Is this gonna turn into a Mojang/Minecraft hate thread?
I don't think discussing the Mojang development process, pricing model, and past games (which this game is continuing with) is off-topic. Especially since at this point there's not much info on this besides "It'll be priced and made like minecraft, heres a list of things i might possibly try and get into the game if i can get round to it."
I regret my purchase. Once mods are fully supported by Mojang, I may rethink that. This makes me very wary of anything Mojang does. I will probably ignore the company for awhile and then come back to this topic to compare release with the original goal list. Half that list is likely to be ignored.
A fair chunk of Mojang's millions is from toy-related sales to the under 16 year olds that seem to think Minecraft is the be all end all of gaming. /sigh
I don't regret buying it (I got it when it was dirt cheap), but I don't know anyone who would pay 20 quid or whatever they're charging nowadays. The game is buggy and unfinished and definatly not stable or finished.
I love how people instantly jump at the BILLIONS OF DORRA COMPANY bangwagon, without actualy thinking about how much that represents on an economical scale.
Nitpicking aside, notch is going to use the same pricing model because it worked for him with minecraft. Even if people don't like it, notch got a lot of reliable practically confirmed buyers for this, he has the whole minecraft fanbase. Even if it doenst turn out to be a game worth half a dime, it'll still inevitably sell because it is going to capitalize on minecraft's fanbase (or rather, notch's fanbase).
As long as it sells, its a valid pricing model in an economical sense.
It's not a bandwagon, it's the expectation that a company with 80 million dollars could hire translators, or have a QA department, or fix the bugs in their game, or not try to present itself as some dude working out of his mums basement. I don't really know much about economics so please ellaborate on this economocal scale thing?
Noone said that the pricing model wasn't valid economically.