[EULA] Mojang Supporter Changes Discussion

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by tinkao, Jun 5, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. UPDATE: Official Discussion regarding changes to EMC starting here

    =================================
    According to Mojang's EULA as stated here:

    Reddit link here

    Servers running on 1.7.10 and after are required to accept the EULA. This means no money making will be allowed, and servers that require donations to keep running will have to be taken down, or not update to 1.7.10. This will harm the community greatly, and I believe minecraft will not last long anymore as a major game if this remains in affect.

    RIP MINECRAFT
    EffinBatman likes this.
  2. It does not mean they can not make money. It just simply means that they can not exchange money for in game services/perks/items/anything in minecraft. This can be from offering a certain block (TNT) or name color changes. BASICALLY the smartest way to counteract it, is to offer site side perks that still appease the groups... but not actually provide any in game services/items. Yeah.. its a blow. To be honest, I think in time it will pass. It will PROBABLY get enforced for a time, but I mean come on, what are we going to play on? Minecraft Realms? The statements being made currently are only really being Mentioned by ONE Mojang member. Yeah.. it's still a big deal. BUT the player's make the servers... If you say it will die.. probably will then. But if you believe that it is just another hurdle that something great can handle, then it will be ok. Its not a Cease to Exist, it is 'Change stuff because we are being meanies'. The general blanket statement that covers most of what this One Mojang member said, is that a server should be able to survive off of ad revenue. And that donations are perfectly fine, if they offer no benefits in the Minecraft Game Environment.
  3. I am awaiting for Aikar to reply. I hope this does not change too much on the Empire D:
    cowland123 and Bro_im_infinite like this.
  4. I read through the EULA twice and a hand full of the comments, however I'm not seeing a place where anyone could claim that donations specifically are not being allowed. I am seeing the issue, however, of plugins no longer being able to be sold. This could present a problem and keep people from updating said plugins for future use, and EMC runs off of a lot of plugins that the EMC team does not create for themselves.
  5. In b4 Aikar;

    In all technicality, if Aikar updates to 1.7.10, in actuality, he HAS to comply with the changes in the EULA, the servers will not even start unless you accept them. Now, WILL he? Who knows, it comes down to does he KNOW he will not get in trouble? Is it worth taking the risk? Or is smarter to comply, and wait out the storm. Or just stay 1.7.9 forever.
    MrUnknownian likes this.
  6. Would you say that privileges such as the ones that donators receive here, as well as the rupees system, may be in jeopardy?
    ISMOOCH likes this.
  7. Donations would be allowed, but Aikar could no longer offer any of the perks (all of them, including rupee bonus, colored names, more residences, etc.) in game for accepting the donations. It's a change that I can't see them keeping around with all the hate they're already getting for it. However, unfortunately, it is an option the can choose to put forward if they want.
  8. I would say so, yes.

    I would hardly give a chainsaw if mojang released a mod API in 1.7, as we could do anything we wanted with the server.
    Anyways, we kinda saw this coming, did we not? Mojang is trying to "vanillaize" minecraft. Most new changes to the game are for map developing, and many changes are against servers.
  9. It specifically mentions the server software. Grumm even acknowledges this in a skype and IRC conversation (for those who don't know, all of this is a Grumm thing). Grumm openly admits that the intention is to remove ANY profit from Minecraft products/software/services that are not directly approved by them. By NAME it calls server software. First hand, TNT being limited to only diamond supporters is blatant non-compliance. This was established many months ago when Grumm mentioned something similar to this happening, however he has confirmed that their intentions are going to be much more strict than originally thought. From the actual skype confirmation that this entire thing stemmed from, a server owner asked if they could still offer a Perk like a name color change to be purchased, he said 'Yes, if it is purchased with an in game currency they did not have to spend money to obtain, or could have spent money to obtain'. For anything there WOULD have been grey area on, Grumm has cleared up with the blanket statement that if it is achievable in the Minecraft game Environment in any way, whether custom coded or not, then it is their property, and exchanging money for the granting of this, is direct violation.
  10. Another neat tidbit with all of this. Something that was mentioned by Grumm was that the mod API would require a license fee to utilize.
    MrUnknownian and Bro_im_infinite like this.
  11. It's going to be interesting... I wonder what the solution will be
  12. woooow that is dumb xD
    DogsRNice likes this.
  13. Well, people are going to be upset. I find this unsettling, since Mojang has made so much money with Minecraft already. The solution will have to be fought for by the players, or Mojang may find themselves making not much more money on Minecraft very soon.
    battmeghs likes this.
  14. Well, they'll still be gaining money from new accounts. The ones who'll have a money-shortage will be the multiplayer servers.

    What about if it's a server in Realms, Would mojang allow donations and such?
  15. No.. but the idea is to pull the money making ability from large MC servers, and force players to use realms. This is another cash flow movement for them, that no one is using. it averages about 2.5 players per server with 25000 players active a day.

    QUICK NOTE:

    I have tracking this thing thanks to help of others since the first few minutes it became a thing. Sorting through long IRC and Skype convos, trying to find out what is what. The above is a statement from Grumm, not really just me saying something I think.

    I know you can make players pay to get whitelisted, apparently that is confirmed to be allowed, and hiring someone to develop a plugin for you is fine, as long as they in turn to do not put the plugin behind a paywall and force other people to pay to use it.

    The people this WILL hurt the most, are the bigger networks. Like.. the HUGE ones. Grumm has taken this chance to joke and continues to post all of MinePlex's server data (plugins/databases/server configs) to the public. Apparently this is a stab at md_5 (Spigot/BungeeCord) because of some security issue the MOJANG TEAM found in some of his code.

    Its a bunch of weirdness right now. So who knows what will REALLY happen. Apparently there are some key Mojang members who have yet to speak up on the claims (Dinnerbone), and it would appear that the Mojang team will not hesitate to show favoritism in say, a server they like to play on, getting full approval to do what it wants.
    MrUnknownian and pyro_vampiress like this.
  16. This is stupid. Mojang should maybe charge 5% of the donation cost? That would be better.
  17. If Grumm was being smart, he would follow the same model most other gaming industry things do (exception EA, the only thing Grumm seems to want Mojang to be), and charge say, a monthly operation cost per server to achieve profitable status.

    Like

    <25 Player servers would be free, but would not be allowed to utilize profiting using in game items/perks/services

    >25 Player server would be charged a monthly license fee to stay active, and would be able to utilize profiting off of mojang content.

    The second option could even be tiered to support larger profit from larger servers.

    It seems that instead of just trying to make a little bit of extra money by changing the format, Grumm wants to cripple the creative groups that make Minecraft what it is.
  18. #NotchBack
    honestly, I think that if Notch was still the guy working on MC, this might not be happening. MC started going a little more downhill around 1.0 :/
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.