I swear one of these days I'm gonna figure out what you people are talking about. Darn you, Obamacare, for not having proper technological education in the American school system!
I swear one of these days I'm gonna figure out what you people are talking about. Darn you, Obamacare, for not having proper technological education in the American school system!
Let's try an analogy then...
Let's say you purchased a pen from a popular pen manufacturer (like BIC).
Then you used that Pen to compose a letter to your congressman.
Before you send it off to your congressman, do you think you would need to submit a copy of your handwritten work to BIC to review just to make sure that the ink will continue to flow out of the pen you had purchased and won't invariably cause problems with the future functionality of the pen (barring eventually running out of ink, obviously).
Same concept for Cert Testing. You have a game file (like the letter itself) that was 'composed' using the Minecraft application (like a pen).
You can't 'run' the game file (independently) without first 'running' Minecraft and then loading the game file into the Minecraft environment.... just like you can't edit or change what you had written in your letter without using the pen.
So as for textures and mashups, that's the other persons problem. But the file itself should be fine being passed from one user to another? How about just like you can mail letters, you can send map files? That way no external housing is really needed. That works, right?
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.
However, game save files created and or altered on the PC and available for download on the general internet have utilized programs that have not been certification tested. That is why importing them into the Xbox environment would go against the TOS.
As I said, I have no objection to the principle of friendly map sharing. Microsoft can loosen up on their rules if they wish... or not, if they wish. I've always said - their house, their rules. I would, however, prefer that the cost of implementing such a system (be it low or high) be borne by the users of that system... not gamers who have no desire to upload and download other people's maps. I think that, if implemented, Microsoft should have every right to charge people a fee for making their "map/game creations" available on their system (Live) and have every right to also charge a fee to anyone utilizing the system to download those maps... and the users who have been crying to Microsoft to change their rules should not complain just because the whole affair doesn't come to them for free. If Microsoft can keep the costs of such a system low, then that fee charge should be very nominal. If the cost is high, the fee would be higher. There are ways (to coin Kaiju's phrase)... but not ways that are actually free to everyone. Free for someone just means that someone else is eating the cost.
Furthermore, if they (Miccrosoft) do decide to loosen up on their rules... I would hope that they do it in such a way that keeps all of our account information secure... and does not open up the game to the same sort of server and mod website profiteering that has been happening on the PC end of things (that precipitated the changes to the EULA and the reaction to those changes... that eventually prompted Notch to selling his shares in Mojang... etc.) The problem starts when "community" mod writers want to be able to do what they do at no cost to themselves (all the costs of that being borne by Mojang/now Miccrosoft)... while feeling quite justified in collecting monies from the players on their modded servers in order to ensure the "survival" of their own servers
Other players = that part of your family you feel obligated to talk to but would rather do it by mail than by phone.
The letter is written on your xbox. You can then mail it to whoever. The letter passes through the postal exam to make sure it isnt hazardous or illegal and is then delivered to whoever. It'd be like sending a message on Live. They can open it and play it alone whenever. If they wanna play with friends the rule of Gold will obviously still apply. I guess you could argue about stamps though.
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).
This policy was abolished back in April of 2012.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
Your other points are pretty rock-solid though.
However, game save files created and or altered on the PC and available for download on the general internet have utilized programs that have not been certification tested. That is why importing them into the Xbox environment would go against the TOS.
Although it is true that other outside 3rd party software could be used to modify the saved game file, the saved game file itself has no executable code in it itself. It can not cause any system faults or initiate any unauthorized read/writes to the system. Although it is possible that the game file 'could' crash the game while it is running, rebooting the system and 'not' playing that game would restore everything back to working order.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of checks and balances to prevent players griefing by distributing maps that wreak havoc (like a world full of detonating TNT upon loadup or a massive amount of actively falling sand, gravel, water, lava, or bombarding a player with a metric ton of hostile MOB's as soon as the map is loaded)
These maps can be made in creative mode as it is, and are capable of crashing the game, but that is a map fault, not a game fault, and it does nothing intrinsically harmful to the console, or other outside application/game files, itself.
For this reason DATA files do not need cert testing (specifically) as other applications would require.
Although it is true that other outside 3rd party software could be used to modify the saved game file, the saved game file itself has no executable code in it itself. It can not cause any system faults or initiate any unauthorized read/writes to the system. Although it is possible that the game file 'could' crash the game while it is running, rebooting the system and 'not' playing that game would restore everything back to working order.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of checks and balances to prevent players griefing by distributing maps that wreak havoc (like a world full of detonating TNT upon loadup or a massive amount of actively falling sand, gravel, water, lava, or bombarding a player with a metric ton of hostile MOB's as soon as the map is loaded)
These maps can be made in creative mode as it is, and are capable of crashing the game, but that is a map fault, not a game fault, and it does nothing intrinsically harmful to the console, or other outside application/game files, itself.
For this reason DATA files do not need cert testing (specifically) as other applications would require.
Again... the mods written and commonly utilized in association with these sort of map "servers" would. It's not just basic map sharing that the ones pushing this are asking for... it's the whole "modded server" culture that has grown out of PC Minecraft that they want to transport onto the console environment... some of them because they want to make little mini-Minecraft businesses out of their own servers. It's an issue that grew beyond what Notch and Mojang were prepared to handle when they conceived this "little game" (Notch even said as much in a recent blog post.) It's an issue that Microsoft plans to address... but regardless, there will be a "cost" to putting in a system that will 1) fit in with the current Live system and 2) adequately protect the current account information within the Live system such that kiddies don't run amok with their parent's credit cards buying items within Minecraft "servers." (The way Live is currently set up, it could be particularly vulnerable to this sort of problem if the console environment moves towards becoming more like the open environment on the internet... and this was a problem already with some of the PC servers.). Again, I have no objection to Microsoft going in a direction that would allow this... I just think the "users" of such a system should be the ones to pay for the cost of that... not the rest of us. If it's a small cost... great, the users will pay less for each upload and download. If it's a high cost, they'll pay more.
To Kaiju - I'm not talking about in map griefing or sexually implicit builds within maps or things like Disney characters being built into maps... so your mail analogy doesn't work. I'm talking about who, in principle, should be expected to pay for the bill. You say Microsoft... I say the user..
I have a feeling you're a console purist. I don't want to make anything a business. I just want to feel like the time I'm putting into maps isn't wasted. I don't have gold because 1) It's a waste of money on my end. 2) It wouldn't be worth my money even if I had it to spend. I bought Xbox minecraft for 2 reasons. My computer cant handle Minecraft and I'm not good with keyboard controls. I built a town blank for people to play on and build their own houses and businesses but I never intended to 1) Use it. 2) Use it for my own personal gain. I have an adventure map I'm working on but I'm not selling tickets and wouldn't if I could. I'm not asking for mods. I'm not asking for special treatment. I'm not asking for money. I'm not asking for something that would bring about the end of the world as you know it. I just thought that the ability to share maps would be really FUN. FUN is what it's all about anyways. Who cares if consoles become more like PCs or if PCs become more like consoles. Singularity is the eventual result of all roads anyways. Doesn't matter if you travel East and I travel West, eventually we'll reach the same point. At some point in the future all diversity will be weeded out. Everyone will have the same skin color, speak the same language and we'll all be playing on the same machine and probably the exact same game. So until then, why cant we implement some sort of LEGAL map sharing?
Kaiji - Just because you don't want to make map sharing a business doesn't mean that others won't think of it. Proof that they will already exists on the PC (because it's already happened... leading to the EULA changes, etc.). Mojang did not anticipate it growing into the issue it did... so why ask Microsoft to make the same mistake. If they bring in map sharing on the console, the Minecraft public will not be satisfied with just sharing vanilla Minecraft maps. They will want them to incorporate mods. They will want to incorporate in-game perks... and, no doubt, some of them will want to make a little coin off their mods and the perks they insert into their maps (or at least recoupe some of their costs and time in running the map/server).
Whatever system Microsoft sets up to allow for map sharing will have to be adequate to handle this without jeopardizing the current account info (which includes credit info) they hold as a result of Live. There is a cost to setting that up and maintaining it on Microsoft's servers. An Xbox 360 acting as a server will not handle such transactions adequately nor is the Cloud in Live set up to handle such activity. If the map sharing were limited to Gold memberships only - perhaps that system could be adapted to hand it... but parents who hold Gold memberships and then just have their kids play locally on the household Xbox would not want their children to be able to run up Minecraft server purchases on their credit card by just clicking buttons in Minecraft. A security system within Live to check for such transactions being authorized would have to, at the very least, be put in place.
I feel that it is the users of such a "system" should be the ones who pay for that system having to be put in place and maintained... not the rest of us nor should the security of our credit info through Live be compromised in the process. Honestly, I can't understand why anyone should have a problem with Microsoft trying to protect the account info of their clients.
As I said in my very first post - A smaller request (i.e. to allow for a direct transfer of filesave "ownership" from one profile to another on the same Xbox or even allowing multiple profiles on the same Xbox access to "co-owned' filesaves) would allow for more limited file sharing without the problems associated with "public" filesharing.
Sending a map file to someone is different from charging them to play on a server.
They already want mods and have an insatiable appetite that no amount of updates will please.
When you send someone else a map there's no cost to run it because it's not your problem.
Microsoft isn't hosting the maps.
There is no need for cloud transactions because there's no need for player to player money transfer because not everyone is a youtuber that charges money to join a server that isn't even that great. Lookin' at you, person who wont be named to avoid upsetting people, and your little 100% fan created server that you take credit for.
Why do you keep peddling Gold memberships?
Again no one is talking about selling maps.
1) Dont get a credit card. They're evil. 2) Dont give your xbox all your credit information. 3) No one is suggesting you sell maps.
Why would I care about sharing maps with other profiles on my xbox?
I have a feeling you're creating problems where there aren't any or expanding on small issues that can be easily resolved. You're really coming across as Anti-PCist/Microsoft Cultist. I really don't see the problem in being able to send a file from one xbox to another. It can only be opened by Minecraft anyways. No one is gonna trigger skynet, no one is gonna ruin the xbox, no one is gonna bankrupt Macrosoft, the worst that can happen is no one has FUNon your map.
Again... the mods written and commonly utilized in association with these sort of map "servers" would. It's not just basic map sharing that the ones pushing this are asking for... it's the whole "modded server" culture that has grown out of PC Minecraft that they want to transport onto the console environment... some of them because they want to make little mini-Minecraft businesses out of their own servers. It's an issue that grew beyond what Notch and Mojang were prepared to handle when they conceived this "little game" (Notch even said as much in a recent blog post.) It's an issue that Microsoft plans to address... but regardless, there will be a "cost" to putting in a system that will 1) fit in with the current Live system and 2) adequately protect the current account information within the Live system such that kiddies don't run amok with their parent's credit cards buying items within Minecraft "servers." (The way Live is currently set up, it could be particularly vulnerable to this sort of problem if the console environment moves towards becoming more like the open environment on the internet... and this was a problem already with some of the PC servers.). Again, I have no objection to Microsoft going in a direction that would allow this... I just think the "users" of such a system should be the ones to pay for the cost of that... not the rest of us. If it's a small cost... great, the users will pay less for each upload and download. If it's a high cost, they'll pay more.
No one even suggested player made MODs, we're solely talking about saved game files/maps. Although I would agree that Ceret Testing would have to be applied to Player Made MOD's... those aren't even allowed under the 4J/MS ToS, so why even bring it up? It is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
As to the users paying for the online storage service, I agree, and I think that making use of the existing Cloud Storage is the most economical way to go for all parties involved.
Sending a map file to someone is different from charging them to play on a server.
They already want mods and have an insatiable appetite that no amount of updates will please.
When you send someone else a map there's no cost to run it because it's not your problem.
Microsoft isn't hosting the maps.
There is no need for cloud transactions because there's no need for player to player money transfer because not everyone is a youtuber that charges money to join a server that isn't even that great. Lookin' at you, person who wont be named to avoid upsetting people, and your little 100% fan created server that you take credit for.
Why do you keep peddling Gold memberships?
Again no one is talking about selling maps.
1) Dont get a credit card. They're evil. 2) Dont give your xbox all your credit information. 3) No one is suggesting you sell maps.
Why would I care about sharing maps with other profiles on my xbox?
I have a feeling you're creating problems where there aren't any or expanding on small issues that can be easily resolved. You're really coming across as Anti-PCist/Microsoft Cultist. I really don't see the problem in being able to send a file from one xbox to another. It can only be opened by Minecraft anyways. No one is gonna trigger skynet, no one is gonna ruin the xbox, no one is gonna bankrupt Macrosoft, the worst that can happen is no one has FUN on your map.
Interesting idea... I suppose a map could be shared in the same way that Online Multi-player is allowed, in that it could be copied directly IF both console systems were online at once. I hadn't even considered that angle.
.
You are all not understanding me, imagining objections that I have not stated... A starting point to just for FUN map sharing between friends could be handled with allowing a form of ownership transfer or co-ownership tag (as I've already suggested as a possibly more acceptable first step). This would allow the owner of the file to share the file with specific friends... step 1 - friends/siblings, etc. playing on the same Xbox and step 2 specific friends in their friends lists... without making the costs of setting up systems/servers/ etc. to make the maps available to the general public. (Of course, this probably isn't good enough for you all BECAUSE what you really want is to transport the entire PC Minecraft experience/culture onto the Xbox/console systems.)
The mention of mods is because the reality on the PC is that many public maps are made available and are popular because they incorporate various mods into them so that you would need to also download a mod in order to play the map (either on your own or on a server utilizing that map as it's base... and some of the those servers have become actual mini-Minecraft businesses). In implementing such features, it is only prudent for Microsoft to anticipate such growth... meaning that they are wise to set up a system that could appropriately handle such events. That sort of system would have some cost to the company. THOSE COSTS (whether or not they are large or small) should be paid for by the USERS OF THAT SYSTEM... not the rest of the MInecraft players who would never download a publicly available Minecraft map. I DO NOT OBJECT TO PUBLIC MAP SHARING, but I don't want to see the price of game increased to match the price of a game like Halo nor do I want to pay a higher fee for a Gold membership to cover the costs, etc. nor do I want the account security of the current system compromised in any way.
You are all not understanding me, imagining objections that I have not stated... A starting point to just for FUN map sharing between friends could be handled with allowing a form of ownership transfer or co-ownership tag (as I've already suggested as a possibly more acceptable first step). This would allow the owner of the file to share the file with specific friends... step 1 - friends/siblings, etc. playing on the same Xbox and step 2 specific friends in their friends lists... without making the costs of setting up systems/servers/ etc. to make the maps available to the general public. (Of course, this probably isn't good enough for you all BECAUSE what you really want is to transport the entire PC Minecraft experience/culture onto the Xbox/console systems.)
The mention of mods is because the reality on the PC is that many public maps are made available and are popular because the incorporate various mods into them so that you would need to also download a mod in order to play the map (either on your own or on a server utilizing that map as it's base... and some of the those servers have become actual mini-Minecraft businesses). In implementing such features, it is only prudent for Microsoft to anticipate such growth... meaning that they are wise to set up a system that could appropriately handle such events. That sort of system would have some cost to the company. THOSE COSTS (whether or not they are large or small) should be paid for by the USERS OF THAT SYSTEM... not the rest of the MInecraft players who would never download a publicly available Minecraft map. I DO NOT OBJECT TO PUBLIC MAP SHARING, but I don't want to see the price of game increased to match the price of a game like Halo nor do I want to pay a higher fee for a Gold membership to cover the costs, etc. nor do I want the account security of the current system compromised in any way.
You're not really contributing to solutions. More so focusing on throwing up problems. If I'm only gonna share the map with other people on my xbox, why not just let them play on my profile or on split screen?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's try an analogy then...
Let's say you purchased a pen from a popular pen manufacturer (like BIC).
Then you used that Pen to compose a letter to your congressman.
Before you send it off to your congressman, do you think you would need to submit a copy of your handwritten work to BIC to review just to make sure that the ink will continue to flow out of the pen you had purchased and won't invariably cause problems with the future functionality of the pen (barring eventually running out of ink, obviously).
Same concept for Cert Testing. You have a game file (like the letter itself) that was 'composed' using the Minecraft application (like a pen).
You can't 'run' the game file (independently) without first 'running' Minecraft and then loading the game file into the Minecraft environment.... just like you can't edit or change what you had written in your letter without using the pen.
However, game save files created and or altered on the PC and available for download on the general internet have utilized programs that have not been certification tested. That is why importing them into the Xbox environment would go against the TOS.
As I said, I have no objection to the principle of friendly map sharing. Microsoft can loosen up on their rules if they wish... or not, if they wish. I've always said - their house, their rules. I would, however, prefer that the cost of implementing such a system (be it low or high) be borne by the users of that system... not gamers who have no desire to upload and download other people's maps. I think that, if implemented, Microsoft should have every right to charge people a fee for making their "map/game creations" available on their system (Live) and have every right to also charge a fee to anyone utilizing the system to download those maps... and the users who have been crying to Microsoft to change their rules should not complain just because the whole affair doesn't come to them for free. If Microsoft can keep the costs of such a system low, then that fee charge should be very nominal. If the cost is high, the fee would be higher. There are ways (to coin Kaiju's phrase)... but not ways that are actually free to everyone. Free for someone just means that someone else is eating the cost.
Furthermore, if they (Miccrosoft) do decide to loosen up on their rules... I would hope that they do it in such a way that keeps all of our account information secure... and does not open up the game to the same sort of server and mod website profiteering that has been happening on the PC end of things (that precipitated the changes to the EULA and the reaction to those changes... that eventually prompted Notch to selling his shares in Mojang... etc.) The problem starts when "community" mod writers want to be able to do what they do at no cost to themselves (all the costs of that being borne by Mojang/now Miccrosoft)... while feeling quite justified in collecting monies from the players on their modded servers in order to ensure the "survival" of their own servers
Minecraft map = letter.
Microsoft = postal worker.
Other players = that part of your family you feel obligated to talk to but would rather do it by mail than by phone.
The letter is written on your xbox. You can then mail it to whoever. The letter passes through the postal exam to make sure it isnt hazardous or illegal and is then delivered to whoever. It'd be like sending a message on Live. They can open it and play it alone whenever. If they wanna play with friends the rule of Gold will obviously still apply. I guess you could argue about stamps though.
This policy was abolished back in April of 2012.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
Your other points are pretty rock-solid though.
Although it is true that other outside 3rd party software could be used to modify the saved game file, the saved game file itself has no executable code in it itself. It can not cause any system faults or initiate any unauthorized read/writes to the system. Although it is possible that the game file 'could' crash the game while it is running, rebooting the system and 'not' playing that game would restore everything back to working order.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some sort of checks and balances to prevent players griefing by distributing maps that wreak havoc (like a world full of detonating TNT upon loadup or a massive amount of actively falling sand, gravel, water, lava, or bombarding a player with a metric ton of hostile MOB's as soon as the map is loaded)
These maps can be made in creative mode as it is, and are capable of crashing the game, but that is a map fault, not a game fault, and it does nothing intrinsically harmful to the console, or other outside application/game files, itself.
For this reason DATA files do not need cert testing (specifically) as other applications would require.
Again... the mods written and commonly utilized in association with these sort of map "servers" would. It's not just basic map sharing that the ones pushing this are asking for... it's the whole "modded server" culture that has grown out of PC Minecraft that they want to transport onto the console environment... some of them because they want to make little mini-Minecraft businesses out of their own servers. It's an issue that grew beyond what Notch and Mojang were prepared to handle when they conceived this "little game" (Notch even said as much in a recent blog post.) It's an issue that Microsoft plans to address... but regardless, there will be a "cost" to putting in a system that will 1) fit in with the current Live system and 2) adequately protect the current account information within the Live system such that kiddies don't run amok with their parent's credit cards buying items within Minecraft "servers." (The way Live is currently set up, it could be particularly vulnerable to this sort of problem if the console environment moves towards becoming more like the open environment on the internet... and this was a problem already with some of the PC servers.). Again, I have no objection to Microsoft going in a direction that would allow this... I just think the "users" of such a system should be the ones to pay for the cost of that... not the rest of us. If it's a small cost... great, the users will pay less for each upload and download. If it's a high cost, they'll pay more.
To Kaiju - I'm not talking about in map griefing or sexually implicit builds within maps or things like Disney characters being built into maps... so your mail analogy doesn't work. I'm talking about who, in principle, should be expected to pay for the bill. You say Microsoft... I say the user..
Whatever system Microsoft sets up to allow for map sharing will have to be adequate to handle this without jeopardizing the current account info (which includes credit info) they hold as a result of Live. There is a cost to setting that up and maintaining it on Microsoft's servers. An Xbox 360 acting as a server will not handle such transactions adequately nor is the Cloud in Live set up to handle such activity. If the map sharing were limited to Gold memberships only - perhaps that system could be adapted to hand it... but parents who hold Gold memberships and then just have their kids play locally on the household Xbox would not want their children to be able to run up Minecraft server purchases on their credit card by just clicking buttons in Minecraft. A security system within Live to check for such transactions being authorized would have to, at the very least, be put in place.
I feel that it is the users of such a "system" should be the ones who pay for that system having to be put in place and maintained... not the rest of us nor should the security of our credit info through Live be compromised in the process. Honestly, I can't understand why anyone should have a problem with Microsoft trying to protect the account info of their clients.
As I said in my very first post - A smaller request (i.e. to allow for a direct transfer of filesave "ownership" from one profile to another on the same Xbox or even allowing multiple profiles on the same Xbox access to "co-owned' filesaves) would allow for more limited file sharing without the problems associated with "public" filesharing.
They already want mods and have an insatiable appetite that no amount of updates will please.
When you send someone else a map there's no cost to run it because it's not your problem.
Microsoft isn't hosting the maps.
There is no need for cloud transactions because there's no need for player to player money transfer because not everyone is a youtuber that charges money to join a server that isn't even that great. Lookin' at you, person who wont be named to avoid upsetting people, and your little 100% fan created server that you take credit for.
Why do you keep peddling Gold memberships?
Again no one is talking about selling maps.
1) Dont get a credit card. They're evil. 2) Dont give your xbox all your credit information. 3) No one is suggesting you sell maps.
Why would I care about sharing maps with other profiles on my xbox?
I have a feeling you're creating problems where there aren't any or expanding on small issues that can be easily resolved. You're really coming across as Anti-PCist/Microsoft Cultist. I really don't see the problem in being able to send a file from one xbox to another. It can only be opened by Minecraft anyways. No one is gonna trigger skynet, no one is gonna ruin the xbox, no one is gonna bankrupt Macrosoft, the worst that can happen is no one has FUN on your map.
No one even suggested player made MODs, we're solely talking about saved game files/maps. Although I would agree that Ceret Testing would have to be applied to Player Made MOD's... those aren't even allowed under the 4J/MS ToS, so why even bring it up? It is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
As to the users paying for the online storage service, I agree, and I think that making use of the existing Cloud Storage is the most economical way to go for all parties involved.
Interesting idea... I suppose a map could be shared in the same way that Online Multi-player is allowed, in that it could be copied directly IF both console systems were online at once. I hadn't even considered that angle.
.
The mention of mods is because the reality on the PC is that many public maps are made available and are popular because they incorporate various mods into them so that you would need to also download a mod in order to play the map (either on your own or on a server utilizing that map as it's base... and some of the those servers have become actual mini-Minecraft businesses). In implementing such features, it is only prudent for Microsoft to anticipate such growth... meaning that they are wise to set up a system that could appropriately handle such events. That sort of system would have some cost to the company. THOSE COSTS (whether or not they are large or small) should be paid for by the USERS OF THAT SYSTEM... not the rest of the MInecraft players who would never download a publicly available Minecraft map. I DO NOT OBJECT TO PUBLIC MAP SHARING, but I don't want to see the price of game increased to match the price of a game like Halo nor do I want to pay a higher fee for a Gold membership to cover the costs, etc. nor do I want the account security of the current system compromised in any way.
You're not really contributing to solutions. More so focusing on throwing up problems. If I'm only gonna share the map with other people on my xbox, why not just let them play on my profile or on split screen?