Sections

Notch clarifies Minecraft EULA changes

"Someone said we're literally worse than EA"

Markus "Notch" Persson has tried to reason with Minecraft fans who have reacted badly to recent changes to the Mojang EULA that affect server monetisation and charging for gameplay features.

Essentially, charging for server access or in-game items that don't affect gameplay or using in-game advertising and sponsorship are all allowed under the terms of the new EULA, but those choosing to charge for server access must make clear who they are, and that they're not affiliated with Mojang.

Charging real cash for in-game currencies or items that can change the way the game is played are forbidden.

"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," said Persson in a personal post explaining the situation.

"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."

"There are new rules. These are new exceptions to the EULA. All of these make the rules more liberal than things were before."

He also directed Minecraft players to a more detailed FAQ on the subject.

Related stories

Mojang: Minecraft is not an advertising platform

New rules prevent third-party entities from using Minecraft and its gameplay for promotional purposes

By Matthew Handrahan

Minecraft makes its VR debut

The game John Carmack called his "grail" is now available for Samsung Gear VR

By Matthew Handrahan

Latest comments (2)

Steve Wetz Reviewer/Assistant Editor, Gamer's Glance2 years ago
That change to the EULA will almost certainly change a number of multiplayer game servers, a lot of which charge for different character types in their modified multiplayer games (Minecraft Hunger Games is just one example of many). I was never a paying customer for this type of service, and it was easy to see who was because they almost always won. But they paid and I didn't - there's a fairness in that.

Still, an unintended side effect of this could be that multiplayer games allowing free players will no longer be able to do so financially since they can no longer charge for extra gear/abilities/skins. I would hate to lose access to a robust number of multiplayer games simply because they can no longer allow free access to customers AND pay for their servers. Interested to see how this affects the vast server/modder community at large.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Steve Wetz on 16th June 2014 6:23pm

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Brook Davidson Artist / 3D design 2 years ago
@Steve
In all fairness though, selling game assets has always been against the EULA and it's honestly common sense that it would be. Truth is these servers should have never been doing it in the first place. Also, I doubt Mojang is going to go out of their way to enforce every single server, so I sort of expect servers to continue anyway.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.