141–150 of 228 posts
I might be missing something, but how did they manage to swing this? I thought proprietary NDAs around the Switch's API were the biggest holdups preventing Switch support from being added to Godot itself.
I would have assumed this would be free but would require signing some kind of source-available license that forced you to still respect the NDAs.
I know "asymptotically close to zero" about game development and the like, so if someone who works in this space could answer this I'd be appreciative: what, if anything, would make you use Unity or Unreal instead of Godot for making a game today? This isn't meant as a passive aggressive question to push some kind of open source narrative, but a genuine curiosity. Since I know basically nothing about the industry, I'…
I've done game jams with both Godot and Unity. Mainly the plug-ins, particularly third party plug-ins for unity are better. One of them being cinemachine. Another example would be a tool call technique collider creator that let's you paint collider primitives. That tool alone saved about 300 hours of work. For many developers the Cinemachine tool is very useful as well. The other feature is the ability to edit game o…
Check out Phantom Camera: https://github.com/ramokz/phantom-camera
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nintendo doesn't owe you a cheap way to deploy your custom binaries to devices. Buy a Steam Deck if you want that. Build it for Web GL or Android. Plenty of options exist. I'm not sure what OP actually wants here. Even if you can get your game running on your own Switch, it's not easy to get it up on the store.
What they actually want is a cheap way to develop games with their kid and possibly share them over sneakernet with her friends. Nintendo obviously doesn’t owe them that, and it doesn’t seem to be supported. But, this is a good place to cast around for ideas.
You can punish a Web GL build of the game to Itch.io and everyone could try it straight from their phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>and to be 'enabled' for Switch development, you need to jump through a bunch of hoops including describing your previous experience with games development and so on. I don't think they're that strict, there's a lot of garbage on the Switch store.
The strictness isn't there to keep garbage off the console store. That was just Nintendo revisionism. It's there because they need to know who to sue into a crater if you use developer mode to play pirated games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly because anyone can do it.
Then explain some "games" for the Game Boy Color where the quality was very subpar.
Here is the thing, we aren't entitled to anything in life.
Don't like the way consoles work? Don't buy them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nintendo really wanted to encourage indie gaming on the Switch, so any individual can register to be an authorized developer: https://developer.nintendo.com/ .
It's not that easy, unfortunately - I'm a registered developer (for the Wii U) and to be 'enabled' for Switch development, you need to jump through a bunch of hoops including describing your previous experience with games development and so on. The barrier for Wii U was significantly lower thanks to the 'Nintendo Web Framework', a web tech SDK that let you build games without needing to use tooling like Unity or mess…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which then is MIT licensed - so why can't that then be further shared?
You aren’t prohibited under the license, but you are prohibited under the contract you agreed to, to get that code. For example, imagine a company hired you to write a library they want to later release as GPL. They still might have rules that you can’t release that library except under certain conditions. The real purpose of the MIT license is not free sharing with the world in this case - it’s so that developers do…
This doesn't make sense to me. MIT is a license to share and modify code. If another license can supersede that and remove rights granted by the actual license, then what prevents any company from releasing their code under MIT and then adding a shrinkwrap EULA that prevents looking at the code or modifying it? The license wouldn't mean anything.
> imagine a company hired you to write a library they want to later release as GPL. They still might have rules that you can’t release that library except under certain conditions.
Before it's released as GPL, sure. But once it's actually released as GPL, that company can't prevent you from looking at the code or modifying it or redistributing it. At best, they can sever their relationship with you over doing so, but they can't legally challenge you doing so.
If that wasn't the case, nothing would prevent a company from taking 3rd-party GPL code, building on top of it, releasing the product as GPL, but then adding additional contractual requirements to get access to their product that prevented anyone from looking at or sharing that code. The GPL wouldn't have any power or enforceability.
Companies do circumvent the GPL a lot and they get called out on it when they don't allow customers to get copies of the source code or to share it online. I've never heard anyone seriously suggest that a valid defense would be for them to say, "okay, yes we're using GPL code but to buy the product you have to sign a contract and that contract legally prevents you from sharing the code." Those restrictions would themselves be a GPL violation.
I know "asymptotically close to zero" about game development and the like, so if someone who works in this space could answer this I'd be appreciative: what, if anything, would make you use Unity or Unreal instead of Godot for making a game today? This isn't meant as a passive aggressive question to push some kind of open source narrative, but a genuine curiosity. Since I know basically nothing about the industry, I'…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unity so much more polished Unity has Timeline (and Cinemachine) Unity has Entity Component which is superior for many coders to Godot’s node system Unity has better 3D Unity has large bank of answered questions Unity exports to WebGL Unity Asset Store Assets are high quality, abundant and cost effective
>and Cinemachine Phantom Camera does most of that in Godot. >Unity exports to WebGL Godot also does that, albeit without C# support until the next major version.
Godot webgl will not run on MacOS, defeating the whole point of WebGL/HTML5
“Godot 4's HTML5 exports currently cannot run on macOS and iOS due to upstream bugs with SharedArrayBuffer and WebGL 2.0”
https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/export/expo...