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

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: Literally worse than EA

#91

Post by DanBC »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #53
VLM wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you've played minecraft and done modding. If your server requires 1.6.4 and railcraft 1.2.3.4.5.6 well then anyone who connects requires MC 1.6.4 (free, no problem) and ALSO requires railcraft 1.2.3.4.5.6 and mods are stereotypically hosted on the scummiest pr0n-iest adfest drive by download sewers of the internet (sorry, but its true) So say you want to host a server called "jiggy's minecraft". Simply…

Wouldn't it be more profitable to simply develop and sell mods rather than running servers since your costs will be lower? Unless you mean just using the mod as a key to access the server in which case you'd be better off just charging for passwords to the server because otherwise you have to worry about people using pirate copies of your mod to connect.

No one buys mods, which is why they are hosted on terrible sharing services - it's the only way the developer can get any money.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#92

Post by spain »

Tyr42 wrote: post #82
spain wrote: post #32

Following the link on that page to the "translated" version of the new EULA, their reasoning seems to still be "we don’t want our players to be exploited or to have a frustrating time unless they pay." [0] I find a lot of things wrong with this mentality, mostly in that it assumes that the servers that charge for gameplay have some kind of monopoly over the servers. If you don't want to pay for gameplay, just visit a…

One of the problems with that is that people have friends. That can cause some stickiness in server choice.

That's still their problem, not the servers.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#93

Post by dragontamer »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #29
Negitivefrags wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds like a terrible business to get into. Which begs the question: are you doing this for money, or are you doing this because you find it fun?

Sometimes, the two are not the same. When they aren't the same, you should go out and try and find something that is both fun and rewarding for you.

Running into a saturated market, losing money, dealing with DDOS-happy griefers immature ungrateful *wipes seems like a terrible job to get yourself into. Sure, we all just want to play Minecraft, but your customers are toxic, and dealing with the politics is crap, and now I learn that its unprofitable to boot.

So if you aren't having fun and you aren't making money... there's something that needs to change. I can't think of any other community where griefers, trolls, and DDOS attacks are as big of a problem. It really seems like a Minecraft-specific phenomenon.

(outside of MMORPGs, where the competitive play between clans sometimes leads to Out-of-character real life DDOS attacks)

Re: Literally worse than EA

#94

Post by Alupis »

derefr wrote: post #86
Alupis wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is really no "play to win" in Minecraft, because there is no "winning". You just keep doing things until you get bored and stop playing. As someone who can run my own server for myself and a few friends (and have on multiple occasions), I don't see how allowing servers to charge for some things is bad... don't want to pay for access to an item -- go play someplace else or host your own.

For the same reason that the elderly will call their web browser "the Googles", children will also tend to think of the first implementation of a concept they find as the definitive one. The idea will never occur to them that there's any other Minecraft server than Bob's Private MineCraft Capitalism Extravaganza that their friend introduced them to and plays on.

I think that's besides the point. This contract isn't "about the kids", it's about all Minecraft players and server administrators. If a server administrator feels they need to, or want to charge for some item or plugin, they should have the freedom to do so...

...after all, they aren't obligated to run a minecraft server in the first place, and if the only thing keeping the lights on is selling some in-game item, let it be.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#95

Post by elfcard »

nl wrote: post #90
elfcard wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather people pay for stability. Tricking people to pay for 64 bytes of code and a new color pallet for a diamond encrusted pixel sword in order to offer stability was a mistake. Education needed to happen, this shit is hard, and it's a lot of work. When I go to a store, I don't see a sign "Pizza is free" only to walk over and find that if I want to put toppings on the pizza, well those cost $0.99 per single…

I'm not sure I understand you. Firstly, Pay-to-play (which I think you are talking about?) isn't the same as an app store for mods. I'm not sure if you play Minecraft, but there is a very diverse range of mods available, of differing qualities and all hosted on malware infested download sites. That's a real problem that deserves to be looked at. I'd never advocate that core features of Minecraft be made pay-to-play.…

Sell me a service, or a product, not a gimmick. That's what I'm saying. Im talking about IAP.

The value is in scarcity, but it's artificially scarce. It's contrived.

Seriously? On a forum dedicated to startups and development, many who like me do app and game development or lead app and game development teams; you can't figure out who I'm talking to? Seriously?

Re: Literally worse than EA

#96

Post by Alupis »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #79
unethical_ban wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? So it's incredibly hard to even enforce what Mojang says they're targeting, and in trying to do so, they're spooking a ton of legitimate developers and server owners. The real question is how children are spending hundreds of dollars online without parental consent.

Yeah I generally don't think it'd be a good idea to give kids access to parental bank accounts. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like a poor decision.

Guys, this isn't "about the kids", it's about all minecraft players and server admins.

The contract doesn't only apply to kids, it applies to everyone. So saying this is a "poor decision" because you don't want to encourage kids to use their parents credit card... is a poor argument.

(as an aside - I know zero kids that play minecraft, but I know an awful lot of adults that do... so let's not just jump and assume it's only kids playing this game).

Re: Literally worse than EA

#97

Post by Alupis »

owsla wrote: post #74
unethical_ban wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To point 1, Minecraft chews memory and processor for breakfast. I understand that some of the larger server have thousands of players logged in simultaneously over huge areas in a minecraft world, so I can imagine 4-5 digit hosting bills. To point 2, you're hosting a server with lots of attention, one that is DDoS friendly, and you've got the eyes of lots of young technical people. In the world of one-click DDoS, I d…

My point with #2 is that DDoS protection is included with most dedicated server plans. It doesn't cost "significantly extra" as this guy claims- at least I've never seen that.

Cloudflare also offers some free services ;-P

Re: Literally worse than EA

#98

Post by spain »

derefr wrote: post #86
Alupis wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is really no "play to win" in Minecraft, because there is no "winning". You just keep doing things until you get bored and stop playing. As someone who can run my own server for myself and a few friends (and have on multiple occasions), I don't see how allowing servers to charge for some things is bad... don't want to pay for access to an item -- go play someplace else or host your own.

For the same reason that the elderly will call their web browser "the Googles", children will also tend to think of the first implementation of a concept they find as the definitive one. The idea will never occur to them that there's any other Minecraft server than Bob's Private MineCraft Capitalism Extravaganza that their friend introduced them to and plays on.

Children aren't smart, this much is known. This is fighting the symptom, not the cause. The real issue is that children who can't spend their money responsibly shouldn't have that money in the first place. If we go by the assumption that a child won't know when they're paying for a legitimate product or being exploited then why give them any money? If they don't spend it on a pay-to-win server then they'll spend it somewhere else and be "exploited" just as much, possibly on an iPhone game or something. If I give my child $1000 and they blow it on a Minecraft server then that's my fault for giving them that much money, not theirs. Children shouldn't be given that much disposable income if they can't use it properly. Punishing server hosts for the mistakes of poor parenting is not the right solution.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#99

Post by ripter »

Avenger42 wrote: post #77
epsylon wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Their new terms force servers to remove perks that have already been sold to players. Many server owners are objecting to this as it forces them to "steal" things that players have bought. The servers don't have to remove the perks, they just have to give them to everyone. What's pretty clear in all this is that Notch does not want Minecraft to become some kind of pay-to-win game (which would inevitably damage the…

> The servers don't have to remove the perks, they just have to give them to everyone. Either way, I imagine you get a bit of an uproar - either you're giving things away for free that you sold before, so the people who bought them are upset and want their money back; or you steal the items back so no one can have them, so the people who bought them are upset and want their money back.

You were never allowed to sell them in the first place. This part of the EULA was being ignored so Notch clarified.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#100

Post by spain »

techtalsky wrote: post #87
unethical_ban wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? So it's incredibly hard to even enforce what Mojang says they're targeting, and in trying to do so, they're spooking a ton of legitimate developers and server owners. The real question is how children are spending hundreds of dollars online without parental consent.

No, that's not really "the real question". Kids are smart. The know how to get what they want and parents can't be everywhere at any moment. SOME percentage of kids are going to figure out how to pay for goods with very little understanding of their relative value. Preying on kids in this position skirts the borders of what's ethical. I'm not saying all server owners are guilty of this, but Mojang has their position…

If kids outwit their parents and spend their money then that's the parents fault, not the servers. True, the parents can't always be everywhere which is why they need to teach children to act responsibly. If that kid keeps continuously taking money out of your bank account when you're not looking and blowing it on Minecraft then the parent is doing something wrong. If there was no Minecraft they'd spend the money on something else. I don't see why server hosts should be punished because some parents failed to bring their children up properly.
Post reply on HN