Mojang has the right to do it, but what they're doing is stupid. If they go through with this, a lot of the servers will go down. A large part of what makes Minecraft popular is the community, and thus the game will not sell nearly as well as it did before. As much as Mojang helps the server owners, the server owners help Mojang.
Can I give paying users priority access to my server? Yes, but you cannot restrict gameplay elements to specific users.
So this FAQ answer seems pretty ambiguous to me, does it mean that I can sell perks, so long as those same perks are avaliable to players in game?
So an example, say I want to sell /fly, however you can also get /fly in game if you achieve a certain rank. Does that make it okay because /fly is not restricted to donors (when I say donors I realize it isn't a donation, its just the common term), and everyone can get /fly at some point?
Please quote any comments, thanks!
Priority access would be the middle ground between free and pay to play server. The server is normally free but you can access the server anytime even if the server is full as a paying player. They can either kick a random free user to make room for the paying player or simply have reserve slots that only fills when a paying players joins a full server. I think this will be the most effective way to make money w/o paying power since server owners are encouraged to limit server slots hence reducing server expenses and encourages players to pay when the server is starting to fill up often and the result is the server owner have the money to add more server slot to accommodate the growing player number. I have seen this kind of access on platforms I used to play in such as Garena.
The EULA states that what ever the donor receives for donating, the free users must also have access to it so giving /fly to that donor would also mean giving /fly to everyone on the server regardless if they donated or not. Donate to skip grinding is also not allowed.
You are over dramatizing what pay to win is, even worse than mojang it. Even if it is not perfectly 100% balanced it makes the servers more competitive and fun. Where is the fun in playing a server where every has the same exact stuff?
That's where skill and luck comes in. You don't need p2w to have different stuff or have fun..... infact p2w can detract from the "fun"
The thing is, it's been going on too long. It is ingrained in most of the younger players, (even some of the older players) that in order to donate to help with server expenses, something is expected in return other than a simple "thank you".
If players like a server they play on, like the staff, they should donate (if able) without expecting something in return.
That would be in a perfect world, and is not the case though.
Well the reality of the EULA is going to smack their faces. (assuming the EULA succeeds)
In a perfect world, there would be no need to have a job.
Ok fine, getting there faster is still paying to win.. you can PLAY to progress and win or you can PAY to progress and win. its literally the same thing. whiter or not you can play and get the same thing is arbitrary.
Okay, I think we just fundamentally disagree on the definition of "pay-to-win." Pay-to-win in my mind means you literally cannot win without paying. Literally, if you want to win, you have to pay. Pay, in order to win. A good example of this was Wizards 101, where you had to pay real-world money to access any of the non-low-level areas of the game at all.
The servers I've mentioned don't fit my definition of pay-to-win, since you can win without paying.
Id say they are being quite generous to the people who want to stay honest. Letting us still make money at all is pretty freaking generous.
Read this: An Open Letter to Notch
if you haven't.
Within, the Managing Director of the Mineplex network discusses lots of the topics being discussed in this thread, including the payment options Notch and Mojang described. It should only take a couple minutes to read, and it covers my thoughts on most of these topics pretty well.
All minecraft servers, public and private, utilize Mojangs authentication and login servers. on some level or another you are using mojangs services. unless you decided to run offline mode with himachi or LAN. but that's not exactly ideal for a large server.
free to use within mojang's eula. if you don't agree to the eula, you have no right to use any of mojang's software even if you paid for it. that's how it works with pretty much every software that isn't abandonware.
even freeware has its own eula, though usually it's just a gnu license or similar.
Thanks for the clarification on this- I can be pretty bad with legal stuff.
Maybe we should just push the licence idea thing. I think it could solve things pretty nicely.
Priority access would be the middle ground between free and pay to play server. The server is normally free but you can access the server anytime even if the server is full as a paying player. They can either kick a random free user to make room for the paying player or simply have reserve slots that only fills when a paying players joins a full server. I think this will be the most effective way to make money w/o paying power since server owners are encouraged to limit server slots hence reducing server expenses and encourages players to pay when the server is starting to fill up often and the result is the server owner have the money to add more server slot to accommodate the growing player number. I have seen this kind of access on platforms I used to play in such as Garena.
The EULA states that what ever the donor receives for donating, the free users must also have access to it so giving /fly to that donor would also mean giving /fly to everyone on the server regardless if they donated or not. Donate to skip grinding is also not allowed.
You bring up a really good point about who can access a server and when. I doubt the Minecraft staff will take kindly to a model where, if the server is full, (or the resources are being strained) a paid user can kick off an unpaid user (randomly or otherwise). Your idea about having reserved slots is good, but unfortunately, I don't see anything like that in both the current EULA or the proposed changes to it.
If you donate and get rewarded for it, it's not donating, it's buying. That is, servers were selling stuff to players. And essentially that stuff was what you might find in a DLC pack for a modern game, which makes this situation similar to where you would make a DLC pack for a game someone else create, and then sell it. Fact: You don't simply see anyone doing that because it's not allowed. It's exactly the same here, no matter how you try to sugarcoat it. Maybe there's additional costs in the background but you know what? Your business idea sucks if you need to break an agreement (EULA) to operate. I don't care what you've done 'for the community' if you have to break the rules. Mods aren't a business, they're a hobby, and mods are essentially what's being paid for here. (The technical details are slightly different, I know, but in practice it's comparable to selling mods/DLC.)
My example: minigame servers
My argument:
The reason it's not very comparable to selling mods or DLC is the fact that most of the content on many of these servers has been available at no cost whatsoever. You could log onto one of these servers and play any of the minigames offered without having to "buy" the minigames themselves.
With kits in mind, you could say it's comparable to selling DLC packs for DLC packs that you got for free. You might more accurately compare it to selling DLC packs for free games third party developers made on a game engine, to support development for said free games.
Now, with Mojang's "paid entry" "solution" sure, you could maybe say that is like selling DLC packs for a game you didn't make, since you won't get any of the content if you don't pay. What an odd solution that is.
Okay, I think we just fundamentally disagree on the definition of "pay-to-win." Pay-to-win in my mind means you literally cannot win without paying. Literally, if you want to win, you have to pay. Pay, in order to win. A good example of this was Wizards 101, where you had to pay real-world money to access any of the non-low-level areas of the game at all.
The servers I've mentioned don't fit my definition of pay-to-win, since you can win without paying.
Read this: An Open Letter to Notch
if you haven't.
Within, the Managing Director of the Mineplex network discusses lots of the topics being discussed in this thread, including the payment options Notch and Mojang described. It should only take a couple minutes to read, and it covers my thoughts on most of these topics pretty well.
Thanks for the clarification on this- I can be pretty bad with legal stuff.
Maybe we should just push the licence idea thing. I think it could solve things pretty nicely.
I like to think about pay-to-win exactly like you do. I also think that there's a pay-for-fun (PFF lol) or pay for a different experience model. It's the impression I got after reading that great letter. It actually convinced me that the license would be changed to incorporate that model. However, if you read the chat that Erik was apart of (it's on pastebin somewhere) there's no doubt that the EULA will not be changed in any way, shape, or form.
Everyone's bad with legal stuff (that's why we hire lawyers right? :). Minecraft's EULA is one of the few that I've read (skimmed that make it easy to understand, as well as make it pretty arbitrary. I like to think that their lawyers are going crazy because that can't directly outline what you can and cannot do with the software, like other companies do.
I like to think about pay-to-win exactly like you do. I also think that there's a pay-for-fun (PFF lol) or pay for a different experience model. It's the impression I got after reading that great letter. It actually convinced me that the license would be changed to incorporate that model. However, if you read the chat that Erik was apart of (it's on pastebin somewhere) there's no doubt that the EULA will not be changed in any way, shape, or form.
Everyone's bad with legal stuff (that's why we hire lawyers right? . Minecrafts' EULA is one of the few that I've read (skimmed that make it easy to understand, as well as make it pretty arbitrary. I like to think that their lawyers are going crazy because that can't directly outline what you can and cannot do with the software, like other companies do.
The EULA is being changed, but in a way that helps server owners. The enforcement is the problem.
the issue is some people (like me) CANT donate ANY amount due to no credit cards, my parents hating paypal..they dont trust anything online..even if its 1 dollar
There are many easy ways to make a short amount of cash online if it's really low amounts. Heck? I'm sure you know a guy with a paypal. Just hand him a 5 dollar bill and you make a paypal of your own (don't need a ccard or anything) and he can transfer it to you.
(Didn't see this until now, so there are quite a few comments in between the original and my reply)
I may have a dollar to spare, sure.
I don't know about the significantly large portion of Minecraft users that are under 10 and probably don't even understand what a "monthly subscription fee" is, and wouldn't be sure how to ask their parents for a dollar every month.
I guess the "10%" can exclude the specific playerbase Mojang was looking to protect with these EULA changes, then. Wonderful.
Or perhaps Mojang will get emails now from parents of kids who stole their cards to pay for a $200-per-month subscription fee for the new type of scam server I could see spawning from the new EULA. The only difference with these new theoretical scam servers is that they'd be perfectly legal by Mojang's standards. You could argue that a server with a $200 subscription fee would never last, but then I could have argued (and many people did, actually) that servers that charge hundreds of dollars for access to things like diamonds would also fail.
This whole situation is so.. weird. :L
Yeah this does suck. :x
Time will tell, right? How many people will be able to shout "I TOLD YOU SO!" to the other side? :S
The EULA is being changed, but in a way that helps server owners. The enforcement is the problem.
Ah, you're right. I meant there won't be any changes to the proposed change.
But I don't see how the enforcement is a problem at all.
First you get a letter saying, "You are in direct violation of Minecraft's end user license agreement. Do something about it so that you adhere to the agreement".
Then, you get a letter from Minecraft's lawyers threatening a civil lawsuit based upon violating the license agreement you agreed to, prior to buying, downloading, and playing their game.
I get the impression that many people think that they can, "fly under the radar." Unless you work the backend or you studied how the client, a server, and the authentication mechanisms all work together, you don't really know for certain that you can get away with it.
What do you think?
About the EULA As some of you know, Mojang recently released a post about servers concerning how we make money to cover the costs of servers. They changed the EULA so that we can't sell some specific things with a server. Those changes might hurt the server community and might need to make sacrifices. Those rules have been written by people who do not understand how we operate our servers at the scale we are at. The top servers are the most affected by those changes, when in fact those changes were meant to be targeted at smaller servers abusing the Minecraft community for money.
The top biggest servers have been working together and to understand our stance you can read Sterling's letter here. One concerning issue that we have is that, in the past, we were told that our server was 100% fine and even invited to Minecon where we had a panel and talked about how to monetize your server to survive. Because we were led to think we were accepted, we built our lives around it; hired friends, left school and paid for the best hosting we could. If we were told that we couldn't do it, we would have adapted, but after 16 months of having this server, I would have appreciated a chat before doing those changes.
As I have mentioned in other topics, I do agree that our server has some "Pay to Win" aspects, just like League of Legend, where you pay to save time or play a different class that is not more powerful than others but rather offers a different gameplay. In fact, I was planning to make some classes/kits/perks changes to allow some non-vip to use them already.
The good news is we knew that day was coming, we were well prepared for it. I truly believe within my creativity to find ways for us to pay our bills, however, like the letter says, I feel like I will spend more time making cosmetics than actually making games... you know, cool stuff. Instead of making the next Mega Game, I might spend more time making cosmetics in hope for us to keep all our developers.
But you know what is depressing ? Herobrine adventure maps, The Walls, my server, giving them maps for Realms... everything original and doing my best to push the limit of Minecraft and they released this EULA without even talking to us. I feel a bit... used. I know their intention wasn't to hurt our work, but by attacking those servers pushing the limits, they are hurting the whole server community and targeting us to set an example, because we are bigger. Did I ask to get in the top 3 servers in the world ? No, in 16 months I didn't put a single ad other than my own accounts like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and PMC. I did not get involved in paying YouTubers to advertise or did vote websites. I didn't push to get there, the community wanted me to get there.
Anyway, if you buy something before August 1st 2014, you will not be affected at all, in fact... your account might even gain value over time, because you will keep your ranks, coins multiplier and everything that goes with it. However the bad news is that, we might need to rely on other monetization methods to keep paying our developers/servers and other expenses, therefore we might need to relocate our servers, downsize our paid staff and slow down our production if people are not generous enough.
-Hypixel
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Github ด้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้дด็็็็็้้้้้็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้
There are many easy ways to make a short amount of cash online if it's really low amounts. Heck? I'm sure you know a guy with a paypal. Just hand him a 5 dollar bill and you make a paypal of your own (don't need a ccard or anything) and he can transfer it to you.
Yeah this does suck. :x
Time will tell, right? How many people will be able to shout "I TOLD YOU SO!" to the other side? :S
The difference now is that Mojang and the Minecraft staff can say, those actions abide by those outlined by the EULA. Morally, it's wrong, but that's not how their agreement works.
[color=#141414][font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif][size=medium][background=rgb(252, 252, 255)]-Hypixel[/background][/size][/font][/color]
They aren't breaking the proposed changes to the EULA (they still run the risk of getting sued, I believe, as they're still breaking the current EULA). I'm guessing that they may have talked to a lawyer about this, which is why they released that statement.
You bring up a really good point about who can access a server and when. I doubt the Minecraft staff will take kindly to a model where, if the server is full, (or the resources are being strained) a paid user can kick off an unpaid user (randomly or otherwise). Your idea about having reserved slots is good, but unfortunately, I don't see anything like that in both the current EULA or the proposed changes to it.
We will have to ask to be sure but I think this is fine because kicking the player is similar to denying the player access to pay to play server and mojang is fine with that model. Free players still have access to everything as much as paying players do provided the server is not full. Think of priority access as a pay to play server but free players are allowed to play as long as paying players are not playing. It is up to the server owner how generous he is to the free players by adjusting the free player slots.
They seems to believe that their EULA can give them control over anything even remotely Minecraft-related...
That's just not the case and there is absolutely no way that this can be legally enforceable, anytime, anywhere.
Actually they sort of can.
Minecraft is Mojang's software and they can tell you how it can or can't be used and you are legally bound by that when you use it. Period. The EULA is a license, same as open source licenses like GPL. And you can end up in court for violating it should Mojang decide to press the matter. Even if a mod or plugin is completely unique code, when it is used within the game it becomes subject to the EULA.
If you own your hardware then you can do anything you like with that hardware (within the local laws of course) including choose to host a Minecraft server on it or not. If you rent a server/VPS you can also do as you like within the confines of the host's rules (and local laws). But once you step inside the game it's Mojang's territory and they can set the boundaries and rules there, like them or not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Spigot/CraftBukkit plugins: TallNether - Generate a 256-block high nether
No they can't, just because it's written in the EULA doesn't make it legal.
By clicking agree you are also acknowledging that Mojang may sew your mouth to the butthole of another minecraft user.
That doesn't work like that.
Actually they can do that. You are suppose to read the EULA when installing the game and you agreed to it by installing the game. It is your fault for skipping it because you are too lazy to read. That's like signing a legal document that says you can't do this and you end up doing it anyway because you signed the document without reading because TL;DR and now you have the nerve to complain. You will be laugh at in court.
Priority access would be the middle ground between free and pay to play server. The server is normally free but you can access the server anytime even if the server is full as a paying player. They can either kick a random free user to make room for the paying player or simply have reserve slots that only fills when a paying players joins a full server. I think this will be the most effective way to make money w/o paying power since server owners are encouraged to limit server slots hence reducing server expenses and encourages players to pay when the server is starting to fill up often and the result is the server owner have the money to add more server slot to accommodate the growing player number. I have seen this kind of access on platforms I used to play in such as Garena.
The EULA states that what ever the donor receives for donating, the free users must also have access to it so giving /fly to that donor would also mean giving /fly to everyone on the server regardless if they donated or not. Donate to skip grinding is also not allowed.
That's where skill and luck comes in. You don't need p2w to have different stuff or have fun..... infact p2w can detract from the "fun"
Well the reality of the EULA is going to smack their faces. (assuming the EULA succeeds)
In a perfect world, there would be no need to have a job.
Okay, I think we just fundamentally disagree on the definition of "pay-to-win." Pay-to-win in my mind means you literally cannot win without paying. Literally, if you want to win, you have to pay. Pay, in order to win. A good example of this was Wizards 101, where you had to pay real-world money to access any of the non-low-level areas of the game at all.
The servers I've mentioned don't fit my definition of pay-to-win, since you can win without paying.
Read this: An Open Letter to Notch
if you haven't.
Within, the Managing Director of the Mineplex network discusses lots of the topics being discussed in this thread, including the payment options Notch and Mojang described. It should only take a couple minutes to read, and it covers my thoughts on most of these topics pretty well.
Thanks for the clarification on this- I can be pretty bad with legal stuff.
Maybe we should just push the licence idea thing. I think it could solve things pretty nicely.
You bring up a really good point about who can access a server and when. I doubt the Minecraft staff will take kindly to a model where, if the server is full, (or the resources are being strained) a paid user can kick off an unpaid user (randomly or otherwise). Your idea about having reserved slots is good, but unfortunately, I don't see anything like that in both the current EULA or the proposed changes to it.
My example: minigame servers
My argument:
The reason it's not very comparable to selling mods or DLC is the fact that most of the content on many of these servers has been available at no cost whatsoever. You could log onto one of these servers and play any of the minigames offered without having to "buy" the minigames themselves.
With kits in mind, you could say it's comparable to selling DLC packs for DLC packs that you got for free. You might more accurately compare it to selling DLC packs for free games third party developers made on a game engine, to support development for said free games.
Now, with Mojang's "paid entry" "solution" sure, you could maybe say that is like selling DLC packs for a game you didn't make, since you won't get any of the content if you don't pay. What an odd solution that is.
I like to think about pay-to-win exactly like you do. I also think that there's a pay-for-fun (PFF lol) or pay for a different experience model. It's the impression I got after reading that great letter. It actually convinced me that the license would be changed to incorporate that model. However, if you read the chat that Erik was apart of (it's on pastebin somewhere) there's no doubt that the EULA will not be changed in any way, shape, or form.
Everyone's bad with legal stuff (that's why we hire lawyers right? :). Minecraft's EULA is one of the few that I've read (skimmed that make it easy to understand, as well as make it pretty arbitrary. I like to think that their lawyers are going crazy because that can't directly outline what you can and cannot do with the software, like other companies do.
Yeah this does suck. :x
Time will tell, right? How many people will be able to shout "I TOLD YOU SO!" to the other side? :S
Ah, you're right. I meant there won't be any changes to the proposed change.
But I don't see how the enforcement is a problem at all.
First you get a letter saying, "You are in direct violation of Minecraft's end user license agreement. Do something about it so that you adhere to the agreement".
Then, you get a letter from Minecraft's lawyers threatening a civil lawsuit based upon violating the license agreement you agreed to, prior to buying, downloading, and playing their game.
I get the impression that many people think that they can, "fly under the radar." Unless you work the backend or you studied how the client, a server, and the authentication mechanisms all work together, you don't really know for certain that you can get away with it.
What do you think?
-Hypixel
My Github ด้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้дด็็็็็้้้้้็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้็็็็็้้้้้
The difference now is that Mojang and the Minecraft staff can say, those actions abide by those outlined by the EULA. Morally, it's wrong, but that's not how their agreement works.
They aren't breaking the proposed changes to the EULA (they still run the risk of getting sued, I believe, as they're still breaking the current EULA). I'm guessing that they may have talked to a lawyer about this, which is why they released that statement.
We will have to ask to be sure but I think this is fine because kicking the player is similar to denying the player access to pay to play server and mojang is fine with that model. Free players still have access to everything as much as paying players do provided the server is not full. Think of priority access as a pay to play server but free players are allowed to play as long as paying players are not playing. It is up to the server owner how generous he is to the free players by adjusting the free player slots.
Actually they sort of can.
Minecraft is Mojang's software and they can tell you how it can or can't be used and you are legally bound by that when you use it. Period. The EULA is a license, same as open source licenses like GPL. And you can end up in court for violating it should Mojang decide to press the matter. Even if a mod or plugin is completely unique code, when it is used within the game it becomes subject to the EULA.
If you own your hardware then you can do anything you like with that hardware (within the local laws of course) including choose to host a Minecraft server on it or not. If you rent a server/VPS you can also do as you like within the confines of the host's rules (and local laws). But once you step inside the game it's Mojang's territory and they can set the boundaries and rules there, like them or not.
My Spigot/CraftBukkit plugins:
TallNether - Generate a 256-block high nether
FarLandsAgain - Restores the Far Lands
User: *BOOM* You're dead.
Cleverbot: I divide by zero and come back as an angel ninja.
http://goo.gl/IgUUb5
Actually they can do that. You are suppose to read the EULA when installing the game and you agreed to it by installing the game. It is your fault for skipping it because you are too lazy to read. That's like signing a legal document that says you can't do this and you end up doing it anyway because you signed the document without reading because TL;DR and now you have the nerve to complain. You will be laugh at in court.