That's one reason it shouldn't be even added to Steam -- it's not going to happen anyway (costs money, hostile to free/libre software). We have a lot of "kids" on servers already, better not add too much of them at once.Mikerhinos wrote:Sorry to raise the topic from the dead, but to get more players, but not too much, and a pretty small n@@b5/kids proportion, isn't it possible to release Minetest on Greenlight but only Linux client/server ?
Linux users are more "this is beta, expect bugs and content in development" aware, and there are more developpers proportionnally than in Windows players I believe.
This would add more players, more devs, without having 1000s of kids coming on public servers bitching about "where are f*cking mobs ?", "omg lag", "that game s*cks so bad, I can't even craft *whatever stuff from MC only*" and destroy game image in weeks (or even days).
Then when mobs will be added etc...add Windows client/server.
No, we can do our own textures if we want. It's not an exact copy. We are not trying to confuse players. A more realistic pack would look more appealing, maybe, but then it wouldn't be the default pack.Mikerhinos wrote:For the patent/copyright problem, I think that maybe change default texture pack could help, because with default apparearance, it surely looks a LOT like MC. Maybe a BD/cartoon look (I love BDcraft pack), or VanessaE more realistic look.
Minetest cannot be sued: it isn't an entity such as a company. Clones of Super Mario exist, they are legal if they don't use the same graphics. Minecraft developers never sued the developers of a "clone" that uses different game media.Mikerhinos wrote:When it will look less than MC it will be harder to sue, because hey, playing a guy that break blocks in an 8-bit look reminds me a lot Mario Bros, Nintendo should sue them ! Plus other free alternatives would look like a lot more MC and they would get sued 1st.