not to pick on you man, but there’s a lot of revisionist history here. Minecraft was a high value, high minded, cultural force before Microsoft ever took a look at it. It was a deep thing, it had a big following, and it was heavily protected by the guy who made it. There was no BS. This generated conventions, cult followings, minor worship. The guy was elevated to the level of kernighan/ritchie/carmack/etc etc. Which became a problem for him in the age of internet culture, he had no stomach for it.
It’s true, by that time the guy had sort of run his creative course with the game. He was very protective of it, it was his baby. If he had been able to weather the popularity-storm and resulting negative focuses, if he had been a different person, it would have gone down differently.
Microsoft did three things.
(1) Add some (serious marketing) breadth with bringing Mincraft to wider and wider audiences, education editions and all sorts of tie-ins. Microsft has access.
(2) Unmake the product with a highly developed store and monitization. The protections for the game were off and done with. This was both bad and curious, even if it was ugly as sin there was a hosepipe of ideas. It was very chaotic.
(3) Eventually roll back the prostitution of the game with the more recent windows PC editions that pushed control back to players.
It has not been pretty. But it worked out ok in the end.
The problem here is that Minecraft isn’t Warcraft. MC is a much more simple thing and much harder to screw up. It has a easy structure bedrock idea base that they could go back to and build on. Warcraft … is much harder to distill and the customers are (lets face it) highly emotional and there’s deep competition in the field.
Whatever the ride is, it’s likely not going to be pretty. There’s always some slick talking preecher-charismatic-executive waving the idea of more revenue streams around who has just enough pull to rewrite the scheme.