What? Really. Wow... He doesn't want dedication what so ever. I don't understand why. His writing is a little odd I think. Hmm. Interesting though.
Please read my previous posts (or even his blog and twitter) I tried to explain it the best I could from the information I've gathered from his twitter, blog, and some knowledge of how a lot of people have been responding to him. I admit he does seem a bit odd but his blog and comments are legible.
Just to point out that Forge, to an extent, already satisfy this rule. Basically, what LexManos arranged to do with source releases is to abstract away the part involving MC code, turning it into basically a closed library where the only way to touch any of it was through Forge function hooks. Forge Mod Loader (FML) does require a few pokes into the base code to get it to acknowledge that it's there, but largely does nothing but expose pre-existing functions and events for use by mod code. This was already in for 1.7.2 Forge release and higher, and it's to stay regardless of what happens (and without good documentation, it's a pain to figure out what they do without prior knowledge.)
(If this isn't true, go ahead and correct what I believe is how it does its magic.)
Regardless of what Forge does, what happens if you want to do something like what this extremely simple mod does? It actually includes source code taken straight from the game (under "@Override public void func_151538_a..."), only slightly modified (a couple variables replace hard-coded values). In other words, Forge doesn't let you mod cave generation unless you basically edit the original source code (or in this case override it, but the modified code itself was taken from the source); this is one reason why I think Forge is dumb; see here for the "documentation" on the class mentioned - how the heck is anybody supposed to make any sense of those nonsensical method names (aside from one Forge adds, still with no details on what it contains; at least MCP lets you see what they do and 1.6.4 is almost totally deobfuscated with good commenting), never mind how to modify the code they contain without being able to see the code? Not to mention the cave generation algorithm itself probably falls under copyright laws so it is otherwise impossible to generate them in the same manner.
Note also that Optifine can be used as a stand-alone jar mod or with Forge; it appears that they added some code to get Forge to replace the vanilla classes with Optifine's (which causes compatibility issues with various Optifine/Forge versions*) and I doubt such a mod could otherwise be made without doing this.
*When I previously used Forge on 1.6.2 for some mods I used I made my own mods by editing the Forge-modified source code to ensure compatibility as Forge and/or Forge mods otherwise crash if certain classes are overwritten. Of course, this means the mods will only work in Forge and likely only for a specific version.
Of course, as long as Minecraft is written in Java I can just whip out Java Decompiler (to find the classes, as long as certain lines remain unchanged so I can search for them) and Java Bytecode Editor (yes, that is from 1.8; changing the 15/7 on lines 7/18 (corresponding to lines 213-214 in JD) to 40/15 makes caves generate the same way as before 1.7) and mod the game, at least in a basic way (I made some of the first mods for 1.7 and 1.8, the day they came out in fact, I've even modded snapshots, to revert their changes to cave generation; you'd have thought they would do something about it in the customized world type, but no, they were too lazy to even add in the Superflat customization options for other structures, which uses the same code in Superflat/normal worlds so should be directly applicable to the customized world type).
And most of all, any API only lets you modify or add whatever it allows you to (see above on customized world settings omitting some things; wouldn't be surprised if the API omitted those too). And even then, you still need the source code to see how to modify it or in more than a basic manner.
My biggest concern is how Mincecraft will be affected. First off, the youtubers. They're allowed to post videos on youtube and all that... so long as you dont make money from it. Which is a problem, considering there are some people that literally live off of making minecraft videos. Another thing is modding. And im paraphrasing here, but microsoft has a policy that essentially states: "You are not allowed to access the source code of any Microsoft game in order to add or alter content." AKA modding. One solution is for modders to break away from minecraft and make their modded versions their own games, as CivCraft has done already. But honestly, i dont see how microsoft will be able to keep the community alive without bending or changing their own rules.
My biggest concern is how Mincecraft will be affected. First off, the youtubers. They're allowed to post videos on youtube and all that... so long as you dont make money from it. Which is a problem, considering there are some people that literally live off of making minecraft videos. Another thing is modding. And im paraphrasing here, but microsoft has a policy that essentially states: "You are not allowed to access the source code of any Microsoft game in order to add or alter content." AKA modding. One solution is for modders to break away from minecraft and make their modded versions their own games, as CivCraft has done already. But honestly, i dont see how microsoft will be able to keep the community alive without bending or changing their own rules.
Thoughts?
Wishful thinking but... this is what i ment by give it 1-2 years. If all goes well microsoft will make a exception solely for minecraft but just keep inmind once the cats outta the bag this opens up a whole new whirl wind of issues for other things microsoft works with and minecraft will be the primary basis for all the arguments inrelationship to bending/changing the rules. This wont bode well for microsoft, and it can become a major PR nightmare. We can only hope for the future to be a bright one, but i dont see that light at the end of the tunnel. And i sure as hell dont see microsoft caring long enough until the entire customer basis really starts to drop off, then they'll suddenly change to save their product, just like xbox one, just like their TOS in their xbox one, and the xbox 360, as well as their hidden not so hidden side project of merging the xbox 360 and xbox one voip into one master system to allow cross conversation, to get the one up on sony. Which quite frankly i dont see happening
Think logically about that. Pixelmon is Pokemon converted to Minecraft. Nintendo holds the copyright for Pokemon, not Microsoft. If Microsoft would add it to Minecraft in an official patch Nintendo would surely sue.
The thing is, knowing microsoft they might make minecraft better, I really don't know and honestly i'm really worried about what they might do, I would think they would add maybe vehicles, circular items, more mobs and trying to make the experience better so they can get their main priority,( and almost everyone else's ) Money. For now all we can do is wait and hope for the best. I trust microsoft though and think they may do something good while most others are thinking they might ruin minecraft. Poor Notch actually isn't working with minecraft anymore since microsoft bought it.
I have alot of mixed feelings about this. For now we can just hope for the best
Regardless of what Forge does, what happens if you want to do something like what this extremely simple mod does? It actually includes source code taken straight from the game (under "@Override public void func_151538_a..."), only slightly modified (a couple variables replace hard-coded values). In other words, Forge doesn't let you mod cave generation unless you basically edit the original source code (or in this case override it, but the modified code itself was taken from the source); this is one reason why I think Forge is dumb; see here for the "documentation" on the class mentioned - how the heck is anybody supposed to make any sense of those nonsensical method names (aside from one Forge adds, still with no details on what it contains; at least MCP lets you see what they do and 1.6.4 is almost totally deobfuscated with good commenting), never mind how to modify the code they contain without being able to see the code? Not to mention the cave generation algorithm itself probably falls under copyright laws so it is otherwise impossible to generate them in the same manner.
Note also that Optifine can be used as a stand-alone jar mod or with Forge; it appears that they added some code to get Forge to replace the vanilla classes with Optifine's (which causes compatibility issues with various Optifine/Forge versions*) and I doubt such a mod could otherwise be made without doing this.
Please note that I said "to an extent." It's not an API (which naturally exposes access through public functions.) All Forge does is lets you touch various bits of code and redefine them through @Override; it doesn't outright replace them like past Optifine implementations did. I think that's the key feature that needs to be clarified--whether or not the actual code gets changed, and when it gets changed, if at all.
Optifine is probably the black sheep of the modding community, based on what it does during runtime, and how it's implemented. I suspect that Forge and FML will help build that buffer til the actual API comes out; it's not like MS will tell Lex and Searge to quit doing what they're doing right now unless there's a brownstorm looming over the horizon. Over at least half the MineCraft YouTube videos are using modded Minecraft, and they've already said they won't mess with YouTubers for the foreseeable future.
Honesty, all they did was buy the game/company so someone else couldn't, and that's it. Imagine MC with Sony or Nintendo only. Nintendo buys it, it disappear to the Japanese market and we never see it again.
All those who love their mods and constant updates because they change the game, raise you hand.
(All hands go up).
All those who don't think vanilla Minecraft is boring, raise your hand.
(All hands go down).
?
I agree with you, Dino. Until proven different, I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt.
Not all changes are bad.
2 billion who couldn't resist soo much money and all of the negative feedback from the players? Heck if I were Notch I'd get fed up with children complaining "Oh this isn't in game " and complains all over they want a certain thing In-game... Like heck wait.. I want the bugs and stuff fixed to make the game even more enjoyable and some contant yeah it can be added in ,but however bug fixes is one thing that needs to be resolved in order to make a game functional and enjoyable without alot of people getting mad
Honesty, all they did was buy the game/company so someone else couldn't, and that's it. Imagine MC with Sony or Nintendo only. Nintendo buys it, it disappear to the Japanese market and we never see it again.
If Nintendo bought it you could kiss free chat goodbye. Nintendo makes a habit of limiting chat to preset phrases. Sony would not be so bad though.
I've never made a tnt cannon, and wouldn't blow up a village if I had one.
The point of my post was, a lot of people here don't want any change... but they'll do everything they can to change the game. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Everyone is going to want change all the time no matter what man. We humans ,and we want new things all the time.. Sadly we can't do anything about it because when one person sees something interesting either on (A) Mods or (B) Resourcepacks.
They'll want what's on one of them ,and try to get them in-game..
I disagree with every single thing infyrin said, but don't you think it's a little funny how your signature says "You don't like my opinion I don't give a damn. You don't like the fact that (At least for this site) I'm vulgar then guess what? I don't give a damn. ~Adsper's saying since he was born."
Good point. I made that a long time ago. I really should change it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
May the bringer of peace be with you.
If you insist on addressing me by name just say Adsper. It's annoying when people say my full out username. "Oh hey AdswordTheBaws54763721" ~Mount and Blade
Minecraft on the PC and PlayStation wasn't published by Microsoft Studios, and I don't know whether the copyright is directly owned by Microsoft or is still with Mojang. Minecraft on Xbox was published by Microsoft Studios. Overall, their EULA isn't clear enough on if it applies to all their studios or just games published by Microsoft Studios (unless all of their studios use Microsoft Studios to publish their games), or even games on multiple platforms.
I guess as soon as they officially acquire the brand "Mojang" they automatically have copyright on Mojang's stuff, otherwise I don't see how could they possibly sell the game. Studios, platforms, it doesn't matter: Minecraft is going to be owned by Microsoft in any possible means unless Notch left something out of the deal but I doubt it would be something as vital as the copyright.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/16/2014
Posts:
47
Member Details
I, personally, hope they keep things the same and let the mojang team work on the project, also, I don't want guns in MC, I like MC because it isn't a mindless shooter. And with all the money Microsoft could put into MC, it could turn into a miracle of a game, but if they change too much too fast, MC could lose a lot of popularity, but time will tell. I'm hoping for the best and I'm not stressing out too bad about it.
They can change it with the next update. If you do not accept the EULA then you don't get the update and the EULA does not affect you. There are people on here saying that MS is going to charge you monthly to play. The only way they can do that is if you accept the EULA. They can't take away what you already own so you would still be able to play at whatever version you had. If you have an old version of the server software, they can't keep a person from using it. They can keep a person from upgrading though.If you think they can change the EULA of something you own, that would be like the car dealership charging you more money after you paid off your car loan.
Simply put, the EULA is a contract and like any contract, it can't be changed without your approval. The previous EULA and Bukkit drama wasn't caused so much by a change in the EULA but by Mojang's handling of the EULA wording. Deciding to enforce it is different than changing it. As for what little I cared to understand about Bukkit, several parties were playing fast and loose with the licenses involved in what was open source and what wasn't.
Please read my previous posts (or even his blog and twitter) I tried to explain it the best I could from the information I've gathered from his twitter, blog, and some knowledge of how a lot of people have been responding to him. I admit he does seem a bit odd but his blog and comments are legible.
Regardless of what Forge does, what happens if you want to do something like what this extremely simple mod does? It actually includes source code taken straight from the game (under "@Override public void func_151538_a..."), only slightly modified (a couple variables replace hard-coded values). In other words, Forge doesn't let you mod cave generation unless you basically edit the original source code (or in this case override it, but the modified code itself was taken from the source); this is one reason why I think Forge is dumb; see here for the "documentation" on the class mentioned - how the heck is anybody supposed to make any sense of those nonsensical method names (aside from one Forge adds, still with no details on what it contains; at least MCP lets you see what they do and 1.6.4 is almost totally deobfuscated with good commenting), never mind how to modify the code they contain without being able to see the code? Not to mention the cave generation algorithm itself probably falls under copyright laws so it is otherwise impossible to generate them in the same manner.
Note also that Optifine can be used as a stand-alone jar mod or with Forge; it appears that they added some code to get Forge to replace the vanilla classes with Optifine's (which causes compatibility issues with various Optifine/Forge versions*) and I doubt such a mod could otherwise be made without doing this.
*When I previously used Forge on 1.6.2 for some mods I used I made my own mods by editing the Forge-modified source code to ensure compatibility as Forge and/or Forge mods otherwise crash if certain classes are overwritten. Of course, this means the mods will only work in Forge and likely only for a specific version.
Of course, as long as Minecraft is written in Java I can just whip out Java Decompiler (to find the classes, as long as certain lines remain unchanged so I can search for them) and Java Bytecode Editor (yes, that is from 1.8; changing the 15/7 on lines 7/18 (corresponding to lines 213-214 in JD) to 40/15 makes caves generate the same way as before 1.7) and mod the game, at least in a basic way (I made some of the first mods for 1.7 and 1.8, the day they came out in fact, I've even modded snapshots, to revert their changes to cave generation; you'd have thought they would do something about it in the customized world type, but no, they were too lazy to even add in the Superflat customization options for other structures, which uses the same code in Superflat/normal worlds so should be directly applicable to the customized world type).
And most of all, any API only lets you modify or add whatever it allows you to (see above on customized world settings omitting some things; wouldn't be surprised if the API omitted those too). And even then, you still need the source code to see how to modify it or in more than a basic manner.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Thoughts?
Wishful thinking but... this is what i ment by give it 1-2 years. If all goes well microsoft will make a exception solely for minecraft but just keep inmind once the cats outta the bag this opens up a whole new whirl wind of issues for other things microsoft works with and minecraft will be the primary basis for all the arguments inrelationship to bending/changing the rules. This wont bode well for microsoft, and it can become a major PR nightmare. We can only hope for the future to be a bright one, but i dont see that light at the end of the tunnel. And i sure as hell dont see microsoft caring long enough until the entire customer basis really starts to drop off, then they'll suddenly change to save their product, just like xbox one, just like their TOS in their xbox one, and the xbox 360, as well as their hidden not so hidden side project of merging the xbox 360 and xbox one voip into one master system to allow cross conversation, to get the one up on sony. Which quite frankly i dont see happening
My Network Speed & Ping Click Here --> https://www.dropbox....st-PingTest.png
Curious of what game im playing or if im hosting MC server on ps3/ps4>? Check the live feed! --> http://www.twitch.tv/supernet2ec
like pixelmon.
Think logically about that. Pixelmon is Pokemon converted to Minecraft. Nintendo holds the copyright for Pokemon, not Microsoft. If Microsoft would add it to Minecraft in an official patch Nintendo would surely sue.
I have alot of mixed feelings about this. For now we can just hope for the best
Please note that I said "to an extent." It's not an API (which naturally exposes access through public functions.) All Forge does is lets you touch various bits of code and redefine them through @Override; it doesn't outright replace them like past Optifine implementations did. I think that's the key feature that needs to be clarified--whether or not the actual code gets changed, and when it gets changed, if at all.
Optifine is probably the black sheep of the modding community, based on what it does during runtime, and how it's implemented. I suspect that Forge and FML will help build that buffer til the actual API comes out; it's not like MS will tell Lex and Searge to quit doing what they're doing right now unless there's a brownstorm looming over the horizon. Over at least half the MineCraft YouTube videos are using modded Minecraft, and they've already said they won't mess with YouTubers for the foreseeable future.
(All hands go up).
All those who don't think vanilla Minecraft is boring, raise your hand.
(All hands go down).
?
I agree with you, Dino. Until proven different, I'm willing to give MS the benefit of the doubt.
Not all changes are bad.
If Nintendo bought it you could kiss free chat goodbye. Nintendo makes a habit of limiting chat to preset phrases. Sony would not be so bad though.
The point of my post was, a lot of people here don't want any change... but they'll do everything they can to change the game. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Everyone is going to want change all the time no matter what man. We humans ,and we want new things all the time.. Sadly we can't do anything about it because when one person sees something interesting either on (A) Mods or (B) Resourcepacks.
They'll want what's on one of them ,and try to get them in-game..
Good point. I made that a long time ago. I really should change it.
May the bringer of peace be with you.
If you insist on addressing me by name just say Adsper. It's annoying when people say my full out username. "Oh hey AdswordTheBaws54763721" ~Mount and Blade
I guess as soon as they officially acquire the brand "Mojang" they automatically have copyright on Mojang's stuff, otherwise I don't see how could they possibly sell the game. Studios, platforms, it doesn't matter: Minecraft is going to be owned by Microsoft in any possible means unless Notch left something out of the deal but I doubt it would be something as vital as the copyright.
Simply put, the EULA is a contract and like any contract, it can't be changed without your approval. The previous EULA and Bukkit drama wasn't caused so much by a change in the EULA but by Mojang's handling of the EULA wording. Deciding to enforce it is different than changing it. As for what little I cared to understand about Bukkit, several parties were playing fast and loose with the licenses involved in what was open source and what wasn't.