Best Posts in Thread: Minecraft EULA: Good or Bad? Fair or Unfair?

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.

 

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.

 

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.