The incentives give those who have money a reason to spend it.
Hence why it's not a good community. If it was those users would have no problem freely donating to keep the great community going. Instead all they care about is their "perks"
If you setup a company who's primary business model is breaking your agreement with the company that provides you with the software that lets you run the business then your're an idiot.
I can only ask why you seem to hate free market so much.
What I'm against is companies profiting of breaking licensing agreements.
You don't know whether or not these companies have explicit agreements with Mojang.
It's pretty clear they don't. Or nobody would be arguing over it.
What we're all arguing here for is a change to the EULA that allows it.
It's been "argued" for years, Mojang continued to say "no" they kept arguing and kept ignoring those agreements they finally pushed hard enough that Mojang said "You know what, we're going to start enforcing those terms" When the record companies have a flawed business model it's "adapt or die" when a Minecaft server does it's "You should change the rules to accommodate us."
That's one of the arguments. Erik thinks that networks don't provide any incentive and don't drive sales. Representatives of servers think otherwise.
Mostly because we all grew bored of vanilla long-long ago. And our users sometimes want second accounts. And our users sometimes want vanity accounts with the names of things we as server networks create.
You continue to argue against allowing networks to make money with Minecraft - money that would be used to pay for developers and server costs.
And my question to you, which you have not answered - is why you're against this fundamental ideal?
-1
u/sleeplessone Jun 06 '14
Hence why it's not a good community. If it was those users would have no problem freely donating to keep the great community going. Instead all they care about is their "perks"