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

71–80 of 141 posts

Re: Literally worse than EA

#71

Post by owsla »

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…

>The top servers are paying tens of thousands a month in hosting.

Are you just speculating? This seems extremely high. I've hosted a couple Minecraft servers and even with a mild constant population (~30) it wasn't even breaking 100/mo.

>DDOS protection is pretty much essential to any server over a certain size, which increases costs significantly.

I've had many dedicated servers in my day, and this has never been the case. Not sure where you're getting this data from.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#72

Post by unethical_ban »

owsla wrote: post #71
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…

>The top servers are paying tens of thousands a month in hosting. Are you just speculating? This seems extremely high. I've hosted a couple Minecraft servers and even with a mild constant population (~30) it wasn't even breaking 100/mo. >DDOS protection is pretty much essential to any server over a certain size, which increases costs significantly. I've had many dedicated servers in my day, and this has never been th…

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 don't doubt it can pose an issue quickly.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#73

Post by unethical_ban »

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…

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.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#74

Post by owsla »

unethical_ban wrote: post #72
owsla wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The top servers are paying tens of thousands a month in hosting. Are you just speculating? This seems extremely high. I've hosted a couple Minecraft servers and even with a mild constant population (~30) it wasn't even breaking 100/mo. >DDOS protection is pretty much essential to any server over a certain size, which increases costs significantly. I've had many dedicated servers in my day, and this has never been th…

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.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#75

Post by [deleted] »

unethical_ban wrote: post #72
owsla wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The top servers are paying tens of thousands a month in hosting. Are you just speculating? This seems extremely high. I've hosted a couple Minecraft servers and even with a mild constant population (~30) it wasn't even breaking 100/mo. >DDOS protection is pretty much essential to any server over a certain size, which increases costs significantly. I've had many dedicated servers in my day, and this has never been th…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Literally worse than EA

#76

Post by belorn »

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 copyright law. The theory is that the copyright owner has exclusively power to decide who should compile, adapt or arrange a copyrighted work.

I recommend further reading at: http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...

Re: Literally worse than EA

#77

Post by Avenger42 »

epsylon wrote: post #68
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…

* 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.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#79

Post by zacinbusiness »

unethical_ban wrote: post #73
arrrg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#80

Post by potatolicious »

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.

Or you do it the same way everyone else does it when the rules change: everyone who already has Banned Thing is grandfathered in but it's no longer transferrable or acquirable.

Or you do it the Valve way: give everyone the Thing and make existing Things the Extra Special Limited Edition Thing that's functionally identical but still confers bragging rights - this would still be within Mojang's rules.

Post reply on HN