[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...

[x0x0]

My generation did not have the ability to spend $300 on my parents' credit cards by pressing buttons on my walkman in exchange for prettier outfits for my fake characters.

[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.

[x0x0]

And in the meantime, their child (like my niece) might have clicked her way through $300+ of scummy iap that my sister didn't realize was hooked up to her credit card. People who facilitate kids spending money without their parents permission are not good people, even though the parents have the duty to supervise children. To take this to it's logical conclusion, it's the same reason that -- though parents are legally required to supervise kids -- we also put fences around attractive nuisances like pools, and throw pool owners in prison if they don't.

[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.