531–540 of 733 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like each year makes it harder as demands increase
Never every game needs to have insane graphics. For a lot of games, “good enough” graphics is fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"who operates their own game store and is courting developers aggressively with generous revenue split" Yeah, I wonder why, almost like they're trying to slowly gain market share lead to then have a monopoly. Arguing that just because right now there's alternatives that don't seem like they'll do that, right now. Is not a good argument against open source. if any of those engines can retroactively destroy your liveli…
Epic will never have a monopoly as long as Steam exists. They aren't complete fools here, they realize this but are aware that even having a slice of that massive pie is enough to fuel numerous positions in the future.
Everyone told me "use Unity" "the biggest mistake you can make is building your own engine". How well did that advice age? Nobody needs Unity or Unreal. My most recent game (playshadowvane.com) is built on 100% proprietary technology, I built everything in-house down to the physics. Always ignore mainstream game dev advice, they are just trying to sell you products. Build as much as you can in-house, it's not only be…
Obviously I won't defend the Unity situation. Ultimately though it is all about time efficiency, solo or small teams have little manpower and since they don't even know if their first, second, or fifth game will sell any at all it may not make strategic sense to spend months reproducing common engine features in order to save a hypothetical percentage of revenue that they may never ultimately make. You need to test t…
By the way, you re-use a lot of the same code when you build in-house, like you said often times your 1st title is not a hit, but you improve upon a lot of that engine code and release subsequent games. Most AAA developers do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course you can switch databases, but in practice it is extremely expensive. That's a big reason why it is pretty rare. Why use a closed source tool and take on that risk when great open source ones exist?
Usually the only good reason is because you already have developed lot of experience with with it. I'm just saying it's not as bad because it's quite a bit easier to switch a database than to switch a game engine.
_presses X to doubt_
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Running out of ammo and instant payment sounds a lot like an arcade Any chance you have an example? I can't recall an arcade game that had you pay per bullet.
I remember there were arcade games where your health continuously drained and inserting another quarter would heal you. That's worse than a per-bullet price because you were losing even when there were no enemies on the screen. I don't remember the titles because I played those kinds of games exactly once and never again. Total rip off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Usually the only good reason is because you already have developed lot of experience with with it. I'm just saying it's not as bad because it's quite a bit easier to switch a database than to switch a game engine.
For a lot of companies, switching databases is effectively impossible. Perhaps not quite as impossible as switching game engines, but certainly impossible enough that it would kill the business. A lot of companies use database specific functionality that's far from trivial to replicate in another database. A lot of that database specific functionality can also be legacy that no one really understands anymore. Migrati…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same Tim Cook that tries to make iPhones as unrepairable as possible? :) Don’t fall for feelgood greenwashing.
Pretty sure repairability has been getting dramatically better the last couple generations. The entire back panel is replaceable on 15s
The logic that Epic and Unreal Engine will do something similar as Unity doesn't track for me. The argument hinges on the premise that Epic, who operates their own game store and is courting developers aggressively with generous revenue split, is willing to burn their bridge with developers for questionable increase in profit; in addition it presumes that the plain old revenue share model that Unreal Engine utiltizes…
There's another strong argument in favor of this point. This [1] is from Unreal's license: --- "7. The Agreement Between You and Epic a. Amendments If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to. However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to…
> When you obtain a version of Unity, and don’t upgrade your project, we think you should be able to stick to that version of the TOS.
> Moving forward, we will host TOS changes on Github to give developers full transparency about what changes are happening, and when.
The link to the mentioned GitHub repo just recently became dead :/
[1]: https://blog.unity.com/community/updated-terms-of-service-an...
I think we are starting to see the cracks in the utopic vision of open source. I know it sounds very harsh, but I feel the vast majority of people complaining about these kind of situations are people who want the benefit of the tremendous engineering accomplishment of a game engine like Unity without contributing or paying in any way. Somehow people have convinced themselves that just using a technology is equivalen…
> I think we are starting to see the cracks in the utopic vision of open source. I don't get your logic. A proprietary company screws over customers, and that is, to you, an indication that OSS doesn't work? Isn't it exactly the reverse? Anyway watching this saga now would be mad to continue with Unity, and would be a little wary of closed-source in general.
I think we are starting to see the cracks in the utopic vision of open source. I know it sounds very harsh, but I feel the vast majority of people complaining about these kind of situations are people who want the benefit of the tremendous engineering accomplishment of a game engine like Unity without contributing or paying in any way. Somehow people have convinced themselves that just using a technology is equivalen…
I think you've completely misunderstood the situation. This isn't people feeling entitled, rather it's people feeling vulnerable to the whims of a private, self-interested entity. While it isn't my reason, I think most people advocating for open-source, actually see it simply as a way to keep such private actors honest, and prevent them from becoming corrupted. Like many people have said, this particular situation wo…