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

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: Literally worse than EA

#131

Post by nl »

elfcard wrote: post #95
nl wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Couldn't this statement apply to gaming as a whole, too?

Is it that being stopped half way through a game and forced to pay for some gizmo to keep playing is worse than having to pay up front for the whole game? Financially there may be no difference at all, right?

(Not a gamer here)

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?

HN is hardly a game focused forum. The vast majority of people on here don't have anything to do with games.

It was difficult to tell if your "We" meant "game developers" in general or was somehow more specific to Minecraft mod developers (which is what I didn't understand).

Re: Literally worse than EA

#132

Post by qbrass »

x0x0 wrote: post #122
spain wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 legall…

Pools don't come with fences.

In your own analogy, your sister would be the one who bought the dangerous device and left her kid unsupervised with it.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#133

Post by russellsprouts »

nl wrote: post #129
ripter wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They have been delaying, but they have also hired several of the developers from CraftBukkit, which did create a plugin API for Minecraft. Their experience with CraftBukkit showed that they had created the API too soon. The code is messy and not amenable to mods.

The 1.8 update, currently in development, has added features, but it has mostly focused on refactoring and cleaning code. For example, they recently rewrote the entire block id system, removing numerical ids and instead using namespaced identifiers. This will allow mods to coexist rather than try to claim the same block ids.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#134

Post by 59nadir »

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…

> This remains a massive unsolved problem in the gaming industry.

No. Very much no. There is absolutely no shortage of servers for almost any game. Getting hosting, either private or public, is extremely easy and comparatively cheap for most games. Even alpha level releases get dedicated servers set up on most hosting services.

If you mean the "massive unsolved problem" is that servers cost money I don't know what you're thinking.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#135

Post by drdeca »

belorn wrote: post #76
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?

A court held that when a defendant purchased old copies of National Geographic magazine, tore out articles, and bound them together for sale with articles relating to a common subject matter, it had infringed on the owner’s exclusive right to prepare derivative works. Nat’l Geographic Soc’y v. Classified Geographic, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 655 (D. Mass. 1939). Even if you do not do any copying, you can still infringe under…

I would have thought that right of first sale should guarantee the right to do that. I guess not?

Re: Literally worse than EA

#136

Post by drdeca »

pjc50 wrote: post #30
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.

Not just fun.

Well, not just fun for certain definitions of fun.

Not all good quality games are great examples of what some would call "fun".

Loneliness is an interesting flash game/ interactive experience, (and while I don't think anyone would pay for it, it is very simple), I do think it is good and interesting. I'm having a hard time thinking of a game that is for sale that doesn't fit the term fun as much as might be expected, I think that looking for "fun" as the core determination of success is likely insufficient, even if one also adds advertising.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#137

Post by TeMPOraL »

qbrass wrote: post #132
x0x0 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 legall…

Pools don't come with fences. In your own analogy, your sister would be the one who bought the dangerous device and left her kid unsupervised with it.

Device that is not dangerous by itself and wasn't dangerous at all until recently - the danger is created by people who want to monetize kids. There's malicious intent there.

A better analogy would be a kid getting mugged on it's way to school. Should we blame parents and parents only for leaving the kid unsupervised? Should we let the robber go because "it's parents responsibility to protect their child from danger"?

Re: Literally worse than EA

#138

Post by amaranth »

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…

Back in 2012 there was actually talk of them doing an app store like model to host mods/plugins when they got the API done. However, they were doing it for the opposite reason: to ensure no one was making money from the mods. The idea was without doing the crap you have to do now the only place to get mods would be from their "store" but they wouldn't charge any money. I don't know if that was ever a serious idea or if they're still going to do it but that should show how long they've been trying to avoid a microtransaction/DLC model.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#139

Post by amaranth »

asiekierka wrote: post #9

What about functionality added by mods which are not directly made for Minecraft? Spout used that loophole (where Spout was a voxel mod API and SpoutCraft was a Minecraft implementation of it) to allow selling mods.

Since Spout never really existed as a working Minecraft server and SpoutCraft was a vanilla client mod I'll assume you mean they were doing selling while being vanilla mods. In that case, the most likely reason they got away with it isn't because it was a loophole but because it was so under the radar Mojang didn't notice or care.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#140

Post by delucain »

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.

See, deep down, this is what bothers me about it. They haven't even added a decent questing system but modders have, and Notch gets the cash while articles like this prevent anyone from really making any money at it.
Post reply on HN