Big announcements from Mojang. Not so sure this is good for us though. Please if someone could clarify this to me that would be great. Are we going to be forced to migrate our accounts from the PC version to the windows 10 version and have xbox live accounts to play on multiplayer servers soon? I was waiting for Microsoft to put the hammer down but I did not anticipate this. I also see although switch is in playstation is out. https://minecraft.net/en-us/article/all-news-e3
Firstly, I read the whole article and from what I can tell PC is staying the way it is. I say that because the article says that Windows 10, Nintendo switch, mobile and VR minecraft are being unified under one edition, whereas minecraft:Java edition is staying it's own thing. As for Switch being in and PlayStation being out, (pausing to cry because I just got minecraft for PS4) is because Xbox and PlayStation have been long time rivals, Nintendo was more of its own thing, although it still rivalled Xbox and PlayStation it wasn't as competitive. Edit: Article also says they'll continue to support Java edition.
I read that Sony was offered to be involved but declined. I'm not as optimistic about Microsoft's plans for MC. I can understand their desire to get away from the PC version to the windows 10 version and make the additional money from skins, etc... while they are making nothing beyond the initial fee for the PC version. Plus, get everyone to pay for xbox live. They just might be able to get their $2.5 billion back.
This also hit the Minecraft forums and well... Java version is still going to be supported, but the 'push' is going to be out for mobility (consoles, tablets and phones). Not too surprisingly I think considering that the platform itself also opens up plenty of options for micro transactions. (edit: you know, the ones for which server operators get penalized </sneer>). But I don't think this spells bad news for us. What many people seem to forget is that these announcements didn't 'just' drop out of the sky. There have already been plenty of hours spend in preparations, design and setting the whole thing up. Considering the size of the project I wouldn't be surprised if we were talking about months worth of preparations. Which leads to the obvious question: would Mojang really implement a massive rehaul of the whole crafting system when they were planning on slowly dumping the Java version? Make no mistake here: even though the new hot features for 1.12 are the crafting recipes and the advancements, the whole mechanic got much more changes; there's plenty of stuff which went into the game yet hasn't been announced as a major change because the change is mostly under the hood. From assets\minecraft\recipes\andesite.json: Code: { "type": "crafting_shapeless", "ingredients": [ { "item": "minecraft:stone", "data": 3 }, { "item": "minecraft:cobblestone" } ], "result": { "item": "minecraft:stone", "data": 5, "count": 2 } } And now for arrow.json: Code: { "type": "crafting_shaped", "pattern": [ "X", "#", "Y" ], "key": { "#": { "item": "minecraft:stick" }, "X": { "item": "minecraft:flint" }, "Y": { "item": "minecraft:feather" } }, "result": { "item": "minecraft:arrow", "count": 4 } } Do you really think they would go through all that trouble in setting all of this up if they were planning on ditching the Java edition soonish? I don't think that makes too much sense. If they really wanted to push players to the mobile versions (as I tend to call them) then you wouldn't want to add more customization options into your game, but rather take things out. So; 'nudge' people towards mobility, yet that's something I don't see happening here. Heck: custom advancements are already a huge thing in my opinion (they can really spice up your maps) just think about what custom recipes will do (which are rumored to be released with 1.13). I'm not worried here. Although I do agree that I also don't like Minecraft (the original!) suddenly getting renamed as if it were an outcast of some sort. Minecraft is the Java version, period. (oops, that was a comma ).
I would be surprised if they killed/maimed the pc version as the backlash would be tremendous. I think these changes will be great for younger players who start out on a console/tablet/mobile so they can play with their friends. Those who stick with minecraft and love it will surely jump to the pc version at some point.
Only thing I'll comment now is that it would be ridiculous to rename Minecraft into Minecraft: Java Edition. That's just stupid.
I hope they do the opposite and rename the console/win 10/mobile versions of the game as lite (or insert better name) and begin rolling out updates faster (before those versions) on the original (java) game.
I heard about this last night when watching a YouTube video produced by one of the major "minigame" servers. They announced that they will be providing servers for this new Minecraft server platform. According to the main developer, he has been working on this new server platform for a "couple months". At this point, his Minecraft server and two other Minecraft servers have committed to being an "Official Minecraft Partner" and will have these servers running sometime this summer. He also said that they would continue to run a Minecraft: Java Edition servers. So... they plan on running two separate server platforms. Minecraft clients from one platform will only be able to play on the corresponding platform server. In other words, Minecraft: Java Edition will not be able to connect to the newer servers. The next part of this announcement is telling. It is entitled: === What this means for PC === "We are in no way going to be ignoring Java/PC Minecraft or switching away from it. Actually, we have some major projects for Java Minecraft that we will be announcing very soon and plan to continue improving on it in every way. However, we did not want to miss out on being able to be one of the first ever servers for Consoles and bring our community cross-play Minecraft." I don't know how this reads to you, but I interrupt it to mean: "We are going to be putting a big chunk of our development efforts into tapping the income potential of this new market"
I expect that MS will try to move Minecraft in a way that will enable them to collect perpetual fees from players and if possible other parties. And also to, again, push Windows 10. They probably want to capitalize the name "Minecraft" - that's why "our" Minecraft has to be renamed and give way to a new product that they want to try to sell to masses. But, how is it to play Minecraft without a mouse and perhaps on a small screen? I haven't tried myself, but I assume it is quite a different game. Will that work? Can the new "Minecraft" on a tablet or console be remotely as successful as the PC version, even if it steals the name? Bigger picture I see this as a part of the overall change in who pays for software, services, entertainment etc., how, when and why. Why is MS pushing Win10 so hard? Why did the price of MS software drop to like 10% of what it was before? The reasons are several, but what is more interesting is what MS and others are trying to do about that. The revenue shall come in in a different way - partially in a different way from the users themselves (e.g. Office 365, for under $10 per user per month is actually more expensive in the long run), and partially from someone else (advertising ... and by far not only that)! This views the significant majority of consumers as lacking maturity, responsibility (including social and environmental responsibility), knowledge, wisdom and educated political thought. No matter to what extent is that "just a sad truth", IMO it is itself not only irresponsible, but also short sighted to go along and shape the economy in that way. Yes, Apple, Google, MS and few others can an do shape the software economy. Compare this to how EMC used to give significant in-game advantages to supporters. To start doing that, you need to assume that the members are in such a mental shape, that they would buy in-game advantages over their playmates for out-of game money. Quite a sad thing to do, but it did seem to work for some time. Or hasn't it? ... Until the in-game inflation showed the absurdity and short-sightedness of such pay-to-win scheme. But that was / is a game with majority in lower teens. How can this play out in "RL"?
I tried it on my phone once and I managed to walk 10 blocks from my starting position to something which looked like water, and there I managed to get a block of dirt using my hands. After that ordeal I knew for sure that this wasn't for me, not at all, because it took me quite some effort to sort this out (as you said: no mouse, so...). This was only walking and digging 1 block, now think about actually building something Well, according to some sales statistics which people on the Minecraft forum & youtube often like to share it already somewhat has. That is to say (tried to look for it, can't find the chart right now)... if I recall correctly the chart mostly showcases that mobile versions have seen more sales than the Java version. I somewhat dispute that, but it makes sense considering that the mobile version costs less (as far as I know). Of course you could also wonder how you're going to gain even more sales out of an environment which has already been sold so much. Good question! To be honest I'm not all that bothered with their attempts to find new ways to earn money with Minecraft. Yes, I do think some things are a bit hypocrite; server owners get scolded for "play to win" and Mojang apparently just does so as they please. Is this really about protecting (younger) players or about protecting revenue? I have some doubts But Mojang earning (more) money on Minecraft can also be a good thing. More money may mean also having more resources to work on the game in the overall, including our beloved Java version. I personally think it's a good thing that Mojang are also looking into other models to earn (more) money. Because if they don't then trust me: the end for Minecraft would probably come a lot sooner. You know, the classic saying of not putting all your money on a single horse. Also.... This is not something new... You see these kinds of things happening all over the place. Small sidestep and totally offtopic (but still relevant!): I'm an audio freak, I love audio, the audio theories and messing with audio on my computers. I use so called "soft synths" (synthesizers running on a computer, so producing digital audio) and my working environment solely evolves around 3 main products: Ableton Live (suite edition) together with Max for Live, Reason 6 & Max stand alone (Max is a visual programming environment aimed at multimedia purposes). This software is quite expensive. Live costs around E 800,-, Reason around E 300,- Max (full edition) also around E 800,-. Nowadays "Max for Live" is a standard (integrated) part of the Live Suite edition, but back in my day I paid an additional E 300,- for it. But an upgrade on the other hand is pretty cheap in comparison. Live can be upgraded for approx. E 150 - 200, Reason usually sits around E 100 - 150 and Max also provides discounts (which I never used, don't know these from mind). I think it should be obvious: new sales are more rewarding than reoccurring (upgrade) sales, you'll get more money. But if you squeeze people too much then there's a huge chance that they'll simply stick to what they have. An instrument doesn't make your music, you do. Example: I'm still using Reason 6 even though Reason 9.5 is the current version. I simply never saw a good reason to upgrade. And I'm not the only one who's relying on older software. Some friends of mine still work with Live 7 because that works best for them (current is 9 which I own). My point: All companies noticed that their business model needed expansion. First you saw Ableton & Cycling '74 (companies behind Live & Max) coming together and forming a partnership: Max for Live appeared (the Max programming language went into Live). This got sold on both websites, effectively meaning that both companies started "advertising" for each other. Next: Live started dividing their software into "packs" and eventually started Live Packs. Basically: you can buy an extension (usually an instrument or sample (sound) collection) which could be used within Live. They even allowed other vendors to sell their stuff through the Ableton website. That model was soon adopted by Propellerhead (company behind Reason) who basically did the same thing, but this time called it "rack extensions". Where I'm getting with this? Although the main thing about these companies is the DAW they developed and sold, they now also started expanding their market into other areas, like selling individual samples and instruments. The main difference is that these companies sold a product, and also sold the newer versions of that product. With Minecraft on the other hand we buy 1 version of the game, and get everything else for free. So doesn't it make somewhat sense that Mojang would also eventually look out for other ways to make money, because eventually the Java version is going to dry up where sales are concerned? Maybe food for thought?
I'm pretty sure they got that back within a year of their purchase. On the other hand: yay for copious amounts of crap DLC and microtransactions - an absolute cancer to the gaming industry. Isn't the future wonderful?!?!?
Not terribly recent (October) but I thought this was an interesting article with some other content. http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-minecraft-100-year-brand-2016-9
I don't think they're going to hit that goal of 100 years. The game's popularity is already a shell of what it used to be, and most who want it have already bought it and moved on, or have felt alienated by the massive amount of updates and left it alone. Any attempts to expand the franchise have resulted in failure (see: Minecraft Story Mode, which for some reason is getting a sequel...). They're punching way above their weight. Minecraft turns 10 in 2019 (technically 2021), let's see if they hit that first...
And what about us who are still playing it? Sure, the amount of players may have dropped but there are no guarantees that this will remain the same. Another important thing to realize is that there's a huge difference between visible and invisible players. Not every player will raise their voice or will make themselves heard. As was seen on the Minecraft forums some time ago (where the same kind of discussion about player amounts also surfaces from time to time): an obviously old player basically stated that he was still playing and enjoying the game, but stopped caring about all the whining so more or less stopped participating on the forum. So here's my question: if you didn't know he simply stopped posting, wouldn't you be tempted to count him amongst the players who apparently lost interest in Minecraft and stopped playing? I don't think story mode was an attempt to expand the franchise, more an attempt of expanding the revenue. And although I personally agree (I seriously disliked it myself) they must have been doing something right. They wouldn't be working on a sequel if it hadn't sold well.
@ShelLuser: For it to be considered a 'brand', though (by me, that is), it needs more than invisible players. It needs recent games/updates, sale of merchandise, plenty of representation, et cetera.
I think you are only seeing it from the PC -java perspective. The pocket edition and the console editions are going heavy and both have sold more copies than the PC -java edition has now. You might think it is a shell from where you are looking but from where Microsoft is looking, the revenue perspective, it is far from a shell. And actually the PC version is not a hot new game expanding like crazy but far from a shell.
If there will be technical possibility for purchases around Minecraft, it does not mean (I hope!) that it will be used for pay-to-win schemes. It was (is) not only protecting (younger) players, but in the same time protecting the game from becoming a despicable and socially unacceptable thing. Our cultures and societies globally are actually looking for ways how to reduce corruption, not for ways how to tech children corruption. I hope so. Just having the money does not mean being able to do it. You need people who are able and willing to produce quality. It seems that having a lot of money does not necessarily mean that one can find, hire and organize people - and actually make high quality products and services. MC servers could (and IMO should) substantially improve their service and charge for it. Mojang could get a share of that revenue. The users should pay for what they get. It's sick if someone else pays for them, because they will, in some other way, pay more in the end.
