Notch On New Minecraft EULA: Not ‘Literally Worse Than EA’

Did you hear the news? You can’t sell items that affect gameplay anymore in Minecraft. If your server does that, you have been bad and will probably be shot to death by the police after a high-octane car chase full of cool lighting and witty quips. You are, however, still allowed to accept donations to keep your server up and running, promote advertising/in-game sponsorship, and sell items that don’t affect gameplay. Minecraft’s new EULA essentially codifies a lot of things that were already happening while preventing pay-to-win. The community’s response to the changes? Not good.

Change often causes outrage, and while this is hardly a case of universal anger, the skies have definitely seen their fair share of pointed words flying about. After being accused of being “literally worse than EA,” Notch wrote a blog post in response:

“Someone saw that the EULA says you can’t charge for these things, and asked one of the people working at Mojang about it. That person said that yes, it is indeed against the rules, and then everything exploded. A lot of people got the impression that we’re changing the EULA somehow to only now disallow these things, but they were never allowed. A lot of people voiced their concerns. A few people got nasty. Someone said we’re literally worse than EA.”

“We had discussions about it internally, and eventually had a big meeting where we said that yes, people running servers are a huge part of what makes Minecraft so special, and that they need to be able to pay for the servers. So we came up with all sorts of ways this could be done without ruining the “you don’t pay for gameplay” aspect of Minecraft we all find so important. These rules we’re posted in non-legal speak here: There are new rules. These are new exceptions to the EULA. All of these make the rules more liberal than things were before.”

“People are still asking me to change back to the old EULA. That makes me sad.”

So, in short, Mojang clarified a stance it already held, in effect cracking down on people taking advantage of the fact that the rule wasn’t very clearly stated. Now that it is clearly stated, people seem to be under the false impression they’ve been deprived of some inalienable right. A fun place, this here Internet. I bet it’s a big hit at parties.

And so the Minecraft machine trundles on, more or less the same. Anyone think there’s anything legitimately worth being upset about here?


  1. Asdfreak says:

    Absolutely nothing wrong with all this, I don’t get all those upset people
    “OMG, we can’t transfer Minecraft into a payto win mobile game? You are the worst, like, ever!”
    I mean, they clearly stated that this was the EULA all along, if you read it you would have known.
    Probably the most obviously stupid shitstorm ever, fueled by little kids, half witty script kiddies and stupid serverowners that lack even the reading comprehension to understand that that the EULA did not get worse. I get why Notch is sad

    • Hahaha says:

      Well the server owners just lost a money stream and the people paying for this rubbish have been fucked by modern “gaming” and will lap up the nikel and diming.

      • WelshPixie says:

        I own Minequish. Google ‘family friendly servers’ and it’s one of the top hits. We take donations and had a couple of worlds that we gave access to in return for donations. We’re opening one of those worlds up to all users, and moving the second world onto its own server, since by the EULA, it’s perfectly acceptable and allowed to charge access to a server – so our donators will still be able to have their special world. There are still ways for server owners here to make money to recoup server costs. You’re still allowed to sell items, as long as they’re vanity items. You’re still able to take donations – hell, you’re still able to charge for entry to a server. The only ‘money stream’ any server owners lost was one founded on exploitation.

        • Hahaha says:

          Which is how the modern gaming system works thanks to mobile games being accepted by the mainstream while the exploitive practices are ignored by most of the gaming press for other pursuits that don’t effect the groundwork of gaming.

      • Lemming says:

        The only money stream they were entitled to were server costs and plugins. Minecraft wasn’t made so players could retire on a fortune. It was made so players could play. This isn’t Second Life. It doesn’t even have an economy.

      • Ieolus says:

        The server owners didn’t lose anything. They were never allowed to have that money stream to begin with.

    • TechnicalBen says:

      I know someone this effects. They have “pay for gameplay/advantage” on their servers. I’m against such things, but they are 15 and it’s gonna take time for them to learn. What to do? They say “EU law means he can’t stop us” etc etc. :/

    • ghosthunter523 says:

      If you already donated u keep ur stuff but that makes it so the people who didnt pay before IMPOSSIBLE to catch up so if you keep the donations up u have a chance to be equal to donators if you wanna donate 2nd you need money to host a server… Who is gonna use their own money to host it and gain nothing out of it thats just how humans work they want a reward 3rd if Eula happens 95 percent of minecraft servers will shut down minecraft will lost 99% of their players cause who is going to play by them self in single player? That answers your questions people who think EULA is “fine” cause its going to be minecraft s demise

  2. henrywinston says:

    There’s also an answer from a server admin here, who mentions that this new policy would actually be different from Mojang’s initial policy : link to

    In the original EULA for Minecraft, you explicitly stated players could create and sell content for the game – “Plugins for the game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, including selling them for money.” Many of the current large networks and modders starting developing for Minecraft when that was the only document in effect.

    • SquareWheel says:

      Here is proper context for that quote.

      link to

    • 4026 says:

      There’s a distinction to be drawn between selling “items” to a few players on a server, and selling “plugins” that players can modify their game (and/or server) with, affecting everyone playing in that world. Presumably, Notch is objecting to servers creating a different play experience for donors and freeloaders, rather than monetised Minecraft content per se.

  3. WelshPixie says:

    “You can’t sell items that affect gameplay anymore” – that ‘anymore’ is a bit misleading, insinuating that it just happened. It didn’t just happen – it’s been in the EULA all along. As Notch said, “A lot of people got the impression that we’re changing the EULA somehow to only now disallow these things, but they were never allowed.” Which is pretty much what makes the whole thing absurd – it’s always been in the EULA. The EULA hasn’t changed. It’s misunderstandings and people being idiots that kicked this whole thing off again – might you consider changing your phrasing of that line in order to prevent continued misunderstanding? :)

  4. dE says:

    Minecraft is such a weird ecosystem of people. I’m a bit baffled by the ferocity with which server owners fight for their right to intentionally exploit children. Even weirder, those children fight for it as well. Just in the last comment section there was someone arguing that predatory business models aimed at children are necessary, because children wouldn’t donate money otherwise. What the hell?

    • WelshPixie says:

      Those kinds of server owners don’t deserve to be server owners, and they’re painting people who have open and fair donation models with a bad brush.

      • dE says:

        Aye, I agree.
        That’s why this issue confuses me so, because that behavior seems to be accepted enough to warrant this much of an outcry in it’s defense.

    • P.Funk says:

      If you’re referring to the server operator I’m thinking of you’re totally misrepresenting his stance and the question he was answering, but what do I expect on the internet, eh?

      He was answering the general and irrational stance people were taking against any form of benefit being offered to donors and stating that without offering pointless vanity items, such as those Notch is specifically not trying to prevent server managers from offering, that the server never would have been funded as before they started to offer them nobody donated hardly ever. That children were clearly incapable of making the leap from selfishness to the ideal of the “greater good” which most adults who donate understand but that since they’re the bulk of the user base that appealing to their psychology is key to running a successful (see actually operating and not defunct) server.

      He also stated that the donations rarely exceeded their expenses and that any surplus was rolled into the next month’s pool.

      He was not defending the right to exploit children like it was a F2P MMO. Naturally everyone just ignores the finer details and gets on their soap box because fuck being sensible, lets just take a blind extremist stance!

      • dE says:

        You forfeit any right to claim the higher moral ground, the second you start to incentivize children to pay for something that has already been paid or target children to run your server. Shodax tried to sugarcoat it by rewording “they paid for in game advantages” into “they were rewarded for their donations”. Sounds much nicer but is the same bullshit. RobF explained the issue with that much better than I could, so I refer you to his words about the issue.

        Also to bring over something I didn’t read last time:

        You’re so full of crap and clearly never tried to operate a community while having to pay bills in said community.

        There’s this choice quote from you. Aren’t you just the cutest toy? I’ve run a popular Multi Server NWN Project for nearly 10 years, paying for its exorbitant server bills out of my pocket and a voluntary donation system with no rewards. The donations fluctuated a lot and never broke even. I wasn’t exactly rich either. But that’s fine. You know why that’s fine? Because you fucking don’t host a server if you can’t maintain it. Especially not if you need to aim for children to make it happen. End of Story.

        P.S.: Given your previous conduct and attitude, have a hearty fuck you and an added entry on the blocklist.

        • JamesTheNumberless says:

          I worked on a MUD for countless years and donations were something we dreamed of, even at the point where there were more than 1,000 peak daily active users (not that anybody used that term in those days). This was in the 90s and if somebody wanted to donate, the only way they could really do it safely was by sending an actual cheque in the post to one of our guys in the US who was running the physical server from rented space in a college IT department. So I have to give my +1 to your hearty prescription of fornication for the whiny server operators and their apologists.

          I mean, what does it actually take to run a minecraft server? Spin up a medium sized instance on the hosting platform of your choice, copy up all your copy/pasted hacky modding scripts and pay about $100 a month, split between a few of you who are happy to spend a bit of their monthly disposable income on their hobby and you have a nice little online game community.

          You are not entitled to make money off of a game somebody else has made, the players of which have already paid in good faith for. This is especially true if the only way to really do this is by taking advantage of the naivety of the players and employing a completely dishonest business model. That’s just petty organized crime. If you want to do modding and scripting of someone’s game and earn an honest living from it, get a job at a games developer, there are plenty to choose from.

        • xao says:

          ” Because you fucking don’t host a server if you can’t maintain it.

          This is an interesting stance. It implies that if you have an idea for a server, one that would benefit or appeal to a community, you shouldn’t be allowed to offer it unless you can pay for it out of pocket. Even if your audience would be willing to communally foot the hosting costs, because you personally can’t maintain it, it’s Right Out. Even the most hardcore capitalists usually prefer to disguise there attitude as something more than “no money? Fuck off”.

        • toxic avenger says:

          D-d-d-aaaam, sir. That was awesome. Kudos.

  5. The First Door says:

    I have no idea whether things really have changed, and I suspect I’m not the only one who hasn’t read the whole EULA agreement. Having said that, I sort of feel that saying ‘literally worse than EA’ sort of sums up the entire debate. Even if you take EA as the pinnacle of ‘the worst’ (which it clearly isn’t in the grand scheme of things), saying Notch is worse than a huge multinational corporation is a bit bonkers.

    • Sleeping_Wolf says:

      I can’t help but wonder if saying ‘literally worse than EA’ could be a Godwin for a new generation?

      A: OMG, did you see that noob?
      B: Yeah, they’re like literally worse than EA!

      • Hahaha says:

        So the longer the conversation goes on the higher chance something has of getting compared to EA?

      • The First Door says:

        Huh, I think you might be right! I wonder how long it’ll be until it moves to another company?

        • Stromko says:

          Logically Time Warner / Comcast should take the mantle now, since they’ve taken the ‘Most Hated Company’ award. For awhile there it was looking like Time Warner and Comcast would be going head to head for most hated company, until the merger happened.

          • FataMorganaPseudonym says:

            Well, EA is still most likely the worst game company, and given that all of this is in relation to games, EA will probably still be the go to insult, even if other companies outside of the game industry are actually indeed worse.

          • pepperfez says:

            Time Warner and Comcast are doing at least as much to ruin people’s enjoyment of games, though.

      • Chuckleluck says:

        Does this mean we actually invoked Godwin’s Law, and EA is as bad as Hitler?

    • Chuckleluck says:

      I’m gonna be that guy. By EULA agreement, do you mean End User License Agreement agreement? I bet you say PIN number too…

      • jrodman says:

        This because of the principle that Acronyms Are Terrible And Confusing.

        Or as I call it, AATAC.

      • The First Door says:

        Woops, yep I got that wrong! Also, to be fair, I do say PIN number, but mostly just because it vaguely annoys some people!

        More seriously: certain acronyms (especially those you pronounce as a coherent word, rather than letter-per-letter) become a word in themselves after a time, so I think you’d be hard pressed to get people to stop saying things like ‘PIN number’, no matter how correct you were!

    • DeVadder says:

      Then again, Mojang does appear to constantly get “Out Of Jail” cards by a lot of people. When King decided to own the word “Saga” after having millions and millions copies of their game, they were (rightfully) called the devil.
      When Mojang decided that they now own the word “Scrolls” for use in basically every context (including food, clothing and hardware) allthough beeing years from release of any related game, it was perfectly fine with everybody because people where too busy jumping on Bethesda for beeing upset by that after they had owned the much more reasonable “The Elder Scrolls” for use in the context of video games only, for many years and also having sold millions of games.
      I am not saying Bethesda may not have gone too far with later challenging the name of the game itself, when Mojangs claims were dropped, but had Bethesda not reacted, Mojang would now hold the rights to the word “Scrolls”. And opposed to King, it seems noone would have minded.

  6. Tei says:

    I have a legal minecraft account but I am considering jailbreaking my copy of Minecraft so I am not subject to anything the Mojang team thinks is fair. Fact is… They rule on their servers, I rule on my servers. Their server is the limit of thir authority.

    • Hahaha says:

      If you think what the server owners are doing is acceptable your worse than EA

    • GameCat says:

      Yeah, jailbreaking a game in order to get away from its EULA it’s very great, sensible and totally legit move.


    • WelshPixie says:

      Committing one illegal act to dis-involve yourself from another illegal act still constitutes doing something illegal and doesn’t excuse you from being subject to the law. The rest of your comment goes a great way to explaining why you would think that, however – and it’s that kind of thought process that’s causing this big uproar in the first place.

      • Sacarathe says:

        Actually it seems to me that regardless of how you access it, because he (Tei) has legal access in the first place, he always has legal license and is under the purview of the terms of use. Jailbreaking would not be sufficient. You sir would need a REFUND. Good Luck, (Although the JB might make you harder to trace).

        • rustybroomhandle says:

          I think Tei is just being belligerent because he thinks it’ll help him sleep at night or seem cool. I don’t think any real logic went into the original statement and it come off somewhat jerkish.

    • rustybroomhandle says:

      Tei, you are in luck. I have already handed out the Moron of the Week award, which goes up the recipient’s butt. You are safe for at least 6 more days, and by then there might be a new contender.

      • Premium User Badge

        Earl-Grey says:

        Now now, don’t be harsh.
        Tei is a bit of a national treasure around these parts.
        You should hear their opinion on Ubisoft; quite a hoot.

    • jalf says:

      You don’t think their “authority” includes the right to determine the conditions under which the files they ship, and which you install on your server, may be used?

      FYI, Mojang actually sells a game, they don’t just run Minecraft servers.
      What you own is a license to use the game that they own. That license contains a number of limitations, describing things you may not do with the game.

      You don’t need to be on “their” servers in order to have to abide by “their” rules. You’re running *their* game, regardless of whose server it’s running on.

      • Tei says:

        Mojang can stop pretending to control how people use the software and I will be happy.

        Its the point where Mojang thinks they can use the EULA to force a particular way to use the software that I disagree.

        I think thats morally wrong. Even if you use the EULA to cure cancer or some shit, I don’t care if your motives are noble, Is just wrong.

        • FataMorganaPseudonym says:

          “morally wrong”


          • Reapy says:

            I hate f2p models that are exploitative. I hate that the servers are targeting children and other ‘younger’ gamers that forget what it was like to have most of these things for free as well as sensible game design that is not pay to win.

            That said, I agree with Tei here. It would be quite a precedent when a company can dictate the way in which software is used or modified. While a game like world of warcraft has a point to pursue bots and the like, it is because those are their servers teh game is running on. A game company has a right against pirate servers, and against servers that are violating a countries laws in which it resides.

            But does the company have the right to tell you how can and can not modified their software? To throw in with this change, is to throw in with every person that has banned a mod of their game.

            If the mod is violating a law of a country, then I don’t feel like mojang has a right to dictate the type of modification that happens on servers that have a valid minecraft key. If that do, that is quite the precedent indeed.

            Just because you don’t like their pricing model does not mean they have the ability or even the right to stop it imho.

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            It seems pretty reasonable to me that Mojang would be able to restrict people from buying a copy of Minecraft and then hosting a server where they resell copies of parts of their copy of Minecraft. Mojang made those, why should other people get to sell copies? Especially when Mojang then has to field the calls from angry parents because their little Billy just spent $100 on a diamond pickaxe and Mojang’s name is on the title screen.

        • supermini says:

          This is the real world, “it’s not fair” rules don’t apply. Breaking the EULA on a public server that you’re running is inviting litigation, and finding out if it’s legally enforceable is very costly.

        • Shuck says:

          “Mojang can stop pretending to control how people use the software and I will be happy.”
          Except that Mojang aren’t trying to control how people use the software, they’re trying to control how other people make money on their product. They not only have every legal and moral right to do so, they actually have a moral obligation, since we’re talking about the exploitation of children.

          • Tei says:

            Can we rest the idea we can’t profit from other people intelectual property?
            Oracle make Java, and Monjang still make money from Minecraft, that is built on top of java.
            Its ok to make money from other people ip, … not selling it, of course, but making it a base to your product is the normal thing. Writers wrote books using Microsoft Word. Programmers write programs using Visual Studio. Artist draw using Photoshop. All these people make money of other people intelectual property, and is ok. If somebody gets a Monjang server, host it, and make money from it, its not different than Monjang making money from Oracle intelectual property.

            Imagine this: all sort of people is making money from Mojang IP. Server hosters make money renting the hardware for it. Concast or any random ISP make money moving the data. Seagate make money from harddisk storing it. It seems the only guy that can’t make money from it are the guys launching the server? why? Can’t Mojang forbid that Concast make money from minecraft data trafic?

          • MadTinkerer says:

            Java is explicitly designed to be a platform for things like Minecraft. You are not comparing apples and oranges. you are comparing apple trees and dirt.

        • jrodman says:

          Are you objecting to software as licensed in general? In this case I applaud you because I find it problematic as well.

          However, if you are simply trying to say that licensed software is fine but it can’t control what you do then you’re kind of spinning in place.

      • Damien Stark says:

        “You don’t think their ‘authority’ includes the right to determine the conditions under which the files they ship, and which you install on your server, may be used?

        FYI, Mojang actually sells a game, they don’t just run Minecraft servers.
        What you own is a license to use the game that they own. That license contains a number of limitations, describing things you may not do with the game.”

        … and that was the day RPS commenters switched sides to earnestly defend DRM and a game company’s right to control your offline use of their games.

        Dear lord, if you substituted any of the AAA companies in for Mojang here, this whole angry thread would be exactly backwards. But because it’s Notch we’re talking about… “Tei! How dare you pay for a game then download and run it on your own servers with your own rules!”

        • supermini says:

          “… and that was the day RPS commenters switched sides to earnestly defend DRM and a game company’s right to control your offline use of their games.”

          This relates to running public servers rather than offline use and I don’t even know where’s the DRM in this story. I’m pretty sure no one can stop you from doing whatever you want to the Minecraft code offline, even if it’s against the EULA.

          No one has a *right* to making money from Minecraft other than the people who made it (or own the rights). If we’re talking other companies/games, how many of them allow you to run your own servers and make money from it these days, just out of curiosity?

    • Mordaedil says:

      Hey, guess what dumbass. Illegally copying their game doesn’t suddenly circumvent their EULA. You are still using their product, thus you are subject to the agreement.

    • MadTinkerer says:

      “I have a legal minecraft account but I am considering jailbreaking my copy of Minecraft ”

      People are objecting to what you are saying, but I think they are missing something. Like the fact that what you are saying literally makes no sense.

      “Jailbreaking” is when you take hardware and make it run software that the manufacturer didn’t intend. You can’t jailbreak software, and in fact you can’t make any software somehow less legitimate in order to get around a EULA. You stick to the EULA or you ignore the EULA. And in this case, what is happening has absolutely nothing to do with your client, and only affects servers.

      This is like claiming you are going to “jailbreak” your copy of the D&D Player’s Handbook because Rule 0 (basically, the DM can make up any house rule he wishes) is less clear in this edition.

  7. GernauMorat says:

    This sounds eminently sensible.

  8. Hahaha says:

    How are the spam bots posting on articles with no comments?

  9. Utsunomiya says:

    Eh, but what can Notch really do about it? I mean, it’s EULA, who cares what’s written there.

  10. Muzman says:

    So it’s pretty much the same as every EULA ever by anyone.
    OK then.

  11. Geebs says:

    “Gamer entitlement” as a concept is about 95% made up by journalists who are upset that their readers also get the power to complain about stuff. That said: the people complaining about this are entitled whiners.

    • Premium User Badge

      Earl-Grey says:

      I believe you misspelled “entitled shitbag whiners”.

      • Harlander says:

        I believe you’ve both misspelled “self-entitled”.

        Please remain where you are while the orbital laser platform adjusts its aim.

  12. Crainey says:

    I don’t see a problem here at all. This seems like common sense to me, it has always been the same on every game I’ve played. I even understood this principle growing up playing CS and Battlefield 1942 where we kept those servers running through donations.

    I haven’t touched Minecraft since the beta (round about) so perhaps I’m wrong but it seems to me this problem has stemmed from how extensively Minecraft has been modded/expanded upon, specifically through third party applications, they’ve been given a lot of room.

    Just seems to me like they are trying to stop the their golden carriage from running away.

    • Hahaha says:

      Pretty sure you were donating so the server would stay up not to gain a ingame advantage by buying say faster sneaking.

      example – capricatown(dot)net/shop

      • Crainey says:

        Exactly as I said.

        • Hahaha says:

          Not really

          “I don’t see a problem here at all. This seems like common sense to me, it has always been the same on every game I’ve played. I even understood this principle growing up playing CS and Battlefield 1942 where we kept those servers running through donations.”

          Unless your saying you were paying for faster movment/faster reload speeds on your bf/cs servers

          • Crainey says:

            What? I wasn’t agreeing with buying perks I was simply agreeing with the fact that keeping servers alive through donations has been around for ages. Perhaps my sleep deprived mangled statement was misinterpreted.

          • Hahaha says:

            Prob my bad

  13. JamesTheNumberless says:

    I’m really struggling to get my head around this. Minecraft is a game I really like and I’ve sunk a lot of hours into single-player survival mode, I can imagine how confusing this article must be to someone who hasn’t played the game.

    So the two things I’m wondering are:

    1) How can you “pay to win” in a game where you can’t really “win” surely the point of multiplayer is to be collaborative and not competitive? How do you even have competitive Minecraft?

    2) What you you even pay for? Surely paying for materials defeats half the point of the game, or do people just want to play Craftcraft, rather than Minecraft, in which case why not play on the mode that gives you infinite resources?

    If anyone can answer these I think it’ll help explain the situation a bit better.

    • rustybroomhandle says:

      Here’s Bebopvox covering what set this while thing off a few weeks ago. Some examples of the type of stuff servers have been selling. And yeah, I don’t understand either why people want to pay money to play the game less.

      • JamesTheNumberless says:

        Thanks, makes a bit more sense now. So it’s really about mods that are made by the community that are only available on specific servers, and those server operators being able to charge for access to them. That makes more sense to me than all this talk of “play to win.”

        • Stromko says:

          From what I understand in this conversation, you can still have private servers that you charge access to. What Notch is saying you can’t do, is sell advantages to some of your players. If you charge for your server and it provides functions that everyone has access to on that server, that’s fine, because you’re charging for the server. If you sell unbreakable diamond swords, that’s not okay, because you’re now running a pay-to-win item shop.

        • FataMorganaPseudonym says:

          Some servers are PVP (yes, some people actually find ways to play Minecraft PVP somehow, believe it or not). Many of these servers gave “perks” to donators, like a bunch of diamond to craft weapons and armor or whatever. The people who get these perks are, thus, better off than their non-paying competitors. That’s why it’s being called “pay to win.”

          • JamesTheNumberless says:

            This makes sense to me now but I still find it truly and utterly bizarre that, in a game like minecraft, people care about this. I mean, surely you can just play on a free server that has all the features enabled and all the coolest mods? It isn’t all greedy unscrupulous bastards running servers for profit, right?

          • hotmaildidntwork says:

            Non-competitive servers are subject to these sorts of things too. Somebody pointed out above, that seems like a good example. People seem to be selling everything from advanced tools to admin powers. I think part of the issue may be user ignorance. Little kids that don’t understand that there’s more than one server to access, people that don’t know where to find a list of servers they could be playing on, that sort of thing.

    • Matt_W says:

      Some things that are being ‘sold’ that actually do enhance the experience on a multiplayer server:
      – The ability to set multiple teleport ‘home’ locations. It’s nice to have a home/base in a remote location that can be safe from griefing, but also be able to participate in community projects. With multiple ‘homes’, you don’t have to walk back and forth (what could be very large distances) all the time.
      – The ability to protect multiple areas from griefing (i.e. make blocks un-breakable/-buildable) through various methods.
      – The ability to lock chests and doors so that only you and your trusted companions can open them.

      Many servers provide limited amounts of these abilities to non-donators: e.g. set 3 homes, lock 2 chests, and grief-protect one 11x11x11 area. Donators often just get more.

  14. drinniol says:

    Eh, servers can keep doing what they were doing and Mojang would have to test the EULA in court, and afaik that’s never been done, so the whole concept of the EULA might be invalidated. Hooray!

  15. frymaster says:

    Some points:

    – Mojang hasn’t had a public stance on this sort of thing before
    – The Terms and Conditions used to be different
    – My interpretation of the Ts&Cs wouldn’t preclude paying for server advantages. I can see the other interpretation now I know it’s there, but I can’t simultaneously make it disallow paying for server perks and allow charging for access, which Mojang says is allowed.

    Don’t get me wrong, exploitative servers are a problem, especially given how popular Minecraft is with kids, but Mojang’s “we have always been at war with Eastasia” stance is at best perplexing, if not concerning. Personally I’m not looking forward to telling donators – who donate to my community as a whole, not specifically to minecraft, by the way – that they can no longer make use of the command to teleport back to the spawn point, which is the only donation perk they ever got.

    • blind_boy_grunt says:

      if it’s so important you could still give it to everyone, right?

    • Stromko says:

      You can charge for access to the server itself, and you can accept donations. If your players care at all about their past time they should be willing to give without getting game mechanic advantages for it.

      Being able to teleport back to spawn is either so useless / non-exploitable that everyone on the server should have it, or it’s a case of selling an in-game advantage for money. It’s actually the latter by most definitions, as being able to teleport to a fixed point eliminates or reduces the risks of getting lost or stuck somewhere, and if there’s PvP on the server it offers a quick escape or worse.

      • frymaster says:

        there’s no PvP, and everyone has the ability to teleport to any other person (who isn’t opted out), it’s just a convenience thing

        • hotmaildidntwork says:

          Then I’m sure your users are looking forward to the increase in convenience they will soon be gifted with.

    • Martel says:

      Except you don’t have to tell them that. You could just unlock it for all users server wide and not take it away. Then come up with something else unique to give the donators, as long as it’s cosmetic.

  16. Richeh says:

    EA: the Hitler of arguments about computer games.

  17. Siresly says:

    I’m a little bit upset by those apparently wanting to encourage the shittiest of IAP, and those who seem to think it’s their right to profit off of other people’s work like this. You are literally worse than EA.

    link to

    • Chuckleluck says:

      Oi, exploiting autistic children? Things just got even more evil.

  18. DarkSaber2k says:

    Massive douchbag claims “I am not a massive douchebag.” The End.