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

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: Literally worse than EA

#81

Post by bradleyjg »

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?

Blizzard has won some cases like this. Here's one complaint: https://pdf.yt/d/exHXLZNbCvuVq3v0

The causes of action are: direct and secondary infringement of registered copyrights, trafficking in circumvention devices, breach of contract, and intentional interference with contractual relations.

A couple of those might not apply in a clean room implementation, but the others would.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#82

Post by Tyr42 »

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.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#83

Post by Alupis »

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…

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.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#84

Post by Siecje »

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…

If you don't want to pay for things you can play on a different server. You don't have to buy things but if it is worth it for you then you should have the option.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#85

Post by worklogin »

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.

Well, we'll just have to rely on our experience then. I haven't dealt with dedicated servers plans, but my impression of "DDoS" protection in that regard is that your traffic will get blackholed if it's bad enough.

Vendors like Cloudflare, Akamai and Prolexic sell plans where all your traffic is routed through their networks first, filtered based on various DDoS-detecting algorithms, then sent to you. $$$$

Re: Literally worse than EA

#86

Post by derefr »

Alupis wrote: post #83
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…

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.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#87

Post by techtalsky »

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.

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 for a reason and it's not just the profit motive.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#88

Post by nl »

arrrg wrote: post #70
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…

Huh? Again, this is the misconception that game developers can only ever do one thing at a time. True for one or two person developers, not true for Mojang. They can afford lawyers. Developers will have nothing to do with the implementation of this policy. They are working on the modding API, just as before. Also, this was triggered from the outside. Someone asked for clarification on the policy, Mojang looked over a…

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" and "it doesn't exist" are pretty close to the same thing. But hopefully my pessimism in this is misplaced and it ships.

I haven't heard anything about Mojang implementing an app store model. Unless I've missed something it seems to me you are talking past me, since that was basically the whole thrust of my comment.

I didn't say anything at all about their statement - my post was an offtopic rant about other problems in the Mincraft ecosystem. Specific to the statement, I think it sounds good but shows misguided priorities: keep it cheap rather than fix problems.

If you could point out specifically which parts of my post you believe are nonsense that might be useful.

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

Re: Literally worse than EA

#89

Post by Avenger42 »

potatolicious wrote: post #80
Avenger42 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

#1 is probably easier, but #2 is probably a better user experience. Either way, you're right in that deleting the item wouldn't be necessary.

Re: Literally worse than EA

#90

Post by nl »

elfcard wrote: post #63
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…

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. Instead, I'm advocating exactly the same model as we see in Android or iOS: the core system is free, and there is a simple way to get extra features onto it. Some of those maybe free, and some may not.

Secondly, the number of bytes doesn't determine the value of anything.

Thirdly, "It's dishonest, and we're the ones allowing it to happen" - who, specifically is the "we" you speak of here? I'm not doing anything to allow it to happen. (I'm not specifically doing anything to stop it, either: I'm simply not involved. I'm genuinely curious who you are talking about).

Post reply on HN