Minecraft Forums

Quote from KoiYT»

This is a decent idea. I do feel that making a version of the game that's more mature (e.g. having blood) would be a great way for older players who absolutely despise the current game due to the negative impact many of the kids that play the game have had on the community to play this game that they once used to love without experiencing the current game's community. I feel an age rating of 12 or 15 on this new game would be a good way to make sure it has a better community than the current game.

I said a more hardcore audience. That's not the same as a more "mature" one. The same kids that have "ruined" Minecraft are the same ones who are attracted to fake "maturity." Let's say Bethesda went and released The Elder Scrolls VI: Akavir, but due to a bug, didn't end up implementing blood or gore. Do you think the game wouldn't sell well? Most people buy a game because it's good, and don't really care too much about that stuff as it's really just a novelty.

But anyway, it has been confirmed that Minecraft 2 will never be made by Mojang and they will continue to update the current game. I also believe from the huge success of the original Minecraft (122 million sales on all platforms worldwide so far) that it will cost >£50 million to get development permission for a Minecraft 2. Partial support.

Quote from ShelLuser»

The suggestion is somewhat interesting I guess but I can't help think it's also kind of outdated at the same time. Because the way I perceive the current developments (1.12 and the shared details about 1.13) this has already been set in motion. Right now you need to add separate files in order to customize advancements, loot labels and functions, but rumor has it that in 1.13 this will be handled by packs.

Now I know that these 3 aspects are only a fraction of what makes up Minecraft, but if you then add resource packs into the mixture then I think you're coming awfully close to the idea of a game engine.

To be honest I've considered Minecraft to be just as much of a gaming platform as it is an actual game for quite a while already. So I personally don't really see how a 2.0 would add something useful. Also: isn't the PE version and Win10 version already a bit of a 2.0?

Quote from jcm2606»

So, I'm only going to comment on this, as this is where I mostly know my stuff, and I feel the stuff I want to say hasn't been covered 100%.

In general, this is exactly what the Bedrock codebase is. Microsoft are designing the Bedrock version of the game to function using distinct packages, which are called resource packs, and they contain everything for the game, including code, even for the vanilla content. Mods under Bedrock are distributed as resource packs. So, for everyone saying that designing the game like this is hard, just saying, it's already happening.

"The engine would likely run on DirectX 11, which would allow for better graphics and better performance. This would, unfortunately, increase the system requirements a bit, but most modern computers should be able to run it."

The thing you have to keep in mind, is DirectX is an exclusive Windows library. It cannot operate outside of a Windows environment. So if you value cross-platform capabilities, you'll have to include OpenGL/Vulkan somewhere in there. This is also what's happening to Bedrock. The Windows 10 Edition uses Direct3D, where all other editions use OpenGL. The problem with this is the rendering code is platform-specific, though I've been told that the rendering team is thinking of ways to alleviate this.

Quote from Genius_idiot»

10 days late to the party doesn't count as necroposting, right? didn't think so

as for the suggestion itself, I do like the concept, however, it feels like a bad idea to segregate all the different aspects of a game. perhaps the game could recognize what packages are installed and edit/add new config options for the other packages, so say I had the alchemy package and nothing more, all potions that could be made with it could be made in a vanilla package, but then if they came out with a metallurgy package the alchemy package could gain some new configs, for example, if I wanted to make an extremely simple potion, say a fertile potion for increasing crop growth and a withering potion for combat, with just the alchemy package they would both be made in an iron cauldron, but with the metallurgy package the fertile one would be made in a low tier copper cauldron while the wither potion would take a high tier steel, tungsten, or chrome cauldron

Quote from CyberneticSquid»

The engine sounds like a good idea, and it would be a lot like how Pocket/Win 10/Bedrock Edition works with add-ons, but I'm not sure Mojang would go for all of these, such as the hiring a new team.

Quote from Genius_idiot»

hmmm, I quite liked the names, if only for how amusing they can be to say, although I was planning initially to call fehuljos and geislsumar simply "lamp of fertility" and "staff of summer, but I thought they would sound better if I took the bases of the items ( fertility, light, staff, and summer) and translated them to old Norse to make a name for them[/b]

Well, if you came up with the name for the items, then I guess that's fine. I just don't think any name should be directly copied from lore.

ironically, this is my second suggestion in a row with over the top sizes, however, considering that in the legend, Yggdrasil toches all points in space and time, I would call it disrespectful to have it only be 50-100 blocks high, and if it spawns at Y 60 and goes up to 200, then that's 140 blocks in height, so maybe my train of thought's off the rails, but I feel like it should be the biggest thing you'll see in the world, as for the generation, perhaps we could break it up, first, the game will generate the trunk, and the trunk will have points on it that tell the game to generate the rest of the tree, points on the trunk telling the game to make branches, under the trunk for the nether cavern and roots, and aboe the trunk a point telling the game to spawn floating isles of endstone, I believe that a similar system is already in place for caves, aver get lost while spelunking and find a spot that looks similar to somewhere else? well, that's because minecraft has pre-planned "blueprints" for various cave structures, it just tweaks the details before generation, this is most apparent in seeds whose sequence causes the game to generate the same piece of cave over and over and over again.[/b]

Well, the height's not the issue, the width is (I had my math wrong initially; it's actually four times that size). I don't think it's impossible to implement, but it sure will be a challenge. However, if it can be done, then I don't mind a giant structure.

hmmm, you have a point there, my only concern is that minecraft doesn't have enough things to make the dungeon truly interesting, and I don't want to suggest a bunch of new blocks just for this dungeon, or suggest them in general and be accused of wish listing and have the whole thread taken down, sure there are a few things, like a room where you have to parkour across while being harassed by blazes and if you fall the floor is lava, but that could easily be countered with a fire resist potion, so while I would absolutely love to make the dungeon more interesting, as it stands, I mostly just can't. unless of course there's some huge mechanic staring me in the face that i'm just not noticing[/b]

Well, you could take some steps to reduce the player's ability to prepare. The squirrel applies mining fatigue like the Elder Guardian, which prevents you from breaking blocks (or at least, it takes much longer), and the player is unable to place blocks directly on ironwood while the squirrel is alive. If the player leaves or dies, the enemies respawn, along with whatever blocks the player from progressing. This means the player will only have what they initially come in with to do the entire dungeon. Sure, there will still be counter-measures the player can take, but they'll require creativity and won't usually be an instant win button.

yes, this is another issue, I was on a time constrain when I came up with him, so I will definitely give him some more variety, and as for the dungeon, I think that the best solution would be to line it with some block that can't be destroyed until the squirrel Is dead, perhaps ironwood.[/b]

That could work.

yeah, apologies about that, if there's one thing that de-spirits me, it's losing a bunch of progress for no good reason.so i'll definitely get back to that, although it would help if you specified what was vague. the amber thing's a good point, both of them for that matter. i'll remove the refined amber and specify that amber "ore" is really rare. and I don't know much about the lighting engine, but it doesn't sound that hard to fix, although I do know that Notch was quite inefficient with his coding.[/b]

Well, it's certainly a more unique suggestion than the usual new biome or dungeon suggestion. I actually do like it, but I'm not sure if it fits Minecraft. Regardless, here are my criticisms.

I'm not a fan of the names. I like Norse mythology as much as the next guy (huge Skyrim fan), but directly copying the names from said mythology isn't very "Minecraft-y." Minecraft names tend to be relatively simple, to reflect the simplicity of the game itself. It could be called the "World Tree," or, if you wanted it to sound Norse, it could be a random combination of letters to reference how ridiculous some Nordic names look.

I'm all for big structures, but this might be a bit overkill (not to mention far larger than structure blocks can currently support, so generation would have to be integrated into the world generator somehow). If we say that this is a tree with a 300 foot radius including branches and roots, then that means this is ~18 chunks wide and fits in a 324 chunk square region (That's more than a quarter of an entire mcregion file). I'm not sure how the game would even make this. It might be possible if the locations of the trees* are pregenerated, and then chunks within a certain radius of that location perform some calculations to generate the branches, but that would leave a lot of room for error. However, since I don't know the specifics of the generation code, I don't know for sure.

The dungeon is kind of "meh." It's just a bunch of fighting with enemies that will probably not be of any difficulty for an experienced player to deal with. You could make it more interesting by describing the hazards of each room that leads up to the boss.

As for the boss itself, well, it needs more attacks. It should have at least three attacks per phase in order to cover a variety of situations. The helmet is overpowered, especially considering that you can obtain this at any time (there are no real prerequisites; as long as you have a weapon that will last and a good strategy, you could theoretically approach this boss at any time. Since the dungeon is just made of wood, you could just skip the whole dungeon by burrowing in if you wanted and then just attack the squirrel). Also, can you respawn the boss?

Items need more detail. I feel your pain with it backing out of the page, which is why I recommend that you make all suggestions in your favorite text editor first, then paste it here and then fix the formatting. However, that's no excuse for being vague. Refined amber shouldn't be used for enchanting, and really should be dropped and any use it has replaced by amber (we don't need an item whose sole purpose is for crafting another item for crafting). Fehuljós currently can't work with the current lighting engine, as light sources can only work for up to 15 blocks.

Overall, I think this suggestion has potention, but there needs to be more balancing and details. Partial Support.

Is there a particular reason for you to run this on a server? Running a server while playing this game at the same time will cause a lot more lag.

Quote from Theriasis»

The fact that you have to put "it's not that bad" in your sig for this idea should tell you that the idea doesn't have that many good legs to stand on...

Uh what is it that I'm supporting? Just the new engine? The other things you brought up or not something that need a sequel to exist. A game being old is also much not of a reason either.

Quote from Cerroz»

Yeah uh, sarcasm or not. You worded it like a new modding thing was just a walk in the park.

No, I worded it as if I was joking that it was a walk in the park, but I obviously knew it didn't.

People seem to ask for sequels to almost everything, and don't understand that even though a game was good, doesn't mean that success will seamlessly spill over to the next game. The type of game Minecraft is, I just can't see it working. Making an entirely new game over some weird subjective reasons.

You want more objective reasons? Yoshi actually made a pretty excellent post about why Minecraft could use a sequel a couple of posts above yours; I suggest you check it out.

Anyway, yes, there's no guarantee that a sequel would be good, but you can literally apply that logic to any endeavor ever made. Just because you can't be sure it will be successful, doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Besides, Minecraft has a pretty big advantage in being a highly recognized brand, and even if it's just a meh game, a sequel will still automatically garner a large amount of sales because of its familiarity (look at Story Mode, for example, largely considered mediocre but selling quite a bit, and it's not even remotely like Minecraft but just borrows its brand name). If a large amount of people are asking for something, that's a pretty good indication that it will sell.

Just because you can't see it working doesn't mean it can't.

Something being old is also not a good reason for that. If something gets old to you, it's also because you played something for a long time and not always the length that the game has been out.

There are galaxy-sized amounts of reasoning to make an Elder Scrolls sequel over a Minecraft one... So yes, Skyrim took work but had much better reasons for said work existing.

To be honest, I can knock the Left 4 Dead games as well for what they are. They're both good, but the first one had mass potential to be updated rather than a new game being spat out. The amount of bugs in the first game was insane, only for most of them to be carried over to the second game anyway.

I've read your thread, and I can't see how the points require a sequel. I agree with the better engine thing, but that's something every game should have. I mean, you obviously want the game to run well on almost any platform. But again, that doesn't need a game #2 to happen.

Quote from il_Vassilon»

Yes... and without mods, minecraft would have been nothing. The most part of the minecraft's popularity and triumph belong to its mods and not to the game itself.
In fact, the most of players has used mods or even prefer use mods instead of play vanilla (at least on single player).



If minecraft 2 punishes hard the modders making the modification almost impossible or reducing future mods to small mods badly made and simple, I doubt that many people buy it.

And more yet when you can modify the old game to add it cubic chunks or advanced brewing (and since Each great complex mod [thaumcraft, aoa, buildcraft, etc] is equal to a expansion pack).

If modders can not create complex mods in minecraft 2 or even if you must to download and even pay for few official expansion packs, the game hasn't future.

It should exist a minimal respect level to mods by mojang.

Quote from Chameleonred5»

I think you should've simply put all of your ideas under the topic of "MC2." That would've been perfectly acceptable, especially since you make the effort to keep everything relevant to that main idea. It would make it far easier to make judgement calls about the suggestion if we could see the whole thing and how everything interrelated. As it is, I have no clue how anything you put down is "breaking the conventions of Minecraft." It just sort of seems like "Minecraft, except how I want it."

Customization... The way you've gone about it is an incredibly easy way to divide the fanbase and increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions (www.youtube . com/watch?v=wdDuoqGswaY). Either that, or create dozens of insignificant updates that don't do anything important, and still increase Mojang's workload to nigh-infinite proportions. To keep all of these packages working together, while also patching bugs (some of which would be directly caused by putting different combinations of packages together), sorting through balance (the player can decide some of this, but Mojang will have to do some work here if they want updates to have any cohesiveness), ensuring that the community can stay happy with any possible result... With so many pieces, and many more to be added, it's going to become an infinitely complex problem. That is, if it's more than just a new cosmetic feature that does nothing every package. Even then, there will still need to be constant crosschecking to make sure it works right for everyone.

Mods make this even more problematic.

Quote from Cerroz»

But not in need of new game...

A "couple of lines of code"? Do you honestly know how that stuff works? It's pretty easy to talk about something being simple when you're not on the side of the one having to do the work. If it was just... "a couple of lines of code", we'd have this stuff by now.

You don't have a solid view of game design as much as you think you do. So Mojang is gonna be updating the first game, and making a second game? And then they'll have to spend more time updating that game, only for it to fall into the same crybaby traps the first game did because some people can't be happy with updates, and just can't seem to understand that the whole game does not revolve around them - but everyone. Cough, 1.9 combat. Another cough, hunger bar.

They'll update the first game until the second comes out, and maybe a couple of small updates afterwards. However, I said they'd hire a whole additional team to make this, so it's not exactly doubling the workload. And, of course, I wouldn't be surprised if people asked for a Minecraft 3, and if Minecraft 2 would be successful, I wouldn't mind that, provided several years had passed after its release.

Besides, not everyone who wants a new game is a "crybaby." I like the current game, but it is old. Not even major updates can keep me playing for a large length of time. A good sequel, however, would draw me back in, as well as a large amount of other people. And, let's say they did make a Minecraft 2. Without knowing anything about the game, would you be interested? If yes, does this mean you dislike the current game? The people complaining about 1.9 combat and hunger are in a different crowd; they're looking backward, not forward, but regardless, their opinion is no less valid than yours.

Skyrim is a terrible comparison. That game has a story and a much different set of mechanics than Minecraft. I can't find the proper words to exaggerate how much of an invalid comparison this is. No, the potential does not weigh the amount of work. Look at how much work is still being put into the first MC, what makes you think a game that's meant to be better is gonna be any easier? Again, it's easy to talk about this stuff when you're not the one who has to make the game.

Guidelines

Sounds like "Minecraft 2" is gonna be the same game but with some shinier coats of paint. And a lot of people who want a MC2 seem to want another game with everything they want as if they want a personal game made just for them. Not that I'm accusing you of this but some posts in here already fell in that hole. A lot of overexcited gamer kiddies like to think "more is better" and come down with sequel-itis without thinking of the negatives on the other side.

You have to be careful when making a sequel, because you can end up making something disappointing that people waited a long time for. Or you end up making a copycat game but just change pink to blue and throw in a few new things that pander to some people but don't make the game better. So many MC2 threads have "I want physics! I want triangles! Realism! Shaders! I want I want I want!!" Kinda makes me not want a Half-Life 3.

Also, the Left 4 Dead example had more to do with bad decision making. As for "1.9 being a turnoff", a huge chunk of that is on the end of the players, not the game. As some angry crumple-faced gamers chose to see that in a bad light.

Quote from Cerroz»

Not really, nope.

All of this stuff is easier said than done. Yeah, everyone wants this, but it's not a cakewalk to set up. Especially for the more advanced mods.

You mean it won't just take writing a couple lines of code, and BAM, new game? Gasp!

Of course this is going to be difficult to make. I'm not going to pretend that this is an easy or a conventional way of making the game. However, I believe the potential for this game outweighs the amount of work, especially if, as you said, everyone wants this. I mean, look at [i]Sk[/i][i]yrim[/i], that game took years to make, much longer than I would anticipate this game to take, and because of all the work put into it, we're still talking about it and largely playing it.

But seriously man, another "Minecraft 2" thread? Some of the mentalities posted in this thread are just bad and it's very clear that the stereotyped "it's time for a sequel" lines of thinking are presented like in every other thread about the same thing. A game like this that can be updated for free that still has potential for more and more things does not need a sequel. It's extra pointless work. It's like coming out with "Garry's Mod 2".

It's kind of like when Left 4 Dead 2 came out. The first game was great, but was so full of bugs that thinking about it for too long could probably kill you. Before they refined the first game any further, they pooped out a second game. It raised a lot of eyebrows and was overall just not the best decision.

• Aimed towards a more "hardcore gamer" audience than the original, being a bit more difficult and focusing more on depth than simplicity
• A longer progression system, with less grinding and content padding between major progress points
• Implementation of Cubic Chunks
• Modern graphics that don't require a behemoth graphics card to run
• Maximizing customizability while still be a great game on its own by default
• An underground worthy of being in a game called Mine[/b]craft[/i]
• Not being afraid to break a major convention of the current game if it would lead to a more fun overall experience

And before you attack these, please refer to post #3 in this thread, where I already countered some arguments.

In addition, before I continue, I'd look to pull out a card you like to use: you can't compare those because they're different. Gary's Mod is much more of a game engine than an actual game (and besides, even game engines get a sequel eventually even though they could just be updated, such as Unreal), and Left 4 Dead is a zombie survival game. [i]Minecraft[/i] is a complete game in its own right without any more updates, and while you could update the game further, such big changes like I want would turn the game into a completely different one. I mean, even just a change like the 1.9 combat caused a [i]huge[/i] turnoff. It's not a good idea to update a game into infinity.

Quote from il_Vassilon»

The addition of RGB colours, as well as 16.777.216 colours combinations for each colorable block, and the non-euclidean rendering would to imply the reworking of the game engine, since this doesn't support such additions currently.

That's part of the rendering engine. I'll touch on that in a later suggestion. This is the framework of the game's code, on which everything is built.

I don't see the sense of create a "MC2" if such has little engine changes to what it refers to the game mode. The only suggested change that would make MC2 really worth it (apart from mine) is cubic chunks, but still too little to imply creating a new game. This can be perfectly added to the current minecraft, as well as the image rendering system was changed in the 1.8 through pseudo-floors, it doesn't need a deep recoding of the game and can be even obtained with light mods.

Quote from Badprenup»

Okay, lets go into how this works then with some scenarios.

Scenario 1:
Mojang adds a new mob and gives it a new drop into the New Mobs pack. The drop is used for Brewing from the Brewing pack. Player installs the New Mobs pack but not the Brewing pack.

Result: Player gets a new mob with a drop that does nothing.

Scenario 2:
Mojang updates 3 different packs. They all work fine together or alone, packs 1 and 2 work when installed, as do packs 1 and 3. Packs 2 and 3 loaded at the same time causes a crash. Mojang missed it because testing all possible combinations of content packs that rely on each other and the core pack is a nightmare of additional overhead.

Result: Buggy, crashing game (yes, WAY more than currently)

Scenario 3:
Mojang has a new mob with a new drop in the New Mobs pack. The drop makes a new item. There is a different item in the End Exploration pack. These two items can be combined to make a very useful item, but only if you have the Uber Items pack.

Result: Not having any of these installed results in being unable to make the final item.

Scenario 4:
User is in the End and uninstalls the End pack.

Result: Crash as the dimension no longer exists.

Scenario 5:
User makes a map/server using items from a bunch of different content packs. Other users try and use the map/server without those packs.

Result: Error

Could most of these be resolved with some error handling and messages to the end user? Sure. But you basically are just adding all the downsides of mods with none of the upsides.

Quote from yoshi9048next

While I personally enjoy the idea of minecraft being completely player-tailored; I think there's a lot of merit of a rich base game for those that don't want to "fool" with mods.

Lots of reasons that aren't even tangentially related to this discussion.

Well, there will still be updates made to the game to make a "rich base game," but it will be up to the individual player if they want that update or not.

I had already said that it should be written in C++ (I would have suggested C#, but the non-Java versions are written in C++, so they'd already have experience with it). Frankly, when I said that, I thought Vulkan was a controller API, but after looking it up, I personally don't care if Minecraft 2 uses Vulkan or Direct3D, though I can see the advantages of Vulkan.

Quote from rabidgoodra27»

This is a decent suggestion.

But, if we know Mojang (which we do), this is not going to happen. I can't see the Mojang team ditching Java, and in a recent interview with Jeb, he stated that the Java edition was nowhere near its end, and that it would not merge with the other platforms, because doing so would cause it to be crippled. Instead, the "Java Edition" would become "Community Edition".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this doesn't seem like the logical path, seeing as Minecraft can already be tailored to the user. I can't see people buying another game when they could just use mods to make MC1 like MC2.

But that's just my opinion.

Well, if Mojang actually does make this, along with "ditching" the Java versions, they'd ditch the current console versions as well. The current "Java Edition" would continue to exist, and now, no longer being updated, would now be easier to work with for the community. Minecraft 2 would be a separate game.

While Minecraft can be tailored using mods, mods have numerous disadvantages, such as constantly being broken and requiring external programs (or cracking the .jar) to even use. This also means that mods aren't compatible with the non-java editions (sure, they have add-ons, but they're annoying to make, and I doubt they'll ever be as powerful as mods). Besides, the amount of overhauls I have in mind might be able to be modded into Minecraft, but it require constant updating of the mods, and, once again, due to how inefficient the game runs, you'll still have an inferior version.

Quote from yoshi9048»

Yeah, except instead of developers making "mods" that can be disabled, they just do standard updates but make it in such a way that mods can easily interact.

Well, that's possible, but it nullifies the entire point of this suggestion, which is to allow the player to fully and easily customize their own experience.

Quote from lonzo999»

I'd say that minecraft is in grave need of a rewrite, hence MC2. The foundations of it all are the same of when years ago the developers were simply playing around and making a blocky world with none of the stuff that's in it now. And every feature that they add, especially redstone, adds more things for the game loop to check every second, and this makes the game slow on machines that aren't top notch. The idea of using java is understandable for a silly little experiment, not for this behemoth that minecraft has become. I would be happy if they rewrote it from scratch (I don't think microsoft would lose sleep over employing 20 programmers for a few years to make it), and the 2.0 could very well look exactly as the last version of minecraft, just cleaner and written in c++ (also let's use OpenGL so the game can still work on windows and linux). Also it should be a lot more mod friendly, without having to install things like sourceforge to play mods.

Well, if you're going to rewrite the entire game, you might as well re-think it as well. We already have a rewrite in a way, the Windows 10 edition. However, in addition to a rewrite, I'd like a full-blown sequel to freshen the experience.

Quote from il_Vassilon»

You should also consider the implementing of colored lights: an RGB lighting system; and the implementing of not-lagging hexadecs colour mechanics for specific blocks (that would to do possible the addition of until 16.777.216 colored blocks for each colorable block of the game); as well as a more complex and extended brewing mechanic and potion result diversity; and the addition of non-euclidean rendering portals (that would to do portals more realistic, more aesthetic and direct; basically, you would see your destination landscape through the nether portal; and give the possibility of have non-euclidean structures and mazes at the end dimension).

Interesting ideas, but they don't fit into this suggestion, which is just the background engine of the game. If I do these, they'll be in subsequent suggestions in this series.

Quote from PhenomII»

1) API Vulkan

2) C++ code, not Java.

Um, yeah, sure, why not.

Quote from Badprenup»

On the whole I like the concept. I also disagree that Minecraft is dying but I think it could benefit from a "clean break", so to speak. The main thing I dislike is the idea of every non-bugfix update being modular. That opens up a huge possibility for bugs or other issues when you make every update like that, you have to make sure they all work in every possible combination. Some games like Skyrim do that, but they don't have the continuous updates like Minecraft does, they get a couple bugfix updates and then some different expansions and then that is it.

I do like the modular idea for mods, which is basically what the modding API is supposed to be anyways. I just think that it makes more sense to try and do all the very ambitious stuff they are trying to do with cross platform play and shaders and everything by incorporating all platforms that want to be part of it (sorry Sony players) and putting it all into a new game, rather than slowly trying to bridge the gap across all of them way after they have all been out for a while.

Well, if we don't implement something because we're afraid of bugs, we'll never get anything added. I don't think there's going to be that big of an issue with mods and testing different combinations, and even if there is, that's why we have snapshots, the official bug reporter, and open testing. With a playerbase of millions, most major conflicts caused by different combinations of packages should be noticed. Besides, every update adds bugs already. I believe the benefits of giving players choice of what features they want outweighs the price of bugs.

Quote from yoshi9048»

The way I'd make it work is:

Everything that devs do is considered "framework", this can be altered by mods to end-user satisfaction; but the developers do things in the form of "primitives". Sometimes a change borks a mod (or collection of parent-dependent mods), sometimes not.

The idea is, the developers continue building a base game; the end user can use mods to enable and disable developer features.

An open-modded Minecraft would practically necessitate a from-scratch Minceraft.

Soooo, are you agreeing with me here? Because the way I understand it, this is exactly what I'm suggesting. Unless you're saying that the updates shouldn't be separate packages from the base game? The reason I have it like this is to force mod compatibility and allow a simple way for the user to enable or disable features.