I think you should've simply put all of your ideas under the topic of "MC2." That would've been perfectly acceptable, especially since you make the effort to keep everything relevant to that main idea. It would make it far easier to make judgement calls about the suggestion if we could see the whole thing and how everything interrelated. As it is, I have no clue how anything you put down is "breaking the conventions of Minecraft." It just sort of seems like "Minecraft, except how I want it."
Customization... The way you've gone about it is an incredibly easy way to divide the fanbase and increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions (www.youtube . com/watch?v=wdDuoqGswaY). Either that, or create dozens of insignificant updates that don't do anything important, and still increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions. To keep all of these packages working together, while also patching bugs (some of which would be directly caused by putting different combinations of packages together), sorting through balance (the player can decide some of this, but Mojang will have to do some work here if they want updates to have any cohesiveness), ensuring that the community can stay happy with any possible result... With so many pieces, and many more to be added, it's going to become an infinitely complex problem. That is, if it's more than just a new cosmetic feature that does nothing every package. Even then, there will still need to be constant crosschecking to make sure it works right for everyone.
I think you should've simply put all of your ideas under the topic of "MC2." That would've been perfectly acceptable, especially since you make the effort to keep everything relevant to that main idea. It would make it far easier to make judgement calls about the suggestion if we could see the whole thing and how everything interrelated. As it is, I have no clue how anything you put down is "breaking the conventions of Minecraft." It just sort of seems like "Minecraft, except how I want it."
It would take quite a while to write the entire thing at once, and only the most devoted of critics could be expected to critique a 20-page document (and can you imagine the confusion that would ensue trying to respond to everything at once?). This suggestion series, if completed, is going to be the largest suggestion ever made on this forum. It needs to be separated for readability and to reduce confusion, and it's better safe than sorry when it comes to wishlists. Those guidelines are more of a purposefully vague introduction to the whole series and aren't really a part of this suggestion.
Customization... The way you've gone about it is an incredibly easy way to divide the fanbase and increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions (www.youtube . com/watch?v=wdDuoqGswaY). Either that, or create dozens of insignificant updates that don't do anything important, and still increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions. To keep all of these packages working together, while also patching bugs (some of which would be directly caused by putting different combinations of packages together), sorting through balance (the player can decide some of this, but Mojang will have to do some work here if they want updates to have any cohesiveness), ensuring that the community can stay happy with any possible result... With so many pieces, and many more to be added, it's going to become an infinitely complex problem. That is, if it's more than just a new cosmetic feature that does nothing every package. Even then, there will still need to be constant crosschecking to make sure it works right for everyone.
Compatibility shouldn't be as huge of an issue as I think you're making it out to be, especially with well-planned-out object-oriented programming. I'm sure there will be a lot of bugs and some crashes with this system, but remember that they have a huge player base who will be testing all kinds of ridiculous combinations. Besides, updates would only be applied to the most recent pack: they wouldn't release 2.1.3 after 2.2.0 had been released. If there are any bugs in older versions, they'll have to live with it or get a community-made bugfix patch. Mojang would also only be officially obligated to expect you have all packs active, but could release patches to packs if there are large issues caused by not having a particular patch active
I see the development being done by making the pack first with only the base pack active, and then adding additional compatibility for a version with all other packs. This way, they'd only have two versions in their workload and should cause updates to be approached in a manner that should prevent major incompatibilities.
Mods make this even more problematic.
Like currently, mods are the modder's and the individual user's problem, not Mojang's.
There's a major point here. Minecraft needs a sequel. This game isn't going to continue selling forever, and the easiest way to monetize a complete rewrite is to sell it as a sequel.
There are inherent risks in that; but not nearly as unwieldy as rewriting the game without a revenue source and focus break from the established media.
Here's what I mean:
Minecraft's sales are decreasing. I'm not an accountant, and even if I were, I'm not THEIR accountant. This is based on the fact that any saturated media loses popularity with time.
Minecraft has a TON of competition within the same genre. This includes games like Rust, Roblox, Terraria, or other similar games following a survival or crafting theme. When in the face of competition, the best course of action is to innovate.
Let's say Mojang did a major rewrite of Minecraft. Let's say it bombed, now there is a major rollback and the idea is scrapped or reinvisioned in a way that's far more palatable for the current end-users.
A sequel does these things:
It can reinvigorate sales (if marketed correctly and reviewed properly). This means that Mojang has more cashflow available to rewrite the engine.
Minecraft is capable of innovating into its sequel (or offshoot Minecraft) and given enough emphasis on positive core design, can hold its own against competitors and give a compelling reason to bring people back to the franchise.
Finally, if the sequel bombs, it won't directly hurt the original game. The sequel may end up with enough revenue to legitimize seperate teams for Minecraft and it's sequel allowing parallel support across both titles
Yes... and without mods, minecraft would have been nothing. The most part of the minecraft's popularity and triumph belong to its mods and not to the game itself.
In fact, the most of players has used mods or even prefer use mods instead of play vanilla (at least on single player).
If minecraft 2 punishes hard the modders making the modification almost impossible or reducing future mods to small mods badly made and simple, I doubt that many people buy it.
And more yet when you can modify the old game to add it cubic chunks or advanced brewing (and since Each great complex mod [thaumcraft, aoa, buildcraft, etc] is equal to a expansion pack).
If modders can not create complex mods in minecraft 2 or even if you must to download and even pay for few official expansion packs, the game hasn't future.
It should exist a minimal respect level to mods by mojang.
I highly doubt people will stop buying Minecraft 2 if it was unmoddable, considering all the unmoddable versions of the game far surpass the PC version in terms of sales, and only a fraction of PC players use mods.
Anyway, this makes mods easier to develop. They'll be a one click install (especially with Steam) and won't become automatically incompatible with updates. The only issues are that the mod might require some vanilla packs to be active to be used, but I don't see that as a problem if it comes from a third party.
If you're going to rewrite the entire game, then you might as well add some major new features. In addition, as far as coding is concerned, a full rewrite counts as a major release and would allow the rewrite to be called 2.0.0 even with no new features.
Well yeah, I can't imagine a second game not having at least one new thing...
...
Read that sentence again. Carefully. I think you missed the sarcasm there.
Yeah uh, sarcasm or not. You worded it like a new modding thing was just a walk in the park.
They'll update the first game until the second comes out, and maybe a couple of small updates afterwards. However, I said they'd hire a whole additional team to make this, so it's not exactly doubling the workload. And, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if people asked for a Minecraft 3, and if Minecraft 2 would be successful, I wouldn't mind that, provided several years had passed after its release.
People seem to ask for sequels to almost everything, and don't understand that even though a game was good, doesn't mean that success will seamlessly spill over to the next game. The type of game Minecraft is, I just can't see it working. Making an entirely new game over some weird subjective reasons.
Besides, not everyone who wants a new game is a "crybaby." I like the current game, but it is old. Not even major updates can keep me playing for a large length of time. A good sequel, however, would draw me back in, as well as a large amount of other people. And, let's say they did make a Minecraft 2. Without knowing anything about the game, would you be interested? If yes, does this mean you dislike the current game? The people complaining about 1.9 combat and hunger are in a different crowd; they're looking backward, not forward, but regardless, their opinion is no less valid than yours.
Something being old is also not a good reason for that. If something gets old to you, it's also because you played something for a long time and not always the length that the game has been out.
They put work into Skyrim, didn't they? That's all I'm comparing. I could also bring up the Mona Lisa, the Statue of Liberty, or anything else that is famous that took a lot of work to make. When you put time and effort into something, it shows. That's all I was saying, and it doesn't matter if the games are different if the particular aspect I'm comparing is similar.
There are galaxy-sized amounts of reasoning to make an Elder Scrolls sequel over a Minecraft one... So yes, Skyrim took work but had much better reasons for said work existing.
So, you're comparing the bad decision making with Left 4 Dead 2, rather than the game itself? Sounds a lot like how I was comparing the work required to make Skyrim, rather than that game itself.
To be honest, I can knock the Left 4 Dead games as well for what they are. They're both good, but the first one had mass potential to be updated rather than a new game being spat out. The amount of bugs in the first game was insane, only for most of them to be carried over to the second game anyway.
Anyway, all your critiquing in this thread have had nothing to do with the suggestion and only with the sheer fact that I'm suggesting Minecraft 2. I'm half-convinced you didn't even read the actual suggestion and just condemned it instantly based on the title. Look at some of the other big critics in this thread, they don't fully agree with me, but they haven't even brought up in depth their opinion on whether there should be a Minecraft 2 or not. That has little to do with the actual suggestion.
I've read your thread, and I can't see how the points require a sequel. I agree with the better engine thing, but that's something every game should have. I mean, you obviously want the game to run well on almost any platform. But again, that doesn't need a game #2 to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Yeah uh, sarcasm or not. You worded it like a new modding thing was just a walk in the park.
No, I worded it as if I was joking that it was a walk in the park, but I obviously knew it didn't.
People seem to ask for sequels to almost everything, and don't understand that even though a game was good, doesn't mean that success will seamlessly spill over to the next game. The type of game Minecraft is, I just can't see it working. Making an entirely new game over some weird subjective reasons.
You want more objective reasons? Yoshi actually made a pretty excellent post about why Minecraft could use a sequel a couple of posts above yours; I suggest you check it out.
Anyway, yes, there's no guarantee that a sequel would be good, but you can literally apply that logic to any endeavor ever made. Just because you can't be sure it will be successful, doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Besides, Minecraft has a pretty big advantage in being a highly recognized brand, and even if it's just a meh game, a sequel will still automatically garner a large amount of sales because of its familiarity (look at Story Mode, for example, largely considered mediocre but selling quite a bit, and it's not even remotely like Minecraft but just borrows its brand name). If a large amount of people are asking for something, that's a pretty good indication that it will sell.
Just because you can't see it working doesn't mean it can't.
Something being old is also not a good reason for that. If something gets old to you, it's also because you played something for a long time and not always the length that the game has been out.
Being old is a great reason to make a sequel. A dated game isn't going to be effectively sold to a new generation of players, so you introduce them to it with a sequel. Besides, Minecraft has been out for eight years. If that isn't stale, I don't know what is.
There are galaxy-sized amounts of reasoning to make an Elder Scrolls sequel over a Minecraft one... So yes, Skyrim took work but had much better reasons for said work existing.
Look, I'm not comparing the two games. I'm comparing a particular aspect, that Skyrim had a lot of work put into it, and it turned out to be a great game because of it. Therefore, if Minecraft 2 has a lot of work put into it, then it will have the potential to be a great game. I didn't even mention a Skyrim sequel.
To be honest, I can knock the Left 4 Dead games as well for what they are. They're both good, but the first one had mass potential to be updated rather than a new game being spat out. The amount of bugs in the first game was insane, only for most of them to be carried over to the second game anyway.
I really wouldn't know, as I couldn't care less about the zombie survival genre. In my experience, most of these games are made to be cash grabs due to the popularity of the genre, and I'm not surprised that bugs got carried over since they likely cared more about making a quick buck than the community.
I've read your thread, and I can't see how the points require a sequel. I agree with the better engine thing, but that's something every game should have. I mean, you obviously want the game to run well on almost any platform. But again, that doesn't need a game #2 to happen.
"The better engine thing." Do you have any idea how generic that response sounds? The way I suggested making the engine better does not work for every game and has come across a lot of scrutiny. I'm even less convinced you've read the thread now. I went into far more detail than just the "engine being better." How about the whole concept of the engine being modular (which, by the way, would require the entire game to be re-written anyway if it were just added to the current game)?
The fact that you have to put "it's not that bad" in your sig for this idea should tell you that the idea doesn't have that many good legs to stand on...
Uh what is it that I'm supporting? Just the new engine? The other things you brought up or not something that need a sequel to exist. A game being old is also much not of a reason either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
The fact that you have to put "it's not that bad" in your sig for this idea should tell you that the idea doesn't have that many good legs to stand on...
I'm being sarcastic. I'm not going say my suggestion is great, since that would make me sound like a self-righteous jerk; I was just making a reference to the fact that some people think that being a generally disliked suggestion somehow makes it automatically bad. I provided some "legs" for it in my introductory paragraphs, and Yoshi provided some more here.
Uh what is it that I'm supporting? Just the new engine? The other things you brought up or not something that need a sequel to exist. A game being old is also much not of a reason either.
The guidelines aren't specific as I don't need to give all my ideas away at once (and doing so would cause this thread to be considered a wishlist). As for the engine itself, I suggested a completely different way of handling updates than what is currently done, which would require the entire current game to be rewritten if it were implemented, so it would better fit in a sequel.
A game being old is a very good reason to make a sequel. The older the game is, the less it's going to sell, and the modern generation doesn't tend to care for dated games. It's not a good reason on its own, but fortunately there are several other reasons to support it, especially if the only counter-argument presented is that the features could be just implemented into the current game.
Anyway, I'm not going to go through this again. Offer whatever feedback you have on the actual suggestion, but feedback on whether or not we need a Minecraft 2 for this series should wait until you have the whole picture.
10 days late to the party doesn't count as necroposting, right? didn't think so
as for the suggestion itself, I do like the concept, however, it feels like a bad idea to segregate all the different aspects of a game. perhaps the game could recognize what packages are installed and edit/add new config options for the other packages, so say I had the alchemy package and nothing more, all potions that could be made with it could be made in a vanilla package, but then if they came out with a metallurgy package the alchemy package could gain some new configs, for example, if I wanted to make an extremely simple potion, say a fertile potion for increasing crop growth and a withering potion for combat, with just the alchemy package they would both be made in an iron cauldron, but with the metallurgy package the fertile one would be made in a low tier copper cauldron while the wither potion would take a high tier steel, tungsten, or chrome cauldron
TL;DR the various aspects of the game should fold in on each other
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anyone know how to change my user name?
"And just when you thought you where the sexiest one here, i show up" -Fernando
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
Somewhere
Join Date:
12/13/2016
Posts:
162
Location:
Right here
Minecraft:
CyberneticSquid
Member Details
The engine sounds like a good idea, and it would be a lot like how Pocket/Win 10/Bedrock Edition works with add-ons, but I'm not sure Mojang would go for all of these, such as the hiring a new team.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm a Whovian squid who likes drawing.
I'm also quite nerdy with an interest in game developing and the concept of a fourth spatial dimension.
10 days late to the party doesn't count as necroposting, right? didn't think so
Not as long as the thread has been active in the last 30 days, and necroposting isn't against the rules as long as you have something of consequence to add to the discussion.
as for the suggestion itself, I do like the concept, however, it feels like a bad idea to segregate all the different aspects of a game. perhaps the game could recognize what packages are installed and edit/add new config options for the other packages, so say I had the alchemy package and nothing more, all potions that could be made with it could be made in a vanilla package, but then if they came out with a metallurgy package the alchemy package could gain some new configs, for example, if I wanted to make an extremely simple potion, say a fertile potion for increasing crop growth and a withering potion for combat, with just the alchemy package they would both be made in an iron cauldron, but with the metallurgy package the fertile one would be made in a low tier copper cauldron while the wither potion would take a high tier steel, tungsten, or chrome cauldron
Well, that's kind of how the system would work. Installing a newer package that contains edits to classes in another package would overwrite those classes, so alchemy would automatically be changed if you installed the metallurgy pack. You couldn't change how much the metallurgy pack affects the alchemy pack without installing a mod that does it for you.
Note that not all the individual features of the game would be segregated this way. The base game would include all the core features, including alchemy; I just used it as an example.
The engine sounds like a good idea, and it would be a lot like how Pocket/Win 10/Bedrock Edition works with add-ons, but I'm not sure Mojang would go for all of these, such as the hiring a new team.
Frankly, I doubt it would happen too, but it's what I think would be the best way of making the game.
I really need to get to writing part 2 of this suggestion. Stupid Steam Summer Sale making new games take up my free time.
This is a decent idea. I do feel that making a version of the game that's more mature (e.g. having blood) would be a great way for older players who absolutely despise the current game due to the negative impact many of the kids
As an older person myself (I'm in my 30s), I disagree here. Blood and violence at my point are just kind of "there" in a gameplay standpoint. They don't consciously or unconsciously motivate my actual stance toward my ability to enjoy a game. "mature" is usually a catch-all for people seeking the title instead of those that are actually capable of holding down a job, paying rent/mortgage, and keeping food on the table for their spouse, children, and pets.
I feel an age rating of 12 or 15 on this new game would be a good way to make sure it has a better community than the current game.
I'm going to ask you to elaborate on your view here. If it's an opinion, that's fine, but I'd like to see some supporting facts and figures that helped you reach this POV.
But anyway, it has been confirmed that Minecraft 2 will never be made by Mojang and they will continue to update the current game.
Really? Can I get a link to the source?
I also believe from the huge success of the original Minecraft (122 million sales on all platforms worldwide so far) that it will cost >£50 million to get development permission for a Minecraft 2. Partial support.
Not sure how you arrived at that figure. Mojang is the developer, it literally costs them $0.00 to ask themselves if it's okay to make a sequel. It also costs $0.00 to approach Micro$oft and say "hey can we make more money for you?"
I would daresay that it would cost a LOT of money to develop the title; but this is where we go into a weaselly area of "making a business case" which relies on a lot of factors that I'm not privy to (including the potential net profit of the new title.)
As far as major features, there would be only one new one: the ability to customize your Minecraft 2 experience using packages. A package is basically a resource pack, but instead of just overwriting textures, a package overwrites and adds in new code. There would be the basic "Minecraft 2.0.0" package, and all updates would be added as a separate package. For example, let's the basic package didn't initially have alchemy in it. They could release another package, "2.1.0-Alchemy Update," which you could then apply to the game from the launcher. This means that the base package is never modified (except for maybe bug patches). However, this also means that every package is largely independent and wouldn't require any other package to be enabled to be utilized (they could require another package, for example if a mod is dependant on a particular API, but the vanilla packages wouldn't require another package to be enabled for the most part). So, let's say you didn't like the features of 2.1., but you wanted to play with the new features of 2.2. You could enable the packages you want, and keep the ones you dislike disabled. What if 2.2 added an item that had an alchemical use, but you had 2.1 disabled? The item would still be available, but because you don't have any ability to do alchemy, the item won't be able to perform its alchemical purposes. Mods would also be released as packages, and could just be installed by putting them in the packages folder, and would likely always be compatible with the base game and wouldn't be broken by updates. The only major problems I could see with this is that major overhauls would have to be avoided due to problems with balancing if you played with a later update with the overhaul disabled. However, this increases customizability, and I say one should be able to play Minecraft however you want. For an example of a game that has this kind of system, look at Bethesda game Skyrim.
All platforms of the game would be written in the same language, probably C++. This would allow for cross-platform play across all versions (where the platform owners allow), and all versions could easily be updated at the same time. The engine would likely run on DirectX 11, which would allow for better graphics and better performance. This would, unfortunately, increase the system requirements a bit, but most modern computers should be able to run it.
Minecraft 2 would be developed by a whole new team hired by Mojang to work on the game (Mojang YZ?) while the original team continues to work on the original game and provides guidance. Thus, we would still get updates to the prequel during the time (likely three or four years) it takes the sequel to develop. As for after release, I assume the original Minecraft would get one more update, and then only get bug fixes. The game would be released on all major platforms simultaneously (Xbox One, PS4, Switch, Mobile, Steam, and Windows App Store).
So, I'm only going to comment on this, as this is where I mostly know my stuff, and I feel the stuff I want to say hasn't been covered 100%.
In general, this is exactly what the Bedrock codebase is. Microsoft are designing the Bedrock version of the game to function using distinct packages, which are called resource packs, and they contain everything for the game, including code, even for the vanilla content. Mods under Bedrock are distributed as resource packs. So, for everyone saying that designing the game like this is hard, just saying, it's already happening.
"The engine would likely run on DirectX 11, which would allow for better graphics and better performance. This would, unfortunately, increase the system requirements a bit, but most modern computers should be able to run it."
The thing you have to keep in mind, is DirectX is an exclusive Windows library. It cannot operate outside of a Windows environment. So if you value cross-platform capabilities, you'll have to include OpenGL/Vulkan somewhere in there. This is also what's happening to Bedrock. The Windows 10 Edition uses Direct3D, where all other editions use OpenGL. The problem with this is the rendering code is platform-specific, though I've been told that the rendering team is thinking of ways to alleviate this.
For a "Minecraft 2.0" engine, I would personally like to see it use a modern version of OpenGL, such that it maintains compatibility on multiple platforms aside from Windows, and it allows the developers (and, by extension, us shader devs :p) the ability to use more modern rendering features, that we just cannot use now with Java, since it's stuck with OpenGL 2.0.
You should also consider the implementing of colored lights: an RGB lighting system; and the implementing of not-lagging hexadecs colour mechanics for specific blocks (that would to do possible the addition of until 16.777.216 colored blocks for each colorable block of the game); as well as a more complex and extended brewing mechanic and potion result diversity; and the addition of non-euclidean rendering portals (that would to do portals more realistic, more aesthetic and direct; basically, you would see your destination landscape through the nether portal; and give the possibility of have non-euclidean structures and mazes at the end dimension).
Depending on the specifics of the renderer, non-Euclidean rendering might not be practical. Outside of raytracers, actual non-Euclidean rendering is pretty much impossible to pull of with traditional rendering techniques that all games use today. Games using non-Euclidean rendering cheat by re-rendering the world to a separate render target / camera, but, if this "Minecraft 2.0" uses a deferred renderer (which I gather it would, to allow cheap lighting in the world), that won't be feasible since the entire process of rendering the world becomes very expensive, and would pretty much halve FPS to do it a second time, let alone n times.
Coloured lighting is more than possible, with an engine rewrite, full RGB colour values might be possible, again depending on the specifics of the engine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Author of the Clarity, Serenity, Sapphire & Halcyon shader packs for Minecraft: Java Edition.
This is a decent idea. I do feel that making a version of the game that's more mature (e.g. having blood) would be a great way for older players who absolutely despise the current game due to the negative impact many of the kids that play the game have had on the community to play this game that they once used to love without experiencing the current game's community. I feel an age rating of 12 or 15 on this new game would be a good way to make sure it has a better community than the current game.
I said a more hardcore audience. That's not the same as a more "mature" one. The same kids that have "ruined" Minecraft are the same ones who are attracted to fake "maturity." Let's say Bethesda went and released The Elder Scrolls VI: Akavir, but due to a bug, didn't end up implementing blood or gore. Do you think the game wouldn't sell well? Most people buy a game because it's good, and don't really care too much about that stuff as it's really just a novelty.
But anyway, it has been confirmed that Minecraft 2 will never be made by Mojang and they will continue to update the current game. I also believe from the huge success of the original Minecraft (122 million sales on all platforms worldwide so far) that it will cost >£50 million to get development permission for a Minecraft 2. Partial support.
Mojang has said many things in the past that they have gone back on because of community feedback. As for cost, well, you have Yoshi's post.
The suggestion is somewhat interesting I guess but I can't help think it's also kind of outdated at the same time. Because the way I perceive the current developments (1.12 and the shared details about 1.13) this has already been set in motion. Right now you need to add separate files in order to customize advancements, loot labels and functions, but rumor has it that in 1.13 this will be handled by packs.
So, then there's no reason not to handle the game this way then. However, I think this just pertains to mods; core updates are unaffected by this and you still need to have all previous updates implemented into the most recent one.
Now I know that these 3 aspects are only a fraction of what makes up Minecraft, but if you then add resource packs into the mixture then I think you're coming awfully close to the idea of a game engine.
There are quite a few things you can't do with this system; for example, change cave generation. You need to be able to overwrite code to do that.
To be honest I've considered Minecraft to be just as much of a gaming platform as it is an actual game for quite a while already. So I personally don't really see how a 2.0 would add something useful. Also: isn't the PE version and Win10 version already a bit of a 2.0?
Think of 2.0 as it's own game and not just some update. The other platforms are considered ports.
So, I'm only going to comment on this, as this is where I mostly know my stuff, and I feel the stuff I want to say hasn't been covered 100%.
In general, this is exactly what the Bedrock codebase is. Microsoft are designing the Bedrock version of the game to function using distinct packages, which are called resource packs, and they contain everything for the game, including code, even for the vanilla content. Mods under Bedrock are distributed as resource packs. So, for everyone saying that designing the game like this is hard, just saying, it's already happening.
Well, if that's the case, good for my suggestion?
"The engine would likely run on DirectX 11, which would allow for better graphics and better performance. This would, unfortunately, increase the system requirements a bit, but most modern computers should be able to run it."
The thing you have to keep in mind, is DirectX is an exclusive Windows library. It cannot operate outside of a Windows environment. So if you value cross-platform capabilities, you'll have to include OpenGL/Vulkan somewhere in there. This is also what's happening to Bedrock. The Windows 10 Edition uses Direct3D, where all other editions use OpenGL. The problem with this is the rendering code is platform-specific, though I've been told that the rendering team is thinking of ways to alleviate this.
Literally every game I own on Steam requires DirectX to run, and they're popular games, so I don't think that's a big issue. There might be some kind of Mac port, but worst case scenario, Mac users have to use Wine or something like that.
Quote from jdc997>>
Literally every game I own on Steam requires DirectX to run, and they're popular games, so I don't think that's a big issue. There might be some kind of Mac port, but worst case scenario, Mac users have to use Wine or something like that.
And how many of those games have Mac/Linux ports available? For each game you find that has a Mac/Linux port, they'll always use OpenGL/Vulkan. Because DirectX isn't officially supported on non-Windows operating systems. Wine is a possibility, but looking at a couple sites, you don't get full access to DirectX through Wine, only a limited version of Direct3D (the graphics side of DirectX).
The best-case scenario would, as I said, be to just use OpenGL/Vulkan. Modern OpenGL versions are practically the same as DirectX in terms of feature sets, and beat it in terms of performance. And that's not even touching Vulkan, which as a low-overhead API, stomps DirectX 12 and maintains compatibility with all sorts of devices, including iOS and Android devices.
If not just use OpenGL/Vulkan, implement a middle-layer between the game and the rendering backend so that the backend can be freely swapped out for another variant when necessary. Triple-A engines like Unity and Unreal use a system like this, where your rendering "code" is translated to HLSL, which is then translated to GLSL, and the engine can swap between a D3D and OGL pipeline at will.
And how many of those games have Mac/Linux ports available? For each game you find that has a Mac/Linux port, they'll always use OpenGL/Vulkan. Because DirectX isn't officially supported on non-Windows operating systems. Wine is a possibility, but looking at a couple sites, you don't get full access to DirectX through Wine, only a limited version of Direct3D (the graphics side of DirectX).
All of them? I prefer the power of DirectX, but if OpenGL or Vulkan is required for it to be multiplatform, so be it. However, as you touched on, other engines like Unity can translate the game to other rendering engines with the touch of a button, so the Windows platform can be made with DirectX and the others can be made with OpenGL or Vulkan (Vulkan was previously recommended in this thread, but I'm not sure what the upsides or downsides of that would be).
As in mature I meant the version of the game would be less suitable to younger audiences.
And how does that make the game better? Like I said, the whiny kids who have "ruined" Minecraft's image are not going to be deterred by a higher rating; they're the same kids ruining online shooters.
There are a lot of Minecraft players between the ages of 7 and 12. If you have a look at the videos below, you'll know what I mean by Minecraft's community is bad. The reason I've posted some as links is so I don't break the swearing rule. Warning: extreme cringe up ahead.
The other one I wanted to show you are now unavailable, but I'll tell you what happened in it.
A kid tells anyone who hates Minecraft to kill themselves. It was as cringe as it sounds. Luckily you can still view it in a video by Buzz titled "5 cringiest moments in Minecraft history".
Yes, because we know we should care about the criticisms of some kids. They're just a vocal minority that can be easily ignored.
I haven't seen the official confirmation, but ibxtoycat told us it was confirmed about 2 years ago to be many years away, if ever.
Who? Is he affiliated with Mojang in some way? His word is as good as mine, and besides, Mojang can easily change their minds.
Its the second best-selling video game of all time.
Oh. The link didn't work as I hoped. I'll try to fix it.
fixed
You said it would cost them ~$64,000,000* to get permission to make the game. That would be the licensing fees for another unaffiliated company to purchase the rights to make the game. Mojang, however, does not have to pay licensing for their own game. They'll have to pay development fees, and licenses if they use a third-party engine/assets, but that's normal cost.
*Even if that was what it would take, that's about the cost of two million copies of Minecraft, which at the rate the game is selling, wouldn't take more than a few months. PC sales alone would cover it in nine and a half months.
This is starting to get off topic, please steer the discussion back to the idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
As in mature I meant the version of the game would be less suitable to younger audiences.
And how would segmenting out and avoiding an entire demographic by literally not selling toward them be more beneficial than attempting to sell to as many people as possible? This part doesn't make sense. I fail to see how intentionally cutting out an already provably-lucrative market can improve another already stigmatized market. You'll have to sell me here, because I ain't picking up what you're throwing down.
There are a lot of Minecraft players between the ages of 7 and 12.
AND between 12 and 15... AND between 15 and 18... AND between 18~21. This is a non-point and can lead into a very dangerous "post hoc ergo propter hoc."
*snip* you'll know what I mean by Minecraft's community is bad.
Any community is toilets if you base their quality off of the worst offending vocal minority. This is a non-point.
haven't seen the official confirmation, but ibxtoycat told us it was confirmed about 2 years ago to be many years away, if ever.
*snip*
There's a lot of non-news there. Basically they discussed and it's not on the table, not that it won't ever be.
Its the second best-selling video game of all time.
Which has...... what?... to do with my argument? How does the popularity of a title owned by a company granting it's own license incur a cost to that company?
There's a lot of points that can be made; but things seem to be more red herrings and logical fallacies that are, frankly, frustrating to follow and seem to be feeding more into confirmation bias and bare assertions.
Wait... If you have it in form of 'packages' that the player uses to customize the experience, what about multiplayer compatibility? Wouldn't they have to have the same specific packages enabled to play with each other, instead of just using a set version?
I think you should've simply put all of your ideas under the topic of "MC2." That would've been perfectly acceptable, especially since you make the effort to keep everything relevant to that main idea. It would make it far easier to make judgement calls about the suggestion if we could see the whole thing and how everything interrelated. As it is, I have no clue how anything you put down is "breaking the conventions of Minecraft." It just sort of seems like "Minecraft, except how I want it."
Customization... The way you've gone about it is an incredibly easy way to divide the fanbase and increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions (www.youtube . com/watch?v=wdDuoqGswaY). Either that, or create dozens of insignificant updates that don't do anything important, and still increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions. To keep all of these packages working together, while also patching bugs (some of which would be directly caused by putting different combinations of packages together), sorting through balance (the player can decide some of this, but Mojang will have to do some work here if they want updates to have any cohesiveness), ensuring that the community can stay happy with any possible result... With so many pieces, and many more to be added, it's going to become an infinitely complex problem. That is, if it's more than just a new cosmetic feature that does nothing every package. Even then, there will still need to be constant crosschecking to make sure it works right for everyone.
Mods make this even more problematic.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
It would take quite a while to write the entire thing at once, and only the most devoted of critics could be expected to critique a 20-page document (and can you imagine the confusion that would ensue trying to respond to everything at once?). This suggestion series, if completed, is going to be the largest suggestion ever made on this forum. It needs to be separated for readability and to reduce confusion, and it's better safe than sorry when it comes to wishlists. Those guidelines are more of a purposefully vague introduction to the whole series and aren't really a part of this suggestion.
Compatibility shouldn't be as huge of an issue as I think you're making it out to be, especially with well-planned-out object-oriented programming. I'm sure there will be a lot of bugs and some crashes with this system, but remember that they have a huge player base who will be testing all kinds of ridiculous combinations. Besides, updates would only be applied to the most recent pack: they wouldn't release 2.1.3 after 2.2.0 had been released. If there are any bugs in older versions, they'll have to live with it or get a community-made bugfix patch. Mojang would also only be officially obligated to expect you have all packs active, but could release patches to packs if there are large issues caused by not having a particular patch active
I see the development being done by making the pack first with only the base pack active, and then adding additional compatibility for a version with all other packs. This way, they'd only have two versions in their workload and should cause updates to be approached in a manner that should prevent major incompatibilities.
Like currently, mods are the modder's and the individual user's problem, not Mojang's.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
There's a major point here. Minecraft needs a sequel. This game isn't going to continue selling forever, and the easiest way to monetize a complete rewrite is to sell it as a sequel.
There are inherent risks in that; but not nearly as unwieldy as rewriting the game without a revenue source and focus break from the established media.
Here's what I mean:
Minecraft's sales are decreasing. I'm not an accountant, and even if I were, I'm not THEIR accountant. This is based on the fact that any saturated media loses popularity with time.
Minecraft has a TON of competition within the same genre. This includes games like Rust, Roblox, Terraria, or other similar games following a survival or crafting theme. When in the face of competition, the best course of action is to innovate.
Let's say Mojang did a major rewrite of Minecraft. Let's say it bombed, now there is a major rollback and the idea is scrapped or reinvisioned in a way that's far more palatable for the current end-users.
A sequel does these things:
It can reinvigorate sales (if marketed correctly and reviewed properly). This means that Mojang has more cashflow available to rewrite the engine.
Minecraft is capable of innovating into its sequel (or offshoot Minecraft) and given enough emphasis on positive core design, can hold its own against competitors and give a compelling reason to bring people back to the franchise.
Finally, if the sequel bombs, it won't directly hurt the original game. The sequel may end up with enough revenue to legitimize seperate teams for Minecraft and it's sequel allowing parallel support across both titles
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
I highly doubt people will stop buying Minecraft 2 if it was unmoddable, considering all the unmoddable versions of the game far surpass the PC version in terms of sales, and only a fraction of PC players use mods.
Anyway, this makes mods easier to develop. They'll be a one click install (especially with Steam) and won't become automatically incompatible with updates. The only issues are that the mod might require some vanilla packs to be active to be used, but I don't see that as a problem if it comes from a third party.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
Well yeah, I can't imagine a second game not having at least one new thing...
Yeah uh, sarcasm or not. You worded it like a new modding thing was just a walk in the park.
People seem to ask for sequels to almost everything, and don't understand that even though a game was good, doesn't mean that success will seamlessly spill over to the next game. The type of game Minecraft is, I just can't see it working. Making an entirely new game over some weird subjective reasons.
Something being old is also not a good reason for that. If something gets old to you, it's also because you played something for a long time and not always the length that the game has been out.
There are galaxy-sized amounts of reasoning to make an Elder Scrolls sequel over a Minecraft one... So yes, Skyrim took work but had much better reasons for said work existing.
To be honest, I can knock the Left 4 Dead games as well for what they are. They're both good, but the first one had mass potential to be updated rather than a new game being spat out. The amount of bugs in the first game was insane, only for most of them to be carried over to the second game anyway.
I've read your thread, and I can't see how the points require a sequel. I agree with the better engine thing, but that's something every game should have. I mean, you obviously want the game to run well on almost any platform. But again, that doesn't need a game #2 to happen.
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Unofficial Suggestions Guide (2.0) - by Theriasis
Unofficial Critics Guide - by yoshi9048
No, I worded it as if I was joking that it was a walk in the park, but I obviously knew it didn't.
You want more objective reasons? Yoshi actually made a pretty excellent post about why Minecraft could use a sequel a couple of posts above yours; I suggest you check it out.
Anyway, yes, there's no guarantee that a sequel would be good, but you can literally apply that logic to any endeavor ever made. Just because you can't be sure it will be successful, doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Besides, Minecraft has a pretty big advantage in being a highly recognized brand, and even if it's just a meh game, a sequel will still automatically garner a large amount of sales because of its familiarity (look at Story Mode, for example, largely considered mediocre but selling quite a bit, and it's not even remotely like Minecraft but just borrows its brand name). If a large amount of people are asking for something, that's a pretty good indication that it will sell.
Just because you can't see it working doesn't mean it can't.
Being old is a great reason to make a sequel. A dated game isn't going to be effectively sold to a new generation of players, so you introduce them to it with a sequel. Besides, Minecraft has been out for eight years. If that isn't stale, I don't know what is.
Look, I'm not comparing the two games. I'm comparing a particular aspect, that Skyrim had a lot of work put into it, and it turned out to be a great game because of it. Therefore, if Minecraft 2 has a lot of work put into it, then it will have the potential to be a great game. I didn't even mention a Skyrim sequel.
I really wouldn't know, as I couldn't care less about the zombie survival genre. In my experience, most of these games are made to be cash grabs due to the popularity of the genre, and I'm not surprised that bugs got carried over since they likely cared more about making a quick buck than the community.
"The better engine thing." Do you have any idea how generic that response sounds? The way I suggested making the engine better does not work for every game and has come across a lot of scrutiny. I'm even less convinced you've read the thread now. I went into far more detail than just the "engine being better." How about the whole concept of the engine being modular (which, by the way, would require the entire game to be re-written anyway if it were just added to the current game)?
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
The fact that you have to put "it's not that bad" in your sig for this idea should tell you that the idea doesn't have that many good legs to stand on...
Uh what is it that I'm supporting? Just the new engine? The other things you brought up or not something that need a sequel to exist. A game being old is also much not of a reason either.
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
I'm being sarcastic. I'm not going say my suggestion is great, since that would make me sound like a self-righteous jerk; I was just making a reference to the fact that some people think that being a generally disliked suggestion somehow makes it automatically bad. I provided some "legs" for it in my introductory paragraphs, and Yoshi provided some more here.
The guidelines aren't specific as I don't need to give all my ideas away at once (and doing so would cause this thread to be considered a wishlist). As for the engine itself, I suggested a completely different way of handling updates than what is currently done, which would require the entire current game to be rewritten if it were implemented, so it would better fit in a sequel.
A game being old is a very good reason to make a sequel. The older the game is, the less it's going to sell, and the modern generation doesn't tend to care for dated games. It's not a good reason on its own, but fortunately there are several other reasons to support it, especially if the only counter-argument presented is that the features could be just implemented into the current game.
Anyway, I'm not going to go through this again. Offer whatever feedback you have on the actual suggestion, but feedback on whether or not we need a Minecraft 2 for this series should wait until you have the whole picture.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
10 days late to the party doesn't count as necroposting, right? didn't think so
as for the suggestion itself, I do like the concept, however, it feels like a bad idea to segregate all the different aspects of a game. perhaps the game could recognize what packages are installed and edit/add new config options for the other packages, so say I had the alchemy package and nothing more, all potions that could be made with it could be made in a vanilla package, but then if they came out with a metallurgy package the alchemy package could gain some new configs, for example, if I wanted to make an extremely simple potion, say a fertile potion for increasing crop growth and a withering potion for combat, with just the alchemy package they would both be made in an iron cauldron, but with the metallurgy package the fertile one would be made in a low tier copper cauldron while the wither potion would take a high tier steel, tungsten, or chrome cauldron
TL;DR the various aspects of the game should fold in on each other
Anyone know how to change my user name?
"And just when you thought you where the sexiest one here, i show up" -Fernando
check out my suggestion for Yggdrasil, the great world tree
FOR THE HOLY LOVE OF ARCEUS AND HELIX COMBINED PALADINS IS NOT AN OVERWATCH CLONE. tf2's the true king anyways
-Let's make some noise
The engine sounds like a good idea, and it would be a lot like how Pocket/Win 10/Bedrock Edition works with add-ons, but I'm not sure Mojang would go for all of these, such as the hiring a new team.
I'm a Whovian squid who likes drawing.
I'm also quite nerdy with an interest in game developing and the concept of a fourth spatial dimension.
All hail chickens.
Not as long as the thread has been active in the last 30 days, and necroposting isn't against the rules as long as you have something of consequence to add to the discussion.
Well, that's kind of how the system would work. Installing a newer package that contains edits to classes in another package would overwrite those classes, so alchemy would automatically be changed if you installed the metallurgy pack. You couldn't change how much the metallurgy pack affects the alchemy pack without installing a mod that does it for you.
Note that not all the individual features of the game would be segregated this way. The base game would include all the core features, including alchemy; I just used it as an example.
Frankly, I doubt it would happen too, but it's what I think would be the best way of making the game.
I really need to get to writing part 2 of this suggestion. Stupid Steam Summer Sale making new games take up my free time.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
As an older person myself (I'm in my 30s), I disagree here. Blood and violence at my point are just kind of "there" in a gameplay standpoint. They don't consciously or unconsciously motivate my actual stance toward my ability to enjoy a game. "mature" is usually a catch-all for people seeking the title instead of those that are actually capable of holding down a job, paying rent/mortgage, and keeping food on the table for their spouse, children, and pets.
I'm going to ask you to elaborate on your view here. If it's an opinion, that's fine, but I'd like to see some supporting facts and figures that helped you reach this POV.
Really? Can I get a link to the source?
Not sure how you arrived at that figure. Mojang is the developer, it literally costs them $0.00 to ask themselves if it's okay to make a sequel. It also costs $0.00 to approach Micro$oft and say "hey can we make more money for you?"
I would daresay that it would cost a LOT of money to develop the title; but this is where we go into a weaselly area of "making a business case" which relies on a lot of factors that I'm not privy to (including the potential net profit of the new title.)
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
So, I'm only going to comment on this, as this is where I mostly know my stuff, and I feel the stuff I want to say hasn't been covered 100%.
In general, this is exactly what the Bedrock codebase is. Microsoft are designing the Bedrock version of the game to function using distinct packages, which are called resource packs, and they contain everything for the game, including code, even for the vanilla content. Mods under Bedrock are distributed as resource packs. So, for everyone saying that designing the game like this is hard, just saying, it's already happening.
"The engine would likely run on DirectX 11, which would allow for better graphics and better performance. This would, unfortunately, increase the system requirements a bit, but most modern computers should be able to run it."
The thing you have to keep in mind, is DirectX is an exclusive Windows library. It cannot operate outside of a Windows environment. So if you value cross-platform capabilities, you'll have to include OpenGL/Vulkan somewhere in there. This is also what's happening to Bedrock. The Windows 10 Edition uses Direct3D, where all other editions use OpenGL. The problem with this is the rendering code is platform-specific, though I've been told that the rendering team is thinking of ways to alleviate this.
For a "Minecraft 2.0" engine, I would personally like to see it use a modern version of OpenGL, such that it maintains compatibility on multiple platforms aside from Windows, and it allows the developers (and, by extension, us shader devs :p) the ability to use more modern rendering features, that we just cannot use now with Java, since it's stuck with OpenGL 2.0.
Depending on the specifics of the renderer, non-Euclidean rendering might not be practical. Outside of raytracers, actual non-Euclidean rendering is pretty much impossible to pull of with traditional rendering techniques that all games use today. Games using non-Euclidean rendering cheat by re-rendering the world to a separate render target / camera, but, if this "Minecraft 2.0" uses a deferred renderer (which I gather it would, to allow cheap lighting in the world), that won't be feasible since the entire process of rendering the world becomes very expensive, and would pretty much halve FPS to do it a second time, let alone n times.
Coloured lighting is more than possible, with an engine rewrite, full RGB colour values might be possible, again depending on the specifics of the engine.
Author of the Clarity, Serenity, Sapphire & Halcyon shader packs for Minecraft: Java Edition.
My Github page.
The entire Minecraft shader development community now has its own Discord server! Feel free to join and chat with all the developers!
I said a more hardcore audience. That's not the same as a more "mature" one. The same kids that have "ruined" Minecraft are the same ones who are attracted to fake "maturity." Let's say Bethesda went and released The Elder Scrolls VI: Akavir, but due to a bug, didn't end up implementing blood or gore. Do you think the game wouldn't sell well? Most people buy a game because it's good, and don't really care too much about that stuff as it's really just a novelty.
Mojang has said many things in the past that they have gone back on because of community feedback. As for cost, well, you have Yoshi's post.
So, then there's no reason not to handle the game this way then. However, I think this just pertains to mods; core updates are unaffected by this and you still need to have all previous updates implemented into the most recent one.
There are quite a few things you can't do with this system; for example, change cave generation. You need to be able to overwrite code to do that.
Think of 2.0 as it's own game and not just some update. The other platforms are considered ports.
Well, if that's the case, good for my suggestion?
Literally every game I own on Steam requires DirectX to run, and they're popular games, so I don't think that's a big issue. There might be some kind of Mac port, but worst case scenario, Mac users have to use Wine or something like that.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
And how many of those games have Mac/Linux ports available? For each game you find that has a Mac/Linux port, they'll always use OpenGL/Vulkan. Because DirectX isn't officially supported on non-Windows operating systems. Wine is a possibility, but looking at a couple sites, you don't get full access to DirectX through Wine, only a limited version of Direct3D (the graphics side of DirectX).
The best-case scenario would, as I said, be to just use OpenGL/Vulkan. Modern OpenGL versions are practically the same as DirectX in terms of feature sets, and beat it in terms of performance. And that's not even touching Vulkan, which as a low-overhead API, stomps DirectX 12 and maintains compatibility with all sorts of devices, including iOS and Android devices.
If not just use OpenGL/Vulkan, implement a middle-layer between the game and the rendering backend so that the backend can be freely swapped out for another variant when necessary. Triple-A engines like Unity and Unreal use a system like this, where your rendering "code" is translated to HLSL, which is then translated to GLSL, and the engine can swap between a D3D and OGL pipeline at will.
Author of the Clarity, Serenity, Sapphire & Halcyon shader packs for Minecraft: Java Edition.
My Github page.
The entire Minecraft shader development community now has its own Discord server! Feel free to join and chat with all the developers!
All of them? I prefer the power of DirectX, but if OpenGL or Vulkan is required for it to be multiplatform, so be it. However, as you touched on, other engines like Unity can translate the game to other rendering engines with the touch of a button, so the Windows platform can be made with DirectX and the others can be made with OpenGL or Vulkan (Vulkan was previously recommended in this thread, but I'm not sure what the upsides or downsides of that would be).
And how does that make the game better? Like I said, the whiny kids who have "ruined" Minecraft's image are not going to be deterred by a higher rating; they're the same kids ruining online shooters.
Yes, because we know we should care about the criticisms of some kids. They're just a vocal minority that can be easily ignored.
Who? Is he affiliated with Mojang in some way? His word is as good as mine, and besides, Mojang can easily change their minds.
You said it would cost them ~$64,000,000* to get permission to make the game. That would be the licensing fees for another unaffiliated company to purchase the rights to make the game. Mojang, however, does not have to pay licensing for their own game. They'll have to pay development fees, and licenses if they use a third-party engine/assets, but that's normal cost.
*Even if that was what it would take, that's about the cost of two million copies of Minecraft, which at the rate the game is selling, wouldn't take more than a few months. PC sales alone would cover it in nine and a half months.
Want to see my suggestions? Here they are!
I am also known as GameWyrm or GameWyrm97. You can also find me at snapshotmc.com
This is starting to get off topic, please steer the discussion back to the idea.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
what if everything was taken out of the packages folder
I love cows and commandblocks.
And how would segmenting out and avoiding an entire demographic by literally not selling toward them be more beneficial than attempting to sell to as many people as possible? This part doesn't make sense. I fail to see how intentionally cutting out an already provably-lucrative market can improve another already stigmatized market. You'll have to sell me here, because I ain't picking up what you're throwing down.
AND between 12 and 15... AND between 15 and 18... AND between 18~21. This is a non-point and can lead into a very dangerous "post hoc ergo propter hoc."
Any community is toilets if you base their quality off of the worst offending vocal minority. This is a non-point.
There's a lot of non-news there. Basically they discussed and it's not on the table, not that it won't ever be.
Which has...... what?... to do with my argument? How does the popularity of a title owned by a company granting it's own license incur a cost to that company?
There's a lot of points that can be made; but things seem to be more red herrings and logical fallacies that are, frankly, frustrating to follow and seem to be feeding more into confirmation bias and bare assertions.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Wait... If you have it in form of 'packages' that the player uses to customize the experience, what about multiplayer compatibility? Wouldn't they have to have the same specific packages enabled to play with each other, instead of just using a set version?
#FOXESFORMINECRAFT Foxes for Minecraft forum.