What's your view on it?
Obviously it's less legitimate if you rugpull access to the existing base game or if your original OS project marketed itself as being always free everywhere...
Personally, I started playing Mindustry using the free version. I enjoyed it and started playing it with a friend. Keeping my version up to date was _just_ annoying enough that throwing the developer $6 (USD) to not start each game session with 20 minutes of fiddling with software versions was worth it. I really liked that it's free and open source AND I really appreciated the easier to use option once I decided that I like this particular game.
So giving people the option (free & manual, or token payment and Steam makes my life easier) is actually a really nice, appreciated option for players. Or at least, appreciated by this player :)
Plenty of copies of games get charged for by people with no connection to them at all. Asking for a non-required purchase as the creator of software shouldn't feel weird.
Plus you'll be providing and updating the Steam release de facto providing nominal support. That's not free.
> you own any IP not covered by copyright
How does this actually work? Game has a MIT license. I thought that meant that the brand and the art was also under MIT. I'm clueless about this stuff btw.
However, even if that wasn't the case i think it would be fine. If I contribute to a BSD licensed project, i shouldn't be mad if someone ends up selling my code.
So as long as the license permits it, I think it's generally fine. Otherwise, what's the point of the license?
As long as the game is freely available to fulfill copyright license clauses, I don’t think people would mind.
Steam makes it easier for people to keep updated and allows them to support the creator. People who can’t afford that can still download independently.
This seems like a win for everyone.
Think Dwarf Fortress, but your source code is open and always free.