121–130 of 150 posts
So if I wanted to make a simple 2d game, should I go with godot, pygame, or a JavaScript game engine?
Javascript engines are going to be inferior to any proper engine and offer less portability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Godot will get to the point of competing with Unreal, no doubt about it. Especially since Epic do a poor job at making Vulkan renderer in Unreal work well, and Godot invested in Vulkan all the way.
Nah, people will not stop using Unreal because it doesn’t support Vulkan. (Sadly) DirectX 11/12 and Windows is still the standard platform in high-profile gamedev...
Godot did the right thing to completely ignore DX and focus on Vulkan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a unity developer I'm drooling at godot. I can't wait to jump ship to open source. Don't get me wrong unity is great, but godot is super compelling.
I'm someone who isn't at all knowledgeable about game development nor its industry, so forgive my ignorance, but what are you waiting for specifically?
Without going into specifics, I think the problem is that the core team don't actually make games, they just work on an engine, so they don't appreciate the problems that I faced. (The same problem that Unity has, but at least they have the time to listen to devs)
I really want to love Godot. But I worry that the risks are too great to jump from Unity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic paid obscene amounts of money to studios to force them come to their store and force exclusivity on them. They basically exploited their Fortnite money-making machine to try to become a monopoly on PC. How is that not anti-competitive? For reference, Steam has never forced exclusivity on partners to distribute their games. As for cheaper, Epic didn't become they couldn't charge the same. As simple as that.
How is obscene amounts of money forcing anything? This sounds good for developers all around, and a minor inconvenience for gamers who are free to buy from as many stores as they like on PC. Yet could benefit gamers long term as it motivates Steam to be more competitive. Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice.
Indie game studios have a very hard time surviving.
Giving them instantaneous access to a huge pile of money that allows them to declare success even before releasing a project is something most people cannot reject.
> Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice.
That is what they are doing but with game stores. They are effectively buying everything to dry the rest of the stores, reducing other stores choice of customers.
> This sounds good for developers all around
Not really. Devs get money, but they lose the product. Indie devs are not independent anymore. Etc.
If Epic had success building the monopoly, everyone would have suffered, not just devs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is obscene amounts of money forcing anything? This sounds good for developers all around, and a minor inconvenience for gamers who are free to buy from as many stores as they like on PC. Yet could benefit gamers long term as it motivates Steam to be more competitive. Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice.
> How is obscene amounts of money forcing anything? Indie game studios have a very hard time surviving. Giving them instantaneous access to a huge pile of money that allows them to declare success even before releasing a project is something most people cannot reject. > Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice. That is what they are doing but with game stores. T…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is obscene amounts of money forcing anything? Indie game studios have a very hard time surviving. Giving them instantaneous access to a huge pile of money that allows them to declare success even before releasing a project is something most people cannot reject. > Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice. That is what they are doing but with game stores. T…
What monopoly? There is a monopoly today; it's called Steam. It has an immense userbase and plenty of user loyalty; it's not going anywhere. If Epic succeeds, there will be two major stores rather than one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What monopoly? There is a monopoly today; it's called Steam. It has an immense userbase and plenty of user loyalty; it's not going anywhere. If Epic succeeds, there will be two major stores rather than one.
Steam isn't a monopoly though. They don't force exclusivity on their games and many Steam games can be purchased elsewhere (like on GOG).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How is obscene amounts of money forcing anything? Indie game studios have a very hard time surviving. Giving them instantaneous access to a huge pile of money that allows them to declare success even before releasing a project is something most people cannot reject. > Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice. That is what they are doing but with game stores. T…
What monopoly? There is a monopoly today; it's called Steam. It has an immense userbase and plenty of user loyalty; it's not going anywhere. If Epic succeeds, there will be two major stores rather than one.
That is why they have been forcing exclusivity. That is the point: they are anticompetitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epic's store offers a cheaper alternative to a near monopoly on digital game distribution on PC. How are they anti-competitive?
People like being able to buy their games in a single online store. They don't like having 5 different stores just to play their collection of games. Therefore, Epic's exclusivity deals rub some people the wrong way.