"Forcing" an infinite world on you... what does that take away from you? We want you to be able to have more.... what does that take away? You said earlier that if 4J didn't tell you something about next gen you weren't going to buy it or stop playing all together.
I already explained what it takes away from me. There is such a thing as too much. It's not that 4J hasn't told us "something," the problem is they haven't told us anything. I thought it was a two-way street, we want the game and they want us to buy it. How can they expect people to be exited if they leave us in the dark for almost an entire year? If the next-gen version is different in any way, either tell us something or give us little sneak peeks like they've been doing with updates. That's all I'm asking. Like a "group photo" screenshot showing the maximum amount of players wearing new skins. When I said I would stop playing Minecraft all together, I was referring to the Xbox One version having infinite worlds.
Maybe it's a psychological thing. Being able to explore the entire map gives you a sense of completion and an infinite world would never give you that because you'd never be able to see it all, in a reasonable time frame. I get that.
That is part of it, yes. I like being able to fill the entire map and know what's out there, allowing me to make plans. If the world is too massive for that to ever happen, I won't bother trying. I would find a decent area to build and never leave. If I tried playing the PC version again, I would just spawn in what I couldn't find within a reasonable distance from my home. I don't want to resort to that.
A bunch of us are fine with the 360 world size as it is.
A bunch more wouldn't mind if it were simply enlarged, liked doubled. That would probably satisfy 98% of us.
But there's that vocal 2%of 'infinite world' people that will never, ever be happy unless they have an 'infinite world' (on the 360 no less)- and they'll be glad to tell you why it's 'needed'. (Never mind that virtually every other game they play they're 'restricted' because those games don't have infinite worlds either.) For some reason they believe that because it's "minecraft", it must have infinite worlds.
I agree with UpUp when it comes to the 360 (and ps3). But I'll make it even simpler:
What part of "No" don't you understand?
...
I'm going to kick back, let you read this post, and then hope that it triggers something in your mind to go a back, look at the other posts in this thread and do a little something I like to call, read. Because I don't know who is talking about the 360 edition. But I'm betting when you respond the words '360' will be in there... again.
I can read. I was responding to UpUp's post and his other posts. He was talking about 'them'.
Ok, cool. As long as we can all read. I didn't mean to come off so abrasive but I hate that conversation as well. I mean, it's been answered and discussed to death and hearing people ask for bigger worlds on the 360 or talking about bigger worlds on the 360 is getting extreeeeeeeeemely old. No, what we want is speculation on the One edition. Now that's worth losing hair over.
I'm going to kick back, let you read this post, and then hope that it triggers something in your mind to go a back, look at the other posts in this thread and do a little something I like to call, read. Because I don't know who is talking about the 360 edition. But I'm betting when you respond the words '360' will be in there... again.
OK, so we've gone from there being no other forum to discuss the One to (effectively), this is no place to discuss what happens to the 360 Edition in relation to whatever happens on the One... and blaming those who are discussing both in a "connected" context for doing so. I did say it could be done on the One but that there is a likely a cost to that... and that cost will likely upset a lot of X360 users who still want the game updated further and are willing to forfeit larger worlds on the 360 to see those additional updates happen.
I agree with Geneo, there are those who will NEVER be satisfied nomatter what 4J does because, for some at least, they just have it in for Microsoft and just keep moving the target whenever someone comes up with a reasonable point that counters their unreasonable excuses.
Personally, I think a larger world that loads the chunks the same way as the X360 should be large enough for about any reasonable person (as Mustache Guy mentioned - 5,000 x 5,000 would even be excessive in my book. I'd be more than happy with 3,000 x 3,000, which is doable even by Greg's calculations). Changing chunk loading doesn't solve what I consider a bigger issue - that of biome shift or climate change whenever an update hits. The Xbox chunk loading has some benefits for redstone operation (as Nose Job alluded to earlier).
So, no... changing the chunk loading would not be my choice... but I, at least, will accept WHATEVER 4J decides to do. They are the ONLY ones who have a full picture about what has already gone into this program, what Microsoft requires of them, what Mojang requires of them, and what they feel is the best to ensure the sustainability of their company into the future.
I think we can all agree that the X360 edition world size is virtually set in stone and likely will never change, regardless of whether they could or not. I'm hoping that 4J doesn't gimp the next-gen versions to accommodate the 360 though -- if adding a feature isn't possible on last-gen, then simply leave it out for that edition. If the X1 edition could benefit from changing the way chunk loading occurs, then do it and leave the 360 the way it is. This would not be a difficult thing to achieve since a shared code base would allow them to branch chunk loading into console-specific libraries for their different builds. Focus on adding new features to the X1 version and THEN decide whether that feature will make it to the 360. This way both consoles maximize their potential. I don't have a problem with them halting last-gen development if needed... they had a good run but its time to move on.
As UpUp has already said, there is always going to be two sides to the "infinite world" argument. At this point its no longer really an issue of whether it COULD be done on the X1, but rather whether it SHOULD. As such, my following statements disregard the technical issues 4J may or may not have to overcome to add infinite worlds. The question is why do people want the feature, not whether it will be added.
Some people want small worlds so that they know what's available to them, to set goals, and to achieve some sort of completion. They enjoy building out a world and when the situation calls for it, they'll simply start a new one. Often times, they'll have 3 or more active worlds depending on who they're playing with, what they want to do, or how much time they have. This is a perfectly acceptable way to play the game, and many last-gen players have come to like it that way. But people are always going to complain about the world size -- it's been an issue since day 1 and since the PC has infinite worlds, many console players want it too.
Others, like myself, would prefer larger worlds so that the possibilities are unknown and starting over simply means carrying what we can to a new location instead of having to truly start a new save. I like being able to climb a mountain and see endless landscapes on the horizon instead of some unreachable ocean border. I enjoy the knowledge that I'm not constrained in what I can build, where I can go, or how bad I can mess up. Survival takes on a whole new meaning. In this way, worlds become more of an evolving creation rather than a place to host this month's project. It becomes a game that doesn't set restrictions on what can be done because of a limited world size.
To me it comes down to which way will make the most people happy? Infinite worlds. The "small world" collective can choose whether or not to explore out of their comfort zone, and the "large world" collective can explore and build until their hearts give out. As a compromise, 4J could add an option to restrict world size during creation... but I think this would end up being a rarely used feature.
I would personally be happy enough with something around 3000 square blocks, but I think you'd still see a lot of people clamoring for infinite. If I was given the choice though? Infinite, please.
Now if 4J would actually release a next-gen version, we could stop discussing and start playing!
Ok I'm someone who would actually want infinite worlds. Everyone seems to think that people wouldn't be satisfied unless the minecraft worlds on Xbox One were 30 million blocks like on PC. Thats not true, at least for me; I just want to make sure that they utilize the vastly improved capabilities next gen consoles have to offer. Those who say they don't care if the world size increases on next gen, whats the point of upgrading? What else is appealing for next gen minecraft? Really, why spend money on something you already have? No difference between the last gen versions. I dont get it. I would totally be satisfied with 5000x5000 blocks, but if they could go bigger theres no reason they shouldnt, right? If you never travel past 3000 blocks, theres no difference between a 5000 and 10,000 world limit for you, so what does it matter? It doesn't. I don't see any negatives in next gen consoles having infinite worlds, although there are a few neutralities. If you don't want infinite worlds, stay on 360/PS3 and save money.
This guy, Owen Hill, stated that "PS4 will definitely have infinite worlds!", he is chief word officer for Mojang. It may be legit. Oh and if ps4 has it xbox one will as well, unless something fishy happens with microsoft.
I think the biggest appeal to me is unlimited resources and more biomes in one world...but to be honest I'd be perfectly happy with a non-infinte but sustancially larger world.
people want infinite worlds because you can get TONS of stuff and do TONS of building:)
And get horribly lost while spending an eternity looking for things you will never find! I bet you replied without reading a single part of this thread! Was that seriously your first post?! It's that type of ignorant response that makes me hate the idea of infinite worlds even more!
I can't imagine getting lost, when you can make maps, compasses and tell the direction you're traveling by the sun.
Seriously, if people are getting lost I don't think the infinite worlds are the problem here. Perhaps it's time to re-examine what you're doing and why.
Just throwing that out there. I don't think you could be more wrong about getting lost being a valid reason to hold everyone else back.
As for never finding what you're looking for, I can't imagine having that problem. What is it that you would be looking for that you couldn't find?
* If your base is way away from your spawn point, a compass is useless.
* Maps only show you what's around you- they don't tell you which way to go or how (or if) they're connected to your other maps.
* I headed out in the 4 compass directions and when I could barely see the other beacon, erected another. I did this for about a dozen beacons, in all directions. But as you go further out and lose sight of them, get turned around by checking caves you find, etc., you can move further away from your beacons without knowing it. Also as you move further out your 'beacon trail to home' there's only one 'zone' that you can see that last beacon from. Miss that 'zone' and you can get lost.
So yes, getting lost is easier than you think. That's why I suggested:
1- Make your base at or near your spawn point. Then that compass will actually work as you'd like. (Sheesh, after all this time, why haven't they changed the compass so it points to your last sleeping point?)
2- If you decide not to build near the spawn point, write down your base coordinates.
I suspect that 99.999% of us have used only 1% of an 'infinite' world- that's 30K blocks- almost 35 times the size we have now. How would that size be "holding you back"? If you can't build or find enough resources within that size.... well, let's just say you need to get out more. Note that would still leave you with 99% that world totally unused and wasted. Infinite worlds are purely a state of mind- not a necessity, and they're certainly not even begun to be all used.
Would an 'infinite' world be nice (if they could do it without it "costing" anything)? Sure, why not.
But I don't understand the uproar over the world size restriction.
If you're worried about running out of resources, why aren't you screaming for increasing the depth?
I can't imagine getting lost, when you can make maps, compasses and tell the direction you're traveling by the sun.
Seriously, if people are getting lost I don't think the infinite worlds are the problem here. Perhaps it's time to re-examine what you're doing and why.
Just throwing that out there. I don't think you could be more wrong about getting lost being a valid reason to hold everyone else back.
As for never finding what you're looking for, I can't imagine having that problem. What is it that you would be looking for that you couldn't find?
Yet another ignorant, selfish response. You refuse to accept anyone else's point of view because it goes against something you want. I try to get a discussion going and the only thing you can do is insult me. Most of the other responses I get are people repeatedly saying "Infinite worlds are great because you get more of everything!" which I don't see as a valid reason for why they should exist in the Xbox One version. "Give us more, more, more!" Sounds pretty selfish to me, just saying.
In response to your disbelief that something in a 30,000,000x30,000,000 world could be hard to find (are you serious?), I started playing the PC version again and have yet to see a jungle or roofed forest. If they are not within my one fully expanded map, I will not continue searching. I will just spawn in the saplings I'm missing. I won't even bother looking for an ice spike biome or mushroom island. Before you tell me to carry more maps and a compass, I won't fill up my inventory just to deal with the oversized worlds.
I'm sure people are going to accuse me of being a hypocrite because I got on his case about not accepting my perspective while at the same time I refuse to accept people wanting an insane amount of resources and space as a valid reason to want infinite worlds. The difference is he won't even consider the possibility of my claims being legitimate. I don't accept wanting unrealistic amounts of space and resources as a validation for infinite worlds because there is no way anyone can exhaust said things fast enough to justify them.
Others, like myself, would prefer larger worlds so that the possibilities are unknown and starting over simply means carrying what we can to a new location instead of having to truly start a new save. I like being able to climb a mountain and see endless landscapes on the horizon instead of some unreachable ocean border. I enjoy the knowledge that I'm not constrained in what I can build, where I can go, or how bad I can mess up. Survival takes on a whole new meaning. In this way, worlds become more of an evolving creation rather than a place to host this month's project. It becomes a game that doesn't set restrictions on what can be done because of a limited world size.
To me, "infinite" supply of resources takes the meaning out of "survival." To me... survival is more about managing limited supplies than it is about unlimited expansion. In a very real sense, global survival today, more and more, is about cooperation, conservation of resources, and recycling of "waste" than it is about seemingly endless colonial expansion.
To me, "infinite" supply of resources takes the meaning out of "survival." To me... survival is more about managing limited supplies than it is about unlimited expansion. In a very real sense, global survival today, more and more, is about cooperation, conservation of resources, and recycling of "waste" than it is about seemingly endless colonial expansion.
I think what might be cool for the 360.... if possible, would be a map connector. Something to where If I create two worlds on the 360, that I could built a portal that would take me between the maps.. .maybe that would somehow get around this. I guess my motivation for that would be, oh a new update, I want to experience it while still keeping this. I think that kind of has potential. Having said that, the smallness doesn't truly bother me that much.
Well, actually Owen Hill from Mojang confirmed that the PS4 Edition will have Infinite Worlds (and i'm assuming that the Xbox One Edition will also have Infinite worlds aswell since 4J Studios said that both next-gen versions will be the same).
He was replying to someone from the comment section in the blog saying: "
The Vita version will be closer to the console versions. PS4 will definitely have infinite worlds!"
I have an idea, why can't 4J make an option that lets users select when creating a world whether they want the worlds size ranging from (Small, Medium, Large, Very Large, and then Infinite)? Like the next pocket edition update 0.9.0? So no one will ever complain about anything in that subject.
Well, actually Owen Hill from Mojang confirmed that the PS4 Edition will have Infinite Worlds (and i'm assuming that the Xbox One Edition will also have Infinite worlds aswell since 4J Studios said that both next-gen versions will be the same).
He was replying to someone from the comment section in the blog saying: "
The Vita version will be closer to the console versions. PS4 will definitely have infinite worlds!"
I have an idea, why can't 4J make an option that lets users select when creating a world whether they want the worlds size ranging from (Small, Medium, Large, Very Large, and then Infinite)? Like the next pocket edition update 0.9.0? So no one will ever complain about anything in that subject.
Really? It's because the size of the world has never been about the size of the world on the Xbox 360... it's about how the game goes about loading the chunks into memory.
To create an "infinite" option as you suggest, the entire manner in which the chunks load would have to be changed. They made the decision to limit the size of the world so that they could 1) keep the framerates up despite a lack of RAM and, to a lesser extent, processing power available on the Xbox 360; and 2) the size of the game save files down so that the game could still be played on any of the Xbox 360s out there (i.e. the ones without hard drives). Doing the chunk loading the way they did meant that the world cannot be any larger on the 360 than it currently is. I believe the 4J rep stated this precisely at Minecon 2012 when he said something like "it's not like we have spare memory kicking around." Changing the way the game manages chunk loading now is a major deal and it would probably result in significant'y poorer game performance on the Xbox 360. Therefore, they are unlikely to change it EVER on the Xbox 360.
It might indeed be changed on the Xbox One because the hardware has far more capability all the way around to handle the performance "hit" when uploading and downloading chunks continuously.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I already explained what it takes away from me. There is such a thing as too much. It's not that 4J hasn't told us "something," the problem is they haven't told us anything. I thought it was a two-way street, we want the game and they want us to buy it. How can they expect people to be exited if they leave us in the dark for almost an entire year? If the next-gen version is different in any way, either tell us something or give us little sneak peeks like they've been doing with updates. That's all I'm asking. Like a "group photo" screenshot showing the maximum amount of players wearing new skins. When I said I would stop playing Minecraft all together, I was referring to the Xbox One version having infinite worlds.
That is part of it, yes. I like being able to fill the entire map and know what's out there, allowing me to make plans. If the world is too massive for that to ever happen, I won't bother trying. I would find a decent area to build and never leave. If I tried playing the PC version again, I would just spawn in what I couldn't find within a reasonable distance from my home. I don't want to resort to that.
I'm not talking about the 360 version though, I know that will never have infinite worlds.
...
I'm going to kick back, let you read this post, and then hope that it triggers something in your mind to go a back, look at the other posts in this thread and do a little something I like to call, read. Because I don't know who is talking about the 360 edition. But I'm betting when you respond the words '360' will be in there... again.
Ok, cool. As long as we can all read.
OK, so we've gone from there being no other forum to discuss the One to (effectively), this is no place to discuss what happens to the 360 Edition in relation to whatever happens on the One... and blaming those who are discussing both in a "connected" context for doing so. I did say it could be done on the One but that there is a likely a cost to that... and that cost will likely upset a lot of X360 users who still want the game updated further and are willing to forfeit larger worlds on the 360 to see those additional updates happen.
I agree with Geneo, there are those who will NEVER be satisfied nomatter what 4J does because, for some at least, they just have it in for Microsoft and just keep moving the target whenever someone comes up with a reasonable point that counters their unreasonable excuses.
Personally, I think a larger world that loads the chunks the same way as the X360 should be large enough for about any reasonable person (as Mustache Guy mentioned - 5,000 x 5,000 would even be excessive in my book. I'd be more than happy with 3,000 x 3,000, which is doable even by Greg's calculations). Changing chunk loading doesn't solve what I consider a bigger issue - that of biome shift or climate change whenever an update hits. The Xbox chunk loading has some benefits for redstone operation (as Nose Job alluded to earlier).
So, no... changing the chunk loading would not be my choice... but I, at least, will accept WHATEVER 4J decides to do. They are the ONLY ones who have a full picture about what has already gone into this program, what Microsoft requires of them, what Mojang requires of them, and what they feel is the best to ensure the sustainability of their company into the future.
As UpUp has already said, there is always going to be two sides to the "infinite world" argument. At this point its no longer really an issue of whether it COULD be done on the X1, but rather whether it SHOULD. As such, my following statements disregard the technical issues 4J may or may not have to overcome to add infinite worlds. The question is why do people want the feature, not whether it will be added.
Some people want small worlds so that they know what's available to them, to set goals, and to achieve some sort of completion. They enjoy building out a world and when the situation calls for it, they'll simply start a new one. Often times, they'll have 3 or more active worlds depending on who they're playing with, what they want to do, or how much time they have. This is a perfectly acceptable way to play the game, and many last-gen players have come to like it that way. But people are always going to complain about the world size -- it's been an issue since day 1 and since the PC has infinite worlds, many console players want it too.
Others, like myself, would prefer larger worlds so that the possibilities are unknown and starting over simply means carrying what we can to a new location instead of having to truly start a new save. I like being able to climb a mountain and see endless landscapes on the horizon instead of some unreachable ocean border. I enjoy the knowledge that I'm not constrained in what I can build, where I can go, or how bad I can mess up. Survival takes on a whole new meaning. In this way, worlds become more of an evolving creation rather than a place to host this month's project. It becomes a game that doesn't set restrictions on what can be done because of a limited world size.
To me it comes down to which way will make the most people happy? Infinite worlds. The "small world" collective can choose whether or not to explore out of their comfort zone, and the "large world" collective can explore and build until their hearts give out. As a compromise, 4J could add an option to restrict world size during creation... but I think this would end up being a rarely used feature.
I would personally be happy enough with something around 3000 square blocks, but I think you'd still see a lot of people clamoring for infinite. If I was given the choice though? Infinite, please.
Now if 4J would actually release a next-gen version, we could stop discussing and start playing!
This guy, Owen Hill, stated that "PS4 will definitely have infinite worlds!", he is chief word officer for Mojang. It may be legit. Oh and if ps4 has it xbox one will as well, unless something fishy happens with microsoft.
And get horribly lost while spending an eternity looking for things you will never find! I bet you replied without reading a single part of this thread! Was that seriously your first post?! It's that type of ignorant response that makes me hate the idea of infinite worlds even more!
Seriously, if people are getting lost I don't think the infinite worlds are the problem here. Perhaps it's time to re-examine what you're doing and why.
Just throwing that out there. I don't think you could be more wrong about getting lost being a valid reason to hold everyone else back.
As for never finding what you're looking for, I can't imagine having that problem. What is it that you would be looking for that you couldn't find?
* Maps only show you what's around you- they don't tell you which way to go or how (or if) they're connected to your other maps.
* I headed out in the 4 compass directions and when I could barely see the other beacon, erected another. I did this for about a dozen beacons, in all directions. But as you go further out and lose sight of them, get turned around by checking caves you find, etc., you can move further away from your beacons without knowing it. Also as you move further out your 'beacon trail to home' there's only one 'zone' that you can see that last beacon from. Miss that 'zone' and you can get lost.
So yes, getting lost is easier than you think. That's why I suggested:
1- Make your base at or near your spawn point. Then that compass will actually work as you'd like. (Sheesh, after all this time, why haven't they changed the compass so it points to your last sleeping point?)
2- If you decide not to build near the spawn point, write down your base coordinates.
I suspect that 99.999% of us have used only 1% of an 'infinite' world- that's 30K blocks- almost 35 times the size we have now. How would that size be "holding you back"? If you can't build or find enough resources within that size.... well, let's just say you need to get out more. Note that would still leave you with 99% that world totally unused and wasted. Infinite worlds are purely a state of mind- not a necessity, and they're certainly not even begun to be all used.
Would an 'infinite' world be nice (if they could do it without it "costing" anything)? Sure, why not.
But I don't understand the uproar over the world size restriction.
If you're worried about running out of resources, why aren't you screaming for increasing the depth?
Yet another ignorant, selfish response. You refuse to accept anyone else's point of view because it goes against something you want. I try to get a discussion going and the only thing you can do is insult me. Most of the other responses I get are people repeatedly saying "Infinite worlds are great because you get more of everything!" which I don't see as a valid reason for why they should exist in the Xbox One version. "Give us more, more, more!" Sounds pretty selfish to me, just saying.
In response to your disbelief that something in a 30,000,000x30,000,000 world could be hard to find (are you serious?), I started playing the PC version again and have yet to see a jungle or roofed forest. If they are not within my one fully expanded map, I will not continue searching. I will just spawn in the saplings I'm missing. I won't even bother looking for an ice spike biome or mushroom island. Before you tell me to carry more maps and a compass, I won't fill up my inventory just to deal with the oversized worlds.
I'm sure people are going to accuse me of being a hypocrite because I got on his case about not accepting my perspective while at the same time I refuse to accept people wanting an insane amount of resources and space as a valid reason to want infinite worlds. The difference is he won't even consider the possibility of my claims being legitimate. I don't accept wanting unrealistic amounts of space and resources as a validation for infinite worlds because there is no way anyone can exhaust said things fast enough to justify them.
To me, "infinite" supply of resources takes the meaning out of "survival." To me... survival is more about managing limited supplies than it is about unlimited expansion. In a very real sense, global survival today, more and more, is about cooperation, conservation of resources, and recycling of "waste" than it is about seemingly endless colonial expansion.
Well said.
He was replying to someone from the comment section in the blog saying: "
The Vita version will be closer to the console versions. PS4 will definitely have infinite worlds!"
LINK: http://blog.us.plays...#comment-971193
I have an idea, why can't 4J make an option that lets users select when creating a world whether they want the worlds size ranging from (Small, Medium, Large, Very Large, and then Infinite)? Like the next pocket edition update 0.9.0? So no one will ever complain about anything in that subject.
Really? It's because the size of the world has never been about the size of the world on the Xbox 360... it's about how the game goes about loading the chunks into memory.
To create an "infinite" option as you suggest, the entire manner in which the chunks load would have to be changed. They made the decision to limit the size of the world so that they could 1) keep the framerates up despite a lack of RAM and, to a lesser extent, processing power available on the Xbox 360; and 2) the size of the game save files down so that the game could still be played on any of the Xbox 360s out there (i.e. the ones without hard drives). Doing the chunk loading the way they did meant that the world cannot be any larger on the 360 than it currently is. I believe the 4J rep stated this precisely at Minecon 2012 when he said something like "it's not like we have spare memory kicking around." Changing the way the game manages chunk loading now is a major deal and it would probably result in significant'y poorer game performance on the Xbox 360. Therefore, they are unlikely to change it EVER on the Xbox 360.
It might indeed be changed on the Xbox One because the hardware has far more capability all the way around to handle the performance "hit" when uploading and downloading chunks continuously.