It's not going to be removed, they will technically be violating the law if they do, besides that's not really good logic. People tend to falsely flag videos on youtube and flagging is still around, what makes EULA violation reports different?
well mojang staff is far less smaller than googles staff. Youtube's ToS for the most part make sense. This new eula for minecraft does not.
Not so much angry as annoyed. Mojang, like I said are trying to be the internet police, trying to force realms on more and more people.
I don't see how they are trying to fore realms on people. If they where they would have shut down every server provider except for realms. This is affecting realms servers too so not sure about that, also read my previous response about them trying to be the internet police
You're not thinking critically if you honestly think this is all for realms.... Do you support anarchy or something?
Yes I do think this is all for realms. So it is fine for someone to make money from a minecraft video, but making money from a server (which takes far more time and investment) suddenly bothers them??
Yes I do think this is all for realms. So it is fine for someone to make money from a minecraft video, but making money from a server (which takes far more time and investment) suddenly bothers them??
Well Youtube videos are providing their own content, plus its advertising the game quite well. I don't see servers doing either of these
You think but you have no evidence, therefor it's only speculation. I'm ignoring that last part because I think someone can explain that better than me, although it probably won't matter because you'll probably just say it's crap.
I do wonder a little where the line is between "cosmetic" and "gameplay".
People are allowed to have to pay for a command that give them a hat, that's considered cosmetic.
What if everyone can get a hat for free, but only people who pay can make their hat some color other than the default (and the default isn't something awful, just an ordinary grey or brown)? Still cosmetic?
What if the paid-for command to change your free hat's color requires you to have the corresponding dye in your inventory, and deducts 1 when you use it? So for example "/hat lime" fails if you haven't paid or don't have a lime dye, and deducts 1 lime dye when it succeeds. Still cosmetic?
What if, instead of the "/hat lime" command in the previous paragraph, you put your hat on a crafting table with a lime dye? Only people who paid can use this crafting table recipe. Still cosmetic, or does using a crafting table to do exactly the same thing that "/hat lime" did in the previous paragraph suddenly make it gameplay?
What if the free hat is crafted in the first place, by placing some random item in the normal "helmet" pattern in a crafting table? Remember, anyone can do this, the only restricted feature is coloring it.
What if the hat also has a trivial value as armor (half an armor point) and uses your "helmet" armor slot? Coloring it makes zero difference to the armor value. Remember, getting a default-colored hat is free, the only thing that costs is changing the color.
What if the "random item" for making a hat is leather?
Or let's go in a different direction:
What if, instead of changing hat colors, the command makes stone change colors? So you could for example hold some stone and say "/paint lime" to get lime stone . There would be absolutely no difference between this colored stone and normal uncolored stone besides that it looks colored, doesn't stack with normal stone, and has a different name in the inventory. Is that cosmetic or gameplay? Does the decision depend on whether the server is Creative or Hunger Games?
If colored stone is ok, what if this command also requires you to have the corresponding dye in your inventory and deducts 1 for each 8 stone blocks colored? Still cosmetic?
If that's ok too, what if you have to use a crafting table to do it, and only people who paid can use that recipe? The only difference is that you're using a GUI to do the coloring instead of the console command in the previous step.
And if that's ok too, what if we replace "stone" in the example with "hardened clay" or "white wool"?
Not so much angry as annoyed. Mojang, like I said are trying to be the internet police, trying to force realms on more and more people.
No, you are definitely behaving like you think you're entitled. You might not realize it, but you are.
Mojang isn't trying to "force Realms on anyone". You're upset because your favorite servers might shut down or start charging for access. Guess what? You're not entitled to play on servers for free, and it's Mojang's right to protect their intellectual property.
Well Youtube videos are providing their own content, plus its advertising the game quite well. I don't see servers doing either of these
eh not really. The majority of mc videos are some random 8 year old uploading lp's
The real problem is, the majority is being punished by the stupidity of the few.
Yes I do think this is all for realms. So it is fine for someone to make money from a minecraft video, but making money from a server (which takes far more time and investment) suddenly bothers them??
The servers that would be most impacted by the EULA are not in direct competition with Realms. Realms is more aimed at the small private server market and most of those don't charge money anyway. (I know I sure don't and I've been running a server for about a dozen people since SMP existed.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Tis far better to be a witty fool than a foolish wit.
No, you are definitely behaving like you think you're entitled. You might not realize it, but you are.
Mojang isn't trying to "force Realms on anyone". You're upset because your favorite servers might shut down or start charging for access. Guess what? You're not entitled to play on servers for free, and it's Mojang's right to protect their intellectual property.
It would not be as big of a problem if they did it from the very beginning.
I do wonder a little where the line is between "cosmetic" and "gameplay".
People are allowed to have to pay for a command that give them a hat, that's considered cosmetic.
What if everyone can get a hat for free, but only people who pay can make their hat some color other than the default (and the default isn't something awful, just an ordinary grey or brown)? Still cosmetic?
What if the paid-for command to change your free hat's color requires you to have the corresponding dye in your inventory, and deducts 1 when you use it? So for example "/hat lime" fails if you haven't paid or don't have a lime dye, and deducts 1 lime dye when it succeeds. Still cosmetic?
What if, instead of the "/hat lime" command in the previous paragraph, you put your hat on a crafting table with a lime dye? Only people who paid can use this crafting table recipe. Still cosmetic, or does using a crafting table to do exactly the same thing that "/hat lime" did in the previous paragraph suddenly make it gameplay?
What if the free hat is crafted in the first place, by placing some random item in the normal "helmet" pattern in a crafting table? Remember, anyone can do this, the only restricted feature is coloring it.
What if the hat also has a trivial value as armor (half an armor point) and uses your "helmet" armor slot? Coloring it makes zero difference to the armor value. Remember, getting a default-colored hat is free, the only thing that costs is changing the color.
What if the "random item" for making a hat is leather?
Or let's go in a different direction:
What if, instead of changing hat colors, the command makes stone change colors? So you could for example hold some stone and say "/paint lime" to get lime stone . There would be absolutely no difference between this colored stone and normal uncolored stone besides that it looks colored, doesn't stack with normal stone, and has a different name in the inventory. Is that cosmetic or gameplay? Does the decision depend on whether the server is Creative or Hunger Games?
If colored stone is ok, what if this command also requires you to have the corresponding dye in your inventory and deducts 1 for each 8 stone blocks colored? Still cosmetic?
If that's ok too, what if you have to use a crafting table to do it, and only people who paid can use that recipe? The only difference is that you're using a GUI to do the coloring instead of the console command in the previous step.
And if that's ok too, what if we replace "stone" in the example with "hardened clay" or "white wool"?
Are you posing these questions to confuse us or are you posing these questions because you are unable to understand the EULA questionnaire because you can't comprehend the text?
Yes I do think this is all for realms. So it is fine for someone to make money from a minecraft video, but making money from a server (which takes far more time and investment) suddenly bothers them??
We’re about to make a second exception – Minecraft servers. Hosting servers can be expensive. We want to give hosts a way to cover their costs.
You're not thinking critically if you honestly think this is all for realms.... Do you support anarchy or something?
well mojang staff is far less smaller than googles staff. Youtube's ToS for the most part make sense. This new eula for minecraft does not.
Jk
I don't see how they are trying to fore realms on people. If they where they would have shut down every server provider except for realms. This is affecting realms servers too so not sure about that, also read my previous response about them trying to be the internet police
Click them or they will click you
Mojang could quite possibly punish those who keep flagging falsely, who knows.
Lol...on my server everyone is cussing out Mojang XD My as well get the Ban Hammer ready
Well Youtube videos are providing their own content, plus its advertising the game quite well. I don't see servers doing either of these
Click them or they will click you
You think but you have no evidence, therefor it's only speculation.
I'm ignoring that last part because I think someone can explain that better than me, although it probably won't matter because you'll probably just say it's crap.
People are allowed to have to pay for a command that give them a hat, that's considered cosmetic.
What if everyone can get a hat for free, but only people who pay can make their hat some color other than the default (and the default isn't something awful, just an ordinary grey or brown)? Still cosmetic?
What if the paid-for command to change your free hat's color requires you to have the corresponding dye in your inventory, and deducts 1 when you use it? So for example "/hat lime" fails if you haven't paid or don't have a lime dye, and deducts 1 lime dye when it succeeds. Still cosmetic?
What if, instead of the "/hat lime" command in the previous paragraph, you put your hat on a crafting table with a lime dye? Only people who paid can use this crafting table recipe. Still cosmetic, or does using a crafting table to do exactly the same thing that "/hat lime" did in the previous paragraph suddenly make it gameplay?
What if the free hat is crafted in the first place, by placing some random item in the normal "helmet" pattern in a crafting table? Remember, anyone can do this, the only restricted feature is coloring it.
What if the hat also has a trivial value as armor (half an armor point) and uses your "helmet" armor slot? Coloring it makes zero difference to the armor value. Remember, getting a default-colored hat is free, the only thing that costs is changing the color.
What if the "random item" for making a hat is leather?
Or let's go in a different direction:
What if, instead of changing hat colors, the command makes stone change colors? So you could for example hold some stone and say "/paint lime" to get lime stone . There would be absolutely no difference between this colored stone and normal uncolored stone besides that it looks colored, doesn't stack with normal stone, and has a different name in the inventory. Is that cosmetic or gameplay? Does the decision depend on whether the server is Creative or Hunger Games?
If colored stone is ok, what if this command also requires you to have the corresponding dye in your inventory and deducts 1 for each 8 stone blocks colored? Still cosmetic?
If that's ok too, what if you have to use a crafting table to do it, and only people who paid can use that recipe? The only difference is that you're using a GUI to do the coloring instead of the console command in the previous step.
And if that's ok too, what if we replace "stone" in the example with "hardened clay" or "white wool"?
No, you are definitely behaving like you think you're entitled. You might not realize it, but you are.
Mojang isn't trying to "force Realms on anyone". You're upset because your favorite servers might shut down or start charging for access. Guess what? You're not entitled to play on servers for free, and it's Mojang's right to protect their intellectual property.
eh not really. The majority of mc videos are some random 8 year old uploading lp's
The real problem is, the majority is being punished by the stupidity of the few.
It would not be as big of a problem if they did it from the very beginning.
Are you posing these questions to confuse us or are you posing these questions because you are unable to understand the EULA questionnaire because you can't comprehend the text?
- https://mojang.com/2...r-monetisation/
Is English your second language...?
Well they don't have a time machine.