[SteveC]

As someone who actually runs a Minecraft server and has developed several mini games and around 50 plugins, I'd like to clarify a few things to people who aren't involved in Minecraft.

* Minecraft is pretty expensive to host. The top servers are paying tens of thousands a month in hosting. Only a few servers make enough to cover wages. Most just barely scrape by. DDOS protection is pretty much essential to any server over a certain size, which increases costs significantly.

* Most Minecraft servers are no longer vanilla Minecraft servers. The Minecraft server software is pretty bad in both functionality and performance. Most servers use Craftbukkit or Spigot, which has a plugin API (Spigot is a patched version of Craftbukkit with mostly performance fixes). Craftbukkit is open source, but is a legally gray area as it contains the decompiled code from the Mojang server. There is an API for writing plugins called Bukkit which is totally separate from the craftbukkit server implementation.

* The large servers have tried to work with Mojang to get a set of rules they can work with. Mojang listened to them and actually added clauses prohibiting some of the things they said they needed to even have a chance of this working for them.

* While Mojang claim their EULA never allowed servers to make money, their first one actually did. They've also granted written permission to some servers. Last year they had a panel at Minecon were top server owners actually talked about how their server makes money. Despite what their EULA says, Mojang has been basically telling servers it was fine to monetize up until now.

* Their new terms force servers to remove perks that have already been sold to players. Many server owners are objecting to this as it forces them to "steal" things that players have bought.

* Bungeecord is a proxy system that allows players to switch between multiple servers without logging out. The Minecraft clients multiplayer server list support has barely improved since Alpha. Mojang's new EULA treats a bungeecord proxy as a single server. This means that although they allow owners to charge players to access a server, it's pretty much impossible to do without inconveniencing players.

* The Minecraft network protocol is not patented. A number of open source server implementations exist which do no use any Mojang code. Since these changes have been announced these projects have become much more active with disgruntled developers starting to contribute. It is believed that the EULA cannot legally be enforced on these servers, although one Mojang developer made a statement to the contrary.

* No final draft for the new EULA has actually be made available, but a date for compliance has already been set. 1st August 2014.

* Mojang released their Realms hosting service worldwide just before making these changes, prompting many to accuse them of trying to eliminate the competition. However, they could simply stop releasing their server software if that was their intention, so most people don't believe this to be true.

[arrrg]

So it’s expensive and hard. So what? Doesn’t mean scummy play to win bullshit is something to be proud of, especially when targeting children.

I mean, what Mojang now permits I consider just barely ethically acceptable. Do know that these pay to win schemes are extremely disgusting and that you are far from behaving ethically if you use them. If you can live with that …

The legal discussion is kind of boring to me in that context, since it seems so obvious that the behaviour of many server owners is so disgusting. I’m happy that Mojang is trying to crack down on that and I hope they don’t fail. Maybe they will, but that doesn’t change anything about how wrong these pay to win schemes are.

[unethical_ban]

So what? So it's incredibly hard to even enforce what Mojang says they're targeting, and in trying to do so, they're spooking a ton of legitimate developers and server owners.

The real question is how children are spending hundreds of dollars online without parental consent.

[techtalsky]

No, that's not really "the real question". Kids are smart. The know how to get what they want and parents can't be everywhere at any moment. SOME percentage of kids are going to figure out how to pay for goods with very little understanding of their relative value. Preying on kids in this position skirts the borders of what's ethical. I'm not saying all server owners are guilty of this, but Mojang has their position for a reason and it's not just the profit motive.

[spain]

If kids outwit their parents and spend their money then that's the parents fault, not the servers. True, the parents can't always be everywhere which is why they need to teach children to act responsibly. If that kid keeps continuously taking money out of your bank account when you're not looking and blowing it on Minecraft then the parent is doing something wrong. If there was no Minecraft they'd spend the money on something else. I don't see why server hosts should be punished because some parents failed to bring their children up properly.

[ovulator]

That's ridiculous.

Some ten year old kid wants a $300 item on a Minecraft server. The kid has been told he can't use his parent's credit card without permission, he knows he can't, but guess what: even good kids break the rules, and he knows his parents have the money. He just saw them write a $5,000 check for his private tuition! (they want to raise him right) That $5,000 check though left them with $200 in the bank for the rest of the month...

I'm not for or against server monitization, but trying to blame the parents is ridiculous. Kids are not exact molds that their parents have shaped.

[Mikeb85]

Then take away that kids computer and all technology, and ground them for a month.

These problems were solved by previous generations, when did parents become such pussies?

When my generation was growing up (and I'm only 29), if we acted up we were expecting a beating at home... And we didn't get our own computer, TV and iPad or console...

[spain]

A "good kid" who breaks the rules isn't a "good kid", it's a bad one. If the parents never found out about the child spending the money, then the blame would not fall on them. However I don't consider this a very likely scenario not only because money doesn't tend to vanish into thin air, but because a responsible parent would monitor their child's spending. They might be able to get away with it for a while, but eventually they'll find out. If they gave them a $5000 check then they can't just forget about it, it doesn't magically vanish from under their noses. Even if they do just give the check and forget about it, it is again, their fault and theirs alone. They caused the scenario in which they couldn't monitor the child's spending. They can't assume the child will act responsibly; they need to monitor their spending. Kids aren't the exact molds their parents have shaped, but they should at least be taught basic survival skills, such as the ability to spend money responsibly.

[chc]

That's extremely true, but at any rate, I can't see any way around the fact that the actions of their child and the use of their credit card are more their responsibility than the server owner's. (Even if they don't control their child, neither does a random Minecraft server owner!)

[zacinbusiness]

Yeah I generally don't think it'd be a good idea to give kids access to parental bank accounts. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seems like a poor decision.

[Alupis]

Guys, this isn't "about the kids", it's about all minecraft players and server admins.

The contract doesn't only apply to kids, it applies to everyone. So saying this is a "poor decision" because you don't want to encourage kids to use their parents credit card... is a poor argument.

(as an aside - I know zero kids that play minecraft, but I know an awful lot of adults that do... so let's not just jump and assume it's only kids playing this game).

[unethical_ban]

I know the EULA is universal, but all the defenders of "no-free-to-play" cite the "for the children" defense as the reason why this is such a pressing issue now.

As a player, Minecraft is only free-to-play if you voluntarily pay a server owner. If someone doesn't like a server, log into a different one! If you want to put in dozens of hours on a world without fear of it being griefed/having the rules changed, run your own small server!

My thesis is that this is basically a non-issue. If Mojang wants people to know they're not the ones charging for server access (the parent anecdote in the article), they should have a big, permanent banner in the server browser: "If you're paying for items on a server, you're paying too much! Minecraft server access is free by default!" and so on.

[seanflyon]

Most elementary school aged kids I have talked to play Minecraft. I heard from a teacher that it is the vast majority.

[angersock]

When you've added enough patches, operations, and hardware to the initial game, I think it's totally reasonable to be able to charge for that. Mojang should just sell a license of the server software (perhaps with better patches, yeah?) to resellers, ala cPanel or what have you.

They basically have this one-trick-pony which is now effectively maintained by the community at zero cost to them--no wonder they're being silly.

EDIT: Somebody should just release an extendable open-source clone of the game, with art assets, and just force their hand.

[Alupis]

There is really no "play to win" in Minecraft, because there is no "winning". You just keep doing things until you get bored and stop playing.

As someone who can run my own server for myself and a few friends (and have on multiple occasions), I don't see how allowing servers to charge for some things is bad... don't want to pay for access to an item -- go play someplace else or host your own.

[derefr]

For the same reason that the elderly will call their web browser "the Googles", children will also tend to think of the first implementation of a concept they find as the definitive one. The idea will never occur to them that there's any other Minecraft server than Bob's Private MineCraft Capitalism Extravaganza that their friend introduced them to and plays on.

[spain]

Children aren't smart, this much is known. This is fighting the symptom, not the cause. The real issue is that children who can't spend their money responsibly shouldn't have that money in the first place. If we go by the assumption that a child won't know when they're paying for a legitimate product or being exploited then why give them any money? If they don't spend it on a pay-to-win server then they'll spend it somewhere else and be "exploited" just as much, possibly on an iPhone game or something. If I give my child $1000 and they blow it on a Minecraft server then that's my fault for giving them that much money, not theirs. Children shouldn't be given that much disposable income if they can't use it properly. Punishing server hosts for the mistakes of poor parenting is not the right solution.

[derefr]

Now apply your line of reasoning back to the elderly. It feels weird to say the words when you're pointing them at a higher-status group.

[chc]

Elderly people who are incapable of understanding their own actions also shouldn't be left to care for themselves, and generally aren't.

[spain]

As chc said, I wouldn't apply the same reasoning to elderly people. Also, the issue that most people were bringing up was that children specifically were being exploited, so the point is moot.

[Alupis]

I think that's besides the point. This contract isn't "about the kids", it's about all Minecraft players and server administrators. If a server administrator feels they need to, or want to charge for some item or plugin, they should have the freedom to do so...

...after all, they aren't obligated to run a minecraft server in the first place, and if the only thing keeping the lights on is selling some in-game item, let it be.

[wtbob]

What's scummy about a server owner giving me a nice starting house in return for a payment? What's scummy about a server owner giving me /feed or /fly in return for payment?

There's nothing deceptive; there's nothing unfair about offering a free server with perks (anyone is free to pay or do without). I'm an adult, and I choose how to spend my disposable income.

[GhotiFish]

well the point is, no one cares. You're an adult that spent some money on something of dubious value, but you were expected to be able to value it.

Now your ownership of that is being seen by a kid, who assumes he's your peer. That kid never had a chance.

[epsylon]

    * Their new terms force servers to remove perks that have already been sold to players. Many server owners are objecting to this as it forces them to "steal" things that players have bought.

The servers don't have to remove the perks, they just have to give them to everyone.

What's pretty clear in all this is that Notch does not want Minecraft to become some kind of pay-to-win game (which would inevitably damage the reputation of the game). I think he is absolutely right to stand by this. He also has stated numerous times on Twitter that Mojang doesn't care about server admins getting money for the service (if anything to pay for the hosting costs), as long as any gameplay modification that is distributed is available for all players without paying.

[Avenger42]

> The servers don't have to remove the perks, they just have to give them to everyone.

Either way, I imagine you get a bit of an uproar - either you're giving things away for free that you sold before, so the people who bought them are upset and want their money back; or you steal the items back so no one can have them, so the people who bought them are upset and want their money back.

[potatolicious]

Or you do it the same way everyone else does it when the rules change: everyone who already has Banned Thing is grandfathered in but it's no longer transferrable or acquirable.

Or you do it the Valve way: give everyone the Thing and make existing Things the Extra Special Limited Edition Thing that's functionally identical but still confers bragging rights - this would still be within Mojang's rules.

[Avenger42]

#1 is probably easier, but #2 is probably a better user experience. Either way, you're right in that deleting the item wouldn't be necessary.

[ripter]

You were never allowed to sell them in the first place. This part of the EULA was being ignored so Notch clarified.

[Siecje]

If you don't want to pay for things you can play on a different server. You don't have to buy things but if it is worth it for you then you should have the option.

[elfcard]

Can you cite the claims you make, like the original EULA, and correspondence which said it was okay to monetize gameplay? Otherwise, I have to disregard this comment. You may be right, but without those pieces of information, I have to defer to the post by the founder which could have legal ramifications if proved false.

[owsla]

>The top servers are paying tens of thousands a month in hosting.

Are you just speculating? This seems extremely high. I've hosted a couple Minecraft servers and even with a mild constant population (~30) it wasn't even breaking 100/mo.

>DDOS protection is pretty much essential to any server over a certain size, which increases costs significantly.

I've had many dedicated servers in my day, and this has never been the case. Not sure where you're getting this data from.

[unethical_ban]

To point 1, Minecraft chews memory and processor for breakfast. I understand that some of the larger server have thousands of players logged in simultaneously over huge areas in a minecraft world, so I can imagine 4-5 digit hosting bills.

To point 2, you're hosting a server with lots of attention, one that is DDoS friendly, and you've got the eyes of lots of young technical people. In the world of one-click DDoS, I don't doubt it can pose an issue quickly.

[owsla]

My point with #2 is that DDoS protection is included with most dedicated server plans. It doesn't cost "significantly extra" as this guy claims- at least I've never seen that.

[worklogin]

Well, we'll just have to rely on our experience then. I haven't dealt with dedicated servers plans, but my impression of "DDoS" protection in that regard is that your traffic will get blackholed if it's bad enough.

Vendors like Cloudflare, Akamai and Prolexic sell plans where all your traffic is routed through their networks first, filtered based on various DDoS-detecting algorithms, then sent to you. $$$$

[Alupis]

Cloudflare also offers some free services ;-P

[zapu]

You can't exactly route real-time game traffic over proxy designed to filter http traffic.