Godspeed Godot, fuck every single tech company enshittifying the whole sector to hell.
Godot’s only issue is the lack of console support, but that’s because they can’t get the licenses as an open source project.
They support dual licensing for this very reason.
How does that help if there’s no engine support?
It essentially allows for special closed source builds. These closed source builds can have the engine support for consoles and still be in keeping with Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo’s licenses.
I didn’t know that. How do the developers get access to these builds? Are they sold? Or do they need to build it themselves?
So, basically the console manufacturer gives you the SDK, integration code, etc after you sign their NDAs. After that, you can either use what they gave you to port it yourself to that console, or you can pay someone else for their build.
https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.2/tutorials/platform/consoles.html
This, right here.
Hey EU. How about lowering that barrier to entry by pumping a couple of million Euro’s into cold-room reverse engineering the API’s and developing an open source alternative that can be distributed freely.
We’ll invite Sony lawyers, Microsoft lawyers, watch them cope and seethe as their framework is made more open…
…aaaand then realising that a lot more people will take the shot to pay for actual licensing. Go figure.
I am not sure this is something other engines even offered at this level, but my issue is bindings support.
3.X had (3rd-party) production-ready bindings, even for niche languages.
4.X, with hopes of improving support for compiled languages, has a new bindings system meaning that all bindings need to be redone as a new effort. This happened with the language that I’m interested in, the group that made the production-ready 3.X bindings abdicated the crown and there have been splintered efforts by individuals to work on 4.X bindings.
So it (3.X vs 4.X) is language vs engine features. When/if 4.X bindings do come out, it is not known how similar they will be so (aside from non-Godot-specific code) that will likely add complication to it as well.
I don’t really care about consoles (needing to jump through hoops to develop for it is one reason) so a different potential issue would web export limitations. Both for different languages and for visual quality (AA). Those were issues in the past, though I’m not actually sure where they’re at now (the 4.1 docs do say you can’t have C# web exports in 4.X).
deleted by creator
It’s not even another CEO, it’s the same old: EA’s former CEO John Riccitiello.
I wonder how people expected anything else…
deleted by creator
It would stem the migration from Unreal if they just matched their pricing structure and access to the code base underneath.
You don’t have to use our advertising service. In unrelated news, we’re raising prices for everyone not using our advertising service.
So, can I buy the game once, then keep reinstalling it over and over to fuck the developer up? That’s dumb.
For those on Unity Personal or Unity Plus licenses, the fee will kick in after a project crosses both $200,000 in revenue over 12 months and 200,000 total installs.
It has to cross both the revenue and installs not just not 1.
Yeah, but when they reach that limit, it says it’s gonna cost $0.20 per install. So can I reinstal the game 1 000 000 times to accumulate $200 000 of costs?
Even so, after they hit the limit, if the game costs $20 I can reinstall the game just 100 times so the developer doesn’t get any profit from that sale.
I guess that when they hit it. Reinstalling the game will generate costs so the revenue is now lower than $200 000, so it doesn’t work. But that just means that we can effectively limit the developer to $200 000 revenue.
Why didn’t humanity collaborate on a free and open source game engine already? It works with OS kernels, then why not game engines?
It’s called Godot. It is basically on its path to becoming the Blender of game engines.
In that case, this unity price change may be the company giving up, knowing that they will be eaten by open source soon
Definitely not, they’re huge. They even purchased Weta digital recently (lord of the rings animation company). The’re going nowhere fast. They’re just eeking every little cent they can out of every little crevice of their offerings.
Godot?
In addition to the mentioned Godot, Monogame is available as well.
Talk about rent seeking behavior.
I love it when companies start hanging up their noose and tying it around their necks. Hopefully they get to the point where they’ll jump from the hill they chose to die on.
It’s like unity is promoting godot engine in a suicidal way.
Personally I’m still a fan of GameMaker. Pay for the tool, use the tool, pay literally nothing else even if your game is the next Minecraft.
Downside is it’s 2D only, but that’s fine for my preferences.
Good coverage here as well https://kotaku.com/unity-engine-subscription-cost-unreal-godot-indie-dev-1850831032
