Archived Premium Server Access

[stuckinbermuda]

If it goes around the EULA premium could, as I understand it but correct me if I am wrong, be used to access a unique server that non-premiums cannot. The current precedent for this has been when a new world has been launched in the past with premiums being given early access but what I am suggesting is a world that will only ever be premium access. The rules for the world could be different with perhaps a throwback to the previous premium perks or something completely new. This would ideally create a world for premium and more advanced players to interact, perhaps on a different plane of existence from the current world, perhaps an astral world where a character can have an alternate character that starts off fresh and can only be identified by a new chosen nickname on first login and have a totally new set of character data, a fresh start on a server within a server. Obviously it would take a lot of resources to launch something like this but perhaps an old world like Daendroc could be fast tracked and be used as sort of a premium classic massive server? Just an idea.

 

[Suzzie]

Wouldn't that make it pay to play though, what the EULA is against?

 

[Zacatero]

Wouldn't that make it pay to play though, what the EULA is against?

Click to shrink...

The EULA specifies that you can do this. Its actually an example given in the EULA to get around the pay2play rules. It states that the gameplay cant be different ONCE ON THE SERVER... it allows you to charge for initial access tho.

 

[stuckinbermuda]

exactly, the initial access would be with premium payment, with the bonus of giving regular premium cosmetic perks on the usual massivecraft worlds, being a new world and server would likely appeal to many and have the side effect of supporting the existing structure.

 

[FireFan96]

I don't think this would be a good idea, as it would basically cause a huge division between premium and non premium.

Sure, pre-EULA premiums were a bit bulkier, but everyone still mingled with each other. Making a whole server isolated from everything isn't a big community builder. It divides us into two factions (heh heh) and then things get bad from there.

 

[Mecharic]

I'd never be able to use that world, none of my faction members are premium.

 

[65jes89]

It would be kind of stretching the rules of the Eula, as it could be considered both a dofferent server or part of the network of servers. Personally, I don't really care for the idea, but if it is deemed necessary to keep the server running, I would be ok with it.

 

[Zacatero]

It would be kind of stretching the rules of the Eula,

Click to shrink...

to quote a piece from this website https://mojang.com/2014/06/lets-talk-server-monetisation/

You are allowed to charge players to access your server
So long as the fee is the same for all players, you are allowed to charge for access to your server. You are not allowed to split your playerbase into paying, and non-paying users, nor can you restrict gameplay elements to different tiers of player.

Basically, if you're charging for access to your server, you are selling a "ticket" and there can only be one type of ticket, regardless of how much people are willing to spend.

Click to shrink...

EDIT: I just want to clairify. I do not endorse this idea in any way shape or form. Im just stating the facts

 

[leafnosedbat]

I had a similar idea, with this server being a place for premiums to test out plugins that are in development.

I'd definitely pay money to get to play around with MassiveMagic or figure out MassiveLock before it's released to the public. Also, more bug testers could help plugins be more stable when they're ready for final release.

 

[65jes89]

to quote a piece from this website https://mojang.com/2014/06/lets-talk-server-monetisation/




EDIT: I just want to clairify. I do not endorse this idea in any way shape or form. Im just stating the facts

Click to shrink...

Yes. But not necessarily one specific part. As defined by the eula (I checked) a network of servers reachable under a single ip is considered one single server. So if it was a separate, premium only world, it would not be considered charging access to the server, but instead part of it, which is against the eula.

 

[Zacatero]

Yes. But not necessarily one specific part. As defined by the eula (I checked) a network of servers reachable under a single ip is considered one single server. So if it was a separate, premium only world, it would not be considered charging access to the server, but instead part of it, which is against the eula.

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry i was under the impression that we were arguing whether or not you can charge for server access.

 

[Nightbye1]

The EULA states that if it benifits only people that bought it besides cosmetic things like hats then it breaks the terms of the EULA so this would break it as it makes a seperate place for the premiums that normal players cannot access

 

[Zacatero]

The EULA states that if it benifits only people that bought it besides cosmetic things like hats then it breaks the terms of the EULA so this would break it as it makes a seperate place for the premiums that normal players cannot access

Click to shrink...

What if the premium-only area doesnt benefit the players? like what if its just a cool place to look at and has no game-changing value?

 

[Alj23]

Yes. But not necessarily one specific part. As defined by the eula (I checked) a network of servers reachable under a single ip is considered one single server. So if it was a separate, premium only world, it would not be considered charging access to the server, but instead part of it, which is against the eula.

Click to shrink...

This is correct.

For MassiveCraft to use OP's idea, a new server, completely separate from the MassiveCraft we have right now would have to be bought and set up. Different name. Different IP. No network between the two to keep stats, items, or cross server chat. It would have to be completely separate.

 

[Omnomivore]

This suggestion must be rejected as it would violate the EULA.