People make maps. They make them for other people to play on. Usually they're fun and very impressive given current blocks and capabilities. This isn't going to be one of those posts where the OP rants about needing more blocks or bigger worlds. Sure it might seem that way at times but trust me...it not I'm happy with the current blocks and fine with waiting til we get the rest of the redstone update equivalent. I've found ways around not having mob spawners that works(to an extent).
With that being said, on to the suggestion.
The current Terms and Conditions of Xbox Live keep anyone from sharing their map. This means if you make an adventure map, the only time people can play on your map is when you're online(and have Gold). Which means if you don't have a subscription to Gold, amazing internet connectivity or a reliable/empty schedule, your map can never reach its true potential(or at least what you dreamt it to be).
Microsoft, which now owns Minecraft, allows map sharing on plenty of their other proprietary games(i.e. Halo) so why not Minecraft? Will it change now that they own it? Is it to make sure people pay for Gold? What's the reason? It just doesn't make sense.
I've heard plenty of excuses such as, "What if someone has inappropriate content on their map? That could scar a little kid!" And even, "What if someone makes a map that continually kills the people playing it. Then it's no fun."
Solution: report them, flag the map, there are plenty of ways to take care of that problem and allow map sharing.
Players can make their map, submit it to a list, other players can download said map and play on it by themselves or with friends. You could take it a step further by making categories to apply to your map such as Hunger Games, Parkour, Adventure, Survival, Community, etc.(think Halo)
"But Kaiju, people could reupload my map and take all the credit because they have more friends!"
Solution: Dont allow players to upload the maps they download. Just embed the GT of the player who uploads the map in its file so unless you're that player it wont allow it.
Put in a rating system and have a Popular Maps/Most Played page in the categories. It sounds simple enough to me. Time for feedback from you.
my thoughts are probably unorganized in the post so sorry if it makes no sense or takes multiple read throughs
I know even less about their terms and conditions. On the brightside for PS3 online is free. But I guess it should be stated that I meant it for all consoles. 360, Xbone, PS3, PS4 and WiiU. I'd suggest cross console but that'd mean people would get along which is bad for business.
Just look at
Post edited for content. User posted conspiracy theory that made sense and we can't have that. A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll knowtomorrow.
and then we could all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya around a pixelated fire. Know what I mean?
I know even less about their terms and conditions. On the brightside for PS3 online is free. But I guess it should be stated that I meant it for all consoles. 360, Xbone, PS3, PS4 and WiiU. I'd suggest cross console but that'd mean people would get along which is bad for business.
Just look at
Post edited for content. User posted conspiracy theory that made sense and we can't have that. A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll knowtomorrow.
and then we could all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya around a pixelated fire. Know what I mean?
Lol not totally to be honest.
But it is going to be weird.. and a stick in the face of PS players who hate Xbox/Microsoft now that Microsoft owns MC.
Douglas Merrill, "Innovation for Innovation's Sake" and "Opinions are Good but Data is Better".
The topic of the Microsoft buyout could go on forever. Politics. But yeah. 4J, Bill Gates, map sharing...get on it. It's Tuesday, I'm giving you til Friday to make or else I'll get over it. Warning you.
The problem is probably with "who is going to pay for the server required to store all these maps so that they're available for upload and download on the Xbox?" - particularly if you expect that people should be able to access them without a gold membership.
The Halo games cost more than Minecraft and I'm sure the file sizes for the maps are much smaller than Minecraft maps. I'm not saying that there aren't ways... but in the real world someone has to be willing to pay the bill for them. What I am saying this is likely part of the problem (more so than some of the others you've already discounted in your mind).
What you've expressed here is not really a suggestion... but a desire. I do agree with the desire to share maps and most people would love to get everything for free; but just skimming over the issues by saying there "are ways" without suggesting any is basically a cop out.
The question is then... how would you (as the suggestor) resolve such an issue? Personally, I would prefer the cost to be covered by the Gold membership fee (which would mean that you would need Gold (or equivalent) to upload or download maps or play them online) or their be a small fee for both upload and downloading maps (in which case you would need some sort of account with Xbox (or equivalent account) in order to process the charges. Paying a small fee to upload and download maps means that those using the system would be paying for it and only when they use the system. Those not using the system would not be paying anything for it. If, for instance, you instead increase the cost of the game, then it's the new joiners to the game who are paying for the system in its entirety and those who already bought the game and are using the system would be getting a free ride and their expense. If you just suggest that Microsoft eat the cost for everything... well, eventually the company goes out of business and everyone loses... game players, employees, shareholders, etc. On the internet... advertisers foot a large portion of the bill... but even with that, some Minecraft servers resorted to charging fees in order to keep their servers running... and that's where I'll leave this economics lesson off.
Very nice, very well presented and very to the point. I applaud you sir and wish I could organize my thoughts half as well as you.
You make a good point. Although I'm not so sure about the file size thing, I guess I did see it as Microsoft's problem to deal with. It does dig up a question of mine that I've been asking for years. I know you can pay hosting sites for your domain/server/thing but aside from the electric bill to run the modem that houses the server, why does anyone have to pay for a server if they can set it up and run it on their own? It sounds like more politics.
Servers require computer hardware to run... In fact, the definition of a "server" originally was the name for the physical computer hardware dedicated to hosting. The definition has expanded over the years to include more "soft" concepts.
At any rate, Xbox Live still requires a lot of physical servers hosting everything. These roomfuls of computers are owned and operated and maintained by Microsoft... and maintaining them, upgrading them, ect. represents a significant ongoing cost to Microsoft. For Live to operate Minecraft, the "offload" some of the server's duties to each individual Xbox... but each Xbox would never handle all the processing functions needed to act as a full server. Halo probably does get more space allocated to it on Microsoft's physical servers... but then, as I said, it's a more expensive game to start with and has been owned by Microsoft a lot longer than Minecraft has. In fact, Microsoft probably does quite own Minecraft yet... it usually takes some time for the legalities of such a purchase to get finalized.
If someone sets up a PC server at home, they would need to pay for the computer hardware, the connections, the power bill, etc. Renting space on a server owned and operated and maintained by someone else is cheaper only because the costs of maintaining the physical hardware are then recouped by its owner from the number of people they rent space on that server too. There are several services on the PC that rent server space. I believe Mojang rents server space to its PC clients; but I don't know whether or not they own the physical hardware or whether they themselves rent room for their operation from someone else.
Minecraft files are huge (25 MB on the Xbox is pretty average and they are much, much larger on the Xbox One and even larger on the PC). Conversely, I believe Halo maps run around 5 MB.
biggest I've made is 10ish MB and it had a ton of stuff. Halo 4 maps run about the same unless they're chocked full of crap but even then it's only a little higher which is impressive considering it looks like it'd run a lot higher.
That size probably means that you haven't explored both the nether and the end. Once I've explored the entire map and all dimensions, they average 20 to 25 MB pretty consistently (I'm guessing that the more redstone you have, the larger the file size, but otherwise it seems to be mostly based on the amount of explored terrain. It may also depend on how much stuff one has above Y256 - oops s/b Y128). Most of my newest worlds (very little built and very little area explored) are about 7 MB. My smallest world (totally new and unexplored ) is 4 MB.
For the Halo size, I got my number from websites that offer Halo maps for download and list the download size. Most seemed to be about 4.5 to 5 MB. I realize these are probably files for the PC, but I don't play Halo, so I don't have any files on my Xbox 360 to check for size.
PC Minecraft map file sizes seem to vary quite a bit. Some are listed as being 75 MB in size.
The wiki says a fully explored PC minecraft map is 5GB
Sounds excessive though
I would say that would be about right. As I said, my fully explored Xbox worlds run between 20 to 25 MB; and that's for 864 blocks x 864 blocks by 256 blocks (with mostly air above Y128). When the additional 128 layers were added to the height, the file compression was converted to the ANVIL format (you can look that up on the Wiki), which means that air-filled chunks don't take up the same sort of space in the file as other blocks. (That's why I say the file size may be varying a little depending on how many solid blocks one has above Y128.)
A PC world is not infinite, but I think I read somewhere that it's actually 20,000,000 blocks x 20,000,000 blocks. The save file size grows the more of that world that is explored. It's unlikely that anyone would ever actually explore it all, so most PC files probably don't run the 5 GB stated in the Wiki; but the number sounds very reasonable to me. As I said, when checking various Minecraft websites that offer downloaded maps. The downloads varied quite a bit with some I saw at 75 MB... which means that most of them don't even utilize a fraction of the "infinite" world available to them (and that people on the Xbox like to moan about not having).
It may not sound like a lot to save/store for a big company like Microsoft... but multiply that by the thousands of people who might want to upload even just one map and then again by the number that would tend to upload several of them... It doesn't take much imagination to see that it would add up to a significant amount of file storage space required. If it's Microsoft storing all those files... it's going to cost them a lot in the computer hardware needed to do the job.
I think it would be more practical to suggest something that would enable people to directly transfer "ownership" of the file... at least to different users on the same Xbox (i.e. within a family) or users on the same Xbox to "co-own" all the Minecraft worlds on that Xbox... and THEN if a more public fileshare system was set up... make it so that only Gold members can upload and download files and/or charge a small fee for each file upload and download to cover the costs of the physical servers required to store those files and operate the system. That way the users of the maps pay for the system that supports it... not every other game player who buys Minecraft or any other game from Microsoft that never uses those shared maps.
I think the 5 chunk borded around the map edge that you can see but not go into is still loaded and saved as part of the fully explored map... so I think this extends to the full 1024x1024x256 (64x64 chunks, under Anvil format) blocks in the Overworld that is included in the save file (even though only 54x54 chunks are open for exploration).
But I digress, I have cloud storage with my XBLA access, server space is already devoted to this file allocation, so additional hardware/server resources beyond this is not required for basic file sharing, there just needs to be a way to mark which files are open to be shared and which ones are private, and being able to make copies of this to other systems should be possible without an increase in operational (monthly/recurring/ongoing) cost, just the (one time development) cost associated with coding it so that it is possible to share using the existing cloud storage and the vehicle for map sharing.
I think the 5 chunk borded around the map edge that you can see but not go into is still loaded and saved as part of the fully explored map... so I think this extends to the full 1024x1024x256 (64x64 chunks, under Anvil format) blocks in the Overworld that is included in the save file (even though only 54x54 chunks are open for exploration).
But I digress, I have cloud storage with my XBLA access, server space is already devoted to this file allocation, so additional hardware/server resources beyond this is not required for basic file sharing, there just needs to be a way to mark which files are open to be shared and which ones are private, and being able to make copies of this to other systems should be possible without an increase in operational (monthly/recurring/ongoing) cost, just the (one time development) cost associated with coding it so that it is possible to share using the existing cloud storage and the vehicle for map sharing.
One still needs an active Live profile to access the cloud storage; that is, it's not an option with a local Xbox, non-Live profile (at least mine will not access the cloud). I'm not sure whether or not the silver (Live Free) accounts have access to the cloud. My son has access on our Xbox, but he has Gold. So, I don't think it would not really serve Kaiju's purpose (as I understand the suggestion). Also, I don't believe the cloud is currently set up such that other profiles can access your cloud storage directly to download from it (regardless of the specific game involved). Live would probably have to be changed to allow for that.
at 300,000,000 the game starts to crash and no blocks are real. thats why with 1.8 they added the boundary around there.
what about this. there are map sharing sites out there but that's illegal. what if they just made that legal?
Which brings us to this next point. The reason they don't just "make it legal" is that they don't want to compromise the security of the Xbox system by allowing "unauthorized (i.e. uncertified) third-party software into the system. As you know, he game and update and DLC goes through a Microsoft certification process (which costs the programmers of that game/update/DLC a fee to have done). The certification testing doesn't really test for bugs in the games, but it does test to make sure that the game/update etc. doesn't contain any programs that would enable hacking of the Live system and your account information, etc.
I think the 5 chunk borded around the map edge that you can see but not go into is still loaded and saved as part of the fully explored map... so I think this extends to the full 1024x1024x256 (64x64 chunks, under Anvil format) blocks in the Overworld that is included in the save file (even though only 54x54 chunks are open for exploration).
But I digress, I have cloud storage with my XBLA access, server space is already devoted to this file allocation, so additional hardware/server resources beyond this is not required for basic file sharing, there just needs to be a way to mark which files are open to be shared and which ones are private, and being able to make copies of this to other systems should be possible without an increase in operational (monthly/recurring/ongoing) cost, just the (one time development) cost associated with coding it so that it is possible to share using the existing cloud storage and the vehicle for map sharing.
One still needs an active Live profile to access the cloud storage; that is, it's not an option with a local Xbox, non-Live profile (at least mine will not access the cloud). I'm not sure whether or not the silver (Live Free) accounts have access to the cloud. My son has access on our Xbox, but he has Gold. So, I don't think it would not really serve Kaiju's purpose (as I understand the suggestion). Also, I don't believe the cloud is currently set up such that other profiles can access your cloud storage directly to download from it (regardless of the specific game involved). Live would probably have to be changed to allow for that.
at 300,000,000 the game starts to crash and no blocks are real. thats why with 1.8 they added the boundary around there.
what about this. there are map sharing sites out there but that's illegal. what if they just made that legal?
Which brings us to this next point. The reason they don't just "make it legal" is that they don't want to compromise the security of the Xbox system by allowing "unauthorized (i.e. uncertified) third-party software into the system. As you know, he game and update and DLC goes through a Microsoft certification process (which costs the programmers of that game/update/DLC a fee to have done). The certification testing doesn't really test for bugs in the games, but it does test to make sure that the game/update etc. doesn't contain any programs that would enable hacking of the Live system and your account information, etc. I believe that no mapmakers in Minecraft would be willing to pay the fee to have their maps go through certification testing (also, the testing schedule probably doesn't have the room in it for Microsoft testers to review all the maps that might become available).
At any rate, this thread is digressing from being any kind of suggestion... it's becoming more about critiquing Microsoft's policies and procedures... so, this will be the last post I make here.
As I said, I have no objection of map sharing... but the users alone (i.e. those who want to either upload or download the maps) should pay the costs of such a system - not the rest of us. There is no free lunch.
As you know, the game and update and DLC goes through a Microsoft certification process (which costs the programmers of that game/update/DLC a fee to have done). The certification testing doesn't really test for bugs in the games, but it does test to make sure that the game/update etc. doesn't contain any programs that would enable hacking of the Live system and your account information, etc. I believe that no mapmakers in Minecraft would be willing to pay the fee to have their maps go through certification testing (also, the testing schedule probably doesn't have the room in it for Microsoft testers to review all the maps that might become available).
Games, applications, and DLC are programming code. Saved Minecraft Map/Game files are Data Files. Data Files do not need to go through certification testing because they do not have any direct programmatic impact on the console at all.
It's like the difference between the Microsoft Office 13 Word Application and a MS Office 13 Word Document.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With that being said, on to the suggestion.
The current Terms and Conditions of Xbox Live keep anyone from sharing their map. This means if you make an adventure map, the only time people can play on your map is when you're online(and have Gold). Which means if you don't have a subscription to Gold, amazing internet connectivity or a reliable/empty schedule, your map can never reach its true potential(or at least what you dreamt it to be).
Microsoft, which now owns Minecraft, allows map sharing on plenty of their other proprietary games(i.e. Halo) so why not Minecraft? Will it change now that they own it? Is it to make sure people pay for Gold? What's the reason? It just doesn't make sense.
I've heard plenty of excuses such as, "What if someone has inappropriate content on their map? That could scar a little kid!" And even, "What if someone makes a map that continually kills the people playing it. Then it's no fun."
Solution: report them, flag the map, there are plenty of ways to take care of that problem and allow map sharing.
Players can make their map, submit it to a list, other players can download said map and play on it by themselves or with friends. You could take it a step further by making categories to apply to your map such as Hunger Games, Parkour, Adventure, Survival, Community, etc.(think Halo)
"But Kaiju, people could reupload my map and take all the credit because they have more friends!"
Solution: Dont allow players to upload the maps they download. Just embed the GT of the player who uploads the map in its file so unless you're that player it wont allow it.
Put in a rating system and have a Popular Maps/Most Played page in the categories. It sounds simple enough to me. Time for feedback from you.
WiiU. I'd suggest cross console but that'd mean people would get along which is bad for business.Just look at
Lol not totally to be honest.
But it is going to be weird.. and a stick in the face of PS players who hate Xbox/Microsoft now that Microsoft owns MC.
The topic of the Microsoft buyout could go on forever. Politics. But yeah. 4J, Bill Gates, map sharing...get on it. It's Tuesday, I'm giving you til Friday to make or else I'll get over it. Warning you.
What you've expressed here is not really a suggestion... but a desire. I do agree with the desire to share maps and most people would love to get everything for free; but just skimming over the issues by saying there "are ways" without suggesting any is basically a cop out.
The question is then... how would you (as the suggestor) resolve such an issue? Personally, I would prefer the cost to be covered by the Gold membership fee (which would mean that you would need Gold (or equivalent) to upload or download maps or play them online) or their be a small fee for both upload and downloading maps (in which case you would need some sort of account with Xbox (or equivalent account) in order to process the charges. Paying a small fee to upload and download maps means that those using the system would be paying for it and only when they use the system. Those not using the system would not be paying anything for it. If, for instance, you instead increase the cost of the game, then it's the new joiners to the game who are paying for the system in its entirety and those who already bought the game and are using the system would be getting a free ride and their expense. If you just suggest that Microsoft eat the cost for everything... well, eventually the company goes out of business and everyone loses... game players, employees, shareholders, etc. On the internet... advertisers foot a large portion of the bill... but even with that, some Minecraft servers resorted to charging fees in order to keep their servers running... and that's where I'll leave this economics lesson off.
You make a good point. Although I'm not so sure about the file size thing, I guess I did see it as Microsoft's problem to deal with. It does dig up a question of mine that I've been asking for years. I know you can pay hosting sites for your domain/server/thing but aside from the electric bill to run the modem that houses the server, why does anyone have to pay for a server if they can set it up and run it on their own? It sounds like more politics.
At any rate, Xbox Live still requires a lot of physical servers hosting everything. These roomfuls of computers are owned and operated and maintained by Microsoft... and maintaining them, upgrading them, ect. represents a significant ongoing cost to Microsoft. For Live to operate Minecraft, the "offload" some of the server's duties to each individual Xbox... but each Xbox would never handle all the processing functions needed to act as a full server. Halo probably does get more space allocated to it on Microsoft's physical servers... but then, as I said, it's a more expensive game to start with and has been owned by Microsoft a lot longer than Minecraft has. In fact, Microsoft probably does quite own Minecraft yet... it usually takes some time for the legalities of such a purchase to get finalized.
If someone sets up a PC server at home, they would need to pay for the computer hardware, the connections, the power bill, etc. Renting space on a server owned and operated and maintained by someone else is cheaper only because the costs of maintaining the physical hardware are then recouped by its owner from the number of people they rent space on that server too. There are several services on the PC that rent server space. I believe Mojang rents server space to its PC clients; but I don't know whether or not they own the physical hardware or whether they themselves rent room for their operation from someone else.
Minecraft files are huge (25 MB on the Xbox is pretty average and they are much, much larger on the Xbox One and even larger on the PC). Conversely, I believe Halo maps run around 5 MB.
but hey kids...The MOOORRREEE YOOOUUU KNOOOWWWW.
For the Halo size, I got my number from websites that offer Halo maps for download and list the download size. Most seemed to be about 4.5 to 5 MB. I realize these are probably files for the PC, but I don't play Halo, so I don't have any files on my Xbox 360 to check for size.
PC Minecraft map file sizes seem to vary quite a bit. Some are listed as being 75 MB in size.
Sounds excessive though
I would say that would be about right. As I said, my fully explored Xbox worlds run between 20 to 25 MB; and that's for 864 blocks x 864 blocks by 256 blocks (with mostly air above Y128). When the additional 128 layers were added to the height, the file compression was converted to the ANVIL format (you can look that up on the Wiki), which means that air-filled chunks don't take up the same sort of space in the file as other blocks. (That's why I say the file size may be varying a little depending on how many solid blocks one has above Y128.)
A PC world is not infinite, but I think I read somewhere that it's actually 20,000,000 blocks x 20,000,000 blocks. The save file size grows the more of that world that is explored. It's unlikely that anyone would ever actually explore it all, so most PC files probably don't run the 5 GB stated in the Wiki; but the number sounds very reasonable to me. As I said, when checking various Minecraft websites that offer downloaded maps. The downloads varied quite a bit with some I saw at 75 MB... which means that most of them don't even utilize a fraction of the "infinite" world available to them (and that people on the Xbox like to moan about not having).
It may not sound like a lot to save/store for a big company like Microsoft... but multiply that by the thousands of people who might want to upload even just one map and then again by the number that would tend to upload several of them... It doesn't take much imagination to see that it would add up to a significant amount of file storage space required. If it's Microsoft storing all those files... it's going to cost them a lot in the computer hardware needed to do the job.
I think it would be more practical to suggest something that would enable people to directly transfer "ownership" of the file... at least to different users on the same Xbox (i.e. within a family) or users on the same Xbox to "co-own" all the Minecraft worlds on that Xbox... and THEN if a more public fileshare system was set up... make it so that only Gold members can upload and download files and/or charge a small fee for each file upload and download to cover the costs of the physical servers required to store those files and operate the system. That way the users of the maps pay for the system that supports it... not every other game player who buys Minecraft or any other game from Microsoft that never uses those shared maps.
But I digress, I have cloud storage with my XBLA access, server space is already devoted to this file allocation, so additional hardware/server resources beyond this is not required for basic file sharing, there just needs to be a way to mark which files are open to be shared and which ones are private, and being able to make copies of this to other systems should be possible without an increase in operational (monthly/recurring/ongoing) cost, just the (one time development) cost associated with coding it so that it is possible to share using the existing cloud storage and the vehicle for map sharing.
what about this. there are map sharing sites out there but that's illegal. what if they just made that legal?
One still needs an active Live profile to access the cloud storage; that is, it's not an option with a local Xbox, non-Live profile (at least mine will not access the cloud). I'm not sure whether or not the silver (Live Free) accounts have access to the cloud. My son has access on our Xbox, but he has Gold. So, I don't think it would not really serve Kaiju's purpose (as I understand the suggestion). Also, I don't believe the cloud is currently set up such that other profiles can access your cloud storage directly to download from it (regardless of the specific game involved). Live would probably have to be changed to allow for that.
Which brings us to this next point. The reason they don't just "make it legal" is that they don't want to compromise the security of the Xbox system by allowing "unauthorized (i.e. uncertified) third-party software into the system. As you know, he game and update and DLC goes through a Microsoft certification process (which costs the programmers of that game/update/DLC a fee to have done). The certification testing doesn't really test for bugs in the games, but it does test to make sure that the game/update etc. doesn't contain any programs that would enable hacking of the Live system and your account information, etc.
One still needs an active Live profile to access the cloud storage; that is, it's not an option with a local Xbox, non-Live profile (at least mine will not access the cloud). I'm not sure whether or not the silver (Live Free) accounts have access to the cloud. My son has access on our Xbox, but he has Gold. So, I don't think it would not really serve Kaiju's purpose (as I understand the suggestion). Also, I don't believe the cloud is currently set up such that other profiles can access your cloud storage directly to download from it (regardless of the specific game involved). Live would probably have to be changed to allow for that.
Which brings us to this next point. The reason they don't just "make it legal" is that they don't want to compromise the security of the Xbox system by allowing "unauthorized (i.e. uncertified) third-party software into the system. As you know, he game and update and DLC goes through a Microsoft certification process (which costs the programmers of that game/update/DLC a fee to have done). The certification testing doesn't really test for bugs in the games, but it does test to make sure that the game/update etc. doesn't contain any programs that would enable hacking of the Live system and your account information, etc. I believe that no mapmakers in Minecraft would be willing to pay the fee to have their maps go through certification testing (also, the testing schedule probably doesn't have the room in it for Microsoft testers to review all the maps that might become available).
At any rate, this thread is digressing from being any kind of suggestion... it's becoming more about critiquing Microsoft's policies and procedures... so, this will be the last post I make here.
As I said, I have no objection of map sharing... but the users alone (i.e. those who want to either upload or download the maps) should pay the costs of such a system - not the rest of us. There is no free lunch.
Games, applications, and DLC are programming code. Saved Minecraft Map/Game files are Data Files. Data Files do not need to go through certification testing because they do not have any direct programmatic impact on the console at all.
It's like the difference between the Microsoft Office 13 Word Application and a MS Office 13 Word Document.