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

Defold: cross-platform game engine

defold.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 181 posts

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#21

Post by rowls66 »

auggierose wrote: post #18
progbits wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but seems like the only addition is preventing you from selling a game engine based on it. So you can sell a game, but not an engine. I wonder where a game with built-in editor ranks. Seems fair, but sadly not OSS. I wonder why they think it's necessary?

Because they don't want somebody else to sell their game engine? It's pretty clear, isn't it?

Why would anyone buy their game engine when it is available for free? Seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't/won't exist.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#22

Post by Zambyte »

auggierose wrote: post #18
progbits wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but seems like the only addition is preventing you from selling a game engine based on it. So you can sell a game, but not an engine. I wonder where a game with built-in editor ranks. Seems fair, but sadly not OSS. I wonder why they think it's necessary?

Because they don't want somebody else to sell their game engine? It's pretty clear, isn't it?

That doesn't answer the question of why.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#23

Post by Wowfunhappy »

rowls66 wrote: post #21
auggierose wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they don't want somebody else to sell their game engine? It's pretty clear, isn't it?

Why would anyone buy their game engine when it is available for free? Seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't/won't exist.

This was my question to. I suspect they're worried about someone making a paid version with extra features which aren't contributed back to the community.

For a moment, I was thinking Defold ought to dual-license their engine under both the current non-OSS modified Apache and the GPL. That way, you'd have the option to either:

1. Commercialise software created using modified versions of Defold, without releasing the source of your modified version, as long as you don't commercialize your modified version of Defold itself.

2. Commercialise a modified version of Defold, but you must make the source available under the GPL. (Which would mean that source could be used by the upstream project as well.)

But while typing this up, I noticed the flaw in this plan—the parenthetical isn't true! Because the upstream project would be dual licensed, they couldn't use GPL licensed code.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#24

Post by tunaoftheland »

I've had a soft spot for defold, partly because they're unique in the gamedev space. For example, the GUI editor that is built-in is done in Clojure! https://github.com/defold/defold/tree/dev/editor (cljfx for the GUI, I am rooting for seesaw though :))

From what I understand it emerged from a gamedev studio from Sweden (King or something?) so there's commercial release pedigree there. I believe their console platform build/release tooling does cost money for game devs because the platform SDKs themselves impose restrictions. But I get the impression that defold as org does seem to put in earnest effort to be fair to game devs with licensing, etc. like others mentioned here.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#25

Post by croes »

zenkey wrote: post #4

After spending time with Cursor/Junie/Copilot etc., game engines are starting to feel slow and behind the curve. I’d love to see faster adoption and deeper LLM integration (as native features, not just some random third-party plugins). Whoever builds the first “Cursor for games” is going to disrupt the market.

The market for bad games?

It’s not the brush that makes the artist.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#26

Post by popcar2 »

LichenStone wrote: post #16

How does this compare to something like Godot?

It's less featured and has limited 3D support, but Defold is great for making smaller games aimed at the web or mobile. It has a much smaller binary size and it's generally more stable, especially in terms of physics. If you take a look at the showcase it's mostly webgames and a few smaller indies.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#27

Post by riidom »

progbits wrote: post #9
progbits wrote: post #7

Major props to them for not only calling it "source available" (and not trying to misuse "open source" like so many do), but also for highlighting the additions to their Apache-based license: https://defold.com/license/

IANAL but seems like the only addition is preventing you from selling a game engine based on it. So you can sell a game, but not an engine. I wonder where a game with built-in editor ranks. Seems fair, but sadly not OSS. I wonder why they think it's necessary?

I don't know what they think, but I think it is not necessary. Let's draw a comparison to Blender here. Blender is GPL, and there is a long history of questionable projects that relabel Blender and try to sell it.

There is the requirement to make the source code available (GPL), as far as I am informed, you can sort of get around this, by delivering the source code with the download, but then "don't advertise" it, as in hide it as much as possible without getting in legal trouble.

(My information may be a bit outdated here) Afaik, the Blender Foundation doesn't even bother to shut these projects down (they do get frequently informed about it, when people discover it).

And this even given the fact, that they would be easy to shut down. The reason for this, is used media in advertising. If you want to sell your 3D package, you need to show some impressive artwork which was created with said project.

Problem is, the images/animations these projects show off on their websites are a) not created with said Blender reskin, but usually in Blender itself and b) they usually don't have permission from the artists.

So even having this quite comfortable handle, BF usually don't care. Which tells a lot about the impact of such copycats.

My takeaway from all this is, the situation would pan out pretty similar for Defold, and they should just dare it and monitor the landscape.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#28

Post by martinbaun »

popcar2 wrote: post #26
LichenStone wrote: post #16

How does this compare to something like Godot?

It's less featured and has limited 3D support, but Defold is great for making smaller games aimed at the web or mobile. It has a much smaller binary size and it's generally more stable, especially in terms of physics. If you take a look at the showcase it's mostly webgames and a few smaller indies.

Thank you, I started Godot recently and I'll take a look at Defold as this is the exact thing I am doing - and Godot seems a little unstable with the APIs. Every tutorial I find is for Godot 3, and Godot 4 seems quite changed.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#29

Post by Cthulhu_ »

tunaoftheland wrote: post #24

I've had a soft spot for defold, partly because they're unique in the gamedev space. For example, the GUI editor that is built-in is done in Clojure! https://github.com/defold/defold/tree/dev/editor (cljfx for the GUI, I am rooting for seesaw though :)) From what I understand it emerged from a gamedev studio from Sweden (King or something?) so there's commercial release pedigree there. I believe their console platfor…

If it is King, then it's got a huge (financial) backer; King is one of the most profitable game publishers thanks to e.g. Candy Crush that made their revenue jump from $62 million in 2011 to $1.88 billion in 2013. It was bought in 2016 by Activision Blizzard, which in turn was acquired by Microsoft in 2023.

Ah, the wiki page also mentions the Defold engine, which was first developed in 2007 and acquired by King in 2013, then opened to its current licensing model in 2016.

Re: Defold: cross-platform game engine

#30

Post by palunon »

riidom wrote: post #27
progbits wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but seems like the only addition is preventing you from selling a game engine based on it. So you can sell a game, but not an engine. I wonder where a game with built-in editor ranks. Seems fair, but sadly not OSS. I wonder why they think it's necessary?

I don't know what they think, but I think it is not necessary. Let's draw a comparison to Blender here. Blender is GPL, and there is a long history of questionable projects that relabel Blender and try to sell it. There is the requirement to make the source code available (GPL), as far as I am informed, you can sort of get around this, by delivering the source code with the download, but then "don't advertise" it, as…

Wouldn't the artists be the ones to have standing, instead of the Blender Foundation?
Post reply on HN