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
No. You can charge to connect to the server only. You cannot resell pieces of Minecraft to users.
Over the past 3 years, the community as a whole has chosen what type of monetization method works best for minecraft servers. Countless servers have tried to go 100% donation-only, others have tried charging for access, some have tried displaying in-game ads. The reason the system of charging for in-game features has become prevelant is because there are more people willing to participate in that system than any other. It's survival of the fittest and servers that used the "charge for features" method of monetization are the most fit to survive. Yes, there are a few servers out there that charge exuberant amounts of cash for what can only be described as a complete rip-off. So what? Rolex charges $10,000s for watches that, in the end, are just chunks of metal and yet people still buy them because that is what they want to do with their money and as long as Rolex delivers what the customer paid for then everyone is happy and nobody got scammed. I see all these people that are happy about the new EULA saying, "finally, no more pay-to-win servers" the very fact that you acknowledge the existence of those servers shows that you are capable of identifying one and knowing when not to spend your money there. The people who buy those "rip-off" packages are rich enough to afford it; if they aren't, and their child simply stole their card, then it is their own fault. This stuff about mojang feeling sorry for the parents whose credit cards racked up hundreds of dollars of charges from their children is complete bogus. As a parent and an adult, you are responsible for your money, your credit cards, your wallet and, wait for it, your children. If your child stole your credit card and purchased a $1,000.00 'God' rank on badserver.com then that's your fault. The server will charge your account because according to the bank, you authorized the transaction. If not then go ahead and report your child for fraud or credit card theft. Either way, it is not the merchant's responsibility to refund you the purchase. Yes, if your child steals your wallet and goes to the store and buys a $50 toy and you complaint to the store, they don't have to give you your money back. Nine times out of ten they will simply out of courtesy or because it's good business but it's not required, especially if it's a perishable item like food. If your kid buys a burger with your wallet and you go up to them and ask for a refund they're going to look at you like crazy. In fact, this whole thing about allowing monetization through pay-to-play or cosmetics-only seems like several steps backward. Mojang claims they don't want people to pay for the game twice, or that they don't want people to be ripped off. Okay, so what's to stop a child from stealing their parents credit card and, instead of paying $500.00 for a gem boost, they pay $500.00 for entrance to a server or $500.00 for a special fireworks effect? The emails won't stop, instead of people complaining about how their child stole their credit card in order to buy a measely XP boost and a special "donor-only" kit, you'll get emails from people complaining about how their child stole their credit card in order to play on a server period or for some crummy fireworks effect. No, what mojang needs to do is allow any and all server monetization methods and let the community continue to make their own decisions as to what's best for themselves.
==========================
[–]Jeskid14 21 points 4 hours ago
How should the questions be asked then?
[–]Pandemonium7 373 points 4 hours ago *x2
I tried to "un-load" the questions:
I studied this kind of bias in my AP statistics course, it's called wording bias in which the question either hints at a correct answer or is worded in some way to influence the answer. If I were to say, "What do you think about the scumbags at Nintendo ruining the smash bros series, and making another one just for money?". This question is wording bias because it calls the people at Nintendo scumbags (not true), says that they are ruining the series (not true imo), and that their only motivation is money (I hope not true). The question is worded so that when you hear it you want to agree with it; it's almost as if it's a rhetorical question because it so heavily implies the answer. Every question this guy from Polygon asks has wording bias.
non-sequitur = an illogical conclusion: The drug on wars has failed therefore we should make all drugs legal
Ad-Hominem = name calling: The policy changes made by that Notch are totally out of line
Bandwagon appeal = everyone is doing it so why aren't you?: Dude, everyone is voting for Reagan, why aren't you?
My credibility(ethos)? Studied bias and fallacies in AP English and AP Statistics
tldr:These questions are loaded as
edit numbero dos - now I have a shiny anus by my comment. Thanks friend <3
edit - hahahhaha:
the drug on wars
sorry I just got my wisdom teeth out and I'm loopy for fruit loops
also thanks for the second anus, I just don't know what to do with all these golden ani!
//www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/28dz59/notch_responds_to_polygons_biased_questions_like/#%22>" target="" data-ensure-absolute>http://www.reddit.co...stions_like/#">[–]Minecraft CreatorxNotch 208 points 1 hour ago
These are questions I don't mind answering, and if anyone is curious:
What do you think about the blog posts and efforts to explain Mojang's actions?
I was hoping it would calm things down, but it seems to just have made things worse. People less stressed than me tell me this doesn't have to be a bad thing. Hopefully we can reach some better results now that it's being talked about instead of people breaking the rules in silence.
Some people think that changing this policy so late into Minecraft's life is unfair. Just as many disagree. What do you think about policy changes on a game that has been out for so many years?
For the last several years, these have been the rules. People didn't realize or chose to ignore that they were building the businesses around something that breaks the rules. The "new rules" we've added adds new ways for people to be able to run legitimate servers and still make money, for the people who want to not break the rules. Hopefully this includes all big companies.
What caused you to make this change in policy?
First of all, people think we changed the rules to make them worse. We didn't. There were some way more lenient rules back in alpha when I was working alone, but that changed a long time ago into the too restrictive rules we had up until recently. The changes we made were all allowing people to monetize. Just how we think streaming and youtube are important for the community, we think running a server is something important that we want to allow, and the changes only happened because this got discussed.
How do you think some servers, which have previously thrived on the old policies, will react? Do you think they'll be alright after the change?
I feel sorry for the ones to based their business around something we don't want Minecraft to become (ie a game where you pay for gameplay). Unfortunately, these were the rules since before they started their business, and hopefully they will be able to transition into something in line we don't disallow. My gut feeling is that most should be able to survive the changeover.
What different advice would you give to new servers as well as old servers to make for a more smooth transition into this new policy?
This is very difficult to give a general response to, as all servers have different setups. Perhaps "talk to your players". I would appreciate not telling the players that there are new rules, though.
Well said, I would give you an upvote but it seems I have exhausted my supply for the day.
You dont need a Sharpness ten sword come on now actually play the game.
Non-sequitur Fallacy : Kids will still use credit cards, therefor monetization that relies on p2w or giving advantages should be allowed, possibly profiting off of Mojang's content shouldn't be illegal either.
#Logic
but some servers use these in a non abusive way like only allowing them in the survival area but disabling them in the pvp arenas
Man, if this actually happens, Minecraft is going singleplayer. RIP Multiplayer.
AND ALSO, this may really screw with Enjin and any other guild/server sites! Hosting websites for MC servers is where they get most of their money! How will they stand after losing most of their servers?
Notch responds to Polygon's biased questions like a boss by motmthrowawayin Minecraft
[–]xNotch 194 points 1 hour ago
These are questions I don't mind answering, and if anyone is curious:
What do you think about the blog posts and efforts to explain Mojang's actions?
Some people think that changing this policy so late into Minecraft's life is unfair. Just as many disagree. What do you think about policy changes on a game that has been out for so many years?
What caused you to make this change in policy?
How do you think some servers, which have previously thrived on the old policies, will react? Do you think they'll be alright after the change?
What different advice would you give to new servers as well as old servers to make for a more smooth transition into this new policy?
I'd rather it be a level playing field for everyone, even if the game has an entry fee. That is like having a paintball game but the guy who is willing to pay the most gets to bring a better gun than everyone else and you have to land more shots on him to take him out. Its impossible to have a legit gaming experience when people can just donate their way to the top instead of play their way to the top. The entire pay-to-win structure was developed by a bunch of greedy lads who realized they could make more money nickle and diming a game with a pay-to-win structure than they could if they simply charged a monthly subscription. Most gamers would agree that pay-to-play is always preferable to pay-to-win. Any gamer with even a single iota of a competitive nature shuns the pay-to-win structure.
While that is true, it seems to have worked for games like WoW and such. I suppose it just depends on the playerbase and the game. Now, Minecraft? I've destroyed many a donator on Hypixel, and haven't payed a penny. Doesn't matter if you're using a magnum or a nuke, so long as you know how to use it. What Mojang needs to realize is the fact that people pay their own money to host servers to play THEIR game with other players, and they need a way to pay for those servers. If Minecraft were like, say Halo, where the company provides the servers then this would be different. But the PLAYERS have to pay the money/buy the machines to host the servers, with their own money.
Instead of replying to an apologist, why don't you reply to Notch's answers.
And that is the standard argument anyone seems to use in favor of pay-to-win mechanics is they actually beat some paid players a few times. The point is that those players used real money to give themselves an advantage they wouldn't have otherwise had. The true abuse of pay-to-win shows its face when really, really good players start buying items and using them efficiently to beat other players. And then the gap between paid and non-paid becomes abundantly clear. This in turn encourages other players to pay-to-win in order to compete with the better players who do the same. Or they simply leave and disregard it as legit competition, which it isn't.
Mojang realizes that which is why they said server owners can charge for entry and also advertise and get sponsors.
The reason I'm with Mojang on this is because they're making a stand for the Minecraft community here. They're trying to improve the game for everybody. I'm sure we can agree that pay-to-win mechanics have gotten more prevalent on more servers in the last couple years? Has that been good for Minecraft?
Totally agree with you Winter.
Why should server owners expect the right to make money by selling the intellectual property of others. Even if there are enough people will to pay for items to keep the server online, its still making money on someone else's property. If a server cant survive on donations or the owner is not prepared to pay the difference in the server rental, then that server should not exist no matter how much the server is liked by its players. No one has the right to sell what doesn't belong to them, its the actions of the bigger servers who have brought the attention of Mojang on to the servers operations
Yes, I run a server. Yes, I expect my donations to drop as I adjust the few advantages that donators have, to align with mojangs requests. However I chose to start a server over 2 years because I wanted to, and I am prepared to pay the rental costs if the donations stop covering the expenses.
My understanding is that they get complaints from parents who can't keep a PayPal password secret.
And also, they "care" about "fairness" and they don't "want" people to be OP. lol, how dumb do you think we are, Mojang?
Anyone?
Pay to win IS very common on Minecraft servers, yes. And yes, if a really good player buys a really good perk with real money, that would make him that much harder to beat. But, really, so what? Then he's a really good, OP player. You just don't play him if you think he is invincible. One thing I suppose everyone could compromise on, is this: You can only charge for items/abilities you could ALSO unlock/buy in-game with things you can get in-game. Such as a permanent, 50% XP boost. You will level up 50% faster than other players, but will ultimately only be able to level up to say, level 99. That way people who want to be a "pro" fast can buy upgrades, items, and perks. People who don't want to spend money, or want to just play it out can just go on normally. Any objections to that?
And also, about "fairness"? Not trying to dis Mojang here, but I think they should leave the deciding of what is "fair" on servers to the server owners.
True! An OP donator kit in survivalgames can still be killed by the iron sword I found in that chest in the tree. It just requires skill on my part.
If the staff would accept that, then sure!
(Your staff get paid? lol)