Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

blender.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 261 posts

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#121

Post by Mathnerd314 »

Impossible wrote: post #69
groovybits wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"“Open tools, libraries and platforms are critical to the future of the digital content ecosystem,” said Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games." Contradictory sentiments like these are what lead me to believe this grant is mostly for marketing purposes. (tin-foil hat mode)

There is a future where in the long term Unreal Engine (and maybe Unity3D as well) is FOSS in the same way that browsers are. Epic's business model would have to move away from engine royalties, which currently depends on the success of their store or potentially lasting longevity and growth of Fortnite.

Unreal Engine kind of already is open source, for weak definitions of open source: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/ue4-on-github

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#122

Post by n3k5 »

groovybits wrote: post #32
Andrex wrote: post #29

In the spirit of supporting open software, it would be fantastic if Epic Games Store and its DRM warmed up to Linux next. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19844241

"“Open tools, libraries and platforms are critical to the future of the digital content ecosystem,” said Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games." Contradictory sentiments like these are what lead me to believe this grant is mostly for marketing purposes. (tin-foil hat mode)

Epic Games are infamous for opposing openness in various forms. (Buy these games … only on the Epic Games Store. Install this spyware … no, you can't see the source code. Use any current OS you want … as long as it's from Microsoft.) Supposing that some of the ulterior motives behind this grant are questionable does not seem overly paranoid.

However, I don't see the contradiction in Sweeney's statement. One can appreciate the advantages of open tools, libraries and platforms, and still want to publish a proprietary game on top of that technology.

It's kind of like an omnivore chef joining a forum full of vegans to work on improving seasonings for braised veggies. They might not be pleased when they find out that she wants to make a side dish to be served with steak; but that in itself doesn't mean her goal is exploitation or sabotage, rather than mutually beneficial cooperation.

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#123

Post by creato »

soup10 wrote: post #115
icebraining wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here seems to be the opposite, no? He made a move against his old company.

The existence of GIMP doesn't really make less people use Photoshop. The same is true of Blender and Maya.

Because it kind of sucks in comparison. Epic is trying to make Blender better.

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#124

Post by Faark »

dleslie wrote: post #109
icebraining wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He never call Win32 an "open standard." He calls it an open platform , or open experience , which he means anyone can build win32 games and distribute them on their own. Using the word "standard", which he never does in that article, is quite misleading.

I don't think it's worthwhile to split hairs over standard/platform; I've heard Win32 called both, many times, by respectable sources. As it is, he argued that Win32 is more open than UWP or Android; regardless of whether you think the API is a standard or a platform.

His statement is definitively true on the software distribution side. Google wants every App installed via play store and now even Microsoft Office is only available there. Classical Windows on the other hand allows Chrome to be installed without MS acting as gatekeeper.

Yes, it's not totally black and white. Android does kinda allow side-loading with shitty usability. MS did start its own store and lets not get into telemetry. Classical windows still gives the user a lot of control, though.

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#125

Post by iamcreasy »

binthere wrote: post #40

As someone who's done lots of Blender work as well as Maya and integrations with Unity and Unreal Engine, I still think there's quite a long way to go to make Blender a good option for game development. It's free, it kind of works but it's very painful when it comes to animation, texturing, and details. Right now, this is what I usually do: - Basic Modeling: Blender - Sculpting + Details: ZBrush - Painting: Substance…

Could you please explain what Blender is not good at animation? What major features are missing?

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#126

Post by bhouston »

MikeTheGreat wrote: post #96
chipperyman573 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood when important people force deals with companies they used to work at. He doesn't work for Autodesk any more, why would he care how well they're doing? Is he being paid by autodesk? I mean I know he might be friends with people from those companies still, but he's actively hurting his own company by making these calls.

The person is probably most familiar with their former products and can both advocate on merit (i.e., they happen to know about obscure features that no-one knows about for other options) and is more comfortable for them. Knowing people (and being their former boss) probably helps them out, too, which makes it easier to pull things towards their former projects). But yeah - it doesn't seem like this should happen as…

Just to be clear, I was making the point that Marc is making a move against his former employer Autodesk by funding Blender like this.

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#127

Post by Godel_unicode »

n3k5 wrote: post #122
groovybits wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"“Open tools, libraries and platforms are critical to the future of the digital content ecosystem,” said Tim Sweeney, founder and CEO of Epic Games." Contradictory sentiments like these are what lead me to believe this grant is mostly for marketing purposes. (tin-foil hat mode)

Epic Games are infamous for opposing openness in various forms. (Buy these games … only on the Epic Games Store. Install this spyware … no, you can't see the source code. Use any current OS you want … as long as it's from Microsoft.) Supposing that some of the ulterior motives behind this grant are questionable does not seem overly paranoid. However, I don't see the contradiction in Sweeney's statement. One can appre…

> Use any current OS you want … as long as it's from Microsoft.

..or Google or Apple. Or Nintendo. Or Sony.

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#128

Post by Havoc »

noahster11 wrote: post #43
Andrex wrote: post #29

In the spirit of supporting open software, it would be fantastic if Epic Games Store and its DRM warmed up to Linux next. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19844241

The anticheat they use (EAC) for fortnite checks if Wine is in use, and will fail to run the game if it is. This is taken directly from the EAC dll: https://i.imgur.com/a4wBVWz.jpg

Can't say I blame them.

Linux is ridiculously powerful & versatile as I'm sure we all know...and having that much opportunity to mess with all the net/visual/input subsystems in a way the game can't even see (since it's trapped in WINE) is a major issue cheat wise.

Not ideal but I can totally see why a company might from a practical/commercial point of view just block it outright. Especially given player numbers of WINE players vs upsetting your entire user base due to cheaters.

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#129

Post by dleslie »

Faark wrote: post #124
dleslie wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's worthwhile to split hairs over standard/platform; I've heard Win32 called both, many times, by respectable sources. As it is, he argued that Win32 is more open than UWP or Android; regardless of whether you think the API is a standard or a platform.

His statement is definitively true on the software distribution side. Google wants every App installed via play store and now even Microsoft Office is only available there. Classical Windows on the other hand allows Chrome to be installed without MS acting as gatekeeper. Yes, it's not totally black and white. Android does kinda allow side-loading with shitty usability. MS did start its own store and lets not get into…

I would not claim that any of Android, UWP, _or_ Win32 are open.

Re: Epic Games Supports Blender Foundation with $1.2M

#130

Post by gmueckl »

Mathnerd314 wrote: post #121
Impossible wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a future where in the long term Unreal Engine (and maybe Unity3D as well) is FOSS in the same way that browsers are. Epic's business model would have to move away from engine royalties, which currently depends on the success of their store or potentially lasting longevity and growth of Fortnite.

Unreal Engine kind of already is open source, for weak definitions of open source: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/ue4-on-github

That's not Open Source as defined by the OSI. You can't redistribute source code and commercial use requires paying license fees to Epic (5% of revenue). So just don't get the wrong idea about that license, please.

With UE4 they have created an engine that was extensible only via C++ and via their graphical scripting language. With the notorious instability and incompatibilities of ABIs of different C++ compilers, Epic didn't have a lot of options other than releasing the engine source so that their customers could recompile the whole engine with a single compiler version. And with Unity eating away at the indie market at that time, Epic needed a successor to the free, closed source UE3 UDK to keep a foot in that market. I don't think that Epic had a lot of other options at that point.

Post reply on HN