Quoting: slapinGodot 4 is looking too far into the future as well as they drop OpenGL support and 3.x branch does have major bottlenecks preventing creating large 3D projects with it...

actually, godot 4 will drop openGL support, but godot 4.x will add it back, they had 3 options at hand:

1)try to make both renders at once and delay both renders.
2)try to make the vulkan render first and delay the openGL render for an 4.x version.
3)try to make the openGL render first and delay the vulkan render for an 4.x version.

they chose the second option, so if you absolutelly need to have GL suport you have to stick with the 3.x branch, in any case some features were backported to it from the 4.x branch =p

Quoting: slapinI wonder what is easier to do - add OpenGL support back to Godot 4 or O3DE? Also I don't see major improvements overall for Godot 4 except for graphics, so I guess most major bottlenecks are still there, right?

well godot 3.x added more features than i was expecting, so i think the 4.0 may have more features than initially planned as well.

in any case both engines come from different dictions.

lumbeyard was so painfull/hard to use that no one wanted to use it, but they had an triple A quality render.
godot was so good and easy to use that many indies are migrating to it or starting to learn game development on it, and now its geting an better render to better compete in the market of engines with cuting edge graphics.

only the future can tell what engine will be more sucessfull, i think both will co exist for a long time, and i hope both can borrow code from each other, o3de (formely know as lumbeyard) can learn from godot how to be easier to use (and maybe even add gdscript support or some similiar script lang)
and godot may be able to borrow advanced code techniques from lumbeyard or maybe even have a lot of options of renders (the same way blender do have with cycles, eevee, the intel developed one, the amd developed one etc)
*im not sure if it was amd or nvidia or both have their own solutions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZlopezIt's sad to see that most of the big companies are giving more money to marketing than actual development. I understand that you need marketing so the market is aware of the product, but the product itself should have some quality and not only good advertisement.

actually, many games are expensive to make too, i forgot to mention that about 75% of the budget is marketing, in the case of GTA5 it was 100 millions but only because at the scale they did their marketing it was impossible to put more money into it than they already put. (i mean, if some one didnt purchased the game already with their marketing than this person would not buy for any reason no matter how many ads they see)
that said, i think many companies already invest in their game as much as they can, puting more people at the project would not translate into more quality, i would just make the management more of an hell than it already is, i think the reason why a lot of games launched with tons of bugs has more to do with poor management than not puting enough money into it.
there are exceptions of course, nintendo games dont seem to be the type of game with an huge cost of production, they make simpler graphics but with a gameplay that is very polished instead of focusing on cuting edge graphics, they can invest more than they do but dont.
and gamefreak is lazy as hell, they can put a LOT more effort into their games.
i cant comment in many individual cases, i didnt played much in the last 10 years.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PhiladelphusA modern AAA game, sure. I doubt most indie games (of which there are vastly more than AAA games) cost more than a few million to develop

omg i say the words AAA and Triple A or blockbuster all the freaking time, i cant believe i forgot right now.
on the other hand, people always complain when i use those terms.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

100k? aside from fortinite players it might as well have more user than the official client, that thing suck

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mr-victoryBut we are stronger than ever. And we are growing.

sigh.
any sucessfull gaming platform grow faster, an sucessfull platform grown from 0 to 40 millions~ 157 millions in an space of just 5~10 years.

we are at ~15 millions of users and we have been like this for almost 25 years!
(and not all of then are gamers)
those small changes in marketshare are caused by facors like staticstic errors or chinese gamers moving into or out of steam, not by people installing in masses an platform or purchasing linux machines.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

370 million dollars may sound like a lot, but its not, the cost of production of an modern game can go easy to something like 200~250 millions, and those companies dont make games for margins of profit lower than 20%.
not to mention that the money dont belong to a single person who might be an good person that believes in linux/free software and want to see it suceeed, it belong to a bunch of stake holders so its very unlikely we can convince all of the parties involved to support us.

steam deck is our best argument.

anyway

since a lot of people have some brand loyality, i think we can see the console market by the generations that still sell new games nowadays, ps vita wont relase any new game :
https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2021/07/20/ps-vita-last-releases-new-games/ [External Link]

Nintendo has: 3ds 75.95m + switch 94.5m ( 170, 45m)
Sony has: playstation 4 116.7m + playstation 5 14,9m (131,6m)
Microsoft has: xbox 1 50.5m + xseries 9.20 (59,7 m )

the users from 3DS are migrating to switch, users from PS4 migrating to PS5, and xbox one to x series, of course there are exceptions, some people chose an different vendor each gen, some have more than one platform.
the point i'm trying to make is that thos 45.2 billions will be split across those 3 platforms unless valve can take an slice of it to increase their own.

this should give us an general notion of how many units an steam deck must sell before linux became relevant...
now we need to see how many people are still purchasing games on platforms from the last gen how many did the switch completely to only buy on new gen (its easier to especulate that for playstation and xbox than switch)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeWell, being one percent of a 37 billion Dollar market is representing 370 million dollars - just as 0.23% of a 160 billion market is.

So I'm not sure it's helpful to put PC gaming and mobile "gaming" into the same pot (diagram). You could as well make a huge diagram including all digital entertainment, or all recreational activities, and have the Linux gaming market look even smaller. But the actual size is the same.

i understand your point, but its a bit too hard to isolate the variables here.

1)there are an intersection of publics,some people only play mobile games, the games we call "casual games" others play both "hardcore" and "casual games", the same gamer can play both types of games or just one of then.
some people quit playing on gameboy/3DS or never touched one because they think their phones are good enough, others think mobile games suck but know that handheld games are still good (no pay to win bullshit), some people play on their phones but play ports of console/pc games or games made with the same business models (no pay to win, gatcha etc), others play mobile games on their pc, its too hard to isolate then all, but i will agree that my division made little sense.

lets isolate mobile for a moment, usually the games that are made for pc and console are the same ones (Aside from exclusives)
so i can say:

console 45.2b + pc 36.9b , totally relevant industry: 82,1 b
then there is the margin of error for people playing mobile games on pc or "ports" on mobile, but on avarege they should cancel each one.

finally from those 36.9 b, we are 1% (about 369 millions) so we are 369 million out of an 82,1 billion industry.
so we are 0,449% not 0,23%

the question is: will stake holders care about us?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

last year:


how things were in 2017:


prediction made on 2017 about the future:


one thing that people must remember is:
we arent 1% of the gaming market, we are 1% of 23% of the gaming market.

i dont know how those statistics will count steam deck, but one thing is for sure, if we manage to steal away users who would purchase an switch to play on the go, nintendo take too long go relase switch 2 or switch 2 dont sell well, and most people dont install windows on ther deck, then we can get an significant part of the market, otherwise , our relevance in the market is lower than the margin for errors in those statistics whetever source you use.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestHe's right. An abundance of customisation options are great for tinkers, but tinkerers are a minority of technology users, and that abundance of customisation options that is so great for tinkers increases the likelihood of user caused instabilities.

i once customized my theme A LOT, then i realized something obvious: im not an designer.
i wanted an pretty system but didnt knew how to do that, so outsourcing was the best option.
not to mention that most of my design choices where... too distracting to actually work on my computer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: randylA small minority of desktop tech platform users desire a business to spend money and time on them as the other 98% who are footing the bill. This isn't social justice, it's business.

not to mention that PC is just an small % of their profits, most of it come from consoles or even mobile.

Quoting: randylWhat these businesses like Ubisoft are asking is that this small Linux gaming minority to make a case that doing business with them will make sense.

actually is not even about us, but steam deck users, that is, if they are even following the situation.

in any case, if supportint the deck was indeed as easy as sending an e-mail, then in the worst case scenario for they, people will receive the deck, complain that the game isnt working, then they will send an e-mail and the game will start working.

they lose nothing by waiting.
on the other hand , if its not so simple they do lose, a lot of cheaters/bots entering their game due to an thing that didnt even had this big demmand to begin with, then a lot of customers asking for refund because they purchased the game expecting it to be supported and it was not...

View this comment - View article - View full comments