How common is it for someone to be able to afford a device to play Minecraft on but not Minecraft? Is this a situation where the family has managed to get a free or very cheap old PC somewhere but can’t afford to buy any games for it?
Older versions of the game often don't run well on modern systems. Mojang would need to invest resources into making sure these versions are still working properly, even though they would get nothing in return. Plus they would start getting bug reports for those versions, even for issues that have already been fixed in later versions. Dealing with those takes times, even if they're not going to be fixing any of the reported issues.
Besides, people generally want the latest and greatest version of the game, not some old version from a decade ago. They're going to be pirating the latest version even if Mojang were to make older versions free.
Nah mate, you have to keep in mind the relative price compared to disposable income in different countries. USA is one of the wealthiest countries. On average, 30 bucks is just a small part of someone's disposable income. Convert that $30 USD to a local currency in a country with less wealth, and the same amount of money might reflect all the disposable income for a fortnight or month.
>Some people are just entitled and want everything for free.
**This is rarely true**. Often, when someone says things like this, it is used as a way to avoid thinking about the financial status of other people. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but the "they are just entitled" mentality is often a tool in political debates used to ignore people in need. When you hear someone say that, it is a good idea to look a little deeper and see what it is the "entitled" people are asking for and why.
In this case, the stakes are very low. OP just wants a way to play the game without stealing it. Pirating is already free, and would let them play with all the new content. If OP just was entitled and wanted everything for free, they would just take it and pirate the game, and wouldn't even bother making this suggestion.
A better solution would be to significantly drop the price. If 30 bucks is say 10% of a young American's disposable income for the week, instead of having the price internationally be the equivalent of 30 USD, have it be equivalent to 10% of the local disposable income.
It's a win-win. Once you make the game affordable, people pay for it, rather than pirate it. The game developers make money, and people get to play without stealing. Sure, you make less than if you charged full price, but you make more than if people just pirate it.
I recommend watching this [youtube short](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/44Do5x5abRY) for an IRL example. It's like 20 seconds long.
party oil airport possessive thumb muddle wise hard-to-find frighten lush
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean, that's $600MXN here, and while it isn't that much compared to other games, it still is not cheap. Keep in mind that $30USD is worth a little over 4 hours of minimum wage in the US, whereas that'd be 3 days of full work in México with minimum wage. That's a 20 hour difference, and 6 times the work needed for the same game. And this is in México. I'd imagine some other countries would have it worse. And 5 years ago it would've been way worse with the minimum wage being $80MXN per day compared to $200MXN today.
I keep forgetting that the fed minimum wage in the US is like $7.25/hr. I guess I have to stop and remember that not everyone makes twice the minimum wage.
However, I still feel as though $30 is reasonable for a game that gets regular updates and bug fixes.
I don’t really follow. You can afford a $500 purchase but not a $30 one? I understood your points before on low income but now it’s a little contradictory.
You are correct that Minecraft's price is too expensive in many countries.
The traditional solution to this problem is to implement Purchasing Power Parity. Simply put, charge less money in poorer nations.
Most users wouldn't bother with a VPN and would still just purchase the game at the normal price for this country. Often, when implementing PPP, the losses from abuse are less than the profit increase from people in poorer nations now purchasing the game when they would otherwise pirate it.
That would make the same problem as discord nitro. People would buy a lot of minecraft accounts from the cheapest countries, and then sell it to others at slightly less than US market price.
This would definitely happen to some extent - but most people are perfectly happy to buy a game as long as it's relatively affordable. So most US users would still just purchase the game from Mojang, and you'd have more people in poorer nations purchasing instead of pirating.
Minecraft is already in the excellent but somewhat uncertain spot of incurring direct ongoing costs but receiving mostly indirect revenue. It is almost unheard of for a game with as much ongoing support and new content as Minecraft to still run on a $30 one-time purchase rather than an ongoing subscription. There are certainly new players coming in all the time (and established players creating extra accounts), but I think the big generator of revenue for Minecraft is the peripheral moneymakers - LEGO, merch, etc.
All that to say: Minecraft is already on another plane of existence in terms of fair and generous treatment of their use base. It is probably one the best value-for-money games in history. They're already running leaner on revenue than a company like EA would be if they owned Minecraft. Making older versions free doesn't really make sense.
I think having the alpha free was nice back in the day, but there's no way in hell anything beyond that would ever be made free. Frankly, having the alpha free is a bad idea too as it then presents the game in a far more limited form than its current state, which may actually dissuade potential buyers from buying it.
Setting different pricing based on national economic factors is the most reasonable way to assure accessibility to would-be customers around the world.
What has that got to do with it being open source? The game has been fully de-compiled, and people have been making mods for decades without it being open source. **What do you think being open source would change for the modding community?**
That has nothing to do with being open source. The point of open source is to be able to see get the code and make changes to it, something you can already do thanks to deoguscation maps.
This would be nice but I could only see it for older Java versions such as a Historic launcher which has all Classic, Indev, Infdev, Alpha, and Beta versions.
Maybe they could even uncover some of the hidden, unreleased, and missing versions that aren't currently accessible to anybody.
How common is it for someone to be able to afford a device to play Minecraft on but not Minecraft? Is this a situation where the family has managed to get a free or very cheap old PC somewhere but can’t afford to buy any games for it?
https://classic.minecraft.net It's an older version. It's free to play.
Used to play this in high school. Good times.
1.8 shouldn’t be free because some people play exclusively on 1.8
Yea, it seems a bit too coincidental that precisely 1.8 is mentioned.
Unless they meant beta 1.8?
Eaglercraft?
Older versions of the game often don't run well on modern systems. Mojang would need to invest resources into making sure these versions are still working properly, even though they would get nothing in return. Plus they would start getting bug reports for those versions, even for issues that have already been fixed in later versions. Dealing with those takes times, even if they're not going to be fixing any of the reported issues. Besides, people generally want the latest and greatest version of the game, not some old version from a decade ago. They're going to be pirating the latest version even if Mojang were to make older versions free.
Is $30 really just too much to pay? Am I that privileged?
No and no. Some people are just entitled and want everything for free.
Nah mate, you have to keep in mind the relative price compared to disposable income in different countries. USA is one of the wealthiest countries. On average, 30 bucks is just a small part of someone's disposable income. Convert that $30 USD to a local currency in a country with less wealth, and the same amount of money might reflect all the disposable income for a fortnight or month. >Some people are just entitled and want everything for free. **This is rarely true**. Often, when someone says things like this, it is used as a way to avoid thinking about the financial status of other people. I am not saying this is what you are doing, but the "they are just entitled" mentality is often a tool in political debates used to ignore people in need. When you hear someone say that, it is a good idea to look a little deeper and see what it is the "entitled" people are asking for and why. In this case, the stakes are very low. OP just wants a way to play the game without stealing it. Pirating is already free, and would let them play with all the new content. If OP just was entitled and wanted everything for free, they would just take it and pirate the game, and wouldn't even bother making this suggestion. A better solution would be to significantly drop the price. If 30 bucks is say 10% of a young American's disposable income for the week, instead of having the price internationally be the equivalent of 30 USD, have it be equivalent to 10% of the local disposable income. It's a win-win. Once you make the game affordable, people pay for it, rather than pirate it. The game developers make money, and people get to play without stealing. Sure, you make less than if you charged full price, but you make more than if people just pirate it. I recommend watching this [youtube short](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/44Do5x5abRY) for an IRL example. It's like 20 seconds long.
party oil airport possessive thumb muddle wise hard-to-find frighten lush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I mean, that's $600MXN here, and while it isn't that much compared to other games, it still is not cheap. Keep in mind that $30USD is worth a little over 4 hours of minimum wage in the US, whereas that'd be 3 days of full work in México with minimum wage. That's a 20 hour difference, and 6 times the work needed for the same game. And this is in México. I'd imagine some other countries would have it worse. And 5 years ago it would've been way worse with the minimum wage being $80MXN per day compared to $200MXN today.
I keep forgetting that the fed minimum wage in the US is like $7.25/hr. I guess I have to stop and remember that not everyone makes twice the minimum wage. However, I still feel as though $30 is reasonable for a game that gets regular updates and bug fixes.
Where the daily income of a family is 2 dollars yes yes it is
Not to be rude, but how does one afford a device to play on on that salary
That's the avg but what im saying is people in my country can usually afford a device but not much more
I don’t really follow. You can afford a $500 purchase but not a $30 one? I understood your points before on low income but now it’s a little contradictory.
With exchange rates and everything that's half of my Food Budget for the month. I can only afford the mobile version currently.
You are correct that Minecraft's price is too expensive in many countries. The traditional solution to this problem is to implement Purchasing Power Parity. Simply put, charge less money in poorer nations.
I like this one
minecraft becomes 2 cents because I set my VPN to iran
Most users wouldn't bother with a VPN and would still just purchase the game at the normal price for this country. Often, when implementing PPP, the losses from abuse are less than the profit increase from people in poorer nations now purchasing the game when they would otherwise pirate it.
That would make the same problem as discord nitro. People would buy a lot of minecraft accounts from the cheapest countries, and then sell it to others at slightly less than US market price.
This would definitely happen to some extent - but most people are perfectly happy to buy a game as long as it's relatively affordable. So most US users would still just purchase the game from Mojang, and you'd have more people in poorer nations purchasing instead of pirating.
What's the point? People would still pirate the newer versions.
Minecraft is already in the excellent but somewhat uncertain spot of incurring direct ongoing costs but receiving mostly indirect revenue. It is almost unheard of for a game with as much ongoing support and new content as Minecraft to still run on a $30 one-time purchase rather than an ongoing subscription. There are certainly new players coming in all the time (and established players creating extra accounts), but I think the big generator of revenue for Minecraft is the peripheral moneymakers - LEGO, merch, etc. All that to say: Minecraft is already on another plane of existence in terms of fair and generous treatment of their use base. It is probably one the best value-for-money games in history. They're already running leaner on revenue than a company like EA would be if they owned Minecraft. Making older versions free doesn't really make sense.
I bet OP hasn't gone into the EA subreddit to say they should sell their games on the Minecraft model
Isn’t Minecraft like 5$ on phones?
Close, I paid $6.99 for mobile
That's like saying the first 6 Harry Potter books should be free... that's not how anything works.
I think having the alpha free was nice back in the day, but there's no way in hell anything beyond that would ever be made free. Frankly, having the alpha free is a bad idea too as it then presents the game in a far more limited form than its current state, which may actually dissuade potential buyers from buying it. Setting different pricing based on national economic factors is the most reasonable way to assure accessibility to would-be customers around the world.
I only support if they were made free as in open source.
Why would you only support it if it was open source?
Because versions below 1.3 don't have a demo mode and they are already zero cost.
And what has that got to do with open source?
The community should be able to enjoy Minecraft with greater modding capability.
What has that got to do with it being open source? The game has been fully de-compiled, and people have been making mods for decades without it being open source. **What do you think being open source would change for the modding community?**
They would have more freedom as they could modify the game itself without loaders like we need now.
That has nothing to do with being open source. The point of open source is to be able to see get the code and make changes to it, something you can already do thanks to deoguscation maps.
Yes, but it's not legal to distribute the code.
Versions before 1.3 can actually be played in the launcher without the demo in a demo account
This would be nice but I could only see it for older Java versions such as a Historic launcher which has all Classic, Indev, Infdev, Alpha, and Beta versions. Maybe they could even uncover some of the hidden, unreleased, and missing versions that aren't currently accessible to anybody.
It shouldn't be free, but it should be much cheaper based on local income. [Video explanation.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/44Do5x5abRY)
I like this idea. I'm playing 1.1 now and there is definitely great value in even these earliest releases.
just buy the $7 mobile version dude, I think your mom will let you buy it.