this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
182 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

30557 readers
29 users here now

From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!

Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.

See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lonewalk@lemm.ee 111 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Godspeed Godot, fuck every single tech company enshittifying the whole sector to hell.

[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Godot developers created a new business entity that will facilitate porting games to closed platforms.

[–] atocci@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was going to say, I know Cassette Beasts released on Switch and it uses the Godot engine, so there's no way it doesn't support consoles.

[–] sandriver 3 points 1 year ago

Also, Sonic Colors on Switch used Godot code in violation of the license, whoops.

[–] 520@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They support dual licensing for this very reason.

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How does that help if there's no engine support?

[–] 520@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] 520@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] taanegl 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You're still going to need them to sign your binary for the console to recognize it as legit.

Circumventing the official path worked back in the 80s and 90s, but modern consoles and their SDKs were designed with those lessons in mind.

[–] 520@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's still valuable information for those that would seek to load homebrew (unsigned code) onto their systems.

Console security is one of those things where every additional barrier helps. The goal isn't to outright prevent homebrew or piracy but to limit the scope of breaches and delay them as much as possible. Even modern consoles like the Switch and PS5 are not immune

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm all for Godot getting better; that said, has Epic, Open3D, or Crytek made similar moves?

(I know Crytek isn't much of a player currently, but as someone who's been following them closer in recent years, it really seems like they got their house back in order)

[–] jackoid@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

I think epic made their engine more appealing by waiving some Epic Games Store charges for Unreal games. And had a no fee until 1m earnings thing. Not this kind of shit.

[–] derin@lemmy.beru.co 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

All the people here are missing the point.

Unity is an engine primarily used by mobile app developers; it's their biggest market. Indie game developers are basically just collateral damage, for this kind of a pricing change.

Mobile apps are all about massive scale (millions of installs) and ungodly amounts of revenue. They're going after large mobile developers, not small studios. (I'm not saying small studios won't get affected, I'm saying Unity is focusing on the big dogs - potentially at the cost of pissing off unrelated folk for no financial reason)

The per install costs don't kick in until you've made half a million dollars in revenue, and a certain number of installs.

Also, you literally can't build these apps with other engines as ad network integrations don't exist for them. So it's not like anyone has a choice: it's Unity demanding to be paid more as they're the only viable player in the industry.

Makes good business sense, though I think they should increase the revenue point of the free and personal tier to a million as well, just to put the minds of indie devs at ease. No point freaking out unrelated people.

Signed: an ex-mobile game developer.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Makes good business sense

I would never call such horrifically predatory tactics “good business sense.” It’s abuse of market position and should draw the ire of antitrust regulators, as well as make their product a major business risk for any new projects.

Let’s not forget that Unity recently merged with a malware company, so borderline-illegal predation is their entire business strategy.

[–] derin@lemmy.beru.co 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Let’s not forget that Unity recently merged with a malware company, so borderline-illegal predation is their entire business strategy.

No, they merged with an advertising company - you know, the same companies with which they're close enough to have plugins for. It's about business; who you talk to, who you have deals with.

I would never call such horrifically predatory tactics “good business sense.” It’s abuse of market position and should draw the ire of antitrust regulators, as well as make their product a major business risk for any new projects.

It is good business sense. The engine has relatively little value, it's about what software stacks it integrates with, plus the ease of use for making exports to the two platforms that matter (Android and iOS). There's a reason Unreal doesn't even exist in this space, even though it's technically capable of running on these devices.

Again, this is not the industry you're thinking of - it's the mobile industry, which is less about game development and more about having millions in your war-chest (usually from a few VCs) that you can spend on your marketing budget. If you can't market, you're dead in the water.

The entire industry is built around ads in games and traditional social media.

Things like this will stop happening if:

A) People become less susceptible to predatory marketing.

B) Another game engine developer decides to undercut Unity while at the same time offering similar platform targets and SDK integrations.

(There's also a thing to be said about hiring, where all new mobile-game devs learn Unity - as it's become the de-facto standard for getting a job in this industry. Any new player would need some big names to adopt them first to make a push for people to learn the tools, not hobbyists.)

Barring that nothing will change.

Also, there really aren't "new" projects in this field - you rarely see scrappy upstarts succeeding in the mobile space, just jaded veterans undercutting their old studios by offering their VCs (or new, hungrier VCs) a bigger cut of the pie. Also, studios with private chefs, massive salaries, and cult-y work spaces that look like adult playgrounds.

[–] belated_frog_pants 12 points 1 year ago

"Good business sense" = they are greedy shits. Fuck them. I wont ever praise any company for cash grabbing. I dont give a fuck if their shareholders get richer.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 36 points 1 year ago

You don’t have to use our advertising service. In unrelated news, we’re raising prices for everyone not using our advertising service.

[–] tominator@lemmy.sdf.org 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So, can I buy the game once, then keep reinstalling it over and over to fuck the developer up? That's dumb.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tominator@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

It'd be some API call regardless, if you can figure it out you don't even have to actually reinstall it, just call the endpoint correctly. Use a botnet to do it so it's harder to detect as fake (there are already preexisting solutions for that) and bam, you can probably make at least a dent in their revenue.

[–] gonzoknowsdotcom1@monero.town 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Isn't Godot primarily a 2D tool? Is it really a suitable replacement for Unity?

[–] wolo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago

Godot's 3D is perfectly usable in my experience, it's been a while since I've used Unity though so I can't tell you how they compare.

[–] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

That was correct about maybe 5 + years ago. However, particularly the latest 4.x builds, the 3d is top shelf. It won't beat unreal, but it's 3d capabilities are better than most people's ability to use them.

[–] atocci@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

How's the performance?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] insomniac_lemon@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Have you seen Godot's releases after 4.0? Particularly the SDFGI feature?

[–] WagesOf@artemis.camp 24 points 1 year ago

I can't wait to have steam charge me $1 every time I re-download a unity5 game. MS should follow suit and force you to pay $1 a pop for each directx install. Which would actually be more like $80 because it loads every patch and version in order on every install.

Fee per download for a game framework that packaged into the download that they have no part of distributing? I hope this is the most recent example of a successful tech company commiting suicide, it really is the best theme this year.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 22 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Why didn't humanity collaborate on a free and open source game engine already? It works with OS kernels, then why not game engines?

[–] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 50 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's called Godot. It is basically on its path to becoming the Blender of game engines.

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 2 points 1 year ago

Ironically Blender also has game engine features, though I don't think anyone ever used it as such.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Adramis 32 points 1 year ago
[–] EvaUnit02@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

In addition to the mentioned Godot, Monogame is available as well.

[–] KRAW@linux.community 5 points 1 year ago
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] elouboub@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Shhalahr 19 points 1 year ago

Talk about rent seeking behavior.

[–] Pichu0102@raru.re 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@chloyster So if I want to reinstall a game I have to decide if it's worth making the dev pay more money due to my game reinstall or install on another device? Is that what I'm reading?

[–] Pseu 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The most they'll have to pay is 20 cents. And that's only with the 200,000th to 210,000th download for developers who are using the free version of Unity (provided that the developer is also making more then $200k/yr in revenue). After that, the developer will probably get Unity Pro and the download fees will start up at $1 million/yr in revenue and more than 1 million downloads. At that point, I don't think that the 15 cents to 0.1 cents that will be charged will hurt too badly.

[–] ampersandrew@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Unless there's a coordinated effort by a fanbase to install the game over and over again because the game asked you for your preferred pronouns or some nonsense. Or maybe a pirated copy of the game still phones home to Unity and charges the developer. There are a lot of ways this could be problematic.

[–] NuPNuA@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

One Dev have already pointed out that they have a Unity based game due next year they've already contracted to game pass, so that's 20 million odd subs who'll have access to try the game, where as they didn't negotiate with MS on the price knowing this clause was coming.

[–] EvaUnit02@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I guess good luck to the mid-size developers who take service deals, then.

[–] Skyline969@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pap1rus@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

It's like unity is promoting godot engine in a suicidal way.

load more comments
view more: next ›