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

Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

ramatak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 733 posts

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#221

Post by grotorea »

nerdjon wrote: post #187

For the record, I am not a game developer but I don't think that changes my opinion on open source technology. Open Source software is great, but that also comes at the cost of support when you are running into a problem. Particularly if you are on a critical timeline, especially if trying to fix a bug after something is released. You are at the mercy of the community being able to help (and most likely only being ab…

Not really in a position to say anything conclusively either but I don't think you are at the mercy of the community. First, it's open source, so your company can look and fix the code themselves. If it's restaurant software this is likely complicated but for gamedev it is much more likely the company already has the expertise to do that. Second, Godot doesn't have a formalized process but one of the developers can be willing to offer paid support.

> While we don't have a formal structure for offering commercial support, many Godot developers can already help you, work per hour, or relocate to your company. For such inquiries, contact support@godotengine.org. Let us know about your needs and we'll try to find the right person for you.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#222

Post by _chu1 »

codeulike wrote: post #137

Seems to me, the bit where all these game frameworks get a bit tricky is when you want to target iOS. Apple keeps moving the goalposts (you must use some version of Xcode, or you must target some version of iOS) and so the open-source frameworks have to constantly faff about to support the latest apple things. A few years ago I was building using LibGDX which used RoboVM to target iOS but then Xamarin bought RoboVM a…

I would have never thought in a million years iOS was considered a large gaming platform.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#223

Post by isilofi »

jehb wrote: post #110
nhinck wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could change the license for future versions and charge for said updates, for the market that godot targets that would be more a little screwing to them. How long would it take for someone to take over the project (if ever).

And it's at exactly this moment the community would fork the project and development of a free version would continue. This is not a real risk for a community-driven project, only for corporate-driven projects where a single entity owns copyright on the on all or close to all of the codebase.

The important distinction isn't who owns copyright. It is rather that there needs to be a community opposed to the license change and able and willing to do the work.

One could even imagine scenarios like an originally MIT-licensed software splitting into a commercial company offering commercial paid licenses, plus a community (or even the company itself) offering a GPL-licensed fork. Of course one could then still maintain an additional MIT-licensed fork, but if the rest of the community is happy with GPL and all the development just happens there, your MIT fork will "starve"...

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#224

Post by _chu1 »

ireallywantthat wrote: post #117

switch to godot( http://godotengine.org/ ), gamedevs. you reap what you sow. it's better to support open source projects like godot instead of unity whose control lies with the company whose actions probably might not lie with you/your companies' interest. There are hundreds of instances in the past where open source projects replaced corporate projects(ex: blender, git). so, better use godot imo.

Is Godot capable of making 3D FPS games?

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#225

Post by pdpi »

jorvi wrote: post #194
pdpi wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Epic is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart Tim Sweeney founded Epic and wrote the Unreal engine himself. John Riccitiello’s whole career is in management. Even if they’re both entirely motivated by profit, they have different perspectives on how to get there. Also, Unity is a public company, while Epic is private. Even though Tencent owns a considerable share of the company, Sweeney still holds over…

The same Tim Cook that tries to make iPhones as unrepairable as possible? :) Don’t fall for feelgood greenwashing.

If Tim Cook had calmly said what he did, I’d believe it was just toeing the party line. The fact that he actually got angry, though? He doesn’t strike me as the sort of person who’d fake that, I don’t think that’s the image he wants if nothing else.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#229

Post by swalsh »

I wish game development wasn't so monolithic. You're either all in on Unity, or all in on Unreal, or all in on GoDot. They are designer forward, code later. Each has a marketplace of sorts, but in my experience it's substandard.

Compare that to web development (different beast I know, but there's no reason gaming can't be more componentized). Web development is so simple these days because I spend most of my time gluing stuff together, and sanding the edges.

Game development has concepts like this, and I have no doubt I'll get replies showing me some nifty component system, or talk about how I just don't understand ECS etc, but they seem tacked on to a monolithic walled garden. There's something magical about "npm install x" and adding a whole feature to your app.

Maybe it's because "it's art" and game development is just a passion project.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#230

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

cdash wrote: post #178
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you'd amended the source, then it wouldn't be the same version and the license would be invalid. If you want to use the perpetual license, you can't do anything with the source.

Why is there so much misinformation around this. None of what you said is true.

Possibly because people like you respond with no actual information in your post that people could learn from?
Post reply on HN