Actually this should be a rightful thing to do. For players who bought the game before the ALPHA AND BETA STAGE gets a free copy of minecraft for Xpheria and the 360 AFTER the game is released. So you dont need to buy another copy of minecraft to get it on the xbox. :tongue.gif:
I might be wrong also..
EDIT: I dont think you need it for the 360 since there is a Marketplace where you can download the game for free and use there accounts there. This makes more sense whatsoever.
Two different definitions of the word 'version' being used here. Not the same thing.
during the alpha stage of the game, people who purchased the alpha version of the game were assured we would receive all future versions of the game.
on notch's blog he told us we would get two new versions of the game: one on the xbox, one on xperia. go look at the 6/10 post on his blog if you don't believe me.
I honestly doubt it, considering you'd be asking for another version of the game on two completely different platforms when you only bought one version on a platform separate from the other two. I'm pretty sure he meant the complete version of the game, or expansion packs and such for the game. That's just me rambling though.
For reasons out of my control, this is unlikely. I will nag some more, though.. it would be pretty cool.
Also, these games are not new versions of the same game alpha players bought. They've got different names, are designed from the ground up to take advantage of the new platforms, and don't even share any source code. I think everybody realizes this, but the image makes for some good trolly humor, and I can appreciate that.
Written contracts
7.(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plan, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.
during the alpha stage of the game, people who purchased the alpha version of the game were assured we would receive all future versions of the game.
on notch's blog he told us we would get two new versions of the game: one on the xbox, one on xperia. go look at the 6/10 post on his blog if you don't believe me.
Yes I know what he wrote, I looked at the image.
However, when referring to future versions of the game, Notch meant version as in "A particular updated edition of a piece of computer software"
While when referring to the new versions for xbox and experia play, Notch meant version as in "A particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing"
When Notch described minecraft coming to these additional platforms, and called them 'new versions' he meant they were different forms of a similar type of thing, not incremental software versions. And that use of the word 'versions' to describe them was in his blog, not in a legally binding contract.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thread Ninja. Call me ED.
Quote from Tali »
Sssssshepard, the Creepersssss are ~ASssssssssUMING DIRECT CONTROL
However, when referring to future versions of the game, Notch meant version as in "A particular updated edition of a piece of computer software"
While when referring to the new versions for xbox and experia play, Notch meant version as in "A particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing"
When Notch described minecraft coming to these additional platforms, and called them 'new versions' he meant they were different forms of a similar type of thing, not incremental software versions. And that use of the word 'versions' to describe them was in his blog, not in a legally binding contract.
here's what i want you to do.
i want you to click on the link leading to the image.
i want you to zoom in to the bottom left corner, specifically the part saying "It's ambiguous at best which means it's not our problem."
now i want you to read the snippet taken from the current EU law regarding this matter
now, read the second line and try, to the best of your ability, to comprehend it.
here's what i want you to do.
i want you to click on the link leading to the image.
i want you to zoom in to the bottom left corner, specifically the part saying "It's ambiguous at best which means it's not our problem."
now i want you to read the snippet taken from the current EU law regarding this matter
now, read the second line and try, to the best of your ability, to comprehend it.
" If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail."
There is no doubt to me that "all future versions of the game" refers to versions of the game "Minecraft" not "Minecraft Portable" which is a different though related game. The Minecraft on xbox is also a different game.
The fact that Notch referred to them as 'versions' on his blog is completely irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thread Ninja. Call me ED.
Quote from Tali »
Sssssshepard, the Creepersssss are ~ASssssssssUMING DIRECT CONTROL
...Call me ignorant, but why even bother with it...Are you trying to steal money from a small company that could probably help them grow and better themselves. Because we all know that this version that's coming to the XPeria and Xbox360 are heavily nerfed from the PC version since, to my knowledge, neither have the processing power/ect in order to run it to it's full potential.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from martin107 »
Quote from Rustysporkman »
Creepers are people who hide outside your window and touch themselves. Are we changing that name?
I wonder if any lawsuits are going to be taken on this :smile.gif:
This is just my view. But I think Notch DID promise the alpha buyers.
I dont mind since I dont have an xbox and so on :sad.gif:
...Call me ignorant, but why even bother with it...Are you trying to steal money from a small company that could probably help them grow and better themselves. Because we all know that this version that's coming to the XPeria and Xbox360 are heavily nerfed from the PC version since, to my knowledge, neither have the processing power/ect in order to run it to it's full potential.
Do you know how many millions they've already earned from Minecraft?
I'm still strongly disagreeing with the OP, but I have to point out that you're not making a good argument with the 'small company' line.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thread Ninja. Call me ED.
Quote from Tali »
Sssssshepard, the Creepersssss are ~ASssssssssUMING DIRECT CONTROL
...Call me ignorant, but why even bother with it...Are you trying to steal money from a small company that could probably help them grow and better themselves. Because we all know that this version that's coming to the XPeria and Xbox360 are heavily nerfed from the PC version since, to my knowledge, neither have the processing power/ect in order to run it to it's full potential.
"steal" money? are you serious?
who told you the xperia/360 version was going to be heavily nerfed? the xperia might not have the processing power, sure (it's a handheld device man) but the 360 most certainly does... it runs crysis 1 + 2 just fine - do you really think it's going to have trouble running minecraft to it's full potential?
Do you know how many millions they've already earned from Minecraft?
I'm still strongly disagreeing with the OP, but I have to point out that you're not making a good argument with the 'small company' line.
Fine, fair enough. New argument then.
The OP is comparing the two scenarios in which Notch referred to Alpha buyers getting the new Versions including expansions blah, blah. This part IS a legally binding contract. He is then taking this and comparing it to the blog post where Notch said that he is making versions for the XPeria and 360. Because this is a blog post it is NOT a binding contract and therefore the third point the OP is making, where he brings in the EU contract rule that says the best outcome for the consumer is what happens, doesn't even come into play because you don't have two legal scenarios for it.
TL;DR : The rule that states you get the best possible outcome for a definition as the consumer doesn't come into play becuase the questioned definition is between a Legal and Non-legal document, and in order for the previous rule to work it'd need to be between two Legal statements.
(That actually wasn't much shorter...oh well, hope you get my point)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from martin107 »
Quote from Rustysporkman »
Creepers are people who hide outside your window and touch themselves. Are we changing that name?
Your move, notch.
I doubt its true is it?
I might be wrong also..
EDIT: I dont think you need it for the 360 since there is a Marketplace where you can download the game for free and use there accounts there. This makes more sense whatsoever.
during the alpha stage of the game, people who purchased the alpha version of the game were assured we would receive all future versions of the game.
on notch's blog he told us we would get two new versions of the game: one on the xbox, one on xperia. go look at the 6/10 post on his blog if you don't believe me.
Written contracts
7.(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plan, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail.
seriously man? it's barely even 4 lines.
did the state decide to cut reading classes to? jesus
However, when referring to future versions of the game, Notch meant version as in "A particular updated edition of a piece of computer software"
While when referring to the new versions for xbox and experia play, Notch meant version as in "A particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing"
When Notch described minecraft coming to these additional platforms, and called them 'new versions' he meant they were different forms of a similar type of thing, not incremental software versions. And that use of the word 'versions' to describe them was in his blog, not in a legally binding contract.
here's what i want you to do.
i want you to click on the link leading to the image.
i want you to zoom in to the bottom left corner, specifically the part saying "It's ambiguous at best which means it's not our problem."
now i want you to read the snippet taken from the current EU law regarding this matter
now, read the second line and try, to the best of your ability, to comprehend it.
" If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail."
There is no doubt to me that "all future versions of the game" refers to versions of the game "Minecraft" not "Minecraft Portable" which is a different though related game. The Minecraft on xbox is also a different game.
The fact that Notch referred to them as 'versions' on his blog is completely irrelevant.
This is just my view. But I think Notch DID promise the alpha buyers.
I dont mind since I dont have an xbox and so on :sad.gif:
I'm still strongly disagreeing with the OP, but I have to point out that you're not making a good argument with the 'small company' line.
"steal" money? are you serious?
who told you the xperia/360 version was going to be heavily nerfed? the xperia might not have the processing power, sure (it's a handheld device man) but the 360 most certainly does... it runs crysis 1 + 2 just fine - do you really think it's going to have trouble running minecraft to it's full potential?
You are ripping off an indie developer.
And thats horrible.
Use for different variety of food
Now check out others suggestions
Climbing your @$$ off in minecraft
Fine, fair enough. New argument then.
The OP is comparing the two scenarios in which Notch referred to Alpha buyers getting the new Versions including expansions blah, blah. This part IS a legally binding contract. He is then taking this and comparing it to the blog post where Notch said that he is making versions for the XPeria and 360. Because this is a blog post it is NOT a binding contract and therefore the third point the OP is making, where he brings in the EU contract rule that says the best outcome for the consumer is what happens, doesn't even come into play because you don't have two legal scenarios for it.
TL;DR : The rule that states you get the best possible outcome for a definition as the consumer doesn't come into play becuase the questioned definition is between a Legal and Non-legal document, and in order for the previous rule to work it'd need to be between two Legal statements.
(That actually wasn't much shorter...oh well, hope you get my point)