With the recent announcement about changes to the EULA (and in particular, how they will affect multiplayer servers), many questions have arisen. Mojang has looked over numerous discussions by you, the community, and has released a new Q&A announcement, to address some of the most frequently-asked questions to come from the announcement. More many come in the future, but for now, check out these clarifying answers, direct from Mojang!
Quote fromAre any servers exempt to the EULA?
No. It affects all servers and players equally.
Do server hosts have a grace period to implement changes to their servers?
Yes. All servers must comply with the EULA by August 1st, 2014.
Can I charge for access to my server?
Yes. How players join a server is up to you. Single entrance fees or subscriptions are both allowed.
How often am I allowed to charge players to access my server?
You can charge players as regularly as you like. You can even charge for timed access if you think it’s the best way to monetise your server.
What counts as a server? Are proxies one big server, or lots of smaller ones?
A server is something a user connects to with their client. The user is on a different server when they leave the one they are connected to and manually join another (in the multiplayer screen). Virtual servers and proxies make no difference here, to the client it’s the same server.
Can I charge access to a specific part of my server, such as a minigame or world?
No, you cannot charge for any part of a server other than the initial access. Once on a server, all players must have the same gameplay privileges. You may make a different server for the user to connect to which features “premium” areas, and charge for access to that server instead, but the benefits cannot carry over to your other servers.
So can I charge for my minigames or mods?
Yes, so long as all players on your server have access to the features.
Can I offer a limited trial period for all users?
Yes. So long as both trial and paying users have access to the same gameplay features during the trial, we’re cool with it.
Can I give paying users priority access to my server?
Yes, but you cannot restrict gameplay elements to specific users.
Does the EULA still apply for access to user-created mods?
Yes. It doesn’t make a difference who made the mods, or how they were implemented onto your server. All mods require Minecraft to run. You are not allowed to charge for Minecraft features which affect gameplay.
What do you mean by “hard currency” compared to “soft currency”?
Hard currency is real money or anything that can be converted into real money, including Bitcoins. Soft currency is available in-game only, and has no real-world value. The restriction in the EULA only apply to hard currency; you may unlock anything with soft currency.
Can I sell “kits” for hard currency if I provide a balanced alternative for non-paying users?
If the “kits” contain gameplay-affecting features they are not allowed. Gameplay balance is not relevant to the EULA. If the items included in the kit are purely cosmetic, you can charge real money/hard currency.
My server features a currency that you can earn through gameplay, but which can also be bought for hard currency. Is that OK?
Soft currencies that are solely earned in-game are fine, but you cannot sell in-game currency for hard currency. Hybrid/dual currency systems are not allowed.
Can I sell boosters, which provide faster gold gain, XP, or other in-game resources for hard currency?
No – boosters, item generators, and all other features that affect gameplay are not allowed.
So how do I make money from cosmetic items?
You can sell cosmetic items for hard currency directly or allow players to fund an “account” specific to your server. It’s up to the host of the server to decide how this works. Remember that capes are the exception to this rule – you are not allowed to give them away or sell them.
Can I sell ranks on my server?
Yes. Ranks are allowed so long as any perks gained are cosmetic. Coloured names, prefixes, special hats etc. are fine.
Can users purchase something that affects the entire server, such as a temporary XP boost?
Yes, but everyone who can access the server must be able to use the feature, regardless of whether they purchased it or not.
Can I award all players with a gameplay feature if I reach a donation goal within a time period?
Yes, so long as all players receive the benefit regardless of who donated then it’s OK.
Can I charge for access to server commands?
Yes, as long as their effects are purely cosmetic. Commands that affect gameplay, such as a command to fly, cannot be sold for hard currency.
If all players get access to a feature such as a plot of land, can I sell access to multiple plots for hard currency?
No – that would be a gameplay affecting change, so it’s not allowed. All player who access your server must have the same gameplay features offered to them. The same rule applies to items, such as potions.
How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?
Users may keep the perks they have paid for, on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly, or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.
Do you have a question you would like answered about the EULA? Let's discuss it in the comments!
_____________________________________________
EXTREMELY FRIENDLY REMINDER OF FRIENDLINESS AND HAPPY-JOY FEELINGS
Please keep all discussion as civil as possible! This is a very hot topic, and we understand that there are very strong feelings about the EULA. That's okay! Open discussion is a GOOD thing! However, please avoid the following:
- Name-calling
- Encouraging (or claiming to engage in) EULA violations
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.
You think multiplayer will die. I think this will herald in a new era for it. Personally, Minecraft's online community is far too large for it to ever die. I can understand your worry. All most minecraft players have ever known is P2W servers. We've grown to accept it in some ways. Even I've grown to accept it personally. That is too say I know that the only servers that have survived for a long period of time are the ones that usually have 30% of it's fanbase paying to troll the other 70%. You just deal with it or you don't play minecraft online these days.
So why do I have faith in Mojang's move here? So I first bought minecraft way back in Beta 1.2 roughly. That was near alpha back then. I'm not saying because I have been with the community longer that it somehow makes my opinion more valid than someone else's opinion. I am saying there was almost a time back then when servers were not P2W at all. The modding community was fresh back then, green around the ears. McMMO had just released and duping was so easy with it. Bukkit wasn't nearly as popular as it is now. Servers just didn't have the capabilities to limit players to their wallets back then like they do now. I mean you could donate for a few perks if you found the right server, but nothing compared to modern day servers, servers where you can even pay to get unbanned if you were caught cheating. Still, servers went on, even though they were not designed to be P2W and force the players to pay for the server costs. Some went on without having any incentive what-so-ever to "donate".
How? How could a server even run back then if the players didn't pay for the server? Well, someone once said. "Who doesn't want a server that isn't P2W? We all do, but let's be realistic. If the players don't pay for it, who will?" Well, back then, do you know who paid for server costs? The owner. I know, a stupid concept these days when it comes to minecraft servers, but back then, you didn't have the right to call yourself the owner of the server if you couldn't afford to pay for the server's costs. And this is the new era I think Mojang will herald in. One where the owner of the server will be financially responsible for the server's upkeep again. After all, Minecraft is probably one of the worst PC games to suffer from people trying to monetize private servers. I can't name a single PC game that is worse with it's private servers. I've played plenty of other PC games where the private servers had owners actually willing to pay for the server's costs out of their own pocket.
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.
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?
Some great games just die
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.
There was no "original EULA". the closest thing was the "Terms and Conditions" link, found on web.archive.org here. This has the text you describe.
The text in question- and the text that is brought up over and over again in this debate, is text from over ~2 years ago stating that "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."
I concede that this exists.
In fact, using the wayback machine we can even get a good estimate of when it was changed:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120319180325/http://www.minecraft.net/terms
March 19th, 2012. This has the text, "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money."
April 19th, 2012. The text is now "Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don't sell them for money."
This corresponds around the release of Minecraft 1.2.5. This change took place over two years ago.
So the real question is why it is suddenly an issue now. And even then how, necessarily, the old text would actually allow the things that are being defended/protected.
After all, The general context here- in regards to the EULA- is for Running servers. eg. Server owners can only charge their users in certain ways, and cannot give players items, equipment, or other perks that are not available to non-paying players. So yes- that original EULA allows you to sell plugins. So, if you are creating plugins or mods for Minecraft Alpha versions from a date that would cause it to fall under those Terms of Use, than yes- by all means you can sell your plugins for money. That doesn't really factor into running a server. I'll get ot the changes and how they do or do not apply over time to current versions and mods/plugins built atop those current versions in a moment.
-Donator perks are not selling plugins. What you are selling is having a few options changed in plugins. Not nearly the same thing. It's the difference between charging for a copy of a Software product and charging to change settings in that application.
So while a server owner and/or plugin developer, when acting under the terms of that older ToS (I'll revisit that momentarily) Can sell those plugins for money- installing the plugins on their server and then selling perks is not selling those plugins, so that little snippet isn't even really relevant.
By selling them. Not by installing them on a server and charging people for the privilege of having options in that plugin changed for their benefit.
This has some merit, I think. However at the same time I think this is almost certainly nothing more than a glaring loophole that is a result of that original Terms of Service not being written by a lawyer- and this is almost certainly what prompted a proper rewrite when Notch & Company realized that, hey, if they aren't perfectly clear in the document, That is just going to be trouble. Lawyers and legalese exist for the very purpose of making things like this clear and making all possible interpretations of the text match with the spirit of it. To me, the spirit therein is pretty obvious- and installing a plugin and then charging people who connect to your server to change a few variables in that plugin for their benefit is almost certainly in defiance of that spirit.
Moreso, however, Those Terms of Service only apply if you are applying plugins and mods to versions of the software that actually fell under those Terms of Service. A common argument about this is that, Plugin developers and/or Server administrators didn't have to agree to the new Terms of Use in the meantime, to use the software, therefore, they are still bound only to that previous agreement.
That also has some merit. But it can be picked apart. Let us start with Plugins and Mods.
Mods and plugins are derivative works. There is no escaping this. derivative works, under copyright law, need to be authorized by the original copyright owner if they are to be distributed. That is, If Mojang wants to stop, say, Thaumcraft, from every being distributed, they will win in court because the law is quite clear as to who controls what. Thankfully, they do not do this, but it does lead into my next point, which is that it is the Terms of Service that actually give developers the right to extend, modify, and distribute mods for the game. In a fictituous example, let us imagine a developer who has been making mods since before the EULA change in April 2012 and has not agreed to the changed agreement creates mods. Now, imagine they want to sell those plugins for money? Can they? this is one question (one somewhat and completely different from the one that Server Owners are raising) and is not really central to the debate.
Now, of course- I am not a lawyer, which puts me in the majority of those involved in this discussion. However, in the eyes of the law different versions of software are considered separate works. So in the case of this plugin developer, it does not stand that the pre April 2012 ToS is the only one they need to abide by, because it is in fact the responsibility of the developer to ensure the software they are building is properly licensed and following the appropriate Terms required to create that software. What this means is that a plugin developer that tries to claim ignorance on the issue of a changed EULA is irresponsible and more to the point, wrong- because, particularly in the context of derivative works, new versions constitute a new software product and when creating a derived work you need to get express permission from the original copyright owner in order to distribute and/or sell it. So while a developer could continue to create derived works/mods based on the older version(s) for which the older Terms of Service applied, they could not do the same for current versions which have a different distribution license- claiming "I didn't agree to a new set of terms" doesn't work particularly in that context because the responsibility for the legal insurances of a derived work fall squarely on the creator of that derived work.
Now, that applies to developers. A developer cannot build a derived software product for Version 1.0, then update that derived software for version 1.2 and release it without ensuring that release is expressly permitted by the original author; a ToS or other document that gives those permissions does not apply for all future versions of that product- each version has it's own ToS/EULA, and they give you the ability to create and distribute mods in the first place. The logic some have expressed about the EULA being invalid is entirely sound, as I mentioned, but the problem is that if you were to throw that out, you haven't got a leg to stand on because that was the only thing giving you the express permission to create/distribute/use those derived works in the first place.
The laws and facts are pretty clear to me on this issue. Additionally, being that I have no vested interest either way I would argue my perspective would be more unbiased. In contrast, many of those who are against the changes are Server owners. I've seen and read their arguments around the internet where I've encountered them, and I've yet to find one that doesn't clearly show that they are trying to support a conclusion that they had already decided on. That's fair enough- naturally they are going to try to support their own point of view and naturally their own point of view is going to want to maintain the current status quo where they are able to charge people for the privilege of having a few variables flipped to give their character special abilities. However the ones that I have seen have had very weak actual arguments but very strong on appeals to emotion- for example, "The EULA doesn't apply because we never agreed to the new one since it was changed- Now what are going to do for jobs, how will I buy my children christmas presents, Do I have to tell them there is no Santa" etc. (ok, hyperbole, but that is the sort of affectation common in such posts- basically, they are asserting that their livelihood and the maintenance thereof is somehow Mojangs responsibility, because they were ignorant that it was theirs. I've found such arguments, frankly, a bit pathetic.
This is also common. Basically, a "are you going to let a few bad apples spoil the batch".
And when it comes to law, the answer is yes. In fact that is effectively how it works- it applies to same to everybody with no exceptions. One could argue that there should be some way to allow those current "legitimate" servers to keep running. That has some additional problems:
-Who is going to ensure they are "legitimate"
-By what measures are they determined to be legitimate or illegitimate?
-What action is taken if they are found to be illegitimate?
-How often are they checked? Should servers get a license? etc.
That sort of thing. And no matter what requirements are put in place those shady individuals will find a way to make their servers apply but still be shady at their core, and the end result is even worse for those actual, well-intentioned servers, who now have to go through a certification process. And consider how such a system could be exploited- rival servers could easily make complaints about the server, or join a server and pretend to be a staff member when the "official Mojang server checker" logs in, or whatever system they have in place.
The best way to avoid a privilege from being exploited is to deny it to begin with. Sad but true.
This is conjecture, and the aim is to remove the idea of gameplay perks from the general population of servers- it's not going to get them all but it's going to get rid of the large number of servers that have a few plugins and "charge" you to do things such as build, claim areas of land, open chests, etc. And what you are effectively paying for is to have your permissions flags changed for your player. That doesn't seem like a fair exchange of goods and services, At least not IMO. The servers that are less accessible to any official checking are going to be less accessible to players as well.
A significant minority of servers active today have remained unchanged since April 2012. I would surmise perhaps a handful. The majority of servers active today that have things such as donation benefits, perks, etc. Are typically very young. This also kinda raises the issue- I covered how the ToS/EULA affects developers- and how developers are responsible for ensuring their software as a derived work is properly licensed lest they fact litigation, but how does this apply to Server owners.
Well, from where I'm standing, it could be argued that the EULA is not even for Server owners. It is, after all, in the name- "End User". A Server administrator is not necessarily an End-User, that would, instead, be the Clients connecting. What this means is that Server administrators are not End Users, but instead, they are Brokers, and the software they are Brokering is a Minecraft server or a piece of software derived from a Minecraft Server. A Broker, legally, is responsible for providing a service or merchandise from one party (in this case, the Developers of the plugins) to another (in this case, the end users). It is also their responsibility to ensure everything is above-board. This includes ensuring that any and all users are aware of the EULA, that the software developers are aware of the EULA of the software that they built (well, that is more on them than any brokerage after the fact), and most importantly, a broker cannot add stipulations.
What this means is that, say, a plugin developer creates a plugin that allows a player to teleport. They code the plugin in a configurable manner to use Permissions. Alright.
A Server owner then uses that software and installs it on their server.
Their "Clients" are people connecting to the server. The "Brokerage" is allowing people to use that Plugin and Minecraft itself, while, to the best of their ability, demonstrating that they can ensure the End Users understand the stipulations of the software they are using.
Where this falls apart is that a broker is usually a middleman.
Where we have a standard broker setup:
Manufacturer->Broker->End User
The End User might pay the Broker some amount of money, the Broker takes 10% off of that as a commission and the rest goes to the Manufacturer.
When it comes to servers, There are a lot of servers that use Open Source plugins and reap a mometary profit off of it- they are not really brokers, instead they would, in true Linux fashion, market themselves as "support professionals" they aren't responsible for the software, just making sure it works for you. That is usually how Open Source profitability works so I guess that would make sense.
Other servers will work more similarly to the broker-deal, with the server admin basically delegating tasks such as plugin development or whatever else they want to others.
Yes that is why they changed it. As I mentioned the change occured between March 16th and April 16th in 2012. They were not EULAs, but Terms of Service. (Which can also apply as the former for the purpose of disclosing rights for the creation of derivative works).
I cannot find that. "Features of all future versions" is not in any of the EULA's/ToS's I was able to read via web.archive.org. Of additional note is this passage, in the ToS/EULA from Nov 28th 2011 (probably going back earlier also):
What this means is that in agreeing to this agreement you also agree that it is now your responsibility to ensure you are aware of the latest changes and that you essentially agree to be bound to the terms of any future EULA as long as you use the software.
Contracts often have this sort of verbiage- ironically, it is to prevent people from exploiting loopholes in earlier, more lax versions of an agreement in order to get away with something with a more recent version- practically what we are looking at here.
To add on to this, since that is in fact in the older agreement (going back at least to 2011, at least, possibly older) that means that even according to the standard logic, the entire house of cards comes down.
That is, if you agreed to that version of the EULA, you also agreed to the retroactive effect and that you were responsible for being made aware and abiding by any changes. So ignorance of changes in later versions on the presumption that "I never agreed to those changes" is already cut off- you need to be aware of changes made that affect you and either agree to the new terms or terminate your use of the software.
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.
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.
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.
Once again, the bad apple in the mix ruins it for everyone.
But it won't be too much of a problem in the long run, our team can addapt to the new rules.
Well. . .this isn't good for admin/owners like us who balanced Donator ranks out. . .and didn't make them OP or anything. . .
Once again, the bad apple in the mix ruins it for everyone.
But it won't be too much of a problem in the long run, our team can addapt to the new rules, and we have some players who already donated to us without using the shop.
Think about it Mojang.
The way i see it, im not willing to fund other peoples gaming so ill just play on the free servers for free, or pay for quality access to a good server. The fact that some people think the server owner should pay all the cost is silly.
My experience is from modded minecraft, but to run a server that supports 50 users connected and playing is over $100 a month to rent. So are people realy expecting some stranger on the inet to pay this money out if their own pocket? Currently the 10% of donators support the 90% freeloaders. Looks like your free ride is ending
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).
It appears, at least for modded minecraft ( FTB Technic ATA ect ...) that it will be hard to impossable to play on a hi pop server without paying
I can see unscrupulous server owners making the experience of the lite version as bad as possible so people will pay to join the full server
This will encourage server owners to offer hi quality playing experiences on their paid servers so they can attract as many paying customers while doing their best to get people to move to the pay server.