Right now, Microsoft is perm-banning accounts from all servers for gameplay activity that is openly encouraged on certain servers, like griefing, which is a fundamental aspect of anarchy servers like 2b2t; to say nothing of the speech policing.
They banned people for mass scanning billions of IP addresses then creating bots to automatically grief these small servers.
I don't know how you can justify this. This isn't someone being an asshole on 2b2t... this is someone destroying thousands of small servers just to be destructive.
There is some serious cognitive dissonance in the Minecraft community. There's a narrative that Microsoft is "destroying" the community that does not align with reality.
Most recently, the outrage was over the (entirely optional!) chat moderation features on private servers, and the mindless recitation that it would lead to widespread abuse and false-positive bans. It didn't.
I can only assume it's the result of non-technical people who know _just enough_ to think they know what they're talking about parroting misinformation in discords, Twitter, YouTube comments, etc. Perhaps it's a just a younger, more impressionable audience.
There is seemingly no reasoning with them either. They will vehemently defend wild points with zero evidence, and often with evidence to the contrary readily available.
Microsoft turned every PC user who doesn't use Windows from a first-class player into a second-class player who can't play what's now branded as "Minecraft". It's impossible for Linux and Mac players to play the game with any of the consoles, and there's a good chance you can't play with Windows people thanks to how Microsoft railroads you away from "Minecraft: Java Edition".
They've split the community and shown clear hostility to people who aren't using Windows. What more do you need to conclude that Microsoft is "destroying" Minecraft?
There used to be a game called Minecraft. It was written in Java, and was the same on Windows, macOS and Linux (and any other platform with a Java runtime). People on all platforms could play the same game with each other. They also made a C++ reimplementation of Minecraft – codenamed "Bedrock" – which they used for the console and phone editions of Minecraft.
Eventually, they released a "Windows 10 Edition", based on the Bedrock code base. This version is incompatible with Linux and macOS, and can't play multiplayer with the Java client.
Later, they renamed the Java client from "Minecraft" to "Minecraft: Java Edition", and renamed "Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition" to "Minecraft". They also started railroading buyers towards this game formally known as "Minecraft: Windows 10 Edition".
As a result, the definitive version of Minecraft, the version someone gets if you just tell them to "buy Minecraft", does not work on Linux or macOS. If you're a Linux or Mac user, and you want to play Minecraft with a friend who uses Windows, you're probably going to find that their game is incompatible with yours. Because as a Linux or Mac user, you don't get to play the version branded as simply "Minecraft". You're off in your own separate world, playing the incompatible game known as "Minecraft: Java Edition".
To add insult to injury, there's nothing technically preventing the game now known as "Minecraft" from working on Linux and macOS. "Minecraft Education" is a product based on the Bedrock code base which is available on Linux (well, ChromeOS) and macOS.
For what little it's worth, the community has created a plugin for Java edition servers called 'Geyser' which allows bedrock clients to join an java edition server.
(Microsoft obviously have no intention of bridging this divide, but hobbyists manage to do it for free...)
That plug-in helps if you're a Minecraft player and want to play with your friends who play on a Minecraft: Java Edition server with that plug-in. It doesn't help if you're a Minecraft: Java Edition player and want to play with your friends who play Minecraft.
Basically, it just further solidifies Minecraft players as the first-class citizens of the community and Minecraft: Java Edition players as second-class.
I did not mean to insinuate that playing multiplayer between Java and Bedrock was possible at some point. I mean to say that playing multiplayer "Minecraft" between Linux, Windows and macOS was possible, but is no longer possible, since "Minecraft" is now a product which doesn't work on Linux and macOS.
If you don't see how what I described could be characterized as "hostile", you've either misunderstood something, or we have a different understanding of what "hostile" means.
A company takes a game that had a very lively multiplayer community, replaces the game engine that was based on software that could run on any platform as long as it supported Java to .NET where the only possible platform is Windows. Take everyone who has ever purchased the game and force them to migrate their accounts to a Microsoft account in order to continue playing, then intentionally make the two versions of the game incompatible just to force people to play a watered down "definitive edition" that still lacks many of the features that allowed the community to thrive in the first place while issuing all these updates that essentially equate to "spyware".
Yes, I think the word you are looking for is, in fact, Hostile.
Nitpick: Bedrock edition uses C++ not .NET. Either of these could support Linux in principle (as noted, Bedrock edition runs on ChromeOS over a Linux kernel), but Microsoft doesn't care to facilitate that.
No, it's not the word _I_ am looking for. They still release and support Java Edition. Thereby supporting those users. Therefore, decidedly _not_ hostile.
I could be wrong but IIRC the chat moderation can not be disabled on a per server basis. Microsoft forces it onto every server and if your account is banned because of something you said on one server you won't be able to join other servers, even those you run yourself.
This was exactly the point of the outrage, servers ought to be able to opt out of this system but they can't. There are mods [1] that server admins can use to remove the chat message signatures, players are powerless if they strip the signature that certified ever message they send, vanilla servers will block them by default and prevent them from joining.
It is true however that there wasn't really the wave of false positive bans happening that the community was expecting. At least as far as I'm aware.
I run a server. Chat signing isn't enabled. Upon login, the user sees a message along the lines of "chat can't be verified on this server." Reporting doesn't work. Everything else works just fine.
Since the feature has been implemented can you point to a single case in which Microsoft "got it wrong?" I'll even be generous and include the entire year prior to java's chat signing in which the feature existed on bedrock.
Spoiler: you can't because that scenario doesn't exist. It's a FUD bandwagon argument, nothing more.
> I run a server. Chat signing isn't enabled. Upon login, the user sees a message along the lines of "chat can't be verified on this server." Reporting doesn't work. Everything else works just fine.
This is how outrage spreads on the Internet, through "very online" communities, and gaming tends to have a lot of them. People who have an axe to grind against X (big tech company, a streamer, a game, etc) exaggerate the truth and make lots of paranoid points. These communities tend to be very big about solidarity so everyone else in the community parrots the message and through a game of telephone fake rumors whip up outrage.
It happens on HN a lot these days too on pretty much any Big Tech related topic.
Let's actually give some context to the chat moderation issue rather than just your hearsay on the matter that dismisses without any consideration one side of it in favour of Mojang.
1. Chat moderation is *required*, unless you modify the vanilla game. There is no toggle for it on vanilla. You can choose to not enforce it for clients connecting to your server, but if they are a vanilla client they will sign chat regardless.
2. The initial wording of the rules that could result in a permanent ban, were incredibly loose & vague, allowing for bans for things such as swearing or alcohol/drugs, regardless of player age / legal status in their countries.
This was something the community was able to change through pressure and the "outrage" you belittle.
3.
> ...and the mindless recitation that it would lead to widespread abuse and false-positive bans. It didn't.
The reason it didn't was that since this community has a pretty tech-savvy sub-community of modders, we pulled apart that section of the code to examine it.
And what we found was horrifying from a security standpoint.
Your message is signed by you (sig psuedocode in brackets):
"Want to play a round of spleef?"(JohnCrafter)
"Sure"(jahsome)
Nothing, absolutely nothing in those initial few snapshots, ties your "Sure" to the context of a spleef match, or any proceeding chat.
So with a burner account, one could change it to:
"The gays sure have ruined America, they must be purged."(BurnerAccount)
"Sure"(jahsome)
It took several more snapshot releases before they started to actually implement a chain of context with signing, where one could prove what you replied to, or that a report had be adulterated.
Again, psuedocode for how it's signed now after the "outrage":
"Anyone selling saddles?"(TexRanger)
"Want to play a round of spleef?"(JohnCrafter+saddleMessage)
"Sure"(jahsome+saddleMessage+spleefMessage)
4. The planned release schedule, and the "community consultation"
Something that seems missed to the history books, is that the development cycle for this was going to be one snapshot, one pre release, then release (In total, 2 weeks for community at large to see and respond before it's live to all)
That seems, rather short compared to most other previous releases that featured such a big feature? If it was adding emojis, sure. But a signature system, and full reporting framework?
Turns out, from leaks, they had consulted a very, very small subset of the community under NDA on a private discord for about a year...
And it instead took 8 weeks to be launched. Due to the above mentioned issues with both the vagueness of planned rules, and the severe holes in the implementation as well as debate over the "stigmatization" being applied to unsigned chat messages.
One should also factor in that at this time, a prominent content creator within the community died. Which is never going to go well for "emotional stability" with young fans and likely contributed to some of the vitriol thrown about.
The Java community where much of this stemmed from, also has some trust issues with Mojang/Microsoft over previous debacles such as the ownership of Bukkit, and licencing around obfuscation mappings that were presented as a "here, use these to help with modding" but licenced very much more as a "look, but don't you dare touch".
And finally, Mojang had been, having issues shall we say, with their content release schedule up to that point (tl;dr the "Caves & Cliffs" update was understandably split in two during the start of the pandemic, but then further features from it slipped to the Wild update which even before chat reporting, had it's own drama surrounding "removed content" and reasons given by Mojang for it). Mojang had "used up" a lot of community goodwill before dropping a controversial feature in.
This in no way excuses the doxxing and personal attacks/threats levelled at the employees of Mojang. It was abhorrent and detracted from getting the real issues with this release/feature, resolved.
But at the same time, claiming it was all hysterics washes away alot of the problems with how it was implemented, and the sheer lack of consideration for the optics of adding a feature quickly with little to no public consultation, on a game that has been "public" in it's development for years.
I just don't understand the entitlement present. It's a 10-year-old game. To receive any update should be lauded by the community. To dictate the development cycle of those updates is... pretty odd to me, especially from a hn reader.
Entitlement is something that could perhaps be leveraged at the "drama" around the initial release of 1.19, with the removal of two fairly prominent "promised" features in the eyes of the community (a birch forest rework, and an ambient firefly mob) and reasons given were..
subpar in the community's eyes ("concept art is not a guarantee", while true, was worded quite poorly. And the firefly's removed because some IRL are poisonous to frogs, a mob also added in the update.. they had this same issue with chocolate cookies and parrots years back, and both of those are in the game and done in a way to educate players.. they could have just made them not eat them, and give players who search for why a mini biology lesson, as they seem to want to do extracurricular stuff about mangrove swamps already..)
And I did not dictate development cycle... I discussed how they had had issues with the preceding updates to chat reporting, compared to before caves and cliffs where feature creep/scope had not exceeded their capacity to deliver. This was certainly before chat reporting, the main gripe and meme of the community (wild update being memed as caves and cliffs part 3... Etc etc)
And then pointed out the rather concerning, expedited release schedule, for a feature was both poorly communicated, and poorly implemented both in policy vagueness and security issues. Fake security is worse than no security as it induces complacency.
> To receive any update should be lauded by the community.
Patently false, if I worked at Roblox, and updated it to mine crypto, or access the webcam so marketing could run facial emotion analysis on the players... Well that's an update to a game, why are you looking so angry?? It was a free update.
There was a para/social contract between the community and mojang, it was strained by external forces before the chat report update, and broken by it.
We see the fallout of it with the latest update, mojang are much more quiet about features than previously until they are practically finalised.
Not all updates are good. If it seems like a company is going to publish an update which will break the product for a lot of people, there's nothing wrong with pushing back against it. There is no moral imperative to be thankful that a product is receiving updates regardless of the content of the updates.
AFAIK the chat reporting systems aren't enabled on servers like 2b2t (not least because 2b2t runs an ancient version of minecraft, but also because servers that want to opt-out can do so using mods or plugins which disable the system, or by enabling "offline" mode.)
Nevertheless, it's a very troubling development and is the main source of my concern for the future of Minecraft. I find Microsoft's excuses for this system wholly unconvincing; Minecraft became the most popular game for all ages despite lacking such reporting systems for years, so obviously it isn't necessary. This reports system is another datapoint in the trend of software corporations going on authoritarian power-trips.
not in my experience.
const (the only playable anarchy server) is as vile and wild as ever and nobody got banned AFAICT.
2b was hot trash for a long time now and it mostly serves to fuel hauses raging coke addiction
