• 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Ecu

    Honestly, GoldK, what does it matter to you? You don't want to play on a server where money can equal power, we get that. Why should noone be allowed to? If that happens to be an environment a chunk of the community prefers, who are you to say it is wrong? Them playing that way doesn't hurt you at all.

    I edited my post. To add to my personal opinion, I want a different pay model to multiplayers because it's hard to find a pay model that I actually like when the majority uses the p2w model. So it does affect me and maybe I will try multiplayer a try again when I see no more p2w servers. Since most of you are ignoring legalities, I might as well put in my personal opinions.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Durphead

    snip

    Are you implying the minecraft community doesn't want public servers at all and only play to show off power? Why bother setting up servers for them anyway if they only use servers to be elitist and not because they genuinely like server contents? That insight of yours gave one more reason why we should support the EULA. I think this will be a wonderful step in stopping elitism in the community when public servers are gone.

    Common sense is mojang allows priority access. Period. You are grasping at straws at this moment in trying to validate your claim that p2w is better than equal gameplay with limited server access for free users. If you ask me, I would rather play in a server where everyone has equal power and I have the option to pay if I find the server interesting enough to have access anytime. If I don't have money, I will just have to wait and play during less crowded time or camp until one free player leaves. The server owner also saves money by maximizing player slots and adjust the free slots size to adjust income to server popularity. Everyone wins.

    With the upcoming changes, it won't be as easy to ask for donations which is why I am suggesting to use other means if you really want to help a charity. Minecraft charity is not as big as more traditional charity out there so it will barely have any effect in the grand scheme of things. Beside, not all servers are going to run for charity. You said it yourself servers need money to operate and the overwhelming majority of the server will be used for profit instead of charitable purposes.
    Quote from Ecu

    I really wish people would actually evaluate the result of Mojang's actions rather then blindly siding with Mojang. I asked a question openly, to multiple people and the best I got was, "We'll still be allowed to play Minecraft." This is just ridiculous. Why do you agree with Mojang's decision if you cannot even give me a reason why it will benefit the community?

    I stand by one of my earlier statements in that those that are against pay for perk features are jealous of those that were able to pay for such features, because all I hear is complaints against said feature without any actual good reasons as to why. It's a crude way to look at it, but honestly they dodge any direct request for a reason, so what else am I to think?

    However, I can actually explain multiple reasons as to why it is BAD for the community. It could potentially (and according to one large server that has posted, may actually) cause people to lose their jobs (which could potentially make people/families homeless), it could inhibit the gameplay of such servers as they are forced to use alternative means for income beyond gameplay features. It actually directly stifles creation by limiting what you're allowed to make (no capes). It creates a bad impression that Mojang will take away from the community at any time for any reason without negotiation. I've got plenty of reasons its NOT good for the community. I cannot really find one reason its good.



    One thing I'd like to keep mind for those that reply to me, I don't play on large servers. I design mod content and art. I'm the original creator of the Ender Storage mod, I occasionally twitch stream and I've been contributing my other ideas to various other mods over the years (be it art or gameplay concepts). I don't actually lose much myself by these restrictions, but I am still speaking against them. I also am acting and not just speaking by actually moving my content creation to a open source platform (http://minetest.net) which will give me the ability to make content and have rights over said content.

    Did mojang made minecraft for people to make money out of it? No. It would be different if mojang encouraged people to make money from the start and then suddenly changed their statement. Those who will lose their "job" was their own mistake of making it a business when it was never meant to be just like those who made selling illegal drugs a business when the government forbids it. With the lack of p2w, you will need better features than ever so that people will pay and keep coming back for more. Who said you can't give the exclusive perks right now to everyone on the server so that everyone get to fully enjoy your server?

    Good things I can think off: it will kill elitism among the community. Elitism breeds hatred and unfairness in gameplay and it would be better if elitists don't exist. Servers won't rely anymore on power to sell but on the server content itself which means more people willing to innovate something so that people are more interested to play in their server and spend money to keep it alive. Power selling is as simple as donate money for a stack of diamond which can be done by literally just typing a command. No innovation whatsoever. Close knit community will return with small servers being much more common just like the old days. Everyone knows each other and everyone plays nice and cooperate in making projects. This kind of environment is what we should encourage.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Perspective is subjective so please stop arguing based on perspective. I already stated the objectives many times and I won't repeat it again.
    Quote from ONECOOLDUDE

    =its not even that. Some parents (like mine) would view that as a waste, heck, they even view the old 'donating' or better called purchasing, as a waste. They think everything that requires credit cards online is a scam for identity theft unless its something like netflix....Sure other parents are like this
    Some parents dont want kids paying for the game twice.
    So kids will steal credit cards like before
    Mojang will get mre emails from parents about it
    half the problem was never solved.

    Sure, p2w is gone, replaced by p2p

    and those who dont go pay to play will have to rely on donations, since technically "priorty access model" is not cosmetic, it does affect gameplay.
    so either way, kids will need to pay, even if prioty access is allowed.

    so that means parents will say no
    credit cards stolen from parents

    Then the problem is in the parents and not in the game itself and it is their responsibility to make sure their kids won't be stealing their credit card. Personally, I don't want my kids to do that either when they can enjoy playing on free servers instead of being spoiled by huge servers that drains money. Server owners just have to rely on the working adults playing the game and scale it according to the adults willing to pay for it. You can define priority access as gameplay advantage all you want but mojang clearly stated they are allowing it and sensible people would use that model instead of finding flaws on it and try to protest the EULA.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Bigdog1787

    Its opposite the good content servers will fall because they the ones that need the money the most and low quality servers will be the ones standing because they dont need or care for money.

    Where's the logic in that? Why would you let a good server you like die by not donating? Big servers =! good servers. You can have a huge low quality server that has p2w as its lifeline and medium sized good servers that live off to simple donations simply because people like the server overall and doesn't need additional benefits to give them money. Then again, maybe p2w does means good servers for p2w players.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from naway18

    You prefer small and private servers, and quite a few people prefer large public servers. It's a difference of preference, and it doesn't affect you. If these larger servers die, how do you benefit from this? People enjoy playing on these servers or they would already be dead. Why are you trying to bring these servers down? What is to gain? I understand all of the current rules and how almost EVERY SERVER ON THE PLANET has broken the rules. Now it's been decided who is still breaking the rules, and who is not. Those who are within the rules lose competition, those who are not are left to fight to keep their server alive with their players behind them.

    It's amusing to see anti EULA people saying people like huge public servers but contradict themselves by saying no one is willing to pay to maintain those huge servers if there are no exclusive perks. The only one who will bring down your server is your own playerbase not Mojang. Mojang never restricted your income. It's your playerbase who is your boss when it comes to keeping your server alive. It seems you have no faith in your playerbase and they actually don't enjoy your server if not for the elitism it breeds. It's time for low quality content servers to die and actual good content servers that people are willing to keep alive survive.
    Quote from Durphead

    snip

    Why don't you trust them? Is it because your server is actually bad and perks are the only reason it is alive? Cheap tactics like that won't work anymore and you have to make a server with good content to survive. People are not mindless creatures that you manipulate to regurgitate money by selling power. They are sentient beings capable of deciding if your server is worthy or not to spend money on. I am simply expressing my opinions that might save you from wasting your time whining and start rebuilding your server to have actual good content in it.

    Gaming experience is not equal to server access. Read the EULA again where it states that gaming experience is about equality on what paying and free players can access on the gameplay. It doesn't state anywhere that every server should be free to access whether you paid or not. If anything, this is the loophole mojang left for you to use in monetizing the server.

    So why use minecraft for charity? There other ways to have more generous people donate to poor people than minecraft. This is just a poor excuse in an attempt to keep selling power.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Durphead

    What makes you think that if a server shrinks it can survive the new EULA enforcement? With a smaller server comes a smaller income, which makes it more difficult to pay for the server's shrunken (but still very real) expenses. Anyway, if anybody is acting like we live in a perfect world, it is the people who support the changes. They pretend that most servers will not only be able to survive the upcoming change, but somehow improve from what they were before because Mojang told them to..

    That is for the playerbase to decide if a server lives or die not the server owners. Are server owners feel threatened that the power shifted to the community? Supporters of EULA accepts the fact mojang has the power over their own game and that is a fact. Anti EULA people believes that they own the game to make money out of it which is exactly what a perfect world is, leeching off other's work without restriction.
    Quote from _Keldt_

    Priority access-

    Non-paying member:

    "My gameplay is different because I can be kicked out of the server at any time without notice. It's not fair!"

    Paying member:

    "I have power over the newbies because I can kick people out if I need to."


    Overly dramatic? Maybe.

    But you could sell this as a kit right now if you wanted to. It's actually one of those hated "donor perks" on a lot of servers.

    Also, you're right, pay to win is not the same thing as paying to enter a server, because you can't even lose without paying with the latter.

    "Pay-to-play" > "Pay-to-win" ? Not in my opinion. Especially since quite a few of the servers people are calling "Pay-to-win" were servers where you could actually win without paying. Paying for perks or classes (often well balanced classes) isn't the same as paying for the ability to win. This is coming from someone who enjoyed playing on such servers but never sank a penny into them.


    On another note:



    Or maybe they were paying to support charity and the items were just a bonus?
    Perspective can change quite a bit.

    Think of it this way
    "This server is suppose to be pay to play but the owner is kind enough to let me play as a free player when the server is not full. If I like this server, I want to play anytime so I will pay. If this server is meh, I'll just wait for a free slots to play."
    Pay to play means you are paying for access to the server you like but you don't have elitists who feel special than others because they bought power. Basically, you will be paying because you actually like the server and not because you were offered with power.

    Why would you need the items then if you wanted to donate to charity? There is literally no reason you will need items if you really want to help the charity. There are other ways to donate to charity other than minecraft if you are wondering.
    Quote from gold_tool

    I feel like GoldK was one of those player that played a faction pvp server and would always get raided by the best players that donated so now is his chance to get back at those who like the donating.

    I haven't played a faction servers for a long time since I dedicated myself in playing around with cmd blocks. I know how to defend myself from p2w players by smart location of my base and I know my limitations of being unable to take down p2w players with full diamond gears with enchantments.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Dranku54

    I have a qustion that I do not feel was covered in the EULA. There is a server that consideres itself a charity server. What you do is you donate money to the charity, and you receive points on your account for that server. You can then take those points and purchase in game items. So the money itself is not going to the server, but going to a charity. At the same time you are still getting in game items as a reward. The owner says its just extra thing for donating. The charity is a real world charity and is not a part of minecraft except via this server getting donations for it and then rewarding those who donate to that charity.

    Will this be permitted to go on? Will this still be allowed? Does anyone know how this will work since the money is going to a charity, but the players who donate to said charity receive points to use on the servers website for items.

    Remove the game items for donating and it should be good. The EULA clearly states that money should not equate to exclusive items to the donors no matter what that money is for. I think it would be better for the players to pay for the actual charity instead of the items and the charity is just the bonus.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from ONECOOLDUDE

    But wait, isnt that something that gives paying members an advantage and is more than cosmetic?

    Definitely not. That's like saying pay to enter server is pay to win but mojang obviously do not forbid that kind of server. You get the same features everyone has in-game but paying members get to play anytime they want. Gamplay fairness and server accessibilty are two completely different things.
    Quote from ONECOOLDUDE

    Get your head out of a perfect world dude..society itself is greedy and has a "hi, my name is jimmy, whatcha gonna gimme" mindset ..

    Sure, maybe a few whole hearted people will do so. but remember a good majority of the community is kids.

    Kid: hey can i donate 20 dollars for the server?
    mom: what wilol you get for it?
    kid: nothing, just the sever needs cash to keep running
    mom: its a waste, obviously the sevrer will die anyways if it needs real donations. So no.

    then some parents dont want to pay twice for a game.

    I never assumed we are in a perfect world. If anything, it is the anti EULA people who live in a perfect world where you get to make money off someone else's game for a small cost (or no cost for cracked servers). All I am saying is you must adapt as a server owner to the size of your server in response to the projected decrease in paying players. Does it make a difference if the kid spends his money for perks or server maintenance? You speak as if the parents are getting something if the kid pays for perks. Only young adults or children would think that way about parents.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Ecu

    You didn't actually read what I posted or you continued to choose to ignore it.

    I specifically asked HOW it is good for the community. All you've explained is that Mojang has the right, which I don't believe ANY of us disagree with. They own the game, of course they have the right to choose how its used. I cannot trust Mojang when they do something as hap-hazzard as change something a large portion of the community relies on, without actually creating any kind of discussion with the community first.

    If you're going to continue to quote me and respond to my posts, would you please at least answer the question I asked, rather then continue to repeat the same thing over and over?

    How is it good is very subjective which is why I try to reason in an objective manner with mojang knowing what they are doing. If you ask me for my personal opinion, I always hated inequality in games that favors paying players. Having a community that encourages equality and discourages elitism is better in my opinion. Server quality should go up because there is no more easy way of luring players to spend money and you have to make an actual good server to do it. There is no right or wrong opinion because personal opinion is subjective so we should not use it as a basis on why the EULA should or should not be supported.
    Quote from capsicumsparkelz

    It doesn't always meen that they don't care about these servers, they have already payed for the game, why should we now have to pay to support servers? thats like only being able to campaign on games like call of duty! Also, parents of 10 year old kids aren't all made of money, they don't just give their children money to play games, lots try to keep their children away from games! Also parents are old, in their days, they didn't have things like this, they don't understand thing like you would need money to play games.

    Tell me, what's the difference between the $20 you spent for perks and $20 you spent for server maintenance? You spend the same amount of money in both cases but it is the attitude that matters here. Now that I think of it, why not make a server that is pay to enter but has all the perks in it? Would you pay for it or not just because there are no free players to abuse your power on?

    I think even your grandpa knows that you pay money to use a service like paying a taxi to get you somewhere. Just tell them servers are like services that needs money to operate and they will understand unless you are a liar and your words can't be trusted.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Silverbane_7

    yes, but how can you sell premium access?
    they say you cannot mix paying and non paying customers on a server.

    so you cannot put paying customers (who are paying for premium access) onto a server with non paying free users.
    so a sever cannot *kick* a free user or have special slots for premium members, right? because thats violating the part of the rules that say you cannnot have paying and non paying customers on the same server.

    premium users have to get their own seperate server from free users.
    right?

    Actually you can, provided the paying members and free members are treated the same in terms of gameplay. The only equality mojang wants is gameplay but they are fine if there is no equality in terms of how you access the server. Kicking a free player to make room for paying members is acceptable. That is actually more generous than outright restricting access to only paying members.
    Quote from Ecu

    You know (and pardon me if I've missed a post, its hard to keep up when I work quite a bit), I still have yet to see anyone explain how this is beneficial to the community. Specifically, how restricting what servers are allowed to sell (at all) is a benefit. I can and have pointed out quite a few arguments as to why it is negative, but have seen none that describe it being positive.

    Sure, its Mojang's game and their right and I do respect that. My choice in the matter was to move my content creation to an open source engine instead of supporting Mojang in that way any longer. However, that doesn't mean I think its a good or right move by Mojang to do this. It really does hurt the community without actually benefiting anyone.

    Can someone that is for the change please explain why its a good thing without just repeating the same kind of "Its Mojang's right" or "I had pay to win" excuses that have been made. I get that it's Mojang's game, but it doesn't mean Mojang couldn't be making a mistake. I also understand that people might not enjoy a pay to win environment, but they have thousands (or more) alternative servers they could join, this point is essentially moot (just because you don't enjoy it, doesn't mean noone should be able to).

    Because they know their game better and know what's good for it. You have to trust mojang on this one. They don't want minecraft to fail as much as we do but us and them have different ideas about it. If it works for them, then good. If not, they may change a few rules to bring back old monetization schemes. We will just have to wait and see and it would be better if the community doesn't actively destroy minecraft for not getting what they want like a spoiled child destroying everything after the parents denied him of what he wants.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from naway18

    Yeah, I'm "misguided". Have you tried to run a server yourself? Just a question. It's expensive. Another question. Do you play multiplayer? All servers are trying to be as large as possible, why? Because it's fun to play with more people. You have a better experience. Where Minecraft was in 2010 is completely irrelevant. That was when Minecraft was still fresh, people still playing singleplayer and figuring out the game. The uprising of Minecraft was 2010, now it relies on multiplayer to keep it fresh, which is going to be hit hard by this.

    Yes and I prefer small and private server because some people enjoy playing with a small group of friends. If you find Minecraft boring with smaller servers, then you are free to stop playing it. You have already given your $27 to mojang and it doesn't matter at this point if you quit playing or not. There are still tons of new potential customers coming in who finds the game fresh and willing to drop that $27 to mojang's pocket. So no. Minecraft multiplayer will not die as long as there are people who are contented playing in a small and private server and new players willing to play it vanilla. Minecraft dying is just an empty threat of greedy server owners hell bent on getting back their source of income.
    Quote from thejbanto

    No. They won't. Nobody will freely give away money in exchange for nothing. Even when donating to something like the Red Cross or the boys and girls club or some other charity, you're doing it for the feeling of helping out a good cause. Minecraft servers are not charity. No one will donate to them out of some insatiable "love". The few people that do will not be enough to cover the expenses. Additionally, most minecraft players are too young to have jobs and are not old enough to manage their own money. How should a 10 year old be expected to come up to their parents and ask them to litterally throw away $20 for no reason?

    You are right about one thing, the community knows what it wants. Countless servers have tried countless methods of monetization. They've tried 100% pure donations, cosmetics, in-game ads, pay to play, pay to win, but in the end, the community has chosen "pay for more". They've spent the most money on servers offering fair and balanced purchasable ranks/features and for that reason, those servers have survived and become the most prevelant leaving the others to die off.

    Then it only means the community doesn't want these servers to exist. All they care about is showing superiority. Why cater to a community that doesn't care about your server? Also, parents are smart enough to know servers are not free and need money to keep going.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from _Keldt_

    And my point: It'd be really really nice (also really really different from the way most EULAs work, I know) if the big servers didn't have to scale down because Mojang suddenly decides they want to enforce their EULA now. There's a nice balance where things are with the big servers where they float on "donations" and their stores, allowing people who don't actually want to spend anything to play on the server with those who felt like paying for stuff.
    Now, do what Mojang did and forget the EULA for a while. Disregard whether this community is legal or not, and think about it. This server is acting just like a "F2P" MMO game with microtransactions. If the big server in question is a minigame server, now think about this: were it not for Mojang's disregard for their own EULA, would this kind of experience be available anywhere? Think of trying to develop, [i]and then market[/i] a F2P MMO where all the players do is play one of a few unrelated minigames with other people.

    The community, through Minecraft, created a sort of semi-game that can be played (and enjoyed, as shown by anyone like me) without paying anything, because there are players out there who did pay. Their reasons for paying are about to get trimmed down to the goodness of their hearts, and servers, as you've said, are probably going to have to scale down because of this.

    There goes the MMO aspect; there goes quite a bit of publicity, which takes away some of the new players coming in who didn't hear about the server; there goes further development, in order to keep things small, and then servers just aren't the same anymore.

    [I had a bit more here, but then accidentally hit the mouse button for going back a page and lost it. Ugh.]



    Yes! There is. Bigger servers usually have the funds to pay for further development. This means that bigger servers will have more minigames, or more overall general content, than smaller servers. For quite a lot of people, that makes the bigger servers more fun. Scaling down a server does not come without consequences.



    I'd hope that older and/or smarter players could complain "to the masses" about a server charging hundreds of dollars for diamonds, putting the server in deep trouble. Likewise, I'd hope the older or smarter players would know what the real value of diamonds or other gear is on other servers.

    Whether it's ripping people off with server power, or it's ripping people off with server entry, I feel like we're dealing with extremely similar situations. Both have a high possibility of brief success, followed by utter failure as soon as the scammers get to the wrong people.

    The children that I mentioned that fall so much more easily for scams like this will, of course, not be the only people who come across the scam. Sure, the children will will be able to see through the "new" scam, but it'll probably catch enough people that Mojang will still get letters from parents wanting their money back. That's my take on things, anyway.

    I hope I'm making sense right now, I'm rather tired.

    Everything lies in the hands of the minecraft community. Let them decide if a server is worthy enough to spend money on without any perks on it. I may sound like a broken record here but I repeat: If the community wants the server not to scale down because they genuinely like it, they will support it regardless of perks. Server owners are just threatened because they know that some players don't really like their server contents and they only come for the power when you buy something from the server. It is not up to the server owners to dictate how big their server is. It's up for the community to decide if they wanted your minigames to exist or not.
    Quote from naway18

    How is this "doing a favor"? Those servers you are talking about? You are now going to be FORCED to pay to play them, or they will be non-existent because they are shut down. Those servers that are overpowered out there don't need to be played, so don't play them. This is slowly going to end multiplayer servers, can't you see that? It's a "favor" for those that aren't going to pay, and with no advantage, nobody will pay. How is the server going to stay up? You mentioned it's difficult. It's difficult already. This makes it close to impossible. What's the fun in watching servers fail? It's not something you enjoy so it should fail for everyone who does?

    You are another misguided soul who mindlessly believe those greedy server owners about multiplayer servers dying with EULA. I ask you, what is minecraft somewhere in 2010 before public servers were popularized?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Metamorphic_Fish

    NO, that is worse than P2W.

    So you think a server with 100% paywall is much better than a server that accepts free players provided the server is not full? If you get kicked, you simply wait until the server has one less player so that you can join again or, better yet, pay the priority fee to have 100% access to the server anytime. I would prefer this than having p2w players showing off their superiority in the game and some of them have the tendency to abuse their power over free members.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from _Keldt_

    Or how about if you're someone like me? I've spent no money on the Shotbow Network, but I'm still a server regular. You seem to have this idea that these huge servers had awful free content, and were only out to rip people off. If that was the case, these servers would not get nearly as much support as they do.

    My point since the begining: If your patrons wants to support your server with pure donations, then good for you. If they don't want to, then you have no choice but to scale down the server or shut it down. No one is forcing you to maintain your server size with reduced income.
    Quote from _Keldt_

    I agree with you about the Mojang hate bit, but:

    I feel like (Note, I'm speaking while having zero experience hosting or running servers) priority access is not going to be enough of an incentive to get people to put money into a server. While it does sound nicer than a subscription fee, the number of "donors" on current servers is not all that high (Just speaking from experience playing on servers).

    EDIT: Oh, and I also don't feel like huge server developers, who spent months developing great new content, wanting to have enough money to keep running their server and developing new content are greedy



    Most people have been talking about small children when discussing this particular topic. I could see server owners lying outright, saying their server provides several excellent experiences that it actually doesn't, claiming to have lots of players, and just generally lying about how much fun these children would have if they'd only pay some ridiculous server entry fee. We're talking about children who were gullible enough to pay hundreds of dollars for diamonds here. Even something as simple as something along the lines of

    "All/only the cool/mature/rich people play here!"

    Could persuade the same kind of small child who bought a diamond sword with their parents' money to buy entry to a server with their parents' money. Marketing is quite a versatile and effective force.

    Agree? Disagree?

    So what if they don't want to spend money on priority access? Keep your server small then and scale it with your income. I am starting to think there is a requirement on how big your server is. Is there a hidden prize somewhere that awards the biggest server? Tell me about it

    Children are more prone to be tempted to buy power than a simple server access. Of course they could always complain about a server ripping them off when they realized it doesn't look what they thought it would be and the server will be in deep trouble to the masses. Children won't call paying $100 for a stack of diamond a ripoff because they don't know what is the real value of diamond on legit servers. Overall, it's harder to ripoff someone with server access over power because the power satisfaction over another player is gone.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from naway18

    I'm not trying to be mean here, being mean won't get anyone anywhere. You have some great points. I wouldn't care... but I'm worried. I've always wanted to start a Minecraft server, I've wanted the thrill of being able to provide an excellent experience that players would love me for. Only problem: hosting costs. I don't want to make a dime off of Minecraft servers, I just don't have the money to pay for hosting. The ways that Mojang has allowed won't cover costs for new servers. People will not pay to join a server that's new with nobody else playing there, and nobody will pay to advertise on a server with no players. There are two options left, cosmetic items and donating to donate. They are both unlikely, and both will more than likely not happen enough to keep up-and-coming servers online. I want to try, but there is so much risk.

    Now on to what I actually quoted you for :P The post you quoted didn't say you HAD to use the "Pay to Join" route, but it is one of the best options to keep servers online.

    I will give you an advice how to start. Run a small and free server with priority access. If people do not like your server, you won't lose anything for hosting a free one. If people started to show interest by paying to have guaranteed server slots, then gradually increase that slot until you think you hit your server popularity cap. You won't be wasting player slots because you want your server to be as close to full as possible depending on how generous you are to the free players which means you will be paying minimal server costs.
    Quote from thejbanto

    I didn't say they were making anyone charge upon entry. They're simply making provisions that allow exploitive server owners to exploit players further thereby failing to address the issue properly. If the problem is people getting ripped off by server owners charging $500 for a diamond sword, how would disallowing that while simultaneously permitting those same server owners the ability to charge $500 to be whitelisted fix anything?

    It's harder to ripoff somebody when you are simply offering server access than by luring them through power. Having power means you can assert your dominance to free players while having server access don't have that kind of appeal. You have to charge fair if you want customers to actually like your server enough to pay and play.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.