This is.. ugh.. not a good move.. at least not for me... I do not have a Microsoft Account. I do not like or use Windows, I use GNU/Linux. I have owned Minecraft since well before Microsoft...
This is.. ugh.. not a good move.. at least not for me...
I do not have a Microsoft Account. I do not like or use Windows, I use GNU/Linux. I have owned Minecraft since well before Microsoft purchased Mojang, and now I'm being forced to create an account and agree to Microsoft's terms of service and privacy policy (which are woeful)... It just doesn't seem fair to me.
I realise that I purchased this game close to a decade ago.. but I still feel like I should be given the option for a refund.. I paid for this game and now in order to continue using it I have to sign up for an account and agree to contracts that I don't want to agree to. If we pretend for a moment that Minecraft is a physical device.. such as a phone.. the expectation that you need sign additional, privacy-harming contracts after having already owned it for some time, is ridiculous. I do realise that technically I don't "own" minecraft, I have "licensed" it.. But that's BS. Lol.
This whole post also comes off as very "PR-ey" and honestly quite patronising.... see this quote..
So if you find yourself feeling like this transition is a hassle (but let’s be honest, it really isn’t – and that’s coming from a group of people who have had structured debates over who should order lunch), recite this short poem to get through. You’ll be back to mining, crafting, and modding in no time.
and this one..
What if I don’t want to migrate my Mojang account to a Microsoft account?
A: In order to continue playing Minecraft: Java Edition, you’ll need to migrate your account.
They keep on pushing this whole free cape thing, and I could not care less about it. It just feels like they are trying to sweeten the deal for all the little kids who now play the game, especially through Bedrock and Education Edition (which are already Microsoft-link iirc?).. It feels like Microsoft does not really care about the generally older, more "veteran" players in this decision. I'm not sure that I can blame them for that... but... It doesn't mean that I like the choice.
Minetest is looking better and better. Been out of Minecraft for awhile, so it'll probably be easier for me to transition into Minetest if/when I get back into it.
I'm in a very similar position and I'm just going to pirate it. I've paid for it, no moral qualms and there's a plethora of launchers online. I only play single player or servers with friends that...
I'm in a very similar position and I'm just going to pirate it. I've paid for it, no moral qualms and there's a plethora of launchers online. I only play single player or servers with friends that we can change to allow pirated clients so fuck em.
What's the issue with having a Microsoft account? It's literally just an email address and a password. A throwaway/spam email address is free if you really don't want Microsoft to have one you...
What's the issue with having a Microsoft account?
It's literally just an email address and a password. A throwaway/spam email address is free if you really don't want Microsoft to have one you care about.
I have one but that's because I signed up for my hotmail account before MS bought hotmail so I kind of got grandfathered in. It makes signing in to Windows marginally easier the five times a year I boot windows but other than that it has zero impact on my life.
You are doing business with Microsoft by playing Minecraft. What type of account they use does not matter. Mojang is owned by Microsoft. Mojang accounts are Microsoft accounts, they just can't log...
I don't want to do business with Microsoft on principle
You are doing business with Microsoft by playing Minecraft.
What type of account they use does not matter. Mojang is owned by Microsoft. Mojang accounts are Microsoft accounts, they just can't log into other Microsoft properties.
So make a “real” throwaway. I guess I understand the “principle” side of it (sort of) but really it isn’t a big deal. Plus I hate to break it to the people that try to avoid all of this on...
So make a “real” throwaway. I guess I understand the “principle” side of it (sort of) but really it isn’t a big deal.
Plus I hate to break it to the people that try to avoid all of this on principle: if you have a smart phone, smart anything, computer, whatever and use the internet: they have you. They know everything about you. If not through you directly then they still have everything by your family and friends who have ever referenced you.
There is no real escape from this nightmare unless you legit go off the grid, and even then they probably still have your shadow profile.
Yeah I understand your position but, I mean it is a lost cause. To me it’s sort of anachronistic like someone in the 1950s still complaining about cars taking over the roads people used to walk...
Yeah I understand your position but, I mean it is a lost cause. To me it’s sort of anachronistic like someone in the 1950s still complaining about cars taking over the roads people used to walk on. It’s an issue lost already, the regulations were supposed to be in place 2 decades ago at least.
On the one hand, yes, society can change, and has changed pretty dramatically on some issues, so it’s quite possible there will be more changes. Computing is still changing pretty fast, and sure,...
On the one hand, yes, society can change, and has changed pretty dramatically on some issues, so it’s quite possible there will be more changes. Computing is still changing pretty fast, and sure, alternative forms of computing are possible! Believing this is the easy part.
On the other, It seems important to remember that as online conversationalists, on most topics we are just observers and saying “we can do this” is really just hoping that someone else will do it. Of course there are exceptions, things that are so important to you that you’re actually going to do something.
But is Minecraft that issue? I guess one way to start would be to see how close Minetest and other alternatives are to being a viable replacement for Minecraft...
But most of the time, a key to avoiding overheated rhetoric is to remember where we are and what we are doing. And we are just writers here. There are other people actually doing stuff, and our beliefs about what’s possible are unlikely to change what they do. Best case would be to write something that influences the people actually doing things, but I don’t think we have that audience?
It would be interesting to hear more about what sort of work you're doing in this general area. (I don't mean to imply that we're always observers, just that, in online discussions, that's usually...
It would be interesting to hear more about what sort of work you're doing in this general area. (I don't mean to imply that we're always observers, just that, in online discussions, that's usually the case.)
It's fairly common that cultural artifacts have gatekeepers. Visit the museum, pay at the door, and maybe they search your backpack. People have beefs about this, but I think many people might have stronger feelings about Ticketmaster than Microsoft?
The difference is that with software, it doesn't have to be this way. This is also true of books, music, and video. But artists do want to be paid, and some tech firms have the means to pay them a lot (sometimes).
There is a practical problem of when piracy is ethical. I'm guessing that cracked copies of Minecraft aren't hard to find? Similarly, when Mojang Studios decided to use DRM and logins to get people to pay for stuff, they were solving a practical problem for them. That seems to already be in the wrong direction, if control by the authors (and whoever they sell to) is what you're concerned about.
There's also a theoretical problem of what sort of legal system would distribute power in a way that both content creators and consumers would be satisfied with what they end up with. It might be hard to do because their interests are partially aligned and partially in conflict.
It's hardly a lost cause. Sure, as soon as you visit a site it starts trying to build a profile on you, but an ad blocker severely impedes that process. If you actually bother with those data...
It's hardly a lost cause. Sure, as soon as you visit a site it starts trying to build a profile on you, but an ad blocker severely impedes that process. If you actually bother with those data request things, you can see that the profiles they build are often quite simple, sparse, and/or wrong. It's hardly "everything", and it often is missing or completely wrong about important information like geographic locale, age, gender, sexual orientation, income level, and so on.
Even if the privacy problem weren't a real problem, the privacy problem isn't the only potential problem here. The Microsoft account terms of service is an arbitrary legal agreement. It could contain any number of non-privacy-related provisions you don't agree to be bound by. Maybe it says you agree to binding arbitration in all disputes. Maybe it says you agree to pay Microsoft's legal fees should they decide to sue you because they think you're hacking in Minecraft, even if they lose. Maybe it says you certify that you're over 18 and don't live in Cuba, even if neither of those are true. Maybe it says you won't leave a bad review of the game, or publish a mod they don't like. We don't know; I bet neither of us has read it.
It's not right for them to be able to revoke a perpetual license you already bought, with no compensation. Certainly it's not right for them to be able to do that as punishment for not signing some new contract they've invented.
Are Microsoft still Bad Guys? Back in the 90s/2000s when I had the energy to care about things like that, they definitely were, but I got the impression that - especially since Ballmer left -...
Are Microsoft still Bad Guys? Back in the 90s/2000s when I had the energy to care about things like that, they definitely were, but I got the impression that - especially since Ballmer left - they'd chilled out a bit. Especially their gaming division, which seems no better or worse than Sony or Valve, and definitely better than Epic/EA et al.
I dunno. I run linux 99% of the time and I have a Playstation for games so basically most of my dealings with MS is occasionally buying their hardware because they do make a good mouse.
Microsoft are working with Internal Combustion Engines? OK, that was facetious but I'm afraid I don't know what you're using ICE to mean there. I assume it's something from your country I haven't...
Microsoft are working with Internal Combustion Engines?
OK, that was facetious but I'm afraid I don't know what you're using ICE to mean there. I assume it's something from your country I haven't heard of?
What sort of efforts have MS been making to undermine free desktops? Gnome is my DE of choice and seems to be pottering along just fine and seems much slicker and easier to use than Windows.
I feel like there's a fine line about complaining about Microsoft trying to E3, and Microsoft just making their product better. Because you can argue that WSL is MSFT trying to Extend over...
I feel like there's a fine line about complaining about Microsoft trying to E3, and Microsoft just making their product better. Because you can argue that WSL is MSFT trying to Extend over developers... but like, it also just makes their OS better for developers full stop. It's hard to complain about them making their product better when it isn't particularly anti-competitive.
I would say that it's only really an issue if they're using their marketshare as a weapon. As-is, they're just recognizing that their users want to use virtualized Linux because their own OS sucks...
I would say that it's only really an issue if they're using their marketshare as a weapon. As-is, they're just recognizing that their users want to use virtualized Linux because their own OS sucks at certain things. Just because Windows has a large marketshare, doesn't mean that anything they do to improve their OS is anti-competitive. It's only natural that you improve the feature set of your product.
In terms of scummyness... maybe if it was a branded over "copy", as in rewrite, but it's just a VM in the end. And it's listed as "Ubuntu for Windows". I find it hard to argue that that could be scummy.
And, of course, the specter of EEE looms large. What about when/if they start implementing custom WSL-only syscalls? It would not be particularly difficult, even with the GPL, given the way WSL2 is designed.
That's fine? In terms of actually doing it, open source products are meant to be forked, if someone wants to.
In terms of market effects, it won't make a difference. Developers use WSL for feature parity with the Linux servers they use in production. No one is going to distribute an application that only works on WSL--it's a niche among a niche.
And in servers, Linux is the dominant OS, and Windows has all but given up on the space. Really I see this more competing with Macbooks, which many developers use for the commercial desktop environment + unix system.
Like, there's really not much of a linux desktop environment for Microsoft to be extending over. As long as Linux on the server is dominant, which by all means it seems to continue to be, since there's exactly 0 real competitors, I don't see this being an issue.
That's not what I meant. If MSFT was trying to extend and extinguish, they need an actual target and reason to do so. Linux as a consumer OS is not that. Why would they even bother Technically...
That's not what I meant. If MSFT was trying to extend and extinguish, they need an actual target and reason to do so. Linux as a consumer OS is not that. Why would they even bother Technically even without wsl Linux was losing in marketshare for some reason.
As an aside, imo even as someone that uses Linux on a desktop, idt it will ever have significant marketshare... in the US/"West". The wildcard is China.
WSL was made to synergize with azure, since not even azure tries to make you use windows servers anymore. But assuming a Linux server, it's incredibly annoying to develop with Windows, if not just straight up impossible since many things don't exist or at least don't have binaries for windows.
I guess my disagreement is I don't think MSFT is acting in malice. It's just "wow, it really sucks to do backend development on windows". Rather than "Damn, those pesky Linux developers are...
I guess my disagreement is
I don't think MSFT is acting in malice. It's just "wow, it really sucks to do backend development on windows". Rather than "Damn, those pesky Linux developers are gaining steam, we need to pull the rug out from them". I don't think it's the latter because... that's not the situation, Linux on DE is still a big niche.
I don't think there's anything "wrong" (and I don't mean legally, obviously there's nothing there) with WSL. Unlike, say, making IE default, or what Apple does on iOS w.r.g to 3rd party apps/stores, they're not leveraging any unreasonable advantages because of their market share.
Linux should also have something so that their users can use applications made for other platforms. That would also be a useful feature... which exists, it's WINE (+a full on VM if you need it). I don't see why Windows can't have LINE.
The Linux DE should "compete harder". There's no real problem with Windows making their product better, and thereby attracting more consumers. Why would you not let companies improve their products just because it hurts another competitor?
Why wouldn't Microsoft start differentiating at a hardware level too? If that, why not at the hypervisor or OS level?
Mayhaps, but that's on Azure. WSL will play a very small role in their ability to dictate the feature set of linux kernels.
From an eye-for-an-eye perspective, maybe. But I don't think that matters in terms of considering "Is WSL a good thing/Should MSFT be able to do it". Sure, those are all dick things Microsoft did...
This is totally ahistorical, though.
From an eye-for-an-eye perspective, maybe. But I don't think that matters in terms of considering "Is WSL a good thing/Should MSFT be able to do it".
This, too, is ahistorical. Windows is a near-monopoly because of doing anticompetitive things in the past, even recently, like giving away free Windows laptops to schools for two decades and essentially bribing the City of Munich to switch back to Windows to undermine confidence in Ubuntu and Red Hat among governments.
Sure, those are all dick things Microsoft did in the past. But it doesn't change whether or not this action is good or not, or whether it should or shouldn't be done, or whether you should or shouldn't condemn MSFT.
Look at it this way; even if WSL didn't exist, and instead Microsoft overhauled their OS to make it more developer friendly, that would still attract over users from Linux and starve it of up and coming contributors. Anything Microsoft did that made their platform less sucky for developers would "hurt" Linux, since that's one of their bigger competitive advantages.
And I find it hard to condemn Microsoft for doing anything to make their OS suck less for developers, or suck less in any way. Isn't that just natural?
Lots of people have unreliable internet connections. It’s more common than you may think. You may also be prevented from playing because your account was arbitrarily banned or suspended.
Lots of people have unreliable internet connections. It’s more common than you may think.
You may also be prevented from playing because your account was arbitrarily banned or suspended.
It's been a long, long time since I last booted Minecraft (at least two computers ago, and long before Microsoft bought it!) but I'm pretty sure back then you needed an internet connection to...
It's been a long, long time since I last booted Minecraft (at least two computers ago, and long before Microsoft bought it!) but I'm pretty sure back then you needed an internet connection to verify your Mojang account and log in to start the game.
Lots of games require online authentication. I'm not saying that's an entirely good thing (although it does help reduce piracy) but I'm not sure it's a reason to single out Microsoft specifically.
It was a while ago but I'm pretty sure you needed an account ever since Notch started the actual, not web version of the alpha. And you also had to migrate when they went from Minecraft -> Mojang...
It was a while ago but I'm pretty sure you needed an account ever since Notch started the actual, not web version of the alpha.
And you also had to migrate when they went from Minecraft -> Mojang account.
That's fine, but that is a different reason to the launcher requiring internet access. Just speaking personally, I am one of those people (hell, I paid ten euros for the beta) and I don't care in...
That's fine, but that is a different reason to the launcher requiring internet access.
Just speaking personally, I am one of those people (hell, I paid ten euros for the beta) and I don't care in the slightest. But I also don't play Minecraft any more so y'know. But if I did I still wouldn't care. I wonder if my account still exists..
No, this is a terrible idea and the entire mentality behind it needs to be completely stamped out. You're not just providing them with an email address and password, you are signing and agreeing...
No, this is a terrible idea and the entire mentality behind it needs to be completely stamped out.
You're not just providing them with an email address and password, you are signing and agreeing to legal contracts that allow Microsoft to bypass or otherwise suppress your legal rights. Furthermore, these types of agreements often come with clauses that include language that allows them to change the terms in the future in whatever way they wish, with or without providing you any form of notification.
If we look at Microsoft's Services Agreement, you are given a huge document that is, on my setup, 24 pages of extremely tiny text. It does at least give you the luxury of telling you when they change their terms, but it also relieves you of your legal right to sue them, either as an individual or class action.
Except that whole part about notifying you is also a lie. Their "Miscellaneous" clause says they can apply terms to you without notifying you. Better yet, if you decide to dissolve your relationship with Microsoft, it says that a number of those sections will still continue to apply - including the one restricting your ability to sue them.
So can you give me some examples of what might go wrong by me simply giving MS my spam email address? Realistic examples, ideally with real-world precedents. If me agreeing to some boilerplate...
So can you give me some examples of what might go wrong by me simply giving MS my spam email address? Realistic examples, ideally with real-world precedents. If me agreeing to some boilerplate legal stuff is such a disastrous idea then the bad consequences must have already happened somewhere else already, right?
All commercial software has EULAs. I don't use much non-Free software in general, but almost every game I play has terms and conditions that I don't read. I don't recall ever having heard of any terrible (or even non-terrible, frankly) consequences to agreeing to those terms and I've been not reading those things for 20+ years now.
I mean sure, it would be lovely if everything was nice and Free and Open and fluffy and I am genuinely in favour of that - but that's not how the real world works, and things seem to be mostly pottering along not too badly as is.
Just for the record I'm not interested in being part of the problem by suing anyone. That people engage in litigation is one reason all this legal nonsense exists at all. So some consequences other than that.
I saw your response this morning and figured that I would have to wait until I was at a keyboard to give you a full response because it was going to be long. And then I realized that my response...
I saw your response this morning and figured that I would have to wait until I was at a keyboard to give you a full response because it was going to be long. And then I realized that my response to you would be so long that it's really not worth it.
If you do not understand why it's bad to sign away your rights and you think that using the justice system is somehow a bad thing, there is nothing I can do to sway you. I assume you already know the basic principles and theories behind the concept of law as well as the purpose of court, so the only thing left is that you simply disagree with them. And if you disagree with something so fundamental, there is no way I can change your mind.
I'm not saying this to demean you, of course, so if I'm wrong please correct me and I will gladly attempt to explain my position.
That's exactly the same kind of high-minded sensationalism that @mat was questioning, where you're using phrases like "sign away your rights" to describe clicking an agree button on a game's...
That's exactly the same kind of high-minded sensationalism that @mat was questioning, where you're using phrases like "sign away your rights" to describe clicking an agree button on a game's boilerplate EULA that nobody ever reads and is never meaningfully enforced or exploited in practice.
They're just asking you to give an example of something bad that has actually happened to someone as a consequence of doing that, not theoretical concepts of what they might be hypothetically allowed to do. Can you supply a specific example?
Exactly. I just wanted to jump off from here because I just wanted to say that the problem I am addressing is not that boilerplate and clickwrap licenses exist, or even the blind acceptance of...
Exactly.
I just wanted to jump off from here because I just wanted to say that the problem I am addressing is not that boilerplate and clickwrap licenses exist, or even the blind acceptance of those terms, but the mentality that they do not matter. The fact is that they do matter, and if they didn't you wouldn't have to agree to them.
The big picture problem I am seeing is that the power differential between a corporation and it's customers increasing over time. At first we became OK with accepting terms without reading them. Then without us even noticing they started slipping in terms allowing them to change them at any time. Then they started taking away your ability to dissolve the contract, and then they removed your rights to legal action. And now we are seeing more and more examples of companies finding new ways to compel you to agree to even more restrictive terms with even larger corporate entities.
So, bit late back to this, sorry. But I can offer an example of why licenses sometimes need to change. A long time ago, I set up a website in my spare time. It got pretty successful, and...
So, bit late back to this, sorry. But I can offer an example of why licenses sometimes need to change.
A long time ago, I set up a website in my spare time. It got pretty successful, and eventually I set up a company to run it, hired a few people and so on. One of them, a good friend and person I to this day trust and like, was a lawyer. She pointed out that my terms and conditions did not particlarly apply to the company's current situation, and while it had once been OK, currently left some fairly massive gaps in protecting the user's content and our company (we didn't even, technically, have the right to publish our user's images online, which was the whole point of the website!).
We had to rewrite the document in such a way that protected us and more importantly our users in an actual legal/corporate environment. Then we had to say "sorry but you have to agree to this or we can't let you log in again" to our users. Some of whom had paid significant amounts of money to us, as well as volunteered countless hours of time acting as moderators and editors. But if we hadn't done it we wouldn't have been able to move the company, and by extension the website, forward with any legal stability and in theory could have even lost people's IP.
I'm not saying that's what is happening in this case but more illustrating that this sort of thing isn't always malicious. Sometimes it's necessary to ensure user's rights are protected (although I would expect both Mojang and MS have better lawyers than me writing their EULAs!). Sometimes it just makes things easier from the corporate side and doesn't have any real impact on the end user. And yeah, sometimes it is to harvest data or whatever, although to be honest that doesn't bother me either.
If I'm being sensational in any way, I assure you that it's unintentional. I figured if @mat wanted to have an answer he could google exactly the same way I could. Here is the first example Google...
If I'm being sensational in any way, I assure you that it's unintentional. I figured if @mat wanted to have an answer he could google exactly the same way I could.
Of note is the case regarding the Wells Fargo fraudulent account opening scandal. Since all the victims have signed a 'boilerplate' legal agreement with an arbitration clause, their cases have been thrown out. And once a case goes into private arbitration, it completely disappears from public record. Depending on the wording on that clause you might not even have the option of an appeal if new evidence comes forth.
With respect, you do sound a bit like you're being sensationalist. Additional to that, those are both examples of the one outcome I said I wasn't interested in hearing about, and are outside of...
With respect, you do sound a bit like you're being sensationalist. Additional to that, those are both examples of the one outcome I said I wasn't interested in hearing about, and are outside of the gaming sphere. i was interested in hearing about something which might affect me as a person who plays games, not someone who wants to take other people to court. Because I am the former, not the latter.
The reason I haven't googled them myself is (a) I have a two year old, I don't have time and (b) again with respect - you made the claim this stuff is bad, the burden of proof is on you.
Yea. It might not matter if the only thing in the world that matters is playing games. But they could decide to do anything from taking it away to forcing you to install a cryptocurrency miner to...
Additional to that, those are both examples of the one outcome I said I wasn't interested in hearing about, and are outside of the gaming sphere. i was interested in hearing about something which might affect me as a person who plays games, not someone who wants to take other people to court. Because I am the former, not the latter.
Yea. It might not matter if the only thing in the world that matters is playing games. But they could decide to do anything from taking it away to forcing you to install a cryptocurrency miner to use it. And with the legal framework they've setup, your only option is 'accept these new terms or walk away with nothing.' Even then, maybe not so bad for games, but that can and will get extended to your cellphone, operating system, internet access, cars, grocery stores...everything.
That's because every ruling in favor of a given license can be used to sway further rulings thanks to precedent. Just because this one tiny thing doesn't matter much doesn't mean it won't be horribly abused in the future. And that horrible abuse will be justified in court because "it was just fine for this one tiny thing.'
Has anyone ever done that, or something like that? I haven't heard of that happening. I'm not up on all the news though. Do you think Microsoft would want the PR disaster of fucking over the...
could decide to do anything from taking it away to forcing you to install a cryptocurrency miner to use it.
Has anyone ever done that, or something like that? I haven't heard of that happening. I'm not up on all the news though. Do you think Microsoft would want the PR disaster of fucking over the players of one of the most popular games of all time? I'm not a big MS fan either, but they're not that stupid.
can and will get extended to your cellphone, operating system, internet access, cars, grocery stores...everything
Will it? You're claiming that this one thing is going to take over literally everything at the same time as saying you're not being sensationalist, while providing no substatitive evidence of this disaster happening. It's not particularly convincing.
edit: wait, sorry, you're not the person who originally made the sensationalist claims. My apologies. But still, what you're saying is fairly extraordinary and that does require some evidence additional to just saying "thing will happen".
fwiw I am Old and I've heard people making these claims of coming catastrophe since... I dunno, easily several decades. The first instance I accurately pinpoint (because I'll be honest, 95-2005 was very hazy) was over 16 years ago when we learned gmail was "reading" our email to show us ads and you know what - I don't think any of it has ever come to pass.
one tiny thing doesn't matter much doesn't mean it won't be horribly abused in the future.
I agree, it doesn't mean that. But it also doesn't mean it will either. You are right, many tiny insignificant things can sometimes add up to being a big awful thing. Sometimes. But you know what tiny insignificant things also can be? Just tiny insignificant things that don't add up to anything and don't matter at all.
A non-zero amount of games have required accounts for a long, long time now, and things still seem to be working alright. In this precise case, Minecraft has required an account since day one, it's just now it's a Microsoft account not a Mojang one. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that the sky will not fall if you give Microsoft your spam email address. I don't even think that's a particularly unreasonable thing for them to ask, because I assume right now they're maintaining two user databases - their own, and ex-Mojang accounts. Consolidating is just good practice.
It hasn't happened yet. But I hate that argument because it presumes that nothing will ever be abused in the future. NSA surveillance that Snowden revealed was schizophrenic crazy talk 2 decades...
Has anyone ever done that, or something like that? I haven't heard of that happening.
It hasn't happened yet. But I hate that argument because it presumes that nothing will ever be abused in the future. NSA surveillance that Snowden revealed was schizophrenic crazy talk 2 decades prior. 20 years ago, if I said ' A drug company is going to artificially raise the price of insulin over 200x just to turn more profit' people would have said I was bonkers.
Yea, I really don't care much about the account merger itself. I care about the continually expanding company-dictated usage of things you ostensibly purchase, which gives them the power to dictate damn near anything. It's further exacerbated by the continual consolidation of industry on the whole.
Well, I equally don't like the argument that "something bad I've imagined might happen despite little to no precedent for such a thing" so here we are. I do agree that NSA/Snowdon is one example...
Well, I equally don't like the argument that "something bad I've imagined might happen despite little to no precedent for such a thing" so here we are.
I do agree that NSA/Snowdon is one example of the slippery slope being slipped well and truly down; although honestly if anyone couldn't predict America's insane health "care" system would result in epic price gouging then those people are the bonkers ones - but there's countless counter examples where things didn't snowball out of control and everything was fine. Statistically, everything will almost certainly be fine.
Also, and I don't recall entirely because it was a very long time ago, but I'm pretty certain that I never bought the game Minecraft, I only ever bought a license to play it. From Mojang, not Microsoft. Again, not certain. And I do agree that's a pretty shitty way to work things. I'm not in favour of that, but that is how lots of things work and they don't turn completely to shit, they're just mildly annoying.
I'm intrigued though, are there many things which you would consider unequivocally good and not potentially abusable in 10, 20 years or more? It doesn't seem to me like there would be much.
If I pay money for a game, on the premise that I get to access it indefinitely, then I de-facto purchased the game. Everything else is a legal obfuscation to avoid calling it a purchase so that...
I'm pretty certain that I never bought the game Minecraft, I only ever bought a license to play it.
If I pay money for a game, on the premise that I get to access it indefinitely, then I de-facto purchased the game. Everything else is a legal obfuscation to avoid calling it a purchase so that First Sale doctrine and other consumer rights do not apply.
I'm intrigued though, are there many things which you would consider unequivocally good and not potentially abusable in 10, 20 years or more? It doesn't seem to me like there would be much.
Food, Housing, and Medical care as human rights
Whistleblower protections
Making voting easier
The GPL license and variants
Title II for ISPs
Public ownership of natural monopolies and elimination of privatization thereof.
Well, in this specific case you were buying a game from Sweden, so US consumer laws don't apply. But - and I'm not saying I agree with things working this way - but, if you bought a license for a...
If I pay money for a game, on the premise that I get to access it indefinitely, then I de-facto purchased the game. Everything else is a legal obfuscation to avoid calling it a purchase so that First Sale doctrine and other consumer rights do not apply.
Well, in this specific case you were buying a game from Sweden, so US consumer laws don't apply.
But - and I'm not saying I agree with things working this way - but, if you bought a license for a game which said you can play it until the company running the game decided to shut down their authentication servers, that's all you bought. If you didn't read the EULA and mistakenly assumed you were buying the actual game to own in perpetuity, that's sort of on you.
fwiw I do agree most of those things are good, but there's no guarantee they won't be abused (aka used as an excuse to bring in much tighter restrictions) down the line. If you're happy to assume that all stuff you don't like is the top of a slippery slope, why assume stuff you do like isn't either?
For example, the UK had considerably better public food, housing and healthcare provisions in the past, the right wing party here have been chipping away at and selling them off for decades now - very often with the excuse that 'previous governments have gone too far, we're just making things more fair'. Both the US and UK had higher high wealth taxes in the past, long gone now. Also, look at what Trump has taken apart in just four years (significant amounts of your list, for a start). Almost everything is abusable, by someone motivated to do so.
The GPL is straight genius though. That can only persist and spread by it's very nature. It's by far the best thing Stallman has ever done.
Just so you know, I don't really know how the American justice system works. I have a moderate idea of how the UK system works, although I do find legal stuff pretty uninteresting so it's not like...
Just so you know, I don't really know how the American justice system works. I have a moderate idea of how the UK system works, although I do find legal stuff pretty uninteresting so it's not like I've spent a lot of time reading up on it.
More importantly I don't think you've made a very strong case that Microsoft asking you to merely have an account with them is fundamentally against the very concept of law and justice.
If you want to explain, by all means try. But bear in mind I was interested in hearing real world examples, not your personal theories. I'm not interested in abstract discussion in this case, I'm interested in actual evidence that proves why me giving Microsoft my email address is bad (or could turn bad in the future, with real-world examples)
I think the minecraft launcher already has DRM in it... If it doesn't have an internet connection for long enough I'm pretty sure that It'll eventually need you to sign in again. But haven't...
I think the minecraft launcher already has DRM in it... If it doesn't have an internet connection for long enough I'm pretty sure that It'll eventually need you to sign in again. But haven't confirmed that.
Also, even if this does work. I still lose multiplayer. I paid for multiplayer and it's unfair that Microsoft are taking that away and putting it behind additional licenses.
They are essentially holding people's Minecraft accounts at a kind of ransom. You don't do this.. or else you lose you account.
They bought it how many years ago now? You had to know account integration was inevitable. This is reminding me of the pikachu-faced Oculus owners when Facebook did the same thing. I guess get mad...
They bought it how many years ago now? You had to know account integration was inevitable.
This is reminding me of the pikachu-faced Oculus owners when Facebook did the same thing. I guess get mad at the original devs for being sell-outs.
Honestly I don't think this is that big of a deal. We've seen games move launchers, or move services many times, and the Oculus thing has only happened once. Microsoft has been a good steward so...
Honestly I don't think this is that big of a deal. We've seen games move launchers, or move services many times, and the Oculus thing has only happened once. Microsoft has been a good steward so far, and yeah that can change, but then again it was owned by a crazy anti-semitic white supremacist before.
Even on the Mojang side, I really doubt they actually want to maintain an account system. It's a pain in the ass, a big target for security risks, and afaik it still doesn't support 2-factor. I trust Microsoft more with user security than Mojang does.
Welcome to 2020. Soon enough as cars get more automated features the manufacturers are going to be pushing mandatory patches and require “accounts” to drive your car. You may not like it, but this...
Welcome to 2020. Soon enough as cars get more automated features the manufacturers are going to be pushing mandatory patches and require “accounts” to drive your car.
You may not like it, but this is where we’re heading and for most software products for home use, we’re already there and have been so for awhile now.
I couldn't be bothered to copy that wishy washy PR headline, I'm sorry. This is exactly what could have been expected when Microsoft bought Mojang in 2014, just as it could have been expected when...
I couldn't be bothered to copy that wishy washy PR headline, I'm sorry.
This is exactly what could have been expected when Microsoft bought Mojang in 2014, just as it could have been expected when Facebook bought Oculus in 2014. I guess the generally accepted time-to-fully-absorb is 6 years?
Ah well. I do have a Microsoft account already and I know it's for security / umbrella-ing / not wanting to have their own account system anymore (honestly that's huge from a software dev perspective) but was kind of hoping I'd never have to make this leap.
Looks like migration will take place over multiple months and not immediately/at once.
I dunno, any time I can remove entries in my password manager I feel a little better. I'm happy about this migration. Is there a reason you would worry about it?
I dunno, any time I can remove entries in my password manager I feel a little better. I'm happy about this migration. Is there a reason you would worry about it?
It forces you into a new ecosystem. Any restrictions or requirements of Microsoft accounts now apply if you want to play Minecraft. I assume some mandatory Xbox app will follow and I have...
It forces you into a new ecosystem. Any restrictions or requirements of Microsoft accounts now apply if you want to play Minecraft. I assume some mandatory Xbox app will follow and I have traditionally horrible experiences with Microsoft “service” apps. I still shudder thinking of my attempt of installing the non-Java version of Minecraft via the Microsoft store. It was bizarre.
This doesn't seem like a safe assumption to make. Minecraft has hundreds of millions of players. Microsoft accounts have existed for almost two decades without restrictions like those you mention....
I assume some mandatory Xbox app will follow
This doesn't seem like a safe assumption to make. Minecraft has hundreds of millions of players. Microsoft accounts have existed for almost two decades without restrictions like those you mention.
This isn't the first time there is an account migration being done; Skype being the obvious major one to mention and account-wise it hasn't negatively impacted anything?
It sounds like your issues with this are theoretical, but how are they any more concrete than "theoretically, microsoft could add a bunch of restrictions to minecraft accounts regardless"?
Hmm, but we're literally making that assesment in a thread about Microsoft forcing players to use Microsoft account after years of people saying how unlikely that would be. I generally care more...
This doesn't seem like a safe assumption to make. Minecraft has hundreds of millions of players. Microsoft accounts have existed for almost two decades without restrictions like those you mention.
Hmm, but we're literally making that assesment in a thread about Microsoft forcing players to use Microsoft account after years of people saying how unlikely that would be. I generally care more about trends than the question whether something, right here and now, will have a negative impact. It took 6 years for people to have their Oculus bricked if they don't have a valid real-id facebook account. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with ways for Microsoft to make this annoying, just with a Microsoft flavor of bad rather than a Facebook flavor of bad.
Well, aside from Microsoft utterly destroying what Skype was in order to force it in to the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem. And Minecraft is totally going to be used to force people deeper into a...
Well, aside from Microsoft utterly destroying what Skype was in order to force it in to the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem.
And Minecraft is totally going to be used to force people deeper into a Microsoft gaming ecosystem. Full dropping of Java Minecraft isn't far off, mark my words.
That's the main bit I don't like. Both of the Microsoft accounts I have already have one, so I'm guessing that means my username would change. It'd be nice if they gave us a free username change...
Part of Microsoft account migration is having to set up an Xbox Profile
That's the main bit I don't like. Both of the Microsoft accounts I have already have one, so I'm guessing that means my username would change. It'd be nice if they gave us a free username change on Xbox, which for some reason still costs money. This free cape is worthless, doesn't even look that good and everyone getting one only devalues capes, because that was never the idea.
And it leaves the door open for a couple of things:
Monetisation with the Marketplace. Now every account is connected to Xbox it's easy to add a payment method, so here come expensive, low quality skins and mods.
Eventually a forced migration to Bedrock. It makes no sense to maintain a separate code base in a less efficient language that's more difficult to work with if everyone using it could also be using Bedrock. The only officially supported version of Windows is 10, with the Store and Bedrock Edition, so if you can't get it, that's your fault. You should be using a newer version. It's getting easier to port iOS apps to macos, so they can get Bedrock there too. And Linux doesn't really matter, since they wouldn't pay for anything in the Marketplace anyway.
It's a shame, but I guess it makes sense. I think a reason a lot of people don't like this change is because of change. They have been playing the game for years and have seen it go from a small indie game to this massive, overcommercialised hit. The gameplay has changed significantly in that time and this was one of the only things that were left. And it doesn't help that Microsoft are treating us like idiots in the process.
I have a complicated relationship with Linux but I support OS competition on principle so it's a bit sad to see that, yes, they'll drop Linux eventually. There's just no realistic scenario in...
And Linux doesn't really matter, since they wouldn't pay for anything in the Marketplace anyway.
I have a complicated relationship with Linux but I support OS competition on principle so it's a bit sad to see that, yes, they'll drop Linux eventually. There's just no realistic scenario in which they won't.
At least MultiMC (an alternative Minecraft launcher) plans to implement Microsoft account support¹, so this change might not impact modding communities or other people that use custom launchers²...
At least MultiMC (an alternative Minecraft launcher) plans to implement Microsoft account support¹, so this change might not impact modding communities or other people that use custom launchers² as much as it seems like.
Aside from that, I share the same concerns with a lot of people here regarding Microsoft themselves, but considering I already have an account set up (got Bedrock edition when it was free to Java owners, just in case) I guess I can't complain that much.
The only good outcome I can see from this would hopefully be the end of the stolen Mojang account trade. Especially in Turkey where Minecraft's price has gone up and up due to conversion rates and whatnot, a lot of people are getting scammed by sites selling "cheap Minecraft accounts" that (if you got unlucky) get returned to their proper owners after a couple weeks/months.
[²]: Otherwise we'd have to use the official launcher, which is basically Electron, ugh.
Do you find this to be a problem? Imo launchers are some of the best uses of Electron, because I have the Minecraft launcher open for approximately 5 seconds before it goes away after I launch the...
Otherwise we'd have to use the official launcher, which is basically Electron, ugh.
Do you find this to be a problem? Imo launchers are some of the best uses of Electron, because I have the Minecraft launcher open for approximately 5 seconds before it goes away after I launch the game. So the resource usage, etc. doesn't really matter, and if it lets them spend some dev time doing something else, sure.
There are a lot of electron apps I really like. I think the dislike isn't really rooted in anyone's personal experience, it's spread more or less the way a meme is spread. VSCode outperforms just...
There are a lot of electron apps I really like. I think the dislike isn't really rooted in anyone's personal experience, it's spread more or less the way a meme is spread. VSCode outperforms just about any other native GUI IDE out there and it is an electron app.
For me at least, it's because Electron apps don't really offer anything that a regular browser window couldn't (and thus sharing resources and settings from main browser), and the UI is...
For me at least, it's because Electron apps don't really offer anything that a regular browser window couldn't (and thus sharing resources and settings from main browser), and the UI is inconsistent between both the system and other Electron apps.
Yeah, that's not an unheard of technique. Usually used with like OAuth to sign in using your already-existing cookies on some website, but you can just use it arbitrarily. You have a binary on...
Yeah, that's not an unheard of technique. Usually used with like OAuth to sign in using your already-existing cookies on some website, but you can just use it arbitrarily. You have a binary on your own local machine, it fires up a localhost-only web server on some random high port, and calls your default web browser to open it. Most of the logic can run in the browser, calling back to the web server whenever it needs access to something outside the sandbox. Or go the opposite direction, have all your logic in the binary and only use the browser to manage your UI. Main downside is you get some scary localhost:42896 stuff in the URL bar if you don't ask the browser to like open a special kiosk-y type of window with limited browser chrome.
Realistically the only thing changing is their log in infrastructure so you'd just put the new details in like you did with the mojang switch back in the day?
Realistically the only thing changing is their log in infrastructure so you'd just put the new details in like you did with the mojang switch back in the day?
But that implies they'd stil leave the old servers running, which probably isn't what's going to happen. They'll probably use OAuth or something like that and use the regular Microsoft...
But that implies they'd stil leave the old servers running, which probably isn't what's going to happen. They'll probably use OAuth or something like that and use the regular Microsoft authentication flow.
Looking at the Yggdrasil ("old" authentication server) documentation¹, this seems way too specific to Mojang accounts to port cleanly over to Microsoft accounts.
This is.. ugh.. not a good move.. at least not for me...
I do not have a Microsoft Account. I do not like or use Windows, I use GNU/Linux. I have owned Minecraft since well before Microsoft purchased Mojang, and now I'm being forced to create an account and agree to Microsoft's terms of service and privacy policy (which are woeful)... It just doesn't seem fair to me.
I realise that I purchased this game close to a decade ago.. but I still feel like I should be given the option for a refund.. I paid for this game and now in order to continue using it I have to sign up for an account and agree to contracts that I don't want to agree to. If we pretend for a moment that Minecraft is a physical device.. such as a phone.. the expectation that you need sign additional, privacy-harming contracts after having already owned it for some time, is ridiculous. I do realise that technically I don't "own" minecraft, I have "licensed" it.. But that's BS. Lol.
This whole post also comes off as very "PR-ey" and honestly quite patronising.... see this quote..
and this one..
They keep on pushing this whole free cape thing, and I could not care less about it. It just feels like they are trying to sweeten the deal for all the little kids who now play the game, especially through Bedrock and Education Edition (which are already Microsoft-link iirc?).. It feels like Microsoft does not really care about the generally older, more "veteran" players in this decision. I'm not sure that I can blame them for that... but... It doesn't mean that I like the choice.
Minetest is looking better and better.
Been out of Minecraft for awhile, so it'll probably be easier for me to transition into Minetest if/when I get back into it.
I'm in a very similar position and I'm just going to pirate it. I've paid for it, no moral qualms and there's a plethora of launchers online. I only play single player or servers with friends that we can change to allow pirated clients so fuck em.
mm.. I think I may end up having to do the same.. It sucks. It's not the kind of game I thought I would ever need to go and illegally obtain..
Every single article on minecraft.net is like this. It's exhausting.
What's the issue with having a Microsoft account?
It's literally just an email address and a password. A throwaway/spam email address is free if you really don't want Microsoft to have one you care about.
I have one but that's because I signed up for my hotmail account before MS bought hotmail so I kind of got grandfathered in. It makes signing in to Windows marginally easier the five times a year I boot windows but other than that it has zero impact on my life.
You are doing business with Microsoft by playing Minecraft.
What type of account they use does not matter. Mojang is owned by Microsoft. Mojang accounts are Microsoft accounts, they just can't log into other Microsoft properties.
So make a “real” throwaway. I guess I understand the “principle” side of it (sort of) but really it isn’t a big deal.
Plus I hate to break it to the people that try to avoid all of this on principle: if you have a smart phone, smart anything, computer, whatever and use the internet: they have you. They know everything about you. If not through you directly then they still have everything by your family and friends who have ever referenced you.
There is no real escape from this nightmare unless you legit go off the grid, and even then they probably still have your shadow profile.
Yeah I understand your position but, I mean it is a lost cause. To me it’s sort of anachronistic like someone in the 1950s still complaining about cars taking over the roads people used to walk on. It’s an issue lost already, the regulations were supposed to be in place 2 decades ago at least.
On the one hand, yes, society can change, and has changed pretty dramatically on some issues, so it’s quite possible there will be more changes. Computing is still changing pretty fast, and sure, alternative forms of computing are possible! Believing this is the easy part.
On the other, It seems important to remember that as online conversationalists, on most topics we are just observers and saying “we can do this” is really just hoping that someone else will do it. Of course there are exceptions, things that are so important to you that you’re actually going to do something.
But is Minecraft that issue? I guess one way to start would be to see how close Minetest and other alternatives are to being a viable replacement for Minecraft...
But most of the time, a key to avoiding overheated rhetoric is to remember where we are and what we are doing. And we are just writers here. There are other people actually doing stuff, and our beliefs about what’s possible are unlikely to change what they do. Best case would be to write something that influences the people actually doing things, but I don’t think we have that audience?
It would be interesting to hear more about what sort of work you're doing in this general area. (I don't mean to imply that we're always observers, just that, in online discussions, that's usually the case.)
It's fairly common that cultural artifacts have gatekeepers. Visit the museum, pay at the door, and maybe they search your backpack. People have beefs about this, but I think many people might have stronger feelings about Ticketmaster than Microsoft?
The difference is that with software, it doesn't have to be this way. This is also true of books, music, and video. But artists do want to be paid, and some tech firms have the means to pay them a lot (sometimes).
There is a practical problem of when piracy is ethical. I'm guessing that cracked copies of Minecraft aren't hard to find? Similarly, when Mojang Studios decided to use DRM and logins to get people to pay for stuff, they were solving a practical problem for them. That seems to already be in the wrong direction, if control by the authors (and whoever they sell to) is what you're concerned about.
There's also a theoretical problem of what sort of legal system would distribute power in a way that both content creators and consumers would be satisfied with what they end up with. It might be hard to do because their interests are partially aligned and partially in conflict.
Sure, I'd be interested in your experience with IPFS. (I have no real-world experience and a general impression that it's still work in progress?)
It's hardly a lost cause. Sure, as soon as you visit a site it starts trying to build a profile on you, but an ad blocker severely impedes that process. If you actually bother with those data request things, you can see that the profiles they build are often quite simple, sparse, and/or wrong. It's hardly "everything", and it often is missing or completely wrong about important information like geographic locale, age, gender, sexual orientation, income level, and so on.
Even if the privacy problem weren't a real problem, the privacy problem isn't the only potential problem here. The Microsoft account terms of service is an arbitrary legal agreement. It could contain any number of non-privacy-related provisions you don't agree to be bound by. Maybe it says you agree to binding arbitration in all disputes. Maybe it says you agree to pay Microsoft's legal fees should they decide to sue you because they think you're hacking in Minecraft, even if they lose. Maybe it says you certify that you're over 18 and don't live in Cuba, even if neither of those are true. Maybe it says you won't leave a bad review of the game, or publish a mod they don't like. We don't know; I bet neither of us has read it.
It's not right for them to be able to revoke a perpetual license you already bought, with no compensation. Certainly it's not right for them to be able to do that as punishment for not signing some new contract they've invented.
What can I say? Might makes right more often than not. Take them to court over it if it bothers you that much.
We can build new roads. It's not an issue lost.
While I understand your position, that’s quite different. When you sign a streaming service you already know what you’re getting into.
Are Microsoft still Bad Guys? Back in the 90s/2000s when I had the energy to care about things like that, they definitely were, but I got the impression that - especially since Ballmer left - they'd chilled out a bit. Especially their gaming division, which seems no better or worse than Sony or Valve, and definitely better than Epic/EA et al.
I dunno. I run linux 99% of the time and I have a Playstation for games so basically most of my dealings with MS is occasionally buying their hardware because they do make a good mouse.
Microsoft are working with Internal Combustion Engines?
OK, that was facetious but I'm afraid I don't know what you're using ICE to mean there. I assume it's something from your country I haven't heard of?
What sort of efforts have MS been making to undermine free desktops? Gnome is my DE of choice and seems to be pottering along just fine and seems much slicker and easier to use than Windows.
I assume she means the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
I feel like there's a fine line about complaining about Microsoft trying to E3, and Microsoft just making their product better. Because you can argue that WSL is MSFT trying to Extend over developers... but like, it also just makes their OS better for developers full stop. It's hard to complain about them making their product better when it isn't particularly anti-competitive.
In the end, WSL2 is an optimized VM, and WSL is the equivalent of WINE. I don't think either is particularly shitty.
I would say that it's only really an issue if they're using their marketshare as a weapon. As-is, they're just recognizing that their users want to use virtualized Linux because their own OS sucks at certain things. Just because Windows has a large marketshare, doesn't mean that anything they do to improve their OS is anti-competitive. It's only natural that you improve the feature set of your product.
In terms of scummyness... maybe if it was a branded over "copy", as in rewrite, but it's just a VM in the end. And it's listed as "Ubuntu for Windows". I find it hard to argue that that could be scummy.
That's fine? In terms of actually doing it, open source products are meant to be forked, if someone wants to.
In terms of market effects, it won't make a difference. Developers use WSL for feature parity with the Linux servers they use in production. No one is going to distribute an application that only works on WSL--it's a niche among a niche.
And in servers, Linux is the dominant OS, and Windows has all but given up on the space. Really I see this more competing with Macbooks, which many developers use for the commercial desktop environment + unix system.
Like, there's really not much of a linux desktop environment for Microsoft to be extending over. As long as Linux on the server is dominant, which by all means it seems to continue to be, since there's exactly 0 real competitors, I don't see this being an issue.
That's not what I meant. If MSFT was trying to extend and extinguish, they need an actual target and reason to do so. Linux as a consumer OS is not that. Why would they even bother Technically even without wsl Linux was losing in marketshare for some reason.
As an aside, imo even as someone that uses Linux on a desktop, idt it will ever have significant marketshare... in the US/"West". The wildcard is China.
WSL was made to synergize with azure, since not even azure tries to make you use windows servers anymore. But assuming a Linux server, it's incredibly annoying to develop with Windows, if not just straight up impossible since many things don't exist or at least don't have binaries for windows.
I guess my disagreement is
I don't think MSFT is acting in malice. It's just "wow, it really sucks to do backend development on windows". Rather than "Damn, those pesky Linux developers are gaining steam, we need to pull the rug out from them". I don't think it's the latter because... that's not the situation, Linux on DE is still a big niche.
I don't think there's anything "wrong" (and I don't mean legally, obviously there's nothing there) with WSL. Unlike, say, making IE default, or what Apple does on iOS w.r.g to 3rd party apps/stores, they're not leveraging any unreasonable advantages because of their market share.
Linux should also have something so that their users can use applications made for other platforms. That would also be a useful feature... which exists, it's WINE (+a full on VM if you need it). I don't see why Windows can't have LINE.
The Linux DE should "compete harder". There's no real problem with Windows making their product better, and thereby attracting more consumers. Why would you not let companies improve their products just because it hurts another competitor?
Mayhaps, but that's on Azure. WSL will play a very small role in their ability to dictate the feature set of linux kernels.
From an eye-for-an-eye perspective, maybe. But I don't think that matters in terms of considering "Is WSL a good thing/Should MSFT be able to do it".
Sure, those are all dick things Microsoft did in the past. But it doesn't change whether or not this action is good or not, or whether it should or shouldn't be done, or whether you should or shouldn't condemn MSFT.
Look at it this way; even if WSL didn't exist, and instead Microsoft overhauled their OS to make it more developer friendly, that would still attract over users from Linux and starve it of up and coming contributors. Anything Microsoft did that made their platform less sucky for developers would "hurt" Linux, since that's one of their bigger competitive advantages.
And I find it hard to condemn Microsoft for doing anything to make their OS suck less for developers, or suck less in any way. Isn't that just natural?
Lots of people have unreliable internet connections. It’s more common than you may think.
You may also be prevented from playing because your account was arbitrarily banned or suspended.
It's been a long, long time since I last booted Minecraft (at least two computers ago, and long before Microsoft bought it!) but I'm pretty sure back then you needed an internet connection to verify your Mojang account and log in to start the game.
Lots of games require online authentication. I'm not saying that's an entirely good thing (although it does help reduce piracy) but I'm not sure it's a reason to single out Microsoft specifically.
I think the reason to single out Microsoft is that many people bought the game before this requirement was introduced.
It was a while ago but I'm pretty sure you needed an account ever since Notch started the actual, not web version of the alpha.
And you also had to migrate when they went from Minecraft -> Mojang account.
That's fine, but that is a different reason to the launcher requiring internet access.
Just speaking personally, I am one of those people (hell, I paid ten euros for the beta) and I don't care in the slightest. But I also don't play Minecraft any more so y'know. But if I did I still wouldn't care. I wonder if my account still exists..
I bought Minecraft in beta, before Microsoft bought mojang. It already required an internet connection then.
No, this is a terrible idea and the entire mentality behind it needs to be completely stamped out.
You're not just providing them with an email address and password, you are signing and agreeing to legal contracts that allow Microsoft to bypass or otherwise suppress your legal rights. Furthermore, these types of agreements often come with clauses that include language that allows them to change the terms in the future in whatever way they wish, with or without providing you any form of notification.
If we look at Microsoft's Services Agreement, you are given a huge document that is, on my setup, 24 pages of extremely tiny text. It does at least give you the luxury of telling you when they change their terms, but it also relieves you of your legal right to sue them, either as an individual or class action.
Except that whole part about notifying you is also a lie. Their "Miscellaneous" clause says they can apply terms to you without notifying you. Better yet, if you decide to dissolve your relationship with Microsoft, it says that a number of those sections will still continue to apply - including the one restricting your ability to sue them.
So can you give me some examples of what might go wrong by me simply giving MS my spam email address? Realistic examples, ideally with real-world precedents. If me agreeing to some boilerplate legal stuff is such a disastrous idea then the bad consequences must have already happened somewhere else already, right?
All commercial software has EULAs. I don't use much non-Free software in general, but almost every game I play has terms and conditions that I don't read. I don't recall ever having heard of any terrible (or even non-terrible, frankly) consequences to agreeing to those terms and I've been not reading those things for 20+ years now.
I mean sure, it would be lovely if everything was nice and Free and Open and fluffy and I am genuinely in favour of that - but that's not how the real world works, and things seem to be mostly pottering along not too badly as is.
Just for the record I'm not interested in being part of the problem by suing anyone. That people engage in litigation is one reason all this legal nonsense exists at all. So some consequences other than that.
I saw your response this morning and figured that I would have to wait until I was at a keyboard to give you a full response because it was going to be long. And then I realized that my response to you would be so long that it's really not worth it.
If you do not understand why it's bad to sign away your rights and you think that using the justice system is somehow a bad thing, there is nothing I can do to sway you. I assume you already know the basic principles and theories behind the concept of law as well as the purpose of court, so the only thing left is that you simply disagree with them. And if you disagree with something so fundamental, there is no way I can change your mind.
I'm not saying this to demean you, of course, so if I'm wrong please correct me and I will gladly attempt to explain my position.
That's exactly the same kind of high-minded sensationalism that @mat was questioning, where you're using phrases like "sign away your rights" to describe clicking an agree button on a game's boilerplate EULA that nobody ever reads and is never meaningfully enforced or exploited in practice.
They're just asking you to give an example of something bad that has actually happened to someone as a consequence of doing that, not theoretical concepts of what they might be hypothetically allowed to do. Can you supply a specific example?
Exactly.
I just wanted to jump off from here because I just wanted to say that the problem I am addressing is not that boilerplate and clickwrap licenses exist, or even the blind acceptance of those terms, but the mentality that they do not matter. The fact is that they do matter, and if they didn't you wouldn't have to agree to them.
The big picture problem I am seeing is that the power differential between a corporation and it's customers increasing over time. At first we became OK with accepting terms without reading them. Then without us even noticing they started slipping in terms allowing them to change them at any time. Then they started taking away your ability to dissolve the contract, and then they removed your rights to legal action. And now we are seeing more and more examples of companies finding new ways to compel you to agree to even more restrictive terms with even larger corporate entities.
So, bit late back to this, sorry. But I can offer an example of why licenses sometimes need to change.
A long time ago, I set up a website in my spare time. It got pretty successful, and eventually I set up a company to run it, hired a few people and so on. One of them, a good friend and person I to this day trust and like, was a lawyer. She pointed out that my terms and conditions did not particlarly apply to the company's current situation, and while it had once been OK, currently left some fairly massive gaps in protecting the user's content and our company (we didn't even, technically, have the right to publish our user's images online, which was the whole point of the website!).
We had to rewrite the document in such a way that protected us and more importantly our users in an actual legal/corporate environment. Then we had to say "sorry but you have to agree to this or we can't let you log in again" to our users. Some of whom had paid significant amounts of money to us, as well as volunteered countless hours of time acting as moderators and editors. But if we hadn't done it we wouldn't have been able to move the company, and by extension the website, forward with any legal stability and in theory could have even lost people's IP.
I'm not saying that's what is happening in this case but more illustrating that this sort of thing isn't always malicious. Sometimes it's necessary to ensure user's rights are protected (although I would expect both Mojang and MS have better lawyers than me writing their EULAs!). Sometimes it just makes things easier from the corporate side and doesn't have any real impact on the end user. And yeah, sometimes it is to harvest data or whatever, although to be honest that doesn't bother me either.
If I'm being sensational in any way, I assure you that it's unintentional. I figured if @mat wanted to have an answer he could google exactly the same way I could.
Here is the first example Google gave me. The website for the second link Google gave me was down, so here's a link to an archive of that page.
Of note is the case regarding the Wells Fargo fraudulent account opening scandal. Since all the victims have signed a 'boilerplate' legal agreement with an arbitration clause, their cases have been thrown out. And once a case goes into private arbitration, it completely disappears from public record. Depending on the wording on that clause you might not even have the option of an appeal if new evidence comes forth.
With respect, you do sound a bit like you're being sensationalist. Additional to that, those are both examples of the one outcome I said I wasn't interested in hearing about, and are outside of the gaming sphere. i was interested in hearing about something which might affect me as a person who plays games, not someone who wants to take other people to court. Because I am the former, not the latter.
The reason I haven't googled them myself is (a) I have a two year old, I don't have time and (b) again with respect - you made the claim this stuff is bad, the burden of proof is on you.
Yea. It might not matter if the only thing in the world that matters is playing games. But they could decide to do anything from taking it away to forcing you to install a cryptocurrency miner to use it. And with the legal framework they've setup, your only option is 'accept these new terms or walk away with nothing.' Even then, maybe not so bad for games, but that can and will get extended to your cellphone, operating system, internet access, cars, grocery stores...everything.
That's because every ruling in favor of a given license can be used to sway further rulings thanks to precedent. Just because this one tiny thing doesn't matter much doesn't mean it won't be horribly abused in the future. And that horrible abuse will be justified in court because "it was just fine for this one tiny thing.'
Has anyone ever done that, or something like that? I haven't heard of that happening. I'm not up on all the news though. Do you think Microsoft would want the PR disaster of fucking over the players of one of the most popular games of all time? I'm not a big MS fan either, but they're not that stupid.
Will it? You're claiming that this one thing is going to take over literally everything at the same time as saying you're not being sensationalist, while providing no substatitive evidence of this disaster happening. It's not particularly convincing.
edit: wait, sorry, you're not the person who originally made the sensationalist claims. My apologies. But still, what you're saying is fairly extraordinary and that does require some evidence additional to just saying "thing will happen".
fwiw I am Old and I've heard people making these claims of coming catastrophe since... I dunno, easily several decades. The first instance I accurately pinpoint (because I'll be honest, 95-2005 was very hazy) was over 16 years ago when we learned gmail was "reading" our email to show us ads and you know what - I don't think any of it has ever come to pass.
I agree, it doesn't mean that. But it also doesn't mean it will either. You are right, many tiny insignificant things can sometimes add up to being a big awful thing. Sometimes. But you know what tiny insignificant things also can be? Just tiny insignificant things that don't add up to anything and don't matter at all.
A non-zero amount of games have required accounts for a long, long time now, and things still seem to be working alright. In this precise case, Minecraft has required an account since day one, it's just now it's a Microsoft account not a Mojang one. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain that the sky will not fall if you give Microsoft your spam email address. I don't even think that's a particularly unreasonable thing for them to ask, because I assume right now they're maintaining two user databases - their own, and ex-Mojang accounts. Consolidating is just good practice.
It hasn't happened yet. But I hate that argument because it presumes that nothing will ever be abused in the future. NSA surveillance that Snowden revealed was schizophrenic crazy talk 2 decades prior. 20 years ago, if I said ' A drug company is going to artificially raise the price of insulin over 200x just to turn more profit' people would have said I was bonkers.
Yea, I really don't care much about the account merger itself. I care about the continually expanding company-dictated usage of things you ostensibly purchase, which gives them the power to dictate damn near anything. It's further exacerbated by the continual consolidation of industry on the whole.
Well, I equally don't like the argument that "something bad I've imagined might happen despite little to no precedent for such a thing" so here we are.
I do agree that NSA/Snowdon is one example of the slippery slope being slipped well and truly down; although honestly if anyone couldn't predict America's insane health "care" system would result in epic price gouging then those people are the bonkers ones - but there's countless counter examples where things didn't snowball out of control and everything was fine. Statistically, everything will almost certainly be fine.
Also, and I don't recall entirely because it was a very long time ago, but I'm pretty certain that I never bought the game Minecraft, I only ever bought a license to play it. From Mojang, not Microsoft. Again, not certain. And I do agree that's a pretty shitty way to work things. I'm not in favour of that, but that is how lots of things work and they don't turn completely to shit, they're just mildly annoying.
I'm intrigued though, are there many things which you would consider unequivocally good and not potentially abusable in 10, 20 years or more? It doesn't seem to me like there would be much.
If I pay money for a game, on the premise that I get to access it indefinitely, then I de-facto purchased the game. Everything else is a legal obfuscation to avoid calling it a purchase so that First Sale doctrine and other consumer rights do not apply.
In short, policies that result in a more equal society are much harder to abuse than ones that perpetuate an unequal one.
Well, in this specific case you were buying a game from Sweden, so US consumer laws don't apply.
But - and I'm not saying I agree with things working this way - but, if you bought a license for a game which said you can play it until the company running the game decided to shut down their authentication servers, that's all you bought. If you didn't read the EULA and mistakenly assumed you were buying the actual game to own in perpetuity, that's sort of on you.
fwiw I do agree most of those things are good, but there's no guarantee they won't be abused (aka used as an excuse to bring in much tighter restrictions) down the line. If you're happy to assume that all stuff you don't like is the top of a slippery slope, why assume stuff you do like isn't either?
For example, the UK had considerably better public food, housing and healthcare provisions in the past, the right wing party here have been chipping away at and selling them off for decades now - very often with the excuse that 'previous governments have gone too far, we're just making things more fair'. Both the US and UK had higher high wealth taxes in the past, long gone now. Also, look at what Trump has taken apart in just four years (significant amounts of your list, for a start). Almost everything is abusable, by someone motivated to do so.
The GPL is straight genius though. That can only persist and spread by it's very nature. It's by far the best thing Stallman has ever done.
Just so you know, I don't really know how the American justice system works. I have a moderate idea of how the UK system works, although I do find legal stuff pretty uninteresting so it's not like I've spent a lot of time reading up on it.
More importantly I don't think you've made a very strong case that Microsoft asking you to merely have an account with them is fundamentally against the very concept of law and justice.
If you want to explain, by all means try. But bear in mind I was interested in hearing real world examples, not your personal theories. I'm not interested in abstract discussion in this case, I'm interested in actual evidence that proves why me giving Microsoft my email address is bad (or could turn bad in the future, with real-world examples)
I think the minecraft launcher already has DRM in it... If it doesn't have an internet connection for long enough I'm pretty sure that It'll eventually need you to sign in again. But haven't confirmed that.
Also, even if this does work. I still lose multiplayer. I paid for multiplayer and it's unfair that Microsoft are taking that away and putting it behind additional licenses.
They are essentially holding people's Minecraft accounts at a kind of ransom. You don't do this.. or else you lose you account.
They bought it how many years ago now? You had to know account integration was inevitable.
This is reminding me of the pikachu-faced Oculus owners when Facebook did the same thing. I guess get mad at the original devs for being sell-outs.
Honestly I don't think this is that big of a deal. We've seen games move launchers, or move services many times, and the Oculus thing has only happened once. Microsoft has been a good steward so far, and yeah that can change, but then again it was owned by a crazy anti-semitic white supremacist before.
Even on the Mojang side, I really doubt they actually want to maintain an account system. It's a pain in the ass, a big target for security risks, and afaik it still doesn't support 2-factor. I trust Microsoft more with user security than Mojang does.
Yeah this would be far more palatable if it was a requirement for upcoming Minecraft versions.
Welcome to 2020. Soon enough as cars get more automated features the manufacturers are going to be pushing mandatory patches and require “accounts” to drive your car.
You may not like it, but this is where we’re heading and for most software products for home use, we’re already there and have been so for awhile now.
I couldn't be bothered to copy that wishy washy PR headline, I'm sorry.
This is exactly what could have been expected when Microsoft bought Mojang in 2014, just as it could have been expected when Facebook bought Oculus in 2014. I guess the generally accepted time-to-fully-absorb is 6 years?
I'll copy this comment from reddit for further info:
Looks like migration will take place over multiple months and not immediately/at once.
I dunno, any time I can remove entries in my password manager I feel a little better. I'm happy about this migration. Is there a reason you would worry about it?
It forces you into a new ecosystem. Any restrictions or requirements of Microsoft accounts now apply if you want to play Minecraft. I assume some mandatory Xbox app will follow and I have traditionally horrible experiences with Microsoft “service” apps. I still shudder thinking of my attempt of installing the non-Java version of Minecraft via the Microsoft store. It was bizarre.
This doesn't seem like a safe assumption to make. Minecraft has hundreds of millions of players. Microsoft accounts have existed for almost two decades without restrictions like those you mention.
This isn't the first time there is an account migration being done; Skype being the obvious major one to mention and account-wise it hasn't negatively impacted anything?
It sounds like your issues with this are theoretical, but how are they any more concrete than "theoretically, microsoft could add a bunch of restrictions to minecraft accounts regardless"?
Hmm, but we're literally making that assesment in a thread about Microsoft forcing players to use Microsoft account after years of people saying how unlikely that would be. I generally care more about trends than the question whether something, right here and now, will have a negative impact. It took 6 years for people to have their Oculus bricked if they don't have a valid real-id facebook account. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with ways for Microsoft to make this annoying, just with a Microsoft flavor of bad rather than a Facebook flavor of bad.
Well, aside from Microsoft utterly destroying what Skype was in order to force it in to the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem.
And Minecraft is totally going to be used to force people deeper into a Microsoft gaming ecosystem. Full dropping of Java Minecraft isn't far off, mark my words.
That's the main bit I don't like. Both of the Microsoft accounts I have already have one, so I'm guessing that means my username would change. It'd be nice if they gave us a free username change on Xbox, which for some reason still costs money. This free cape is worthless, doesn't even look that good and everyone getting one only devalues capes, because that was never the idea.
And it leaves the door open for a couple of things:
It's a shame, but I guess it makes sense. I think a reason a lot of people don't like this change is because of change. They have been playing the game for years and have seen it go from a small indie game to this massive, overcommercialised hit. The gameplay has changed significantly in that time and this was one of the only things that were left. And it doesn't help that Microsoft are treating us like idiots in the process.
I have a complicated relationship with Linux but I support OS competition on principle so it's a bit sad to see that, yes, they'll drop Linux eventually. There's just no realistic scenario in which they won't.
At least MultiMC (an alternative Minecraft launcher) plans to implement Microsoft account support¹, so this change might not impact modding communities or other people that use custom launchers² as much as it seems like.
Aside from that, I share the same concerns with a lot of people here regarding Microsoft themselves, but considering I already have an account set up (got Bedrock edition when it was free to Java owners, just in case) I guess I can't complain that much.
The only good outcome I can see from this would hopefully be the end of the stolen Mojang account trade. Especially in Turkey where Minecraft's price has gone up and up due to conversion rates and whatnot, a lot of people are getting scammed by sites selling "cheap Minecraft accounts" that (if you got unlucky) get returned to their proper owners after a couple weeks/months.
[²]: Otherwise we'd have to use the official launcher, which is basically Electron, ugh.
Do you find this to be a problem? Imo launchers are some of the best uses of Electron, because I have the Minecraft launcher open for approximately 5 seconds before it goes away after I launch the game. So the resource usage, etc. doesn't really matter, and if it lets them spend some dev time doing something else, sure.
There are a lot of electron apps I really like. I think the dislike isn't really rooted in anyone's personal experience, it's spread more or less the way a meme is spread. VSCode outperforms just about any other native GUI IDE out there and it is an electron app.
For me at least, it's because Electron apps don't really offer anything that a regular browser window couldn't (and thus sharing resources and settings from main browser), and the UI is inconsistent between both the system and other Electron apps.
Except filesystem support. Native library support. Independence from addons that could give you a broken experience.
A native binary running a web server can still do all that though, can't it? Except for the add-ons.
Yes but it's not on your computer. Maybe I want the app to modify my local filesystem.
Yeah, that's not an unheard of technique. Usually used with like OAuth to sign in using your already-existing cookies on some website, but you can just use it arbitrarily. You have a binary on your own local machine, it fires up a localhost-only web server on some random high port, and calls your default web browser to open it. Most of the logic can run in the browser, calling back to the web server whenever it needs access to something outside the sandbox. Or go the opposite direction, have all your logic in the binary and only use the browser to manage your UI. Main downside is you get some scary localhost:42896 stuff in the URL bar if you don't ask the browser to like open a special kiosk-y type of window with limited browser chrome.
You can use the old launcher still. (Whether you will continue to be able to following the migration, I don't know.)
Realistically the only thing changing is their log in infrastructure so you'd just put the new details in like you did with the mojang switch back in the day?
But that implies they'd stil leave the old servers running, which probably isn't what's going to happen. They'll probably use OAuth or something like that and use the regular Microsoft authentication flow.
Looking at the Yggdrasil ("old" authentication server) documentation¹, this seems way too specific to Mojang accounts to port cleanly over to Microsoft accounts.