Minecraft Forums

Quote from setzke

The point of this thread was to inform us of the change that has yet to come.
That's why it's in NEWS and not DISCUSSION.

The point of the comments section was to ask questions that we have about the new EULA, not complain and argue about it. If you don't believe me, go read the 1st post again. It's down near the end.

Quote from Sacheverell

Let's discuss it in the comments!

If you have stated your opinion and have nothing left to say, then that's that, but don't try to convince the community that they shouldn't talk about something that concerns them.

Quote from setzke

Minecraft is Mojang's game and they want it used how they want it used.
If they were "Communist Mojang" like I keep seeing people say, and they wanted complete control, they'd be doing more to make modding harder and make creating servers harder and they'd try to stop us from doing anything that wasn't Vanilla. But they're not. We have so much freedom. We have so much that we can still do.

"Things have been this way and they worked so don't mess with it!"
Things will work with the new EULA, too; things will be different, but they will work. We will adapt and we will see new ways that people are making money... we'll see a lot of creativity come out of this. People always get really, really creative when money is involved.
Whether Mojang is right or wrong is irrelevant - they are allowed to change their own EULA. As to whether that will be good or bad for them as a company doesn't play into it... companies are free to make bad decisions, and we are free to figure out ways to work with that, or we can complain and quit. Stuff's going to work out, guys... but no matter how much we scream that we dislike this, it is going to happen. And, believe it or not, I think after the smoke and fire and rubble clears... it will be beautiful.

Whether Mojang made a right or wrong decision is the entire point of this thread. "It's their game" only extends so far, after all. They have a right to change their EULA, we have a right to complain for our reasons. Unless you can come up with a reason the EULA should remain what it is now that has not been countered by others already, you are not really contributing to the discussion.

Quote from Winter_Mage

Why remove the clauses restricting sVhVhc?

Also what if the area was like a regenerating resource world or minigames rewarded special prizes?


If you removed the second clause you mentioned would my above situation (^) be able to happen?

Clauses restricting the what now?
Edit: Oh, currency. Well, a dev on the server I play is very proud of what he's done because he's designed that currency from scratch. Furthermore, a currency is far more malleable for purchases made towards the server. You can, for example, sell a hat for $2, or you can sell 100 in-game currency points to the player and have them choose from a number of hats. Or, you can give away free currency in raffles, or using a hybrid system, let the player trade a significant number of emeralds for the special currency points so that free players may earn the same items. It allows for a more customized shopping experience in the game as opposed to "pay $1 get this hat".

As for your second thing:

• A regenerating resource world, assuming this is some kind of survival style server, does not seem like a good reward for VIP/donations, you can come up with better. And if you can't, too much of an advantage on a limited-resource server, assuming VIPs can take the resources out of said world. Just my opinion. Maybe as an alternative, do a regenerating resource world, but make it so that objects cannot be taken out of or into that world? So that it's completely separate and doesn't affect free players.
• Minigames rewarding special prizes depends on many factors; is the prize gamebreaking (I.E. I don't agree with giving out god swords), are there other minigames free players can participate in? And so on. This one is conditional and I'd have to see more information about it to give you my opinion, sorry.

Quote from Winter_Mage

So you see p2w as necessary, as in you don't think compromise is possible? Things should just be the way they were before?

No. As I've said, I believe that much of the EULA is a good thing. Specifically, what I want changed is:

• Remove clauses about in-game soft v. hard v. hybrid currency
• Edit "restriction of content" clauses to apply only to items and commands, not areas or minigames

Quote from Winter_Mage

If you're against P2W then I don't see how you can all this draconian? Unless you're implying you're against P2W but you see it as necessary? O.o

Because at some point, things stop being anti-pay-to-win and start becoming limiting. The problem is that people here disagree where that line is. Some see the line as far back, and they back the whole EULA, and others see it as far forward, and disagree with it completely.

Quote from Winter_Mage

I mean honestly if you want to do this then people can just make a second server solely for premium people.

As I've explained, that is far too costly to be a proper solution for most of the issues. It's also rather a waste of server space.

Quote from Netpatham

Eh. It all depends on the community.

Indeed, but in general it doesn't work well.

Hence, my opinion: I think Mojang overstepped the boundary just a little, not a lot. Remove the clauses on currency, modify the language on the restricted content to only apply to items and commands rather than areas or minigames, then everything would be perfect in my opinion.

Quote from Netpatham

Yeah, perhaps OPARMOR is not the best example. But resources on basically anything but a PvP server get redistributed.

Not necessarily. It's the same problem with the Trickle-down economics theory; you assume the resources get spread out between players over time, in reality they're usually kept and used by the person who got the resources. That's the case with resource and armor kits; I get a kit with potatoes in it, I don't distribute the potatoes, I plant them and farm them to myself, maybe after some time start selling them, but not likely. Even less likely for armor.

Quote from Netpatham

I don't see why the powerful armor getting around on a PvP server is a bad thing. Granted, I don't PLAY on PvP servers, but that's a different story.

Powerful armor in of itself tends to create a paywall. That's why I'm moderate on the issue, I do believe it is unfair to pay for weapons, I do not think it unfair to play for premium-only minigames or sections of the world. The difference is one is physically affecting the other, free players, while the other is just giving premium users an area they can hang out in or explore.

Quote from Netpatham

...So is everyone who doesn't find diamonds normally. Or gets spawncamped. Or any number of things. PvP is intrinsically unfair...

Depending on how you build it. PvP which uses arenas and/or gives their players weapons or kits at the start of the match is significantly more fair than a survival PvP server.

Quote from randisking

Plugins also are covered by the EULA, no matter who they are developed by.

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.

Quote from Winter_Mage

Do you think the EULA is illegal or something? jeez.

Uh, no, I just think it's hurtful to server owners in this specific portion, that is all. Where did you get that impression?

Quote from TheRealAD2011

To the person who created the plugin or minigame(Which most minigame servers just steal their ideas from other mini game servers) yes, but to a server who uses plugins made by other people and minigames made by other servers, which is the case most of the time, no.

Well, the server I play on has many of its plugins created from scratch, what about those servers? And then let's move away from mods, isn't something built by the server owner also their own content? If I build a statue of a dragon, what's the difference between displaying it on a server and showing it in a YouTube video?
Where do you draw the line on content? Minecraft is just the medium required to run, like how a statue can be built out of legos in real life, doesn't mean lego owns the statue.

My point is, as it stands, the implementation of this EULA is flawed and limiting to server owners. I understand restricting the sale of "10 cents for a diamond", but when you get into the ideas of mods, plugins, areas, minigames, and so on, it starts becoming a problem more than a helping hand.

Quote from TheRealAD2011

Well Youtube videos are providing their own content, plus its advertising the game quite well. I don't see servers doing either of these

"Does the EULA still apply for access to user-created mods?

Yes. It doesn’t make a difference who made the mods, or how they were implemented onto your server. All mods require Minecraft to run. You are not allowed to charge for Minecraft features which affect gameplay."

Minigames and plugins are entirely player-built, do you not count this as providing their own content?

Quote from CommanderDrenn

Everyone keeps saying "pay to win." I thought Minecraft was a sandbox game, and thus no way to "win"? Barring PVP and mini games, why should other servers be effected? Unless the server is blocking specific features, survival "donation" incentives are just time savers and take away from the point of the game. If that is the donator's wish, so be it.

As an example, Donor areas and VIP areas, that is how other servers are affected. Many servers have an area for donors or VIPs to hang out and make specific purchases or sales only they can make or at a time earlier than others, hence the benefits of donating or purchasing a VIP rank. Now, assuming we ignore the purchases or sales, or assume those sales are purely cosmetic:

Can I charge access to a specific part of my server, such as a minigame or world?

No, you cannot charge for any part of a server other than the initial access. Once on a server, all players must have the same gameplay privileges. You may make a different server for the user to connect to which features “premium” areas, and charge for access to that server instead, but the benefits cannot carry over to your other servers.

Which is both silly and severely limiting in terms of what the benefit to a VIP rank would actually be. Why shouldn't a donor get to have a donor area separate from the normal play area? And this is coming from someone who doesn't donate or buy from servers.
I've talked it over with my friend who develops the plugins on the server I play on, he thinks everything's in the lines, but I'm just concerned; why shouldn't server owners be allowed to sell additional content, areas, or quests, so long as those areas don't affect the main storyline or ability for normal players to level up too much? Even if you do find that wrong, what about hosting the same minigame but for VIP only players, how is that wrong? What's wrong with a 2x boost type item? It's one thing to ban the sale of items which may be considered abusive, scamming, or "gamebreaking", it's quite another to say "all for-sale items must be cosmetic and purely cosmetic".

Quote from CyberFlux

I don't know what's funnier, the silly mistake they made or the comments in response.

The saddest part is "Putt Putt Butt Butt" is the funniest pun we can make. Anything else and you start poking fun at Tiger Woods instead of minigolf.

Putt...putt...this is putterly poutrageous.

Quote from the1337doofus

Four; Reduce lag? Where? I haven't seen any reduction of lag in SINGLE PLAYER.

65 FPS in Hypixel's "Herobrine's Return", one of the larger maps out there. And snapshots always have less FPS than releases.

Quote from Limitsoflife

Jolly good fight, sir.

Quote from Pugin94

GLITCH REPORT!

There is a glitch in the new snapshot. When you try to break a block with a Sword in Creative, the block will not break. This is an odd glitch and really hope it is fixed.

This is a feature people have been requesting so that when they're killing mobs, they don't wreck the world if they misclick.