Nelson needs to add an EULA

EULA stands for End User License Agreement, just to clarify.

It’s basically just a document saying “hey, you cant do this with our game” and Minecraft has one. If you’re not familiar, the EULA in Minecraft states that servers can not profit off of their own game. This protects Minecrafts own interests, as they don’t want unfair servers with pay to win (p2w for short) ranks (ie, you pay the server 40$ and get a god kit with armor and commands other people who dont pay dont have) to ruin the experience of their game.

Why should Nelson care to add one? With an EULA all server hosters would have to agree to it, and if it were similar to Minecrafts EULA you wouldn’t be able to create or run a server without agreeing to it (when you try to run an MC server for the first time a .txt pops up with EULA=false in it, and you have to change it to EULA=true)

Once you agree to it, it would be your own fault if you choose to violate the EULA and make your server P2W. From there Nelson could choose to “blacklist” big P2W server networks off the master serverlist (the serverlist everyone uses in Unturned) effectively ruining a servers populaton - and therefore the server will loose profits and etc - which in turn would force the server to make their ranks non-p2w or die off as a network

And guess what happened in Minecrafts scenario? Mojang threatened to make most of the biggest server networks cease and desist “If we do not hear from you within 7 days of this email, we will have to write to you more formally and that may lead to more formal measures.” effectively making all of the extremely popular servers step down, and replace their P2W ranks with cosmetic perks and things that don’t give you game advantages.

What is minecrafts criteria for a p2w server? Some of them goes as follows -

  • Some rank perks affects gameplay.
  • Some items in the store affects gameplay.
  • In-game currency is available for purchase.

Why would this be a good thing to do in Unturned? P2W servers are running rampid in Unturned. I have an entire webpage dedicated to showcasing P2W Unturned servers and it takes me a good 5 or so seconds to load because of how many servers there truely is. Removing P2W servers would make the overall experience better for all the players of Unturned and reduce the amount of server hosters that come to Unturned simply to turn a profit - very much how Bitcoin Miners move to towns with low electricity costs and provide very little back to the community.

Plus Nelson doesn’t want P2W. If he wanted P2W then why wouldn’t he want to add it to the core game? He could’ve added P2W things to the game, such as the ability to spawn in servers with a specific kit of sorts, and he would benefit / make money off of this. But he has not done such a thing. Why wouldn’t he do this? :thinking:

So to recap
1 - Assuming Nelson doesn’t want P2W in Unturned
2 - P2W ruins the player experience
3 - All of this is perfectly possible to execute, it just needs Nelson to take action and actually do it
4 - P2W servers do not make up a lot of the serverlist. So servers that refuse to comply would be forgotten as there would be tons of other servers to choose from that are fair and non-p2w.
5 - Even if a server chooses to continue being p2w then thats fine. You may still connect to such servers through IP and Port if you really wanted to. You just wouldn’t be able to find them on the master serverlist.

The goal here is to make all servers more fair by force, as server owners will not willingly make their servers fair for all players. And bear in mind Unturned is a free, blocky game. It attracts a lot of kids that have no idea what p2w is or why it’s bad. Which is why Unturned is such an easy cash-grab for server hosters to get into. It’s incredibly easy to make and host a server in Unturned compared to other games (ex Minecraft takes around 4GB’s to run a decent 24 slot server, while Unturned would only take around .5GB to 1.2GB’s of RAM)

This post was made a while ago on the steam forums. A lot of people on there said things about Nelson couldn’t do such a thing. But in recent months when Nelson introduced the server browsers little image system people created a bunch of fake servers with lewd imagery on them. Nelson then added a black-listing system to the master serverlist and can now effectively blacklist servers from appearing on the serverlist. So yes, Nelson could do this if he wanted to in 4.x


Does Nelson have a lawyer?

I’m sure he could get one.

The problem I see with this is mostly based on server networks. In minecraft, there are large networks like mineplex or high pixel that have tons of players on them, with mineplex at this moment being a 8,000 and hypixel at 19,000. Considering today there are 11,000 people playing unturned, there is alot of money in the buisness of running minecraft servers, atleast until the EULA dropped. I stopped playing minecraft a very long time ago, so I peeped how these servers are still running and hosting over 20k people, and all of their income comes from cosmetics it seems.

In 3.0, most servers have a maximum of 24 players, which will probably greatly increase in 4, but no one really knows anything yet so Im just assuming we could possibly be seeing 50 player servers. How many of these people would seriously consider paying for something completely cosmetic? Something that straight up doesnt matter outside of supporting the server. On some random minecraft hosting site it says that 2 gigs for a server costs 10 dollars, so if 1/50 people playing on a server decided to donate 10 dollars, which I doubt they would, this would be understandable, but I seriously doubt that unturned (knowing its fanbase) would donate money to a single server that might just randomly shut down for no reason.

Also if p2w is running rampant how can it not take up a large part of the server list :thinking:

Good post though, I would be fine with it, but I feel like it would kill off server networks, for the better or for worse. This could also incentive people to use nelsons planned realm like feature, which would help him fund public servers, which I am all for.

I’m fairly certain that an EULA wouldn’t be necessary to blacklist servers from the server browser, but it would be necessary to take legal action against p2w servers.

You know Rain, this is actually a great idea.

I believe (well, backed with some facts) your points ring true, and I’ve seen your points directly
I was once a clansman, when that was a thing, and I know some perfect but sad examples, also general experience

One thing to add, maybe the community can report some of these to him but not easily visible, so those in the know can

Have a volunteer to help, or something.

But yes, I support this.

1 Like

I don’t see any reason for needing a lawyer.

Does it matter? If people appreciate a server they’ll donate to it, nomatter what perks it gives. TBH I’ve donated to tons of non-p2w servers just because I appreciated the fact they’re not p2w, while on the other hands I’ve never p2w’d or donated for kits or etc in return.

Good servers are the ones like mine. Where people actually get the money to buy parts and make a machine dedicated for hosting servers. These are the kinds of people we need, people that aren’t just gonna vanish overnight because they pay a renting service and ran out of money to pay.
TL;DR Good servers don’t rely on donations.

I used that more in the way of how most people would view p2w. IE, the server is rediciously unfair because of p2w. A lot more servers are less noticeably p2w, we all have our own interpretations of what would be considered p2w. I just consider any advantage given for real money p2w, such as a kit that gives you canned beans every year for 1 cent IRL. Which would definitely include around, I’d say, 10-30% of servers.

Server networks that come to reap money from Unturned. Again, theres tons of different servers to play that aren’t P2W, it’s just that a lot of the Youtubers and Streamers get ‘bonuses’ for playing on such servers (I’d go as far as to say they’re paid to play them, but thats just my own speculations). And those streamers / YT’s bring tons of players onto such unfair servers. Mainly kids that will blindly follow such people and again, don’t understand why p2w is bad.

I actually dislike the idea of public servers. In the end I think it will only promote the idea that community-servers should be P2W because “they need the money” and that “if you want a fair server experience then buy the gold upgrade and play official servers”. Something along those lines, if you know what i mean.

I think ‘legal action’ would require a lawyer, something that would be expensive and not worth nelsons time. Blacklisting a server from the master serverlist (which is where most people find their servers) would be much easier, quicker, and very effective.


I think Nelson could put one or two people in charge of finding big p2w networks and just having them talk with the owners of it informally through their discord or steam, etc. If they refuse they can simply write to nelson the IP and have it blacklisted. Maybe not exactly like this, but something kinda like it.

Thanks for understanding :slight_smile:

Nobody writes an EULA without legal counsel. Even if they did, the EULA doesn’t do anything without at least the threat of legal action. An EULA doesn’t do anything in and of itself it’s just something that lawyers can use leverage as leverage when going to court or negotiating out of court settlements.

1 Like

OK. Maybe not like, an official EULA enforced by rule of law. Maybe just a informal warning of sorts. It’s not like nelson needs a lawyer to blacklist a server off the master serverlist. The stuff that mojang was doing was literally like next-level blacklisting, since there was no serverlist (you have to join through IP and Port). So they were literally going to shutdown their operations in a more direct way than just preventing their server from being found on a serverlist.

Now, I’m not really a lawyer or know anything about laws and stuffs. Hence, graverobber is my part time job but I think this is a good and bad idea.

Now, started with the good side.
If EULA were to be added. This would prevents many of the copycat from making income from those game at the very least.

This would discouraged some of the bootleggers. But some of them can stole the game’s concept without the needs of income. Rather it’s a fame they seek for. So they can just say “I got the idea from this game. But hey, I didn’t steal the game. Or earns any incomes from it” (Which could be a genuine answer. But let’s be honest here. It’s unlikely.)

Also. Technically with EULA. Nelson can file a claim to ask for removal of the game that’s violated Unturned’s EULA (if he wants to. Which is still unlikely.)

Now let’s talk about the bad side.
This thing will caused the P2W servers to likely shutting down. (As you’ve stated) but that would also mean that the server’s income (not just P2W servers) will also be affected. As all of us know most of the unturned community are… little kids. And half of those have… at some point, stole their mommy’s credit card. In which if they no longer able to say. Spends their unrightfully earned money to their favorite servers. They will quit. When they quit. The server will be shutdown. Yadiyadidah less players. Less income. Boom.

Not this might not be the case. Because by far, I rarely see any P2W server lasted that long anyway. So I don’t really see EULA to be that useful. Rather I would perferred Copyright law instead.

You shouldn’t burned your house down to just get rid of one mouse. You shouldn’t just add EULA to just pissed off some P2W servers. (Maybe… it’s your competitors. Just a theory.) When EULA can actually do more than that.

1 Like

Instead of banning p2w servers just don’t play them 🤷
What did these servers do to you? Some people apparently enjoy playing them and while I don’t understand why I don’t see any problem with it simply because I am not willing to play on one.

If P2W servers are allowed to live on like this unimpeded, then they will continue to dominate the server list and give a bad impression of what Unturned is supposed to be - a survival game. New players that first load up the game are only going to see a wall of Rocket servers and think that this is what Unturned is about, just mindless PvP. Therefore, the P2W Rocket playerbase is only going to grow, while vanilla, which doesn’t get much attention, will continue to shrink. So we need to take action in order to filter out all the bad and “naughty” Rocket servers, leave the ones that abide by the rules, and promote vanilla servers, so that more people actually play the game how it’s mean to be played, kind of like Social Engineering.

If Nelson wants to actually make the game a survival game, he will need a EULA to combat the Rocket servers, and he will need to work on vanilla to make it a better experience and promote it more.


(Replying to OP since that’s easier than being specific.)

My opinion on adding a EULA aside, I’ve read a lot of the posts that support it and a some of them are anti-PvP or anti-Rocket, not anti-P2W. If you’re supporting it for your own personal biases and preferences, then I think you’ve missed the point.

And since this shouldn’t be about opinions and biases:

You’d probably want a lawyer whenever you make a legally binding contract. Nelson probably has a lawyer already, tbh. I don’t see why he wouldn’t have one already, and I don’t see why he wouldn’t use one.

Yep. It’s Nelson’s game. He can blacklist any server whenever he wants. An EULA allows for more easily pursuing legal action, and it helps justify any particularly controversial blacklistings.

Bad example. Not because it’s part of your personal core philosophy and thus doesn’t really apply to others as easily, but because it doesn’t seem like this would apply if every publicly playable server is non-P2W.


tl;dr of above (and rest of Loz’s post): an EULA isn’t something you make purely for control over community servers. It’d also likely help discourage other issues.

It may be easier to understand if you understand why some people are against aggressive anti-consumer lootbox practices. I think that’s a fair comparison when discussing “just don’t mess with them.”

Everyone has their own opinion of P2W. Not all of them remove the “survival” to most people.

Opinions that have no relevancy.

Seemingly baseless opinions and reasoning. EULA does not equal survival game. RocketMod does not equate to non-survival.

So for Unturned II, is the term “Rocket server” just going to become “modded server” when servers aren’t as dependent on a core plugin framework and repository, and can instead just use mods for most of their gimmicks?

Of course, my question doesn’t “debunk” your point or anything like that, but this seems anti-Rocket more than it seems to be in the best interests of others.

And as already stated by OP, what constitutes as “P2W” and to what extent it’d not be considered it are just opinions. Policing based on opinions doesn’t work well, so any internal or public criteria list that is made should be comprehensive.


What I meant by “Rocket Servers” is Rocket Servers that utilize kits, vaults, economy, home or TPA. I think that was pretty clear.

That description doesn’t change my point.

1 Like

The plugins that I mentioned almost certainly equate to “non-survival”
And what’s P2W and what’s not is very clear. Whatever you pay for to get an advantage that others don’t is P2W, no matter how small or big the advantage is.

EULA = No Rocket Servers that sell OP kits, vaults and unfair advantages.
Also, nobody said EULA = survival game Molton, you’re strawmanning.

And the plugins that I mentioned, again, "almost certainly equate to ‘non-survival’ "

Going to go with false. You very clearly made an “if/then” statement in your post, referring to “if” Nelson wants a survival game, “then” he needs to combat rocketmod by adding an EULA. Rather, your second point is much more important to actually making the game more survival focused.

1 Like