• 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    I would not expect actual legal action for a while yet, if it does come. Beyond the standard cease and desist it tends to be a hassle.

    That doesn't mean they can't (or won't) enforce the EULA. All they would have to do is block the non-compliant server's IP on the authentication servers. Just like that, the server is effectively shut down because nobody can log in. It's not even 5 minutes work.


    Quote from Charles_Knight »As stated by a friend of mine, a law student, I also highly doubt that this can be enforced to an appropriate level in-which will prevent all servers from selling any form of cosmetic items. It's evident that they're going to target the larger servers that have a larger annual revenue however there's an insurmountable amount of servers with their own stores. You simply can't fully enforce this new EULA to a standard that will prevent all servers from selling any cosmetic items.

    Um...cosmetic items are the one type of thing you actually are still allowed to sell. It's gameplay-altering items/ranks that you can't sell. -_-
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Dranku54

    Those are the players that believe mojang can do something and will do something. All of the servers I play on, their owners do not believe they can or will do anything at all.

    You said "no one". Unless you're implying players don't count in this whole situation.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Dranku54

    The only ones who care are players who want pay to win gone.

    Then explain all the players posting in here complaining about the EULA, backing the pay to win model and fretting over their favorite server shutting down.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Dranku54

    No one fears mojang. No one believes they will or can do anything.

    If that were true, this thread wouldn't exist because nobody would care about the EULA.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Yoshidude
    It's funny how Mojang is trying to stop "Pay to Win" but they are just causing a greater problem: "Pay to Play".

    In some people's opinions. I'd much rather have pay to play than pay to win, myself. Most of the big MMOs operate on pay to play and last I checked it was working just fine.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Durphead

    It's called the bystander effect. Everyone just stands around and hopes someone else will pitch in. A few people may take responsibility, but not enough.

    Then I guess that just sucks for them when the server is gone. Life is like that. Maybe they'll learn something. I have been on one server that needed donations to keep going. As a reward people got stuff like a color for their name in chat, no gameplay-changing perks. People donated anyway. It can work.

    Quote from Durphead

    Servers cost thousands of dollars to maintain, and if they don't have enough funding to make ends meet, poof.

    The giant servers cost thousands to maintain. I've never stepped foot on one and I bet a lot of Minecraft players haven't either or didn't stay very long if they did get on. A server capable of handling a couple hundred players or less (the capacity for the vast majority of the thousands of servers in existence) can be had for $100 a month or less. Even cheaper if you have the ability to host from home. Plus not everyone requires income from a server (Minecraft or otherwise) to run it. Some of us have disposable income from other sources like a job or possess the hosting resources already.

    Quote from Durphead

    Your online experience is eviscerated and Mojang has to start all over again with their next game. Maybe it'll also be blocky.

    I call melodrama on this. I've had several servers I play on die for varying reasons over the years. It sucks but I just go hunting for a new one and keep playing. So did most of the other players. I suppose some people are completely tied to their favorite server and without it there's no point to playing Minecraft at all anymore but I haven't met very many so far.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    I think the vast majority know exactly what may happen. They also know the reason why it would happen. This whole situation is forcing attention on an existing facet which often is ignored or downplayed. If a player is willing to throw money at a server in exchange for stuff but refuse to do so (even a lesser amount) when they get no tangible reward then that player doesn't really care about the server or its community. They care about the stuff they can get and the advantages that come with it. If another server offered the same or better you'd find precious little in the way of loyalty from these. This is their right as a player and it's not inherently good or bad. It's just reality.

    If someone really cares about a particular server and finds it valuable to themselves and/or others they'll donate, perks or no. If there is some case where they can't do anything monetary they will find some way to support, even if it's something like volunteering to help out new players once in a while or find others who might be willing to donate/sponsor. You'd be surprised how many players (and even other people) are willing to contribute, once they understand the importance and value.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    You can assign all the staff ranks and abilities you want based on a person's ability, association (friends, etc.) or because you play roulette to find out who runs the server this week. :P As long as it is a reason other than the person giving you money the EULA shouldn't be an issue.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Snapshot Double-Feature: 1.7.10 Pre-Release, 14w25a Ready for Testing!
    Quote from minecrafter147

    It looks better though.

    All I saw when trying it out again is details and texture being taken away, and things like rails and ladders going fuzzy. Guess I just don't get how it's supposed to look better.
    Posted in: Minecraft News
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Elvm

    No they can't, just because it's written in the EULA doesn't make it legal.

    By clicking agree you are also acknowledging that Mojang may sew your mouth to the butthole of another minecraft user.

    That doesn't work like that.

    Until successfully challenged in court an EULA is legally binding the same as any other license or contract. An EULA is not above the law but in Mojang's case it does not violate any laws. Inconvenience is not illegal.

    Your example however is a case where the EULA could be challenged as unreasonable and/or illegal.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Snapshot Double-Feature: 1.7.10 Pre-Release, 14w25a Ready for Testing!
    Quote from hi9580

    why have nip mapping off, it doesn't affect fps at all

    Why have it on? All it does is make stuff fuzzy in the distance. It's also both very obvious and stupid looking with things like ladders (they turn into complete fuzz like 12 blocks above your position).
    Posted in: Minecraft News
  • 3

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Elvm

    They seems to believe that their EULA can give them control over anything even remotely Minecraft-related...
    That's just not the case and there is absolutely no way that this can be legally enforceable, anytime, anywhere.

    Actually they sort of can.

    Minecraft is Mojang's software and they can tell you how it can or can't be used and you are legally bound by that when you use it. Period. The EULA is a license, same as open source licenses like GPL. And you can end up in court for violating it should Mojang decide to press the matter. Even if a mod or plugin is completely unique code, when it is used within the game it becomes subject to the EULA.

    If you own your hardware then you can do anything you like with that hardware (within the local laws of course) including choose to host a Minecraft server on it or not. If you rent a server/VPS you can also do as you like within the confines of the host's rules (and local laws). But once you step inside the game it's Mojang's territory and they can set the boundaries and rules there, like them or not.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Snapshot Double-Feature: 1.7.10 Pre-Release, 14w25a Ready for Testing!
    Well, two discoveries and a bug.


    First up, grass and fern blocks don't render with an offset anymore. All nice even rows. Good for gardens maybe but looks bad in the wild I think.


    Apparently the anisotropic filtering option is gone for now.


    And for the bug, splash potions when thrown render as...that.


    Can't say I'm a fan of the new sponge texture but wouldn't say it's terrible either. Would probably get used to it in time, kind of like when they changed the gravel texture.
    Posted in: Minecraft News
  • 2

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang

    I'm just sitting here, sipping my Coke, laughing at everybody who think this EULA update will automatically mean the end of Minecraft.

    This. Except the coke. I has ice cream instead.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Gregrs

    All I can say is.. No more servers. Mojang pretty much ­ed minecraft multiplayer

    Then everyone can come play on my server once it's up and active again. :P
    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please .