Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Literally worse than EA

notch.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: Literally worse than EA

#21

Post by gearhart »

davidbanham wrote: post #3

Hosting game servers is hard, expensive work. Hosting Minecraft servers is even tougher since the hardware requirements are pretty steep and the main userbase doesn't have much money to kick into the pot. Minefold was a YC company that tried to make a go of monetising Minecraft hosting in the Right Way. They were smart guys and built a great platform, but they're not around any more. I believe it's because it was jus…

I used to work for a mod for Battlefield (PoE) - we had a few tens of thousands of regular players and a few hundred servers running it at the peak. There was no money in PoE at all, the whole thing was built by volunteers and all the servers were run by the community - groups of people who just wanted to support the game.

The costs were pretty low, a few hundred dollars a month, and they'd be split amongst a group of 10 or 20 people who all got a sense of ownership over their own server.

I don't really see it as a massive unsolved problem, it's the digital equivalent of kids throwing a house party - you trade a little bit of cash / effort for a sense of ownership in a community.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#22

Post by Negitivefrags »

networked wrote: post #20
awjr wrote: post #5

Yes Minecraft is awesome, however the selling of addons is just one more revenue stream to keep a server alive and the user base engaged. There has to be perceived value in having the addon to make the user experience better. I think this sums up the sentiment from a server's point of view: http://sterlingplays.com/

If the players come to those server networks looking for the custom gameplay experiences they provide and every network stands to lose a lot of money from the EULA change what prevents them from hiring developers to replace Minecraft with a custom client? I mean this as a genuine question.

You are falling in to the very trap that this entire article is about.

Nobody is losing money from this EULA change. The EULA already forbade this and always did. The EULA is only more liberal than it was before. If they were willing to flout it before than there is no reason they shouldn't be willing to continue to flout it now.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#23

Post by Negitivefrags »

davidbanham wrote: post #3

Hosting game servers is hard, expensive work. Hosting Minecraft servers is even tougher since the hardware requirements are pretty steep and the main userbase doesn't have much money to kick into the pot. Minefold was a YC company that tried to make a go of monetising Minecraft hosting in the Right Way. They were smart guys and built a great platform, but they're not around any more. I believe it's because it was jus…

Is it really unsolved?

With our game for example each active player costs less than 3c per month in server costs. If you have your user pay up front than you are blowing that out of the water almost regardless of how many months they are active for or how much you are charging. You just provide the servers for the game.

If your game is free and funded with microtransactions then you really should be able to get 3c per month per active user.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#24

Post by throwaway_yy2Di » 

    "The EULA for Minecraft says you can’t make money of
    Minecraft. If you make mods, they have to be free."
I don't understand the legal theory behind this. Is this contract law? If a programmer wrote a third-party mod without buying the software (say by reading an API description), would they still be bound to its terms?

Also, does restricting modification like this infringe on "first sale" rights?

Re: Literally worse than EA

#25

Post by rmrfrmrf »

davidbanham wrote: post #3

Hosting game servers is hard, expensive work. Hosting Minecraft servers is even tougher since the hardware requirements are pretty steep and the main userbase doesn't have much money to kick into the pot. Minefold was a YC company that tried to make a go of monetising Minecraft hosting in the Right Way. They were smart guys and built a great platform, but they're not around any more. I believe it's because it was jus…

Shouldn't that be a massive indicator to get out of that business, then? I play Minecraft with my younger siblings and have the Minecraft server loaded onto a personal server that also streams media to our PS3. In another situation, my alma mater offers free shell access to every student, so there were quite a few people who had Minecraft servers going. These smaller, ad hoc servers are better for Minecraft since they're used by people who know each other and don't need to be policed for griefers.

I really don't see any benefit that a public server would provide players, especially if I either have to pay or get inundated with ads.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#26

Post by tptacek »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #24

"The EULA for Minecraft says you can’t make money of Minecraft. If you make mods, they have to be free." I don't understand the legal theory behind this. Is this contract law? If a programmer wrote a third-party mod without buying the software (say by reading an API description), would they still be bound to its terms? Also, does restricting modification like this infringe on "first sale" rights?

You're asking if there's such a thing as an enforceable noncommercial license?

Re: Literally worse than EA

#28

Post by throwaway_yy2Di »

tptacek wrote: post #26
throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #24

"The EULA for Minecraft says you can’t make money of Minecraft. If you make mods, they have to be free." I don't understand the legal theory behind this. Is this contract law? If a programmer wrote a third-party mod without buying the software (say by reading an API description), would they still be bound to its terms? Also, does restricting modification like this infringe on "first sale" rights?

You're asking if there's such a thing as an enforceable noncommercial license?

Well there are well-known noncommercial clauses about redistribution of software. But this license is about restricting third-party modifications, like plugins, which don't contain copyrighted code, but do link to it and target its API. So yes I'm asking if that's enforceable, and what type of law allows for that (contract or copyright?).

Or did you mean noncommercial use, as in evaluation licenses?

(edit: several edits because I am confused)

Re: Literally worse than EA

#29

Post by asdfaoeu »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #23
davidbanham wrote: post #3

Hosting game servers is hard, expensive work. Hosting Minecraft servers is even tougher since the hardware requirements are pretty steep and the main userbase doesn't have much money to kick into the pot. Minefold was a YC company that tried to make a go of monetising Minecraft hosting in the Right Way. They were smart guys and built a great platform, but they're not around any more. I believe it's because it was jus…

Is it really unsolved? With our game for example each active player costs less than 3c per month in server costs. If you have your user pay up front than you are blowing that out of the water almost regardless of how many months they are active for or how much you are charging. You just provide the servers for the game. If your game is free and funded with microtransactions then you really should be able to get 3c pe…

I imagine minecraft hosting is a lot more expensive. The server has to keep substantially more state as well as deal with users potentially consuming a lot of CPU server side resources (why most servers ban things like TNT and fire). There are all also a ton of mods that users may want. I imagine your 3c/mo game doesn't have the same amount of interactivity involved.

The real issue is that there are a fair amount of people who want to run minecraft servers for free anyway that it forces out commercial operators.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#30

Post by pjc50 »

delucain wrote: post #10

Maybe this is a little off-topic, and I don't want to sound like an ungrateful player of minecraft. I actually really love the game and have put more hours into it than just about any other game but a few key titles like the Diablo, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout series. But, can someone explain to me how a game that has grossed roughly half a billion dollars (based on estimates I've read for all platforms) is still so f…

There's a lot of luck there, but it's a good reminder that features don't sell games. "Fun" sells games, and it's very hard to quantify.
Post reply on HN