Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Minecraft Creator Notch's $70 Million Mansion Recreated In Minecraft

Posted by samzenpus on from the almost-like-the-real-thing dept.

theodp writes In case you've fallen behind on your TMZ reading, Minecraft creator Markus "Notch" Persson used his Microsoft money to outbid Beyonce and Jay Z for the most expensive mansion in Beverly Hills. Now, the Minecraft mogul's new $70 million mega-mansion has been recreated inside the game that made him rich.

11 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. Waste by nmb3000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    23,000 square feet, with 15 bathrooms and eight bedrooms

    It's his money to spend and I wouldn't stand in his way, but what a waste. Makes you wonder what kind of good could have been done or how many lives could have been saved with that $70 million.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
    1. Re:Waste by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Makes you wonder what kind of good could have been done or how many lives could have been saved with that $70 million.

      It's not like he's throwing bills into a fire. That money goes back into the economy which is good for everybody, and its recipients are still free to spend it on whatever good deeds they want.

    2. Re:Waste by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How much good? None... If he gave $70 million to charity, it would do no good. It really doesn't in the long run...

      So you feed a bunch of starving children? Great, now they just grow up and have more kids, who also need to be fed. It is a self-reproducing problem.

      Until people learn how to take care of themselves, giving them charity just makes the problem bigger, not smaller.

      This is why we still have homeless people. Oh sure, some of them are homeless via no fault of their own, but most aren't.

    3. Re:Waste by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, my logic is perfect, your heart is speaking, not your brain... Your feelings don't override the facts, as much as you might not want to hear it.

      Whatever percentage it is, it doesn't matter. Even if it is only 10%, if you feed them, you just end up with more of them.

      Look at the billions and billions and billions that have been sunk into Africa... still for the most part, a crappy sinkhole of money and poverty that isn't getting better. It will get better when they pull themselves up and actually start improving their own lives.

      A crazy amount of money is given to charity every year, and yet the problem doesn't go away. It really is as foolish as the war on drugs is.

  2. I don't get it by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After 8 years of onsite computer repairs, I have a deep insight into this sort of thing. At my company we have a nickname for people who make $10,000 a month and have $5,000 of it go to their 5000 sq ft mansion. They're "poor people living in a big house." Why the hell do people spend that much money on a house? If I won $200,000,000 in the powerball, I'd buy a 3000 sq ft house. Then I'd spend the rest on awesome stuff. Who the hell wants a giant house like that? Plus, that's how NFL players keep going broke. You know if you make it to the NFL or make Minecraft that you're making a ton of money ONCE. Like one and done, surprise you're poor. I'd hoard that money like crazy and budget it out over 100 years. What and idiot.

    To anyone about to say real estate is an investment, go look at his electric bill, cleaning bill, and property taxes.

    1. Re:I don't get it by ProzacPatient · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and property taxes.

      Pretty much this for *alas* you unfortunately never really own your property but basically lease it from the government so people who come into a lot of money always go and get the biggest house they can afford but forget that they have to pay property taxes on that multi-million dollar mansion.

      I do have to say though, in my opinion, that if you're going to invest your money somewhere the best place to put your money into is property, not multi-million dollar homes but acres upon acres, for land rarely ever loses value but usually appreciates value because of the limited supply whereas a swimming pool of cash just inflates and loses value.

    2. Re:I don't get it by queazocotal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You can't drive your house around" - and here is where your ambition fails.
      Several tens of large rocket engines, and sure you can.

    3. Re:I don't get it by Andrio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are right on most things, however this put up a red flag for me:

      "Then I'd spend the rest on awesome stuff."

      Keep this in mind: Poor people spend their money on consumables. Middle income people spend their money on liabilities they think are assets. Rich people spend their money on assets that make them money.

      Most "Awesome things", like cars, boats, electronics, etc, lose value pretty fast (Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, those were the first things that came to mind when I read "awesome stuff"). Eventually, you'll lose all your money. If I won 200 Million, I'd probably spend a tiny portion of it on buying nice houses for myself and my family, and use the rest to buy things like boring stock in boring companies. Boring, but secure companies that have been around for a hundred years and have offered dividends for decades.

      --
      The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    4. Re:I don't get it by the_B0fh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      75mil is how much of 2.5bil again? 3%. Much less than the 25% you are wasting.

  3. And I should care, by fredrated · · Score: 2, Insightful

    why?

  4. Re: Waste (teaching kids about the 'rich') by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fault is that your argument builds a straw man that the wealthy do *no* good by holding/using wealth, but that isn't the argument. The argument is that they do relatively little with that wealth. One two million dollar car churns the economy, as in, provides jobs, taxes through fees, etc, much less than one hundred 20 thousand dollar cars. A similar thing could be said of a house. A 70 million dollar house doesn't generate 100x the economic activity of 100x 700k dollar houses. Partly this is because many "premium" materials don't generate more economic activity than less premium materials at a fraction of the cost...but the increase in cost is due to rarity and desirability only. Another part is that high priced items tend to require a one team work longer rather than more teams work, concentrating the transfer of wealth rather than spreading it out over broad actors who can trickle wealth down much faster and efficiently than a few who have a large share of it. The idea of "trickle down" is valid, it does happen, but it is more like accidentally watering some plants from a leak in water tank rather than watering a field with irrigation. And when your goal is to grow a crop like an economy, relying on minimal rainfall and tank leaks just isn't a productive way to go about it, as our Norse neighbors have shown.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);