After a very lukewarm 1.20 update, Mojang is throwing a real stab at Minecraft server owners. Indeed, the company considerably rewrites its “EULA”, or conditions of use for the user. These changes are made with an explicit aim of restricting certain forms of profitability around the game.
Minecraft, between an end of Eldorado and an exhausted community
Occasionally, Mojang updates Minecraft’s EULAs. Always followed with attention in the community. Rightly, in the past, the latter had upset the server economies by prohibiting in particular the P2W system and forcing a cosmetic system still in place despite some recalcitrants. Previously, another change in these conditions had also precipitated the end of Bukkit.
This time around, the company is hitting hard on all fronts with a near overhaul of its terms. If it is long to list each modification, we will retain and summarize in particular:
- Prohibition of queues or priority on servers; every player with Minecraft can access a public server.
- A reinforcement of the intellectual property around the game; It will no longer be possible to use “Minecraft” to advertise or trade. Any use must be legally separated from the game. This concerns both servers and unofficial partners (eg Books)
- Servers that do not meet the game’s age criteria are no longer compliant (eg using weapons). Thus, they must also include a stage of acceptance of the conditions specific to the pricing if they set up a shop
- Mojang declares full veto power over creations around Minecraft
As you can imagine, these changes are very difficult to pass through the community. By its open aspect, Minecraft allowed “local” virtual economies to get by while respecting the EULAs, something Mojang aims to separate from. On reddit, where the update was raised, the decisions revolt quite heavily. To add fuel to the fire, other changes may now apply in the future without notification, against the laws of the European Union.
Words and deeds?
Mojang guarantees to keep support for creativity around the game as a priority. While some rules are logical to avoid misuse of the brand, others are direct attacks on the economic models established over the past ten years. It will remain to observe the possible actions following the modifications of the conditions. If the latter are less vague or permissive than before, it is not guaranteed that they will not be applied more.