Minetest on Steam?

[LNJ]

What do you think about "Minetest on Steam"? As a free game of course!
I don't know! I just had the idea!

[Nathan.S]

From what I've heard it's not the easiest thing to get something listed on steam, pretty sure they actually charge for it. It's a nice idea, but not sure how practical it actually would be. I feel we'd need to have some better games bundled with the download and we'd have to get the modstore working.

[Kenney]

From what I've heard it's not the easiest thing to get something listed on steam, pretty sure they actually charge for it.

I've got an app on Steam, it's pretty straight forward. You need to make a one-time payment of $100 to get access to Steam Greenlight.
I'm putting my mod Voxus up on Steam once released.

[rubenwardy]

viewtopic.php?id=8321

[philipbenr]

How are the monetary donations to Minetest (if any...) being used? If it is one time payment...

But then again, I don't like the idea of being on Steam very much. Too many trolls.

[benrob0329]

MT on Steam? Wouldn't that be difficult to do legally? As it is LGPL...

[Dragonop]

-1
People on steam are used to bug-"free" games, high quality, etc. Also, Minetest will run slowly to most people if the Steam application is running on the background.
+1 but only when 1.0.0 is released

[ArguablySane]

Steam is proprietary crap with built-in DRM and spyware. Valve promote exactly the opposite values to those of the open source movement and Free Software Foundation and make the world a worse place by existing. If anyone had any lingering doubts, the fiasco with trying to commercialise Skyrim mods (and take a fat cut of profits) should have been a wake-up call.

Minetest doesn't need Steam, and it certainly doesn't need the devs giving a $100 donation to Valve.

[lightonflux]

How does commercialisation of mods worsen the DRM / proprietary issue?

Steam is a non-free platform that is true. But if you want to promote free software, you sometimes have to additionally distribute and advertise it via popular but non-free services. Be it steam, facebook, twitter or twitch.

Several other games already made it into steam, as it provides a bigger audience (which is especially important for competitive games like xonotic or teeworlds) and it's also is an easy way to get automatic updates on the proprietary platform called microsoft windows.

I am sure we have enough windows users that would donate something so they get automatic updates.

But at the current state i don't think it makes sense to release it at steam. MT is just too unpolished.

[AlexYst]

Steam is proprietary crap with built-in DRM and spyware. Valve promote exactly the opposite values to those of the open source movement [...] and make the world a worse place by existing. [...]

Minetest doesn't need Steam, and it certainly doesn't need the devs giving a $100 donation to Valve.

Seconded. I don't know if adding Minetest to Steam would require DRM to be added to Steam-based copies of the game or not, but DRM and proprietary software are things we should be keeping away from Minetest.

Even if we got a bigger audience with Steam's help, we need to ask ourselves: are these new players the kind of audience we want? The people that use Steam aren't likely the kind of people that would appreciate the kind of freedom we have in Minetest, and we might see a degradation in the quality of the community here. For example, we may end up wading through a mod-development subforum where most of the modules forbid commercialism and derivatives or something.

I'm all for expanding the community, but I seriously do not think supporting Valve's nonsense is a good way to go about it.

[4aiman]

@ y.st.
orly?

There's a slight distinction between "using someone's work" and "exploiting someone".
So, do *not* put MT on steam just to exploit others and make money, and all is going to be just fine.
That absolutely does *not* mean MT should be free of charge.
I'd say that's the question of how nice the one who'll publish MT would be.
Maybe someone will want to release his/her mod/subgame as a DLC (free or paid) too.


That being said, make the game free or not but be sure to *not* slide down to exploiting others.
If there's a subgame or a mod included - make some links to the authors, mod thread here (on minetest.net) and do not expect them to do whatever you want to - be ready to pay devs for coding something they don't want.

In other words, "exploiting" is when someone who uses your code tries to use yourself too.
Ppl tend don't like to be forced to do anything (even if they need that too).
So, "not exploiting" is when you fix bugs on your own and let the community have those fixes too and free of charge.


Why buy on Steam?
Well, when one pays for a game he/she expects it to work.
If there a crash - it should be fixed.
But MT engine's/subgames' devs may be too busy/lazy to fix anything and *that is* what for you're charging ppl.


Here's a good example:

I myself have an app based on MT on GooglePlay.
I don't earn much (~10$ per month) with the ads.

But I fix the reported bugs myself or am willing to pay someone to fix something I can't fix (see MT issues @github).
The ones I can't usually originate from C++ code.
The Lua ones are "all mine" to fix.

Moreover despite non-commercial license, there are some mods which were WTFPL from the beginning or became WTFLP upon asking.
I've spent a whole month to contact everyone whose code I use and ask them to provide me some more control over the code.
I've granted the autors of mods to use my changes on the same terms they let *me* to do that - WTFPL.
All just to say "thank you!" with my changes which they can freely use.

It is I who earn money, so it is I who is to give something in return.

I didn't asked anyone to fix anything for free (although I do suggest a lot - just to make everyone notified).
I didn't force anyone to fix anything.
I honour the license - the sources of MT engine is out there on the github under the LGPLv2.1 license.

If there would be a Steam version of MT (even if one will have to pay for it) that would be "ok" as long as those who get money won't try to make slaves of those who actually code.

[AlexYst]

@ y.st.
orly?

There's a slight distinction between "using someone's work" and "exploiting someone".
So, do *not* put MT on steam just to exploit others and make money, and all is going to be just fine.
That absolutely does *not* mean MT should be free of charge.
I'd say that's the question of how nice the one who'll publish MT would be.
Maybe someone will want to release his/her mod/subgame as a DLC (free or paid) too.


That being said, make the game free or not but be sure to *not* slide down to exploiting others.
If there's a subgame or a mod included - make some links to the authors, mod thread here (on minetest.net) and do not expect them to do whatever you want to - be ready to pay devs for coding something they don't want.

In other words, "exploiting" is when someone who uses your code tries to use yourself too.
Ppl tend don't like to be forced to do anything (even if they need that too).
So, "not exploiting" is when you fix bugs on your own and let the community have those fixes too and free of charge.


Why buy on Steam?
Well, when one pays for a game he/she expects it to work.
If there a crash - it should be fixed.
But MT engine's/subgames' devs may be too busy/lazy to fix anything and *that is* what for you're charging ppl.


Here's a good example:

I myself have an app based on MT on GooglePlay.
I don't earn much (~10$ per month) with the ads.

But I fix the reported bugs myself or am willing to pay someone to fix something I can't fix (see MT issues @github).
The ones I can't usually originate from C++ code.
The Lua ones are "all mine" to fix.

Moreover despite non-commercial license, there are some mods which were WTFPL from the beginning or became WTFLP upon asking.
I've spent a whole month to contact everyone whose code I use and ask them to provide me some more control over the code.
I've granted the autors of mods to use my changes on the same terms they let *me* to do that - WTFPL.
All just to say "thank you!" with my changes which they can freely use.

It is I who earn money, so it is I who is to give something in return.

I didn't asked anyone to fix anything for free (although I do suggest a lot - just to make everyone notified).
I didn't force anyone to fix anything.
I honour the license - the sources of MT engine is out there on the github under the LGPLv2.1 license.

If there would be a Steam version of MT (even if one will have to pay for it) that would be "ok" as long as those who get money won't try to make slaves of those who actually code.

I think you misunderstood what I said entirely. The problem isn't the making of money. If someone wants to sell Minetest, they should go for it. I just don't think Steam is a reasonable environment, especially for a free (as in open source) game. The Steam platform is riddled with issues such as DRM, as well as a community built around the noxious platform.

Additionally, by selling Minetest on Steam, we are accepting and embracing Steam, despite it being the awful platform that it is. If a third party were to add Minetest to Steam (similar to how you added an application based on Minetest to Google Play), it would be less bad than if it was added officially. It can't be helped, the license allows it to be done. But if Minetest is added to Steam in any official capacity, I think it would be a serious step in the wrong direction.

[Don]

Minetest is a free open source project. Nobody should be making money off of it. There has been many people contribute to the project. If someone is making money from other people's work, it is wrong and very immoral.

[benrob0329]

@Don, I agree with you. Unless someone says that they want you to be able to sell it, or make money off of it, it just doesn't seem right.

[AlexYst]

@Don, I agree with you. Unless someone says that they want you to be able to sell it, or make money off of it, it just doesn't seem right.

I think the license is a very clear declaration of intent. Minetest has always been under a license that specifically allows sale.

My understanding is that Minetest was originally under the GNU GPL, but was switched over to the GNU LGPL at some point. I suspect that this was done because keeping Minetest under the GNU GPL would have made any proprietary modules (such as any under CC BY-ND or CC BY-NC) illegal. I think the goal was to allow module developers to have more control over the licensing of their own code.

In any case, by releasing their code under the GNU GPL/LGPL, I think the developers make it clear that they want users to have freedom, including the freedom to sell the game.

[philipbenr]

Although, there is no intention of making the original Minetest engine and minetest_game for sale. The devs have already stated that...

[4aiman]

Although, there is no intention of making the original Minetest engine and minetest_game for sale. The devs have already stated that...

+1, philipbenr
And that's one more reason to not turn our backs on Steam.

I think you misunderstood what I said entirely.

I think it is you who misunderstood me.

You've said that Steam users are bad audience.
But here I am, making Minetest better during more than 3 years.

Besides, I've never told you the Steam release should be unofficial.
Only core devs have the right to do that.

My tirade was only to illustrate how positive can any kind of games shop be of help.

I think the goal was to allow module developers to have more control over the licensing of their own code.

And now you fear that Steam will make ppl to shift their choice of licensing towards non-commercial ones?
Well, it seemed to me you feel just like that - that's why I mentioned the fact one should try to ask a mod/subgame author whether he/she wants it to be relicensed in order to be a part of the official package.
It's not that disgusting to have to aks.



Funny enough, the last time someone spoke about publishing Minetest on Steam there was quite a quarrel.
Now the devs seem to be detached from our discussions even more than before.
They just do what they like to.

Maybe they really want money to code smth they don't like?
How about donating to any of the Minetest devs? All of them?
Steam can make that a reality.

Steam users know how good or bad a game can be. I can't see why their "I want you to fix XX because I've payed you" might be wrong.

[rubenwardy]

Minetest on the app store is an official app, loic bloc or what ever is nerzhul, a core dev.

[4aiman]

Minetest on the app store is an official app, loic bloc or what ever is nerzhul, a core dev.

True. Moreover, those can be obtained w/o any payment.
But Android has it's own issues and Minetest is more "beta" there.
It is hard to imagine that it may be sold as is.

PC, however is a whole different thing.
All features are working like those should (locales, libc6, etc), PCs are generally more powerful than your average "chinaphone" with Android "on board".
I'd say it's a good opportunity for Minetest to be able to hit Steam where there is *no* Minecraft (and I doubt threre'll ever be).


TMM, there should be either devs official answer for the question brought in this thread or a poll (if devs don't mind adding MT to Steam but doubt whether the community would support that decision).

[benrob0329]

I think that it would be cool, but Steam needs more open source games, and that may include a change in policy to allow such.