Hacker News Reader

Comment by snoochybooch | Hacker News Reader

If Notch wants to be picky about ethics, let's talk about spending money hiring for the development of a new game (Scrolls) before finishing a game players have essentially advanced him money to complete (Minecraft). Or about sitting on critical security holes for months. Euclideon may not deliver on its promises (it probably won't), but for all Notch knows they do have a novel technique and labeling it a "scam" is just irresponsible.

View on HN

"Please note that when you buy the game, you're paying for the game as it is right now! You will also get the full version of Minecraft when it is released. Read the copyright information for more information on your purchase."

http://www.minecraft.net/prepurchase.jsp

It sounds like you misunderstood what you were spending your money on.

It looks like Mojang don't actually provide you with a download for the game as it is when you pay for it. So they are in violation of their own Terms of Service. Of course, the ToS is just a clumsy attempt to absolve them of liability, and does not reflect the impression they have actively cultivated on the Internet. If you are going to apply a legalistic standard to Notch you should also apply that standard to Euclideon, in which case Notch is not justified in calling it a "scam".

Here you go: http://www.minecraft.net/download.jsp

Download away!

Man, entitled gamers are the worst.

Nope. If I buy the game, and then download it a week or two later I do not necessarily get the correct version. Furthermore, any reasonable person expects that if you are truly only purchasing some specific version then you would be able to download it into the future. You can't have it both ways.

You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. If you want the version of the game when you buy it, it is clearly your own responsibility to download the game. There is no violation of the TOS, to claim otherwise is absurd to the highest degree.

The guy you're responding to clearly created a new account here just to troll.

The contents of that page were changed without notice some time ago. The part you quoted was included later:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090615065558/http://www.minecra...

An aside, but since you bring it up: if Minecraft was never out of Beta, I would still consider my money well spent, thank you very much. And, he does continue to work on it. He has a team now and they're all working on various things.

I don't care whether you are happy with it or not. It is a poorly written product with many problems. There is a zero-day exploit in SMP allowing people to take over servers that they haven't bothered fixing in the months they've known about it, for example. So what if they are paying lip service to Minecraft development?

If I was paying a subscription fee to play, I would agree with you. But I spent $15 a year and a half ago for the product /as it was/ and it was absolutely worth it. You are not entitled to updates, they're just nice to have.

And I'm not paying for server support or anything, so I don't necessarily expect rapid bug/exploit fixes.

Notch made specific promises that have been broken. And as far as what I am "entitled to", Mojang are in violation of their own Terms of Service by not providing me with a download of the version as-is when I paid for it. So what am I entitled to for my $15? Look, I understand some people are happy to throw away $15 and have Mojang do whatever they want. I think they have an ethical problem when they make promises but don't deliver upon them (such as SMP being ready before Beta), and furthermore generally treat their users with contempt.

I regularly pay my ISP large amounts of money to treat me with contempt. Somebody I'm not paying can treat me however they like. They have /zero obligation/ to be nice to me after I purchase an "as is" product.

"by not providing me with a download of the version as-is when I paid for it."

... so you don't want automatic updates and game improvements, then?

And he's incrementally delivering on his product. He continues to work on it, adventure mode is on its way out. Rumor: he's also working on new worlds, like that sky mode thing. He does continue to work on it, he's not broken his promise. I don't understand what you're talking about.

Minecraft doesn't need money to be finished, it needs time. Hiring completely different developers to work on a different game will not affect the development time of Minecraft so I don't see how that is unethical.

The security holes is definitely an issue but that doesn't make Notch's criticism any less valid.

If I send you money to work on project A, and you invest that money on into some other project B while paying lip service to project A then yes, I would say you have a bit of an ethical problem.

Notch's criticism is hypocritical, and invalid on the grounds that he doesn't have enough information to say that the project is a "scam".

You're framing the relationship between customer and game developer differently than I've ever seen it. When I give a developer money for a game, I'm not "sending him money to work on project A". I'm paying him for the game.

In bold print right on the Minecraft purchase page:

"Please note that when you buy the game, you're paying for the game as it is right now!"

Anyone who buys Minecraft under the delusion that they're contracting Notch to build them a game is, well, delusional.

There are only two contexts -- that I can think of off hand -- in which you pay someone to perform a specific task:

* Contract employment

* Hired staff

Any time you pay a company for a product, you're doing just that. You pay for the product, and the seller gets to do what they want with the profits.

This might be a tenable position, except according to this interpretation of the Terms of Purchase they have not fulfilled their end of the bargain, since they do not provide me with a link to download the version of the game that was released at the time of purchase. This is really just a clumsy attempt at removing liability, not a reflection of reasonable expectations. Notch actively cultivates the expectation of continued and active support.

When you make your purchase you are given the ability to download the version of the game as is, fulfilling the contract. Until you point to something that specifically would force them to maintain the link beyond that your entire position is untenable. That they maintain a link to the most recent version in addition to having provided you with the promised version upon purchase is purely a bonus.

I guess it boils down to whether we think it's "lip service" to start work on a new concurrent project before the initial project is complete. As a freelancer, I work on many projects at once -- am I being unethical by dividing my day to several tasks in parallel instead of performing them completely serially on a first-come, first-served basis? I don't see that there's any neglect inherent in using some resources to explore avenues not directly related to the game. Is it also unethical if notch buys a luxurious replacement for something that he had previously owned which was adequate but not luxurious? Is this also a waste of the "advance" given by players?

While notch intimates that there will one day be a "final" version of minecraft, the only way that effects any minecraft owners is that they received a discount from the theoretical "final" phase because they purchased during testing. There is no contract or implication that final is going to be released no matter what, no refund available to users who don't receive a 1.0 as soon as they'd like.

I think it's silly to consider that an ethical violation. People who buy minecraft buy to play as it is, NOT to play at some hypothetical future state. It is not an advance where we receive a half-finish product with the promise of a finished product by x date.

"People who buy minecraft buy to play as it is, NOT to play at some hypothetical future state"

Evidence?

http://www.minecraft.net/prepurchase.jsp <-- right there.

Nobody has advanced Notch any money. To claim that is disingenuous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com