client to connect is bound by the EULA (even if they have never heard of Minecraft), so that means they want your operating system, operating system's network stack and any network technologies used to be bound by the EULA as well as your server-side's routing software :/I really think Mojang are making a mistake here...
Exactly. I personally agree, but I also see the point they are making. They are asserting their rights under the current system, flawed as it is. Do I agree with their choice? No. I think it's all very poorly handled, but I kind of expect this from Mojang. They're not in any way shape or form perfect, nor is their software. Btw, added an edit to that comment.
Edit: I also ran out of likes, otherwise I'd be upvoting your comments.
Here's a tweet from Notch: "One of the core principles of Minecraft is that you don't pay for gameplay, and we've done free updates for years."
If donations for perks such as kits, fly, etc. are outlawed, but P2P is alright, call me crazy but I think that P2P will become more common. Servers need money somehow, and if P2P is allowed, they'll do it. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this EULA change completely contradicting Notch's statement?
Thus resulting into servers going down as the amount of players who are willing to P2P is significantly lower then those who can't either P2P or those who just don't want to P2P.
The players and servers this EULA doesn't effect is seriously low.
If donations for perks such as kits, fly, etc. are outlawed, but P2P is alright, call me crazy but I think that P2P will become more common. Servers need money somehow, and if P2P is allowed, they'll do it. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this EULA change completely contradicting Notch's statement?
The only way people are going to pay access to a server is if they know the quality is good or better than servers that are not pay to entry.
Exactly. I personally agree, but I also see the point they are making. They are asserting their rights under the current system, flawed as it is. Do I agree with their choice? No. I think it's all very poorly handled, but I kind of expect this from Mojang. They're not in any way shape or form perfect, nor is their software. Btw, added an edit to that comment.
Edit: I also ran out of likes, otherwise I'd be upvoting your comments.
Noticed the edit, I think we're on the same page here. Thanks for the stimulating discussion, it certainly dug up some of my university exam material with this stuff
I can't say anymore as I'm getting opinionated and angry the more I read into this so I'm out
Which is why I'm saying this EULA enforcement will effectively kill off the Minecraft community, instead of protecting it as proclaimed. So one must ask, what is the reason behind this?
$$$$$
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Github ด้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้дด็็็็็้้้้้็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้
If the server would charge for entry, nobody would join, and the server would die. So they would not charge for entry.
Don't worry about servers charging for entry, it is not a good idea for any server to do.
I've seen (and play(ed) on) so many servers that survive well without charging for items. You can donate to them, but you do not get any OP reward, just a thank you and maybe a colored name. And they survive well!
how can i when mojang is killing servers + (mojang)=
ugh.
MINECRAFT END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT
In order to protect Minecraft (our “Game”) and the members of our community, we need these end user licence terms to set out some rules for downloading and using our Game. We don‘t like rules any more than you do, so we have tried to keep this as short as possible. If you break these rules we may stop you from using our Game. If we think it is necessary, we might even have to ask our lawyers to get in touch.
If you buy, download, use or play our Game, you are agreeing to stick to the rules of these end user licence terms ("EULA”). If you don‘t want to or can‘t agree to these rules, then you must not buy, download, use or play our Game. This EULA incorporates the terms of use for the mojang.com website (“Account Terms”), our brand and asset usage guidelines and our privacy policy. By agreeing to this EULA you also agree to all parts of these three documents, so please read through them carefully.
Miner's nightmare preset
Miner's nightmare preset (original terrain)
Killing the Ender Dragon, no damage (no armor/potions/enchantments/pumpkin)
I understand that. I'm not suggesting the server is running client code. Rather, I'm suggesting that somewhere in the process, Mojang code is involved. Someone uses it and is thereby bound to the EULA. If the server is not, the clients still are. if the clients aren't and the server is not, it isn't Minecraft.
Edit: This is all yet another reason for copyright/intellectual property law reforms, imo. To me that is pretty much at the heart of this issue. Should Mojang, as the owner of these legal rights, also 'own' any of the user-created content? Whether or not you think they should, it's definitely an issue a lot of services, software, and user-content based systems will need to address.
That was on June 6th and once again no evidence.
The majority of players that donate just for the "Thank you" is super low. More then half the players want something back.
Okay, I don't have a problem with this... But we do get refunds, right?
Yeah, welcome to the real world, where EULA is law and if people don't donate to a server purely to keep it up because they enjoy it then they won't have a server to play on. Either people will support a server through donations (that will now be legal), servers will try to do illegal activity, OR people will play on servers where the server owner can fund the server themselves.
Yes but the difference is people who own the server are putting time and effort into it. Mojang has decided paying to play on the server, as long as it applies to everyone, is legal... So I don't understand your point?
So minecraft has no working economy, but they can say you can't have people pay for money?
Refunds of what?
Hypixel himself said their server was fine, and this was around the time that the whole EULA thing was taking place, which is obvious. Yes, of course, he provided no evidence, but still. I will admit, though, that Hypixel's server may even go down if Mojang decides that it violates the EULA.
If donations for perks such as kits, fly, etc. are outlawed, but P2P is alright, call me crazy but I think that P2P will become more common. Servers need money somehow, and if P2P is allowed, they'll do it. So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this EULA change completely contradicting Notch's statement?
Did you not read the FAQ posted at all? -.-
I'm pretty sure it says that aesthetic features like colored names are allowed to be a payed perk. Just not capes.
We're lucky that a client isn't expected to be hosting a server where this EULA would be a problem XD
Although (with a large amount of concern) Saerge tweeted that any software that allows a Minecraft client to connect is bound by the EULA (even if they have never heard of Minecraft), so that means they want your operating system, operating system's network stack and any network technologies used to be bound by the EULA as well as your server-side's routing software :/
I really think Mojang are making a mistake here...
Not allowed to to do that in the old or soon-to-be-new EULA.
My Github ด้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้дด็็็็็้้้้้็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้
Edit: I also ran out of likes, otherwise I'd be upvoting your comments.
Thus resulting into servers going down as the amount of players who are willing to P2P is significantly lower then those who can't either P2P or those who just don't want to P2P.
The players and servers this EULA doesn't effect is seriously low.
The only way people are going to pay access to a server is if they know the quality is good or better than servers that are not pay to entry.
Noticed the edit, I think we're on the same page here. Thanks for the stimulating discussion, it certainly dug up some of my university exam material with this stuff
I can't say anymore as I'm getting opinionated and angry the more I read into this so I'm out
$$$$$
My Github ด้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้дด็็็็็้้้้้็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้