What happens if you don't migrate your Minecraft account? The goal of this video is to document exactly what happens if you don't. Maybe I could get it back?...
I’ve just watched the video. I find it pretty outrageous. The word about it should spread.
Can a service really be “bought” buy a consumer? It can be paid for, sure, but bought? Only another company can buy it and own it since it’s a service.
However, if they sell you the server software to host it and they leave out some essentials like an authentication server that they own, then yeah, there’s a point there. But in this world of subscription-only, you’re only buying access that can be revoked at any time.
It still means something, just not what we want to mean. If you want to own stuff, don’t buy access. Or better yet, use opensource and donate what you would’ve paid to the developers/maintainers. They probably will do a better job a trying to keep it runnable and for longer than most corps.
Is a game even a service to begin with? The servers which provide online services to a game may be one, but why would the same apply to standalone instances of a software that you have purchased? At most I could see why this could mean they aren’t obligated to continue offering updates, but not that it ought to allow them to take back the software they sold.
All of this is only happening because the law does not give a damn about customer rights anymore. It’s entirely dishonest to visibly sell something and then turn around and say “we only sold ‘access’”. That’s not what a sale means. Companies were simply allowed to redefine what purchases and ownership means, and they are trying to do the same even with devices you physically carry with you.
Depends which game. An MMO? I’d argue for that to be the case. A single player game? Most likely not. I haven’t played minecraft, but from what I understand there’s a client and a server, and the server hosts the game with which the client itself would be utterly useless. Maybe that’s a misunderstanding on my part.
I agree with the rest of what you said though.Moving things into the digital realm has required the law to keep up, however it’s written by rusty, old dudes paid to look the other way. And the majority of the population doesn’t understand until affected, so their voting behavior doesn’t change.
Minecraft has both a single player mode and multiplayer which can be either hosted by the player themselves or by Microsoft. I wouldn’t deny that Minecraft Realms, Microsoft’s server subscription, is a service. But Minecraft, the game, has no reason to be considered a service.
Even “games as a service” aren’t very service forward. No real reason they couldn’t be hosted locally for the game part other than the developer does not give the user access to the server software to host your own games. The actual “service” is having a store with constant, small content additions, and not being able to play in servers outside the developer/publisher’s control. MMO’s fall into this category, too. Plenty of defunct ones that have been revived through user created server emulation show even a regular player could technically host these games and still play them without the need for using the developer’s servers.
Absolutely true. The reason why so many games have cut down on standalonge games and player hosting options is that it allows them to control and sell microtransactions better. Who would buy skins if there’s modding? Who would buy lootboxes if you can use a couple commands to have all the abilities and the best equipment in the game? They need to restrict player control so that only they can sell extras and power-ups.
Our ownership is undermined so that we can be fleeced on top of that.
The utter meaninglessness of “buying”, or even worse, “gambling” for a single instance of an in-game item that is stored in a server we have no control over really appalls me. They managed to completely mix up the players’ perception of value to the point they can’t tell apart what is additional content from what is an insignificant fictional gameplay element. Say, producing infinite gold coins costs nothing for the developers.
Can a service really be “bought” buy a consumer? It can be paid for, sure, but bought? Only another company can buy it and own it since it’s a service.
However, if they sell you the server software to host it and they leave out some essentials like an authentication server that they own, then yeah, there’s a point there. But in this world of subscription-only, you’re only buying access that can be revoked at any time.
It still means something, just not what we want to mean. If you want to own stuff, don’t buy access. Or better yet, use opensource and donate what you would’ve paid to the developers/maintainers. They probably will do a better job a trying to keep it runnable and for longer than most corps.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Is a game even a service to begin with? The servers which provide online services to a game may be one, but why would the same apply to standalone instances of a software that you have purchased? At most I could see why this could mean they aren’t obligated to continue offering updates, but not that it ought to allow them to take back the software they sold.
All of this is only happening because the law does not give a damn about customer rights anymore. It’s entirely dishonest to visibly sell something and then turn around and say “we only sold ‘access’”. That’s not what a sale means. Companies were simply allowed to redefine what purchases and ownership means, and they are trying to do the same even with devices you physically carry with you.
Depends which game. An MMO? I’d argue for that to be the case. A single player game? Most likely not. I haven’t played minecraft, but from what I understand there’s a client and a server, and the server hosts the game with which the client itself would be utterly useless. Maybe that’s a misunderstanding on my part.
I agree with the rest of what you said though.Moving things into the digital realm has required the law to keep up, however it’s written by rusty, old dudes paid to look the other way. And the majority of the population doesn’t understand until affected, so their voting behavior doesn’t change.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Minecraft has both a single player mode and multiplayer which can be either hosted by the player themselves or by Microsoft. I wouldn’t deny that Minecraft Realms, Microsoft’s server subscription, is a service. But Minecraft, the game, has no reason to be considered a service.
Even “games as a service” aren’t very service forward. No real reason they couldn’t be hosted locally for the game part other than the developer does not give the user access to the server software to host your own games. The actual “service” is having a store with constant, small content additions, and not being able to play in servers outside the developer/publisher’s control. MMO’s fall into this category, too. Plenty of defunct ones that have been revived through user created server emulation show even a regular player could technically host these games and still play them without the need for using the developer’s servers.
Absolutely true. The reason why so many games have cut down on standalonge games and player hosting options is that it allows them to control and sell microtransactions better. Who would buy skins if there’s modding? Who would buy lootboxes if you can use a couple commands to have all the abilities and the best equipment in the game? They need to restrict player control so that only they can sell extras and power-ups.
Our ownership is undermined so that we can be fleeced on top of that.
The utter meaninglessness of “buying”, or even worse, “gambling” for a single instance of an in-game item that is stored in a server we have no control over really appalls me. They managed to completely mix up the players’ perception of value to the point they can’t tell apart what is additional content from what is an insignificant fictional gameplay element. Say, producing infinite gold coins costs nothing for the developers.