I wish it were remarkable. Companies discontinuing support for older authentication methods for software that runs completely on the desktop seems to a totally normal if depressing part off using software these days.

I miss the "good" old days when I just had to fight with authentication keys, keeping the right CD-ROM/DVD in the drive for a game to load, and maybe the occasional physical dongle for expensive specialized software.

They’re transitioning everyone to the account system that will exist perpetually and have given lots of warnings; how is that breaking a deal? Software buyers expect to own the license forever, not necessarily to prove ownership the same way forever. I have several old licenses that are accessed through a different system now but still get me what I bought.

Yeah, except that if the migration process doesn't work for some reason, you have zero recourse. Mojang/Microsoft tech support is apparently extremely uninterested in helping people who bought a supposedly "perpetual" license a decade ago. (Or at least, extremely unreliable at doing so.)

After not playing the game for a few years, I tried to migrate my account back when they first announced the migration. Emails from their "password reset" button never arrive, and every time I go through their support ticket system, all they tell me is that they "can't verify my information" -- even though I still have the same email address I signed up with, and the original PayPal receipt. But they won't tell me what other information they want, so I guess I'm SOL.

That definitely sucks. I saw some other reports in this thread that Microsoft phone support can fix problems with the email/account connection flow. Maybe that’ll work for you. I’ve had to call MS to fix Office 365 problems before at work, that shouldn’t have been a problem. Calling can bypass your ticket system status if you escalate.

It is transitioning to a Microsoft account, right? Does a Microsoft account have another set of terms and conditions you have to agree to? If so, they’ve broken the old deal and added a new one you have to agree with.

I don’t think that’s a common expectation either. Even when software doesn’t change ownership, terms of ongoing use will change periodically. You can avoid this with some kinds of software by keeping an old version downloaded. With other kinds, like one that requires a login to validate a perpetual license, it’s not possible. I understand being dismayed by it.

Why is it not possible?

Because logging in is baked into use of the software. You can't just store a fully functional offline version of Java Minecraft, at least not without mocking all the server responses it needs (not a meaningful option for most people) or the cracked version that pulls out account features (piracy, an option for slightly more people.)

Aah, OK, I thought by "you" you meant Microsoft.

Based on the downvotes you weren't alone. :)

No not really. If they uphold the old agreement under a new set of terms then it’s kind of like switching an already-drunk person from Ketel One to Bacardi Silver.

I don’t follow the analogy. These are different types of alcohol. Neither is spectacular.

The old agreement included the old terms. There’s no such thing as upholding an old agreement under a new set of terms. That’s just a new agreement.

Is the analogy that the person probably won’t mind a slight decrease in quality because they are already drunk?

Maybe the drunk analogy was dumb. I mean practically no ToS in existence has language saying “these terms are set in stone forever and will never change.” Rather they generally stipulate that the terms can change given some kind of reasonable notice period.

This can be done without breaching any existing agreements if whatever being offered under new terms is a commercially-equivalent substitute for the old thing (such as switching from a Mohammed login to a Microsoft Account)

> uphold the old agreement under a new set of terms

If they change the terms its no longer the old agreement.

The article-- even the title-- says last call. Mojang changed the locks, and they're telling the subset of users they're about to throw away the only mechanism to swap keys from the old system. Any real-world analogy would illustrate the policy is incompatible with any sort of perpetual right of access. I actually think it's Microsoft taking the reputational hit.

That’s consistent with what I wrote but I won’t rehash. I agree Microsoft should take those hits. (Count me as one who wishes Mojang had never sold, for multiple reasons.)

> how is that breaking a deal

Because not everyone with a Mojang account can migrate to a Microsoft account. They require you to reverify your email address that you originally used maybe 10 years ago, which Mojang never required for login. A lot of longtime players perma lost their accounts when they forced this transition.

Also, even if it works, the migration is a major pain that nobody asked for. First migration was Minecraft.net onto Mojang, and that was a lot more ok.

>Software buyers expect to own the license forever, not necessarily to prove ownership the same way forever.

Because the license doesn't give them the right to revoke it if some arbitrary account transfer isn't completed by an arbitrary deadline.

>I have several old licenses that are accessed through a different system now but still get me what I bought.

Cool story bro.

It does, unfortunately. Standard software terms have had most strong licensee rights ironed out of them for years now, and they were only accidentally present (from the perspective of the vendors) due to imprecise wording and implicit agreements in the first place.

I bought the game in 2011 (iirc), I guess they could justify this with the "Other" section of the terms of use [1]:

"We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time with or without notice, with immediate and/or retroactive effect."

No idea if this is enforceable in the US/EU.

[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20111002140457/http://www.minecr...

I feel like that’s one of those things that people write thinking they can just put whatever they want in a contract.