241–250 of 733 posts
If you don't own your engine then you don't own your game. Games are unique like that - music and other art is interoperable - software isn't.
Companies also have to pay for Microsoft Excel. Does it mean they don’t own their businesses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Epic is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it because it is beneficial to them. Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation part owned by a massive conglomerate. Holy straw man! And there’s certainly no self-interest involved with me using their engine without giving them a cut under 1 mill right? You can make this argument about literally anything. Godot must have no self-interest in r…
While you can make this argument about literally anything, it seems apt to make it about a multi-billion dollar company chasing a trillion dollar company. It's fine to support them while they are the underdog and are saying and doing the right thing, but don't pretend like they will say and do the right thing forever.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing. Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental c…
This is a complete falsehood. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
Businesses are legally bound to act in the best interest of their shareholders. This is quite an open ended precedent.
>> While Unreal engine currently does not have terms like Unity’s, there’s nothing stopping them from doing something similar. In fact if Unity manages to get away with this it seems likely they will follow suit. Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change…
> the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. Epic is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it because it is beneficial to them. Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation part owned by a massive conglomerate. > BS: in reality it's usually one or two guys who actually do the actual work. Over t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Guess what, if a closed-source company decides to stop working on their product you're also stuck Isn't Unreal's source open?
You can access the source code to unreal engine when you get a license, but the terms are not by any stretch of the imagination open source. You wouldn't be able to freely share your modifications for instance.
Have you read the unreal engine license agreement? [0]. Section 3.a covers modifications
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing. Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental c…
"Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders." This stupid meme needs to die already. There is no such obligation, he only has a fiduciary duty to not trash the company and spend the earnings on cocaine. "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true and this piece of misinformation has been going around for ages now.
And, insofar as such an obligation to “maximise shareholder value” might exist, that obligation doesn’t necessarily translate into “maximise profit”.
The shareholders of a theatre company might care more about breaking even while getting an interesting assortment of plays produced with a great cast than they do about making a bunch of money out of the venture, so an executive who makes a bunch of money by running productions of uninspired cash grab shows won’t actually be maximising value. Likewise, I’m sure that Rob McElhenney and Ryan Reynolds care more about Wrexham AFC’s managers getting good athletic results than they do about making a bunch of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Unreal thing is that Unity has/had ~8,000 employees last year. Sounds like an awful lot for a mobile game engine.
It's not just a mobile game engine, it's an everything game engine. They support (nearly?) every platform. That does take some work. Even so, 8000 employees does sound a lot. And if they're losing a billion per year, it sounds like they have no revenue at all.
But also their previous monetization seems to try charge per professional developer which is a limited audience compared to consumers, especially if you want to maintain a AAA engine (which it seems Unreal is favoured still) given it seems fast pace techniques & improvements. Maybe by selling cloud servers for networking, which I think maybe they were too expensive compared to alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With $1 paid to the developer the player only needs to (re)install the game 6 times on their computer to cost the developer more than they earned. This pricing is per install , not per player. Installations are an unrestricted functionality which can be abused. If you care about quality games: this pricing causes the opposite.
They literally stated it would not affect reinstalls.
> We treat different devices as different installs. We don’t want to track identity across different devices.
This allows malicious actors to fake the device identity, which leads to the exact same problem.
> We are not going to charge a fee for fraudulent installs or “install bombing.” We will work directly with you on cases where fraud or botnets are suspected of malicious intent.
This roughly says "trust us bro". They will "work directly with you" in cases of fraud? How nice, but that could just mean an automated response email with generic advice, followed by radio silence. No promise that they will resolve the issue, no promise they will work on it before your dev studio is bankrupt, this is just a collection of words built on trust they don't have right now.