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

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: Literally worse than EA

#41

Post by baldfat »

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…

Modding API - (Community worked) There was work done since Alpha to implement this called "Plugin API." It had a github page and was eventually abandoned.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#42

Post by nl »

Lrigikithumer wrote: post #34
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…

What does a mod API have to do with the monetisation of servers? Not saying you're incorrect but it doesn't really seem relevant to the story posted.

Oh, it's mostly just a rant!

But I think Mojang's focus on keeping things cheap (whether it be with the problems monetisation servers - especially now with competition from Minecraft Realms - or the lack of an official way to download and install mods) shows a slight misalignment of priorities.

They should be trying to make playing Minecraft as enjoyable as possible, not as cheap as possible.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#43

Post by grrowl »

Lrigikithumer wrote: post #34
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…

What does a mod API have to do with the monetisation of servers? Not saying you're incorrect but it doesn't really seem relevant to the story posted.

I think the common theme is Minecraft's ecosystem. Mojang addresses a problem (EULA-breaking monetization within the ecosystem) by changing the rules to address the problem. What they should do is circumvent the immediate problem by redefining the ecosystem itself.

Furnishing developers with a stable, predictable API redefines the ecosystem, and creating an "app store" for mods (et cetera...) could finance it, with ongoing revenue. With Mojang's current attitude I see it being more of a "google play", especially given the ease that mods could be repackaged. Still, better than having kids pull executable code off forums.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#44

Post by throwaway_yy2Di »

avz wrote: post #40
throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ed…

I think the recent Oracle vs Google case is relevant here as it involves the question of whether APIs are copyrightable. The case is about a subset of Java APIs included in Android. Note that the Android implementation exposed by those APIs is new and did not involve copying code from Java standard libraries (modulo rangeCheck()). The district court ruled that so long as implementation is different you are free to pr…

One difference is that mods are meant to be linked against the proprietary implementation. In the discussion of GPL linking, this is really murky:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Lin...

But I don't think either of those are really similar. Android is emulating the Java API, without Oracle code being involved. Programs that link against GPL libraries are intended to make runtime calls to copyrighted code. And game mods modify the copyrighted program's runtime behavior, having the program make calls to the modding code (in place of its own). I can't think of an analogue of the last situation.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#45

Post by nl »

touristtam wrote: post #36
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…

Try the resident-rise mod pack (or the yogcast one, based on it) on ATLauncher ( official website for the launcher: http://www.atlauncher.com/ )

Yeah, ATLauncher is about the best thing around, since it lets you roll back to a working state.

But really this could work so much better if Mojang implemented it.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#46

Post by nl »

grrowl wrote: post #43
Lrigikithumer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a mod API have to do with the monetisation of servers? Not saying you're incorrect but it doesn't really seem relevant to the story posted.

I think the common theme is Minecraft's ecosystem. Mojang addresses a problem (EULA-breaking monetization within the ecosystem) by changing the rules to address the problem. What they should do is circumvent the immediate problem by redefining the ecosystem itself. Furnishing developers with a stable, predictable API redefines the ecosystem, and creating an "app store" for mods (et cetera...) could finance it, with o…

This. You said it better than I could.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#47

Post by jiggy2011 »

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…

Back in the early 2000s there were companies who offered server for quake3 / Counterstrike but these were usually rented to clans who wanted a private low latency server for practise or competition to play against other clans.

In these cases it was pretty common for clan members to divide out costs amongst themselves and basically every serious clan had it's own private server.

I wonder if the non competitive nature of minecraft makes this more difficult because there is no advantage to be gained by paying for a server beyond being able to control the rules.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#48

Post by nl »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #28
tptacek wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ed…

Minecraft doesn't have an official API, so modding involves decompiling and shipping recompiled Mojang-owned code. I'm pretty sure a restriction on that would hold up in most jurisdictions.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#49

Post by jiggy2011 »

grrowl wrote: post #43
Lrigikithumer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a mod API have to do with the monetisation of servers? Not saying you're incorrect but it doesn't really seem relevant to the story posted.

I think the common theme is Minecraft's ecosystem. Mojang addresses a problem (EULA-breaking monetization within the ecosystem) by changing the rules to address the problem. What they should do is circumvent the immediate problem by redefining the ecosystem itself. Furnishing developers with a stable, predictable API redefines the ecosystem, and creating an "app store" for mods (et cetera...) could finance it, with o…

I don't see how an app store model would necessarily help people monetise running servers.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#50

Post by VLM »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #49
grrowl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the common theme is Minecraft's ecosystem. Mojang addresses a problem (EULA-breaking monetization within the ecosystem) by changing the rules to address the problem. What they should do is circumvent the immediate problem by redefining the ecosystem itself. Furnishing developers with a stable, predictable API redefines the ecosystem, and creating an "app store" for mods (et cetera...) could finance it, with o…

I don't see how an app store model would necessarily help people monetise running servers.

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 require a mod to log into your server called jiggy-2014 for the entire year of 2014 and sell it in the in app store for "annual fee". Maybe drop the price by 1 / 12 every month thru the year. Guess the mod name you'll require in 2015, yes your mod will be called jiggy-2015 and be priced at your annual fee.

The mod might even provide something useful to the players. Maybe. This will probably kill/damage the ecosystem, maybe you'll never get to play railcraft, TE, and buildcraft on the same server ever again. That would suck. It is possible "real mods" won't be balkanized and only "subscription mods" will be balkanized.

Post reply on HN