Report: Unity's Runtime Fee quietly gave exemptions in launch rush (www.gamedeveloper.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Goronmon@kbin.social to c/games@lemmy.world

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] hiddengoat@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

You know what else isn't there yet? Unity, Unreal, Source, CryEngine... literally every commercial game engine requires development if you're actually looking to push hardware limits. They're just toolboxes.

Godot is no different, except that developers are going to be much more likely to release their changes publicly.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Godot is fantastic, it's where blender was in 2007-8 and it's super exciting.

It's nowhere near the same level as the contemporaries yet. You can't even build for console right now and have to hire third parties to port.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

Keep in mind that the console makers likely don't want too much of their SDKs to become part of Godot's open codebase. They license it to publishers who promise them that they won't divulge important IP.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

keep in mind that unreal engine is also open source. Epic just has a system where if you get the go-ahead from a console maker, and they can confirm that, then you get access to the parts of the engine that connect to the console SDK's

if you are an indie dev today, you can get the go-ahead from sony/nintendo/whoever and launch your UE/unity game on those platforms without much fuss. if you have a godot game you have to contact a third party porting house and ask them to port the game to those consoles. those companies have already made the godot hookups into platform specific SDK's but you still have to contact, and licence them to do this, if they accept working with you.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

The problem is that Godot is FLOSS. Unreal is missing the free (as in freedom) and libre part.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

kinda, its MIT so it's not free. I can, for example, change a bunch of godot. release my changes in binary only form and you can't demand the source from me. I mean you can but i've no legal compulsion to do that.

[-] Goronmon@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

keep in mind that unreal engine is also open source.

The Unreal Engine is not open source by any reasonable definition of open source. Being "source available" is not the same as open source, as you can't use the code whoever you like.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

you can't use most open source code "however you like" either, they all have licenses. the main restriction with unreal engine is that you can't mix it with copyleft licenses and you can't use it commercially.

but you can do what most people want to do, modify, extend, fix, learn. that's the most relevant thing for what we are talking about here

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

you can’t use most open source code “however you like” either

Alright, sure my language was overly broad. "The licensing is restrictive in a way which makes it clearly not open source." would have been a better choice.

...the main restriction with unreal engine is that you can’t mix it with copyleft licenses and you can’t use it commercially.

So, it's not open source.

...but you can do what most people want to do, modify, extend, fix, learn. that’s the most relevant thing for what we are talking about here

That still doesn't make it open source, mainly because you are missing one of biggest aspects, distribution.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Open source != copyleft. That's free software if you want to go that route.

Also, you can distribute your version, of course you can. Both your changes and binary form. It's just all distributed under epics unreal engine licence

[-] Goronmon@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Also, you can distribute your version, of course you can.

Are you sure?

You may Distribute Engine Code (including as modified by you) in Source Code or object code to a third party who is separately licensed by us to use the same version of the Engine Code that you are Distributing.

Any public Distribution of Engine Tools (e.g., intended generally for third parties who are separately licensed by us to use the Engine Code) must take place through a marketplace operated by Epic such as the Unreal Engine Marketplace (e.g., for Distributing a Product’s modding tool or editor to end users) or through a fork of Epic’s GitHub UnrealEngine Network (e.g., for Distributing Source Code).

So, you can only distribute source to people who are specifically licensed by Epic to use the source. That sure doesn't sound anything like "open source" to me.

[-] echo64@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

you can only distribute your source under the licence of the source code, yes. just like copyleft licences. The whole concept of open source is demonstrably, flaky.

You want it to be a concept closer to free software, I say if the source is open, you can modify it and your changes are able to have an effect then it's open source.

I don't think we are going to resolve this. I would prefer if it was free software but that's not gonna happen for godot or unreal engine