Gaming needs to Evolve
"Gaming Needs to Evolve"—The Case of Minecraft Under Microsoft
If there’s one phrase that has been beaten to death in the gaming industry, it’s “gaming needs to evolve.” It’s the go-to justification for corporate meddling, live-service monetization, and questionable decisions that nobody asked for.
Let’s take a look at Minecraft, a game that started as an indie passion project by Markus "Notch" Persson—a simple block game loved by teenagers, young adults, and anyone who enjoyed sandbox creativity. Then came the Microsoft buyout, and things started to change.
Microsoft’s "Evolution" of Minecraft
Before Microsoft’s acquisition, Minecraft had a simple charm: No intrusive monetization, no forced online services, no arbitrary content policing. You bought the game, you played the game. Simple.
But once Microsoft stepped in, the evolution began:
- Forced Account Migration – Players were forced to migrate their Mojang accounts to Xbox Live, or risk being locked out of their game. If you refused? Well, too bad—buy the game again. Imagine purchasing a game a decade ago and then being told, "Yeah, you still own it, but you can’t play it unless you do what we say."
- EULA Enforcement and the New "Usage Guidelines" – Microsoft turned Minecraft into a brand, meaning that anything damaging their "reputation" was now against the rules. Who decides what damages their brand? Their EULA enforcement team, of course! Because a faceless corporation always knows best.
- Monetization Restrictions – Before Microsoft, some servers were basically worse than EA, charging players for in-game items, XP boosts, or access to specific game modes. Notch himself admitted that it was a mess:
Microsoft’s response? Instead of taking a balanced approach, they dropped the hammer—now, you can’t charge for anything that affects gameplay. Donations? Allowed. Advertisements? Fine. But charging for in-game currency or perks? Absolutely not. This killed off many custom server ecosystems that relied on creative monetization to survive."Some privately run Minecraft servers do charge for in-game items, for XP boosts, for access to certain game modes. Some of them even charge quite a lot. [...] This was never allowed, but we didn’t crack down on it because we were constantly swamped in other work."
"But We’re Not EA!" – The Corporate Excuse
Notch, despite being long gone from the company, chimed in on the backlash:
"A lot of people voiced their concerns. A few people got nasty. Someone said we're literally worse than EA."
The irony here is that EA is known for milking games with aggressive monetization—whereas Minecraft’s problem became corporate control and restriction. Instead of "pay-to-win" scams, Microsoft dictated what server owners could do with their own communities.
The Bigger Picture: Corporate Takeovers in Gaming
Minecraft is just one example of what happens when a player-driven game falls into corporate hands. The "evolution" they speak of isn’t about improving gameplay—it’s about:
- More control over the user base
- More restrictions on community freedom
- More ways to enforce brand-friendly behavior
The same thing is happening elsewhere. Look at Blizzard—once a beloved studio, now a corporate shell pumping out Diablo Immortal microtransactions. Look at Ubisoft, where “evolution” means the same open-world formula copy-pasted across every game.
At this point, "gaming needs to evolve" just means "we need to squeeze more money and control out of players."
Conclusion: Sometimes, Evolution is Just a Cash Grab
Minecraft didn’t need to evolve—it was already a cultural phenomenon. What happened was corporate intervention disguised as "progress." Players who once had full control over their experience now have to jump through hoops just to access the game they paid for.
So next time you hear a company say, "Gaming needs to evolve," ask yourself—
Are we talking about actual innovation, or just another way to control and monetize players?
Because as we’ve seen with Minecraft under Microsoft, not all evolution is good.
