*eyes your signature*
I'm starting to suspect that you are just here to try and advertise a server that's in violation of the EULA rather than to contribute to the discussion.
OOOO Shots fired.
- I do understand what the EULA is trying to do. It is trying to stop those people who take advantage of the intellectually handicapped people . (i.e donating $500 for 100 diamonds 100 gapples god armor and tools as a daily kit.....and maybe 'promote realms)
There are those servers out there that do run off of just the owners expense and that is fine.
There are also the servers who find a good balance of kits/donor items that do not effect the players experience that much. (i.e $10 for something like /feed a weekly kit of some tools and food and other basic commands like /hat or /me. Those servers are not the problem, they are just given a bad reputation because of the server owners who just want to profit and nothing else.
They had to compromise, then they had to clarify things... so....?
No, they tried to make a compromise a week ago, yet no one understand what was going on, so they had to clarify, which they still made no since as their EULA says otherwise and they say something completely different. Then here is today, where they have to come back and clear up what they said last week, changing more stuff. So yes, they are trying to compromise, it's just they're terrible at making a clear and direct statement, as I've said before, and if you read my posts you would understand.
No, they tried to make a compromise a week ago, yet no one understand what was going on, so they had to clarify, which they still made no since as their EULA says otherwise and they say something completely different. Then here is today, where they have to come back and clear up what they said last week, changing more stuff. So yes, they are trying to compromise, it's just they're terrible at making a clear and direct statement, as I've said before, and if you read my posts you would understand.
.... How many times do I have to say it. And they keep changing what they are saying too, regarding what we can/can't do.
You keep saying they don't give a direct/clear statement, do you not think they are finalizing their statement already? I mean they even put the date till grace period ends.
You're not understanding what I'm saying, a week or two ago Mojang flat out said no one is allowed to have any kind of donation thing whatsoever. Then they go onto say you can, but you can't. Now they're giving us more freedom than a week or two ago. It's the fact that they keep changing their words ever so often. This exact thing happened with modding when they started enforcing their EULA a bit more in February.. or March, I can't remember. The EULA said mods are not allowed whatsoever, and yet Mojang had to step in and say that they are allowed, despite the EULA.
And like the people who don't understand, it is because we the community are being vocal about this, that they are changing what their EULA means. If we give up now we could be left with something like 1200 page healthcare bill that not one politician bothered to read before passing.
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?
Are you asking me this question because you have a genuine point, or are you just trolling?
My questions are because I'm curious where Mojang would draw the line in these paradoxical situations. While well-reasoned opinions from others would be nice, I don't really expect them.
I also don't see a "questionnaire" anywhere obvious. I see a FAQ here and an earlier post that lays out some guidelines, but both still leave a grey area in the distinction between "cosmetic" and "gameplay".
In the first series, the end result is still "a hat", but each step gets closer and closer to something that's already in vanilla. The second series is trivial if the answer to the first step is "no, that's gameplay" (which would make perfect sense for Creative but maybe not for other modes), but otherwise proceeds in the same manner by taking a "cosmetic" feature closer and closer to something already in vanilla.
You could also take the examples the other way: "particle effects" was mentioned as an example of a cosmetic feature. Is it still cosmetic if it's done via potions instead of a command, and the recipe just gives you a mundane potion if you haven't paid? Then what if Mojang on a whim throws in particle-effect potions for 1.9?
Or what if some server makes a mod item that is purely cosmetic and sells the crap out of it. Then suddenly they stop selling it, and then they give it an actual use. For a concrete example, consider fireworks: they don't affect gameplay (word of Jeb). So assume Mojang says servers can make them pay-only. Then what if 1.9 implements Jeb's idea of having them scare wolves? Suddenly all those fireworks someone bought with hard currency aren't cosmetic anymore!
You keep saying they don't give a direct/clear statement, do you not think they are finalizing their statement already? I mean they even put the date till grace period ends.
If they made a clear and direct statement like you said they wouldn't have to keep coming back to change stuff like they are now.
I don't get that impression at all. Maybe you live in a different reality?
Have you not followed what they've been saying for the past week or so? It's been different everytime, if they made a clear and direct statement they wouldn't need to do this.
I agree with mojang on this one, p2w servers should stop I hate those pay $100 for god mode full diamond armor enchanted protection V and Sharp V d sword. Its completely unfair to middle class people like me who just want to have fun and not have to pay an insane price for something thats supposed to be for fun.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
SUPPORT! A 4J MADE SKIN EDITOR FOR MINECRAFT XBOX 360 EDITION....
That's my point. Many things that actually provide some incentive to players beyond aesthetics, such as minigames or special areas, are not allowed under this.
Actually, they are allowed, just not on one server.
Here's the new model.
You have a free to join server and then several other whitelisted servers with premium content and gameplay.
On the free server all abilities available to one person of any rank are available to all players unless the ability is only a cosmetic, like changing your nickname would be cosmetic.
In the free server are announcements and ads talking about the premium servers with the special content and minigames and links to pay to get access to those servers.
So a player wanting to join one of those servers will click a link and pay the suggested fee or donation is and then get whitelisted into that server to access that servers premium content while having all abilities of all other players there.
In the case of admins, staff, ops, you can have ranks of them with power distribution amongst them, but you can't charge for those ranks, you'll just have to award those ranks based on stuff like trust. Administering a server is different from playing a server. It's no longer a game at that point, but since it's done with a MC character, the ranks must abide by the EULA.
The other way is to have everything on one server and you have a trial account that last like a week, which is more than enough time to build something awesome and get mentally attached to it. Upon which, their free time expires and they must pay for more time. The length of the trial and time allotment per amount is up to the server owner to decide. So long as free people have access to all the same powers that paid people do. Neither of those two have to have access to the power of the administering staff so long as the administering staff didn't pay for their powers, if they did, then you have a problem.
So yes, it's possible to still make money under this EULA, it might even be easier. But things like permissions are basically out the door, their only good for cosmetics and power distribution amongst administering players.
So will places like ShadowRave, Ubercraft, Hypixel die? Nope, they'll modify to be complicit with the EULA and no doubt will make even more money than they have now.
I think its great they are adding more clarification!
My main question is, can they clarify what is exactly 'cosmetic' in minecraft.
Like a cape? Like something that changes you into a creeper?Dyed leather armor?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"My mother was about as nurturing as a steak knife." - Grey's Anatomy
I'll post my thoughts on this issue in this thread as well (already mentioned some in the other EULA news thread).
The core of this issue is purely a parental issue and I feel it shouldn't be something Mojang should address at all. Do they have the right? Absolutely. However, any reasonable person would choose not to pay for features they feel have an unreasonable cost and they would also refuse to play on a server outright if they weren't having fun due to those pay features. The issue is parents are letting their children buy things and then complaining to Mojang when they realize that it wasn't worth it. Mojang shouldn't be restricting sensible people just because people cannot monitor their own children.
Honestly, this is just another stab at content developers by Mojang in my opinion. I love Minecraft, but a few months back, there was the whole drama issue created over modding, and now they crack down on server owners. These actions have given me a bad view of the future of creating content for Minecraft and I'll be moving my content development/design to another platform (currently looking into http://minetest.net, but that may change as well).
Honestly, the way people attack server owners in these threads is also quite disheartening. If you guys don't like a server for whatever reason, don't play on it. The only reason I can see for attacking server owners like this is that you DO like the server, but were frustrated because you couldn't afford to pay for some perk and somehow feel like this will let you get it now. I have news for you, if said server was a large (500+) server and they cannot manage to find another way to make equivalent income (which will prove to be a pretty rough challenge), they probably will be GONE. You won't get your perk and all that will be accomplished is the community losing quality gameplay.
I've also heard people say that server owners are greedy, wanting to make a living off of running a server and that also makes me sad. What gives you guys the right to demand they give up their time, create tons of content for you to interact with, and all that...for free? Who's the greedy ones? Yes, you payed for Minecraft, but that doesn't include the right to have whatever you want on a server run by a third-party. This selfish attitude was also present during the whole modding drama thing a few months ago. Do you think that a content creator's time is worthless? That their talent isn't worth paying for? Its just sad.
Honestly, I hope servers find a way to keep going. I'm hedging my bets on a different engine where I have more rights with my content and would encourage others to do the same. However, if you (server owners) choose to stick with Minecraft and manage to make it work, I do wish you the best and hope that some future change doesn't shake the ground for you again.
I think its great they are adding more clarification!
My main question is, can they clarify what is exactly 'cosmetic' in minecraft.
Like a cape? Like something that changes you into a creeper?Dyed leather armor?
Make sure you read before you start asking questions. They specifically said capes are not allowed.
Just throwing this out there, but if the paying users keep paying then "insert server name here" will be just fine.
The problem with the above statement is we all know better. Its unrealistic isn't it. The people who paid then and don't pay now were paying not to play the game, but to have a status above others. I would argue that maybe, just maybe, that's what makes the mojang guys cringe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
NEW SERVER START UP!
Arctic Craft I could use a bit of help with a banner obviously
Your lego analogy.
That they can't make a clear and direct statement. If you read my post you'd understand.
They had to compromise, then they had to clarify things... so....?
OOOO Shots fired.
- I do understand what the EULA is trying to do. It is trying to stop those people who take advantage of the intellectually handicapped people . (i.e donating $500 for 100 diamonds 100 gapples god armor and tools as a daily kit.....and maybe 'promote realms)
There are those servers out there that do run off of just the owners expense and that is fine.
There are also the servers who find a good balance of kits/donor items that do not effect the players experience that much. (i.e $10 for something like /feed a weekly kit of some tools and food and other basic commands like /hat or /me. Those servers are not the problem, they are just given a bad reputation because of the server owners who just want to profit and nothing else.
No, they tried to make a compromise a week ago, yet no one understand what was going on, so they had to clarify, which they still made no since as their EULA says otherwise and they say something completely different. Then here is today, where they have to come back and clear up what they said last week, changing more stuff. So yes, they are trying to compromise, it's just they're terrible at making a clear and direct statement, as I've said before, and if you read my posts you would understand.
So basically, they are just wording it badly?
.... How many times do I have to say it. And they keep changing what they are saying too, regarding what we can/can't do.
You keep saying they don't give a direct/clear statement, do you not think they are finalizing their statement already? I mean they even put the date till grace period ends.
And like the people who don't understand, it is because we the community are being vocal about this, that they are changing what their EULA means. If we give up now we could be left with something like 1200 page healthcare bill that not one politician bothered to read before passing.
I don't get that impression at all. Maybe you live in a different reality?
Are you asking me this question because you have a genuine point, or are you just trolling?
My questions are because I'm curious where Mojang would draw the line in these paradoxical situations. While well-reasoned opinions from others would be nice, I don't really expect them.
I also don't see a "questionnaire" anywhere obvious. I see a FAQ here and an earlier post that lays out some guidelines, but both still leave a grey area in the distinction between "cosmetic" and "gameplay".
In the first series, the end result is still "a hat", but each step gets closer and closer to something that's already in vanilla. The second series is trivial if the answer to the first step is "no, that's gameplay" (which would make perfect sense for Creative but maybe not for other modes), but otherwise proceeds in the same manner by taking a "cosmetic" feature closer and closer to something already in vanilla.
You could also take the examples the other way: "particle effects" was mentioned as an example of a cosmetic feature. Is it still cosmetic if it's done via potions instead of a command, and the recipe just gives you a mundane potion if you haven't paid? Then what if Mojang on a whim throws in particle-effect potions for 1.9?
Or what if some server makes a mod item that is purely cosmetic and sells the crap out of it. Then suddenly they stop selling it, and then they give it an actual use. For a concrete example, consider fireworks: they don't affect gameplay (word of Jeb). So assume Mojang says servers can make them pay-only. Then what if 1.9 implements Jeb's idea of having them scare wolves? Suddenly all those fireworks someone bought with hard currency aren't cosmetic anymore!
Like some of us said. I feel as if some of us are being punished because of those greedy server owner's.
My DerpChannel-I MEAN YouTube channel! --> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMJmGoqgWEh96OmoRFKO60w
Yep.
If they made a clear and direct statement like you said they wouldn't have to keep coming back to change stuff like they are now.
Have you not followed what they've been saying for the past week or so? It's been different everytime, if they made a clear and direct statement they wouldn't need to do this.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-xbox-360-edition/mcx360-suggestions/2163353-skin-editor-read-before-commenting#c14
Actually, they are allowed, just not on one server.
Here's the new model.
You have a free to join server and then several other whitelisted servers with premium content and gameplay.
On the free server all abilities available to one person of any rank are available to all players unless the ability is only a cosmetic, like changing your nickname would be cosmetic.
In the free server are announcements and ads talking about the premium servers with the special content and minigames and links to pay to get access to those servers.
So a player wanting to join one of those servers will click a link and pay the suggested fee or donation is and then get whitelisted into that server to access that servers premium content while having all abilities of all other players there.
In the case of admins, staff, ops, you can have ranks of them with power distribution amongst them, but you can't charge for those ranks, you'll just have to award those ranks based on stuff like trust. Administering a server is different from playing a server. It's no longer a game at that point, but since it's done with a MC character, the ranks must abide by the EULA.
The other way is to have everything on one server and you have a trial account that last like a week, which is more than enough time to build something awesome and get mentally attached to it. Upon which, their free time expires and they must pay for more time. The length of the trial and time allotment per amount is up to the server owner to decide. So long as free people have access to all the same powers that paid people do. Neither of those two have to have access to the power of the administering staff so long as the administering staff didn't pay for their powers, if they did, then you have a problem.
So yes, it's possible to still make money under this EULA, it might even be easier. But things like permissions are basically out the door, their only good for cosmetics and power distribution amongst administering players.
So will places like ShadowRave, Ubercraft, Hypixel die? Nope, they'll modify to be complicit with the EULA and no doubt will make even more money than they have now.
My main question is, can they clarify what is exactly 'cosmetic' in minecraft.
Like a cape? Like something that changes you into a creeper?Dyed leather armor?
The core of this issue is purely a parental issue and I feel it shouldn't be something Mojang should address at all. Do they have the right? Absolutely. However, any reasonable person would choose not to pay for features they feel have an unreasonable cost and they would also refuse to play on a server outright if they weren't having fun due to those pay features. The issue is parents are letting their children buy things and then complaining to Mojang when they realize that it wasn't worth it. Mojang shouldn't be restricting sensible people just because people cannot monitor their own children.
Honestly, this is just another stab at content developers by Mojang in my opinion. I love Minecraft, but a few months back, there was the whole drama issue created over modding, and now they crack down on server owners. These actions have given me a bad view of the future of creating content for Minecraft and I'll be moving my content development/design to another platform (currently looking into http://minetest.net, but that may change as well).
Honestly, the way people attack server owners in these threads is also quite disheartening. If you guys don't like a server for whatever reason, don't play on it. The only reason I can see for attacking server owners like this is that you DO like the server, but were frustrated because you couldn't afford to pay for some perk and somehow feel like this will let you get it now. I have news for you, if said server was a large (500+) server and they cannot manage to find another way to make equivalent income (which will prove to be a pretty rough challenge), they probably will be GONE. You won't get your perk and all that will be accomplished is the community losing quality gameplay.
I've also heard people say that server owners are greedy, wanting to make a living off of running a server and that also makes me sad. What gives you guys the right to demand they give up their time, create tons of content for you to interact with, and all that...for free? Who's the greedy ones? Yes, you payed for Minecraft, but that doesn't include the right to have whatever you want on a server run by a third-party. This selfish attitude was also present during the whole modding drama thing a few months ago. Do you think that a content creator's time is worthless? That their talent isn't worth paying for? Its just sad.
Honestly, I hope servers find a way to keep going. I'm hedging my bets on a different engine where I have more rights with my content and would encourage others to do the same. However, if you (server owners) choose to stick with Minecraft and manage to make it work, I do wish you the best and hope that some future change doesn't shake the ground for you again.
Make sure you read before you start asking questions. They specifically said capes are not allowed.
The problem with the above statement is we all know better. Its unrealistic isn't it. The people who paid then and don't pay now were paying not to play the game, but to have a status above others. I would argue that maybe, just maybe, that's what makes the mojang guys cringe.
Minecraft's new music should be the Russian National Anthem.