Minecraft EULA: Good or Bad? Fair or Unfair?

I think the title explains it enough. Its been around for awhile and has been enforced since around May -- but still a relevant topic. What are your thoughts? Is the EULA fair to server owners? Is it fair as far as its effect on players gameplay? Do you believe the EULA goes to far?

Just wanting to hear some opinions and maybe some debating? Who knows.

I personally think the EULA, which has been instated for quite some time, is not fair and regulates so tightly what servers can solicit that it has a negative effect. Additionally I believe that it takes away the actually sellable perks associated with server ranks. At least for the majority of possible buyers. Speaking for my self I would never buy anything cosmetic. (One of the few things permitted within the EULA guidelines)

Thanks,
Noah

 

Personally, I would argue it is far too strict. There needs to be a middle-ground. I completely understand Mojang's reasoning behind it, as some places gave virtually anything to those paying up a ton. However, I would say no perks whatsoever is ridiculous. What fool is going to pay their hard-earned money on particle effects and playful little gadgets? Only a minigames server can sustain itself with those perks. It degrades multiplayer drastically by limiting medium size servers, and ruining small ones who cannot pay for their upkeep without providing those purchasing things with anything. Simply put, simple rules are never going to work, as it's more of a gray. Things aren't black and white for it.

 

Oh yeah it's so strict to the point that it will end up contradicting itself. It is supposed to aid in the expansion of the MC player-base, when it reality it will end up shrinking it to nothing if there isn't change soon. In order for there to a player-base, there needs to be servers. Servers cost money to run and if their market is regulated to the point where they cannot meet the demands of players, they will not make profit and the server will ultimately perish. Sure, for some time it may seem like a good thing as new players are logging on and feel happy to be equal, but after a while every server will fall because there is no incentive for the players to donate, resulting in the loss of money at the hands of the owner, and therefore no choice left for the owner other than to shut the server down. Sort of like the effects of overregulation on the economies of countries in the real world.

 

Good? Yes
Bad? Lolno
Fair? Yeah
Unfair? Kinda

 

I have to agree with you on some of those points. For me I think the reasoning for constituting such a EULA was good, but the inacting and follow thought was bad. I don't think Mojang fully understood how the Minecraft community operated and how servers sustained themselves. Are there servers that before inforcement took advantage of players and exploited the system? Definitely. Unfortunately without having a double standard I think the EULA is justified, as much as I disagree with it. I guess this is one of those situations where one or few ruined it for many. "One for all, all for one"

 

Another thought, not as many servers were "pay to win." And for those on such servers, no one was forcing you to play there. They could just find a different one . . . but noooo, they complain to Mojang and force them to create the EULA.

 

There is no basis of fairness for this argument. It's their property, they inherently have a right to do whatever they want with it. If they updated it tomorrow disallowing any servers, they have that right to do so.

I'd argue that servers were lucky to be allowed to make a profit off someone else's product.

 

However, quite a few people purchased the game because of the Multiplayer options. Therefore, killing servers is going to hurt their own profits. They still have every right, of course, but that is my logic.

 

Correct. Mojang has the right to do what they want with their product, but we also have the right to voice how dumb their decisions are.

 

Like everything there is a balance, you can't have to many but you can't have to little. Finding the perfect amount of restrictions can be a challenge. Hopefully other people feel the way we do and Mojang/Microsoft is hearing this so that they can end up changing. Because while this EULA has been around for years it hasn't been enforced until recently. We can consider the EULA as a beta test and they will hopefully make changes that benefit us.

As far as my thoughts of the EULA being to strict, I do believe it is. Taking away some things like /fly makes perfect sense but other smaller perks such as /nv or /fill don't need to be taken away. A bid source of revenue for severs is people spending money in exchange for an advantage. Without this main source of income or at least it being lowered can make it very tough on a server. And I don't think that Micro-jang realizes this.

A way we can counter this though is by making physical merchandise. I know that meep has attempted this, but other than 2 or 3 threads for it, it seems to have been forgotten. Plus the designs aren't anything amazing.

 

If servers didn't cost money to run, I would absolutely be for Mojang's changes, and I probably wouldn't even be mad if they disallowed all purchases altogether.

You're right, but the consumers have the right to voice our feelings on it. I'd say it's just a bit too strict, but we have to understand that other servers have quite literally become pay-to-win, and Mojang put it in place to remedy that (and just a tiny bit of greed, I suppose). In our case, however, there was no pay-to-win, it was, at the most, slightly unfair against citizens. Perhaps that is what you get when you don't donate.

Overall, I feel we are one of those servers that got hit hard by it because it was intended to be targeted against servers that actually were p2w in the first place.

 

I disagree on the prospect of "no basis of fairness" simply because companies, even though they may own the rights to something, can still make unfair or not well thought out decisions. For example say if Apple changed their terms of service for App developers for how and to what extent they could solicit and profit off their platforms. This would be considered unfair even though it is not their platform. Of course in any situation there will be people and companies that profit off of such services.

One anti-EULA argument is that servers bring in additional Minecraft players through friends and family. A too strict EULA could damage this relationship if some servers cannot maintain themselves. This strengthens the point the current EULA goes too far, even though Mojang an affiliate of Microsoft has all the rights to enforce such regulations.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 2, 2016 ---

Totally agree. Without the Multiplayer option I would have stopped playing ages ago. The game itself thrives on its social aspect, personally I think thats what makes it fun.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 2, 2016 ---

Love this analogy. But I totally agree. Such limitations dictates how the game can be played. Funny huh? That was the initial intention with the EULA, too keep the game fair and leveled amongst all players. But in a sense changed and limits what you can and cannot do. Essentially closing doors and possibilities.

 

What I mean is unlike removing very minor perks I can see were they are coming from because it gives you a massive advantage. That being said though, it does cost alot to get

I didn't say solve I said counter, we will never make as much money as we did with perks but this can bring in a little bit more.

While I'm fine with the idea of doing that, mojang is saying that they are taking their product and then making parts of it restricted unless you pay money.

Now I'm not gonna reply to this anymore cause my post/like ratio is already trash.

 

Wrong, he's selling parts of mojangs game (items) which is their property.

 

They are variables that he is charging to change in the game for cash... So yes they were in the base game.

 

I think that EULA is being fair making mine craft a non pay to win game but I don't think it is fair taking /fly away from people that probably bought those ranks just for /fly. I think that EULA should have to compensate for the loss in commands.

 

Yes in my opinion EULA is too strict and I think the perks and ranks should be made by the server owner, if fuzzlr wants ultimate ranks he should be allowed to have them, also if he wants to add /fly and /feed he should be allowed too, I think its unfair that people who oaid for certain ranks got screwed and didn't get to keep what they were told they would get, Its like buying a house and saying it comes furnished then a year later they take all your furniture away even tho you agreed on buying it with the house, I think if the rules changed you should atleast be grandfathered in on certain perks.

 

I can agree on some things and strongly disagree with others.

Good, because there was a metric tonne of servers with a huge paygap and were pvp based. "You die you lose your stuff" And were at a severe disadvantage against somebody with donor perks if you were just playing the server to play it. Meepcraft was an example of this in the wild. In the wild there were Ults who simply flew around all day with bows shooting players just to take their stuff. With the clear advantage of being in the air. That is a pay gap that should always be abolished.

Bad, because it was the equivalent to trying to mow your lawn with a nuclear weapon in the sense that they pretty much just said "no" to any of it and slapped the face of the players who "did" pay for stuff. Most of said players just outright lost the perks they paid for. Imagine going to 7/11 and buying a slurpee. Now imagine 5 minutes later after buying that slurpee the store clerk hunts you down and takes your drink away because that flavor does not exist or was banned somehow. But not giving you your money back.

Fair, because if it was done right everybody could go home happy.

Unfair, because they took a half assed approach to it.