[flagged]
Defold: cross-platform game engine
151–160 of 181 posts
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a list of other 3rd party porters: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/platform/co... Stop spreading FUD. It's FOSS. It's like saying contributing to systemd lines the pockets of Red Hat.
The situation with systemd cannot be compared to special circumstances of Godot and shady practices of its management. It's an essentially open core but privately owned product. I guess this is a better arrangement than Unity but it is not a true F OSS engine in the sense of the word.
How do you expect W4 games (or any other porter) to release FOSS exporters to proprietary consoles, when they rely on SDKs that are covered by an NDA?
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Matt Mullenweg should have done this instead of throwing a fit Not a choice he had. You cannot relicense GPL code line that. He would have had to write a new system from scratch instead of forking an existing one.
I thought that copyright holders could relicense code however they wanted? I don't think GPL or not is the issue, but whether or not all third-party contributors have assigned the copyright of their contributions to the party trying to relicense. My understanding is that this is often difficult or even impossible in practice to obtain after the fact codebases with large numbers of contributors over the years if signi…
Yes, the copyright holders can relicense, but its highly unlikely they will do this to enable a fork to have a different license, and wordpress started as a fork of b2.
If Mullenweg had been the original developer it would be valid criticism.
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#154In terms of maturity, how does this compare to Godot?
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm building 2D computer game environments for musical performances and interactive installations. I ended up developing my own little engine. The current iteration is based on: - SDL2 for input and window management - OpenGL for rendering - libpd for sound generation and processing - RtAudio for audio I/O - sol2 for Lua bindings - Qt6 for the tile map editor I'm not targeting the web, though. > The audio engine need…
Thanks for this! I am torn about backing off to focusing on first getting the UX (which is really "the thing") right, and just emitting a MIDI MPE stream. That obviously has some other benefits but there were things I was keen on having low-level control over... but I can get over that maybe... Ambivalent also about target—really, the iPad is the ideal and canonical target, in terms of what it can and the UX it affor…
You can't create prototypes in Godot, etc to test out your idea but you want to try someone's half-baked project instead?!?
You do need to speak to someone.
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm building 2D computer game environments for musical performances and interactive installations. I ended up developing my own little engine. The current iteration is based on: - SDL2 for input and window management - OpenGL for rendering - libpd for sound generation and processing - RtAudio for audio I/O - sol2 for Lua bindings - Qt6 for the tile map editor I'm not targeting the web, though. > The audio engine need…
Thanks for this! I am torn about backing off to focusing on first getting the UX (which is really "the thing") right, and just emitting a MIDI MPE stream. That obviously has some other benefits but there were things I was keen on having low-level control over... but I can get over that maybe... Ambivalent also about target—really, the iPad is the ideal and canonical target, in terms of what it can and the UX it affor…
> EDIT: oh and is your engine something I can look at (or license or...)? :)
Unfortunately not, it's a private repo. I might open source it at some point in the future, though.
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modified engine someone else is selling could have a potentially important extra features. For example a company might try to sell a version of engine which has been ported to a console which original engine doesn't support. Game porting companies are very common and if it's their main business then they will usually have inhouse libraries or modified engine versions which significantly simplify the porting proce…
RPG in a Box[0] is the first example that sprang to mind when I read these comments. It transforms Godot into a more generalized "game maker" but could arguably be considered selling the engine. [0] https://rpginabox.com/ Edit: clarity
(Action Game Maker)[https://store.steampowered.com/app/2987180/ACTION_GAME_MAKER...] seems like its the same thing - it's built on Godot and seems like it's trying to provide a no-code interface to it.
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they didn't prevent selling derivative game engines, someone could fork it and add a valuable feature that was only available in the paid fork. This could split the community.
Yeah, just look at how fractured the Godot community is. (it's not)
It is a bit fractured - there is a Redot fork. But that was caused by governance issues, not anyone's desire to sell the engine.
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#159How many of these are there?
Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine
#160They have gone with an interesting licensing solution here. I really appreciate that it is labeled as a source-available license instead of Open Source. https://defold.com/license/ You can make proprietary changes to the engine without releasing them (unlike GPL). You can freely monetize games built with the engine, and they make some assurances that there won't be a bait-and-switch. And finally, the reason why this…
> You can make proprietary changes to the engine without releasing them (unlike GPL). Why is that a good thing? >You can freely monetize games built with the engine, You'd also be able to do the same if it had a GPL license >and they make some assurances that there won't be a bait-and-switch. If it was licensed under a GPL license you wouldn't need to rely on "some assurances"
>> You can make proprietary changes to the engine without releasing them (unlike GPL).
> Why is that a good thing?
Instead of writing an internal project from scratch, you modify an existing project and tightly couple it with your internal process. What's wrong with that?