Minecraft Forums

Quote from MaGicBush»

You can look at any new title like Destiny and see that(Microsoft purposely left content out of the original as it's on the disc right now and turned it into the expansion DLC saying they are "working on it" and it caused an uproar once that leaked). I will be surprised if nothing comes out in the next year or so.

You do realize that Microsoft had nothing to do with making or producing Destiny, right? Destiny is made by Bungie and produced by Activision. Destiny is available for both Xbox and Playstation. Are there areas available on the Playstation version that's not playable on the Xbox?
Some games do have content available on disk that is later opened in a DLC. There's many reasons for it. One of the reasons is that it's unfinished or it was a part of a longer level that's not finished. The team that makes the level scenery might have finished it but the team that adds the quests, mobs, items, or whatever didn't. Instead of releasing it half-finished, they close it off so people can't normally access it. That way you have a finished game with expandable areas.

It's the same as in Minecraft. There were items available in Creative that weren't available in Survival for a long time. Sponges comes to mind along with heads. Imagine if Micnecraft survival mode was the only thing that could be played and Creative mode was a developers tool. Sponges and heads would be "on the disk" but not available. They weren't available because they were waiting to be included in a DLC; they weren't available because they weren't quite finished with the design and way to make them available. It's the same with the inaccessible levels in other games. They're not finished yet and it's easier, cheaper and doesn't waste time by leaving them in there. It doesn't hurt anything leaving it in there. It can waste time removing it then putting it back or break the code by removing it.

Quote from Master_Jynx»

I'd suggest the following topics for you to research:
Q:What Game Development studios has MS purchased in the past?
Q:What games did they make before MS bought them?
Q:What games did they make afterwards?
Q:How many were shutdown and why?
Q: How many are still operational?
Q: How many were merged with MS and How many still operate under separate names?
Q: How many are Publicly Traded Companies?

Here's a tidbit I'll answer for you ... How many Game Studios does Microsoft currently own?
answer 1
MS created a child company called Microsoft Games Studios (MGS), which is in charge of game development on the Xbox consoles, Games for Windows, Steam, Windows Phone, etc. and the Game Studios they buy out are own/managed by MGS

Educational Tidbit: If a company is publicly traded under it's own stock, then it is considered a separate company'
and is a child company of the company that is the majority stock holder.

Saying that Microsoft only owns 1 studio is one way to look at it. Microsoft Studios is a subsidiary of Microsoft. Microsoft Studios (they dropped the Games out of their name in 2011) has several companies as subsidiaries that aren't publicly traded. When Microsoft buys a game studio or creates one, it goes to Microsoft Studios to manage it. Saying Microsoft only owns one game studio is a bit pedantic.

Lionhead Studios, Rare Ltd., Mojang, Press Play, Twisted Pixel, Big Park Studios and Bungie were bought by Microsoft. Bungie later regained its independence and just released Destiny. Press Play was a indie game developer in Denmark. MS has also created several other gaming studios like 343 Industries and Turn 10. There's more than that but I keep coming up with new names.

Ensemble Studios was bought by MS in 2001 and later shutdown in 2009. I think there's a few more studios that were bought and later closed by MS. I've seen many people use Ensemble and Bungie as examples of what MS does to game studios but that can't really be the case. Companies can live or die depending on what they are currently doing. Just because it was successful in the past doesn't mean they can stay in business. Ensemble played out Age of Empires and wasn't doing to great. Many of the employees formed other game studios after Ensemble was shutdown. Robot Entertainment was founded by the founder of Ensemble. They made a Xbox live game and a game on iOS. The other 3 that were made up didn't do as well and went under or joined another company. As for Bungie, Destiny has mixed reviews but most of the ones I've seen say it didn't live up to its hype.

Quote from Excelso»

.

In exchange we got:
- Some people pissed by the EULA enforcement (Some with very interesting points of view, it's not just kids scammers).
- Bukkit closed (and others comunity driven projects imposible to keep working).
- Microsoft owns Mojang and expects to get back 2.5 billions minimum.

I do need a better explanation because looking at the big picture it doesn't make sense if we have to believe what we are told.

What does the first 2 have to do with Microsoft? Enforcing the EULA is something that should have been done at the start anyway. Whether the timing was done because of the sell or not doesn't matter since the reasons stated were good enough and needed to be done anyway. Bukkit's closing wasn't due to Mojang or Microsoft but by one of the coders.

Do you know for sure what Microsoft's plans are? You've stated they expect to get $2.5b back in 3 years. Nothing that I've read says that. I posted a link to an article a few days ago that talked about what MS expects. What I have read said Microsoft wanted a long-term investment. Microsoft had a choice, make $25m from interest or make $111 million (Mojang's 2013 profit) this year by buying Mojang. Microsoft has stated it's already happy with the 2015 fiscal year as they've already broke even in terms of interest and made a profit. $2.5B is roughly 3.5% of MS's worth. You don't really understand the financial situation. The $2.5B isn't going to break them, they're not looking to save it for a rainy day either. MS was looking for a way to have it produce a yearly income greater than letting that money sit somewhere. They found it with Mojang.

Quote from barrygateaux»

you realise that apple are just another multinational company who's main aim is to make money? they actually make more profit per second than microsoft.

here's a cool graphic showing it in real time with other companies for comparison

https://www.worldpayzinc.com/tech-wealth#.U1j0YUorewA.twitter

at least bill gates is actually trying to use his money for charity, and doing something for the benefit of the planet. something that steve jobs never did.

That's an interesting graphic. What's more interesting is comparing revenue to profit. HP is pulling in more revenue than MS but makes only a little profit. Apple doubles MS's revenue but doesn't make as much profit per dollar as MS does.Meanwhile Samsung is in the corner making more than any of them but struggling on the profit and twitter looks like it loses a $1 profit for every $1 gained.I think twitter has got it backwards.

How much code did Wesley Wolfe contribute? From what I gather, Wolfe has copyright over what he has written. Since it's a part of Bukkit, then he can legally do what he did. The only way Bukkit could go on would be redo Bukkit without his code. I also understand that there may be some decompiled Mojang code in there or not, I've seen debates about whether that code is or is not closed source belong to Mojang. If it does contain their code, then they could issue notices as well. In that case, it would be up to Mojang or MS to rewrite the code without Wolfe's contribution but Mojang seems reluctant to do so.

Those of you that are not getting multiple enchants per item at lvl 3, what's your xp level at? I think I remember reading that the current system uses the old system when determining the enchants but only charges you 1,2 or 3 levels of xp. So if you want a triple enchanted item, you have to have at least 30 xp levels. Enchanting will only cost you 3 levels though. I never tested this and it could've just been a rumor. Has anyone gotten multiple enchants when they had low levels of xp?

Here's another article talking about the purchase from a financial perspective:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/19/microsoft-buying-minecraft-explanation/

I mentioned it in another post but finally found the link. Basically, buying Mojang will give Microsoft a better return on that $2.5B than doing something else with it. I think Mojang's net profit was around $168 million or so and the article says that as long as they make $25 million a year, it's considered breaking even.

Quote from FlyingWild»

The biggest problem with Minecraft was the creator himself. Notch creates prototypes and then abandons them. No problem with this, but when you create a game where you are going to ask people for money, you (the developer) should have a clear vision of where you want the game to go and why.

This never happened. He added what he wanted, when he wanted it. It was a prototype. The people who bought it earlier started to form in their minds what the game should be.

This is why Minecraft is such a mess, and always was. It is kind of RPG, kind of not. It is kind of creative, kind of not. Ships, planes, and other creations simply can be made to work. Some love this, some don't.

Minecraft needed a vision from the beginning. Everybody should learn this when making your next $2.5B in a few years.

From what I can tell, you're right about Notch. When Minecraft got big, he left because he's a programmer; not a business man. But for what's "wrong" with the game, why should it fit into a specific genre? Minecraft is the 3rd most sold videogame across all plaotforms of all time and the top selling PC (Windows, Mac, Linux) video game according to some sources, it's sold more copies than WoW.

I think if Notch did try to make it for a specific genre, it would've sucked. As it is, it was broad enough to get a lot of different peoples attention. It may not have been perfect for everyone but no game will ever be that. It was however good enough for many. It might've hurt the sales if it was stuck in a specific genre or limited in some other way.

People will put up with something that has 80% of what they want, they may complain about the other 20% but that 20% is different for everyone. Which is why some like it, some don't.

I read an article a few days ago, thought I posted about it in this thread but I think it got ate. It was an article about the money MS is making. They're valued at $85 billion and spent $2.5 billion on Mojang. That's around 3% of their worth. Basically pocket change. MS also said that they will make money from the deal this year. The money that Mojang is going to make is more than what MS would've made if they just left that $2.5b sitting around or invested it elsewhere. They're not looking to make over $2.5b in a year, it's an investment that's going to pay out over the next several years.

Is anyone familiar with Lionhead Studios and Fable? MS bought them around 2006. I've seen some mods for Fable TLC but don't know any details. I bring up Lionhead because if anyone knows how they're treated then Mojang would probably be treated the same.

They can change it with the next update. If you do not accept the EULA then you don't get the update and the EULA does not affect you. There are people on here saying that MS is going to charge you monthly to play. The only way they can do that is if you accept the EULA. They can't take away what you already own so you would still be able to play at whatever version you had. If you have an old version of the server software, they can't keep a person from using it. They can keep a person from upgrading though.If you think they can change the EULA of something you own, that would be like the car dealership charging you more money after you paid off your car loan.

Simply put, the EULA is a contract and like any contract, it can't be changed without your approval. The previous EULA and Bukkit drama wasn't caused so much by a change in the EULA but by Mojang's handling of the EULA wording. Deciding to enforce it is different than changing it. As for what little I cared to understand about Bukkit, several parties were playing fast and loose with the licenses involved in what was open source and what wasn't.

I think that's the wrong question to ask. The difference between alienware and a custom computer is generally the price rather than performance. You can add options to Alienware or you can build a computer with the same specs for less money.So the question becomes, do you want to save some money by putting in the effort to build your own computer or save your effort and just buy a prebuilt one?

Some of you don't understand what an EULA is or how it works. You have already bought the game, the EULA that you agreed to is the EULA that binds you. They can change the EULA but only for future versions, ie when you get an update. If you don't agree to it then they can't change what you already bought. They can't suddenly tell you you can't play offline anymore without you agreeing to it. They can't start charging you a fee each month just to play Minecraft. As for the multiple platform support, the base code is JAVA. Kinda hard to not support other platforms as JAVA works on multiple platforms already and it is in MS's best interest to keep it that way as it gives them a bigger market.

According to a list I saw, Minecraft is the 3rd most sold game in history with 54 million copies sold. You're not going to get that kind of numbers sticking to 1 platform nor will you get the amount of people willing to buy toys, calenders and other stuff by cutting off potential customers. I think the way Microsoft is going to get over on Sony is through merchandise. It's also a test run for games released to multiple platforms.

I've seen 2 different stories lately, Microsoft buys Minecraft and Microsoft buys Mojang. These are different. If Microsoft just bought Minecraft, then MS would be the ones to maintain it but Microsoft bought Mojang. Mojang will still be the ones working on it so there's not going to be a change in quality; there may be a change in direction though.

Finally, the $2.5 billion that MS spent. This is a business investment. They will make more money from Mojang by buying Mojang than if that $2.5b was just sitting around or invested elsewhere. Eventually they may make all of that back or not, that's the nature of long-term investments. Short-term though, they've already said that they'll make enough this year to justify that expense. Also remember, Microsoft is worth $85 billion. $2.5 billion isn't a huge amount to MS.

Quote from Sastokoto»

!!
This is truly terrible blanket advice.

Most people should notice a performance improvement with VBOs - they only exist to improve performance.
In a rough nutshell: VBOs allow blocks to be loaded into your graphics card and stored there ready to be drawn any time - they don't have to be redefined every time they're drawn. With even a vaguely reasonable graphics card VBOs should give you a very noticeable improvement.

There can be performance improvements either way, it all depends on the person's system. So I agree that just saying turn off VBO to improve performance is bad as blanket advice without saying why but saying turn on VBOs to improve performance is bad advice as well. If the system can't use it, it may actually hurt performance by turning them on.

I play it off my old laptop which has integrated graphics. I'll get no improvement from VBO on. When I was testing the snapshot, I had performance hits when I turned it on or off inside the game. I had to either switch it from main menu or just restart the game. In an earlier snapshot, turning them on would also cause chunks not to load. It'll also get a bit buggy if I set the render distance really high (20+) then set it back down (around 16). Chunks won't load for awhile and I can see the side of the chunks like an earlier screenshot showed.
I think this update is actually faster. My girlfriend plays it on a $300 laptop she bought last black friday. 1.7 was a bit laggy for her and when she updated, all the lag went away.

Laptop Info:

Windows 8.1

Java Version 8 Update 11

CPU: Intel I5-3210M 2.5ghz

Video: Intel HD4000

6GB Ram with 1GB for minecraft

Resolution 1680x1050 (playing on a 2nd monitor)

There wasn't much of a difference between VBO on/off with intel's integrated video card although it seemed that the chunks loaded a little faster with it off. Compared to 1.7.10 chunk loading was extemely faster. The screenshot from 1.7.10 was 5 minutes after loading, while from the snapshot, only a minute or 2. While sprinting and flying I could almost catchup to the loading chunks in 1.7.10. In the snapshot they loaded as fast as I moved. One thing I did notice was that if switching VBO on (and possibly off) while in game, torches and other chunks would start to flicker and I would eventually crash to the launcher with Java throwing some exception error. Switching VBO on/off on the main menu works ok but the effects weren't noticable. The FPS varied 0-5 fps in all 3 setups. The only noticable difference was that in 1.7.10 I would achieve 30-40 fps before the chunks were fully loaded then would drop to about 20 after a few minutes. When moving fast, FPS would drop to single digits and occassionally freeze. With the snapshot, the FPS were more consistant (between 10-20fps) whether moving or sitting still.

Edit: the 2nd pic is of the snapshot test. It's the origin chunk. I've made several worlds up and it seems that the origin chunk is never rendered until I break a block/grass or something to force it to update. The fps was only a little different than looking ahead.

Are you looking for a stronghold or a nether fortress? the eyes will find a stronghold in the overworld not the nether.