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

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: Literally worse than EA

#121

Post by touristtam »

smackfu wrote: post #118
touristtam wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the modding community not offering enough for you? Just wondering, as it seems quite unusual for such a big hit to have modding encouraged the way minecraft does. (I know that part of this is due to Mojang being an indie studio). Other big studio with big selling franchise are barely having what would be considered as passable ten years ago (yes I am talking about the omni present call of duty x): no dedicated ser…

Essentially, the only reason there is a modding community for Minecraft is because it's Java-based and people can just decompile the shipped code and hack stuff onto it. So you have the modding community adding value for free, while Mojang sells the game and takes the profits, but doesn't seem to be investing it back.

I don't know if that is the only reason. I mean Quake had quite a good set of mods pretty much written in C++ type of code. More recently you can find modded server for games using Python or LUA for their game logic, official or not.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#122

Post by x0x0 »

spain wrote: post #114
ovulator wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. Some ten year old kid wants a $300 item on a Minecraft server. The kid has been told he can't use his parent's credit card without permission, he knows he can't, but guess what: even good kids break the rules, and he knows his parents have the money. He just saw them write a $5,000 check for his private tuition! (they want to raise him right) That $5,000 check though left them with $200 in the bank…

A "good kid" who breaks the rules isn't a "good kid", it's a bad one. If the parents never found out about the child spending the money, then the blame would not fall on them. However I don't consider this a very likely scenario not only because money doesn't tend to vanish into thin air, but because a responsible parent would monitor their child's spending. They might be able to get away with it for a while, but eve…

And in the meantime, their child (like my niece) might have clicked her way through $300+ of scummy iap that my sister didn't realize was hooked up to her credit card. People who facilitate kids spending money without their parents permission are not good people, even though the parents have the duty to supervise children. To take this to it's logical conclusion, it's the same reason that -- though parents are legally required to supervise kids -- we also put fences around attractive nuisances like pools, and throw pool owners in prison if they don't.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#123

Post by x0x0 »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #119
ovulator wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. Some ten year old kid wants a $300 item on a Minecraft server. The kid has been told he can't use his parent's credit card without permission, he knows he can't, but guess what: even good kids break the rules, and he knows his parents have the money. He just saw them write a $5,000 check for his private tuition! (they want to raise him right) That $5,000 check though left them with $200 in the bank…

Then take away that kids computer and all technology, and ground them for a month. These problems were solved by previous generations, when did parents become such pussies? When my generation was growing up (and I'm only 29), if we acted up we were expecting a beating at home... And we didn't get our own computer, TV and iPad or console...

My generation did not have the ability to spend $300 on my parents' credit cards by pressing buttons on my walkman in exchange for prettier outfits for my fake characters.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#124

Post by devicenull »

So, the question becomes who is going to enforce these rules? If you have these rules in your EULA, but you aren't enforcing them, you might as well not have them.

Are they going to start suing people? I can't see a whole lot of alternatives here.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#125

Post by nl »

arrrg wrote: post #104
nl wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good that they are (allegedly) working on a plugin API[1]. That is necessary but insufficient to fix the problems I outlined. Additionally, the plugin API is clearly a low priority: it was supposed to be released in 2010, then spoken about in 2012, and now the website and github page have been taken down (according to [1]). At the practical level "working on it for over 4 years with signs it might not be shipped…

Ok, offtopic rants are not ok.

Sure they are. This isn't Slashdot.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#126

Post by wtbob »

arrrg wrote: post #69
SteveC wrote: post #62

As someone who actually runs a Minecraft server and has developed several mini games and around 50 plugins, I'd like to clarify a few things to people who aren't involved in Minecraft. * Minecraft is pretty expensive to host. The top servers are paying tens of thousands a month in hosting. Only a few servers make enough to cover wages. Most just barely scrape by. DDOS protection is pretty much essential to any server…

So it’s expensive and hard. So what? Doesn’t mean scummy play to win bullshit is something to be proud of, especially when targeting children. I mean, what Mojang now permits I consider just barely ethically acceptable. Do know that these pay to win schemes are extremely disgusting and that you are far from behaving ethically if you use them. If you can live with that … The legal discussion is kind of boring to me in…

What's scummy about a server owner giving me a nice starting house in return for a payment? What's scummy about a server owner giving me /feed or /fly in return for payment?

There's nothing deceptive; there's nothing unfair about offering a free server with perks (anyone is free to pay or do without). I'm an adult, and I choose how to spend my disposable income.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#127

Post by unethical_ban »

Alupis wrote: post #96
zacinbusiness wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I know the EULA is universal, but all the defenders of "no-free-to-play" cite the "for the children" defense as the reason why this is such a pressing issue now.

As a player, Minecraft is only free-to-play if you voluntarily pay a server owner. If someone doesn't like a server, log into a different one! If you want to put in dozens of hours on a world without fear of it being griefed/having the rules changed, run your own small server!

My thesis is that this is basically a non-issue. If Mojang wants people to know they're not the ones charging for server access (the parent anecdote in the article), they should have a big, permanent banner in the server browser: "If you're paying for items on a server, you're paying too much! Minecraft server access is free by default!" and so on.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#128

Post by wtbob »

They still don't get it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with server owners offering improved gameplay in return for financial support. Minecraft allows griefing (destruction of another player's work); there is nothing wrong with a server owner enabling an anti-griefing mod (incidentally, not offered by Mojang: literally the only thing which makes public servers tolerable is 100% not Mojang's work) only for paying players, but not for non-paying players. The alternatives would be to offer it to everyone—meaning that folks could cause trouble with the anti-griefing features, requiring admin time (and hence money)—or to not allow the general public on, meaning that prospective players would be unable to evaluate the server, or to turn off anti-griefing and leave the server public, meaning that everyone would have to have hidden bases and live in perpetual fear of griefers.

That doesn't sound like an improvement.

Skyblock is a style of gameplay made possible by modmakers (not by Mojang); there is nothing wrong with offering additional starting resources in exchange for financial support.

Mojang have made approximately half a billion dollars from Minecraft; society has rewarded them well. How 'bout they start giving back, rather than seeking to exploit their monopoly position?

(No, I don't run a public server, but I do play on them, and it sickens me to see their business model destroyed by a monopolist)

Re: Literally worse than EA

#129

Post by nl »

ripter wrote: post #101
nl wrote: post #31

Oh wow. Minecraft. I have an 8yo boy, so I spend a lot more time thinking about this than I would like. I think Mojang has it's priorities slightly wrong here. At the moment much of the interesting stuff in Minecraft is done via mods. But the user experience for that is pretty close to pre-Google search: browse through random forums to find links to dodgy download sites that attempt to push malware or porn to you. Th…

They have been working on and off an official Mod API for a while. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-29-mojang-hires-bu... But this has nothing to do with monetizing servers, which is the point of the post.

Initally called the Modding API, it has been planned in some capacity since at least July 5, 2010, shortly after the release of Alpha 1.0.1_01. It was then stated to be released in Beta 1.8.[6] The Modding API was then rebranded as the Plugin API, with the release originally stated to be planned for 1.3, then for 1.4, and then it was accidentally stated by Curse that it would be implemented in 1.5, but has since been delayed...At MineCon 2012, Mojang shared their vision for the future of the plugin API....As of October 26, 2013, the Plugin API/Workbench cannot be found on its GitHub page. Furthermore, the developer website has also been taken offline[1]

Draw your own conclusions.

[1] http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Plugin_API

Re: Literally worse than EA

#130

Post by nl »

VLM wrote: post #106
DanBC wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thats another interesting point, that FOSS or even shareware hasn't arrived in minecraft culture.

Shareware can't because it is banned by Minecraft's "you shall not make money from mods" edict.
Post reply on HN