Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: PhiladelphusI don't recall ever hearing of the Amazon Lumberyard engine before. What kinds of games has it been used to create? :huh:

The only one I know of is Crucible [External Link], which didn't turn out too well.

There is also Star Citizen which started out on CryEngine but "switched" to Lumberyard at some point for reasons that I don't remember. However, since SC basically forked it as well, this should now be considered a third cryengine fork.

epic licenced unreal code to tons of developers in the past, if we go by that logic almost no one used unreal ever, they just used an fork of it.

I think his point is that in this case there were so many changes to made for SC that is basically its own thing/fork. So it is different from how most licensees use an engine. Although it is not unheard of either. Kinda similar to what 3D Realms did with the Unreal Engine for DNF [External Link].

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: PhiladelphusI don't recall ever hearing of the Amazon Lumberyard engine before. What kinds of games has it been used to create? :huh:

The only one I know of is Crucible [External Link], which didn't turn out too well.

There is also Star Citizen which started out on CryEngine but "switched" to Lumberyard at some point for reasons that I don't remember. However, since SC basically forked it as well, this should now be considered a third cryengine fork.

There might be another fork too. I think when Ubisoft bought the Far Cry IP from CryTek they got the source code with it, including the engine and from that they created the so called Dunia Engine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PhiladelphusI don't recall ever hearing of the Amazon Lumberyard engine before. What kinds of games has it been used to create? :huh:

CryTek was in serious financial difficulties. So they cut a deal with Amazon for a lot of money. Basically, they allowed Amazon to create a fork of CryEngine and then license that(and all previous versions of CryEngine) to 3rd parties as their own standalone product. I think this was a lump sum deal. So basically, Amazon created a fork/branch of CryEngine called Lumberyard. It was free for developers, but they had to use AWS if they had cloud support in their games.

But AFAIK, the terms with CryTek were so favorable(due to CryTek's desperation and Amazon's wad of cash) that it was as if they sold/assigned the entire copyright to all versions of CryEngine up to that point to Amazon. IIRC it is as if Amazon and CryTek separately own the rights to the same bits of code. But CryTek has created newer versions of CryEngine and are the exclusive owners of those versions due to their modifications and additions. In turn, Amazon has gradually changed Lumberyard, and now it has evolved into O3DE.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: KristianThis is MIT/Apache... so Valve, Epic, CryTek, Unity, id Software, the Godot people etc etc can all use code from this in their own engines if they want to.

yes, but its not so easy to integrate.
maybe godot should get their render, maybe as an alternate option (eg: opengl 2, vulkan, cryengine =p)
i'm not sure how hard it would be to do, blender has tons of render options so it might be possible, but godot is taking forever to make the vulkan render for a reason

Yes, it may or may not be. But people can use everything from a few lines of code to entire subsystems. How easy it is to integrate will vary depending on the context.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is MIT/Apache... so Valve, Epic, CryTek, Unity, id Software, the Godot people etc etc can all use code from this in their own engines if they want to.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"or newer hardware only support Vulkan, which tbh, don't make much sense."

It surely makes sense to use Zink to run OpenGL games(and other software) on hardware that only supports Vulkan and not OpenGL. As I understand it Zink basically is a way to support legacy software in a post-OpenGL world.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

"Since Amazon doesn't actually operate out of any nordic country (yet), we usually have to order from the US (or UK or German) store, which usually leaves us at the mercy of whatever passes for Amazon "international" customer rights in the US"

https://www.amazon.se/ [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So there was nothing to the split personality thing?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PangaeaI'm sorry to hear he has a split personality disorder. I wish him well.

Wait... is there something I am missing here? I did not see this in the blog post. Maybe I am just blind...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Kristian

Quoting: Appelsin

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'm very pleased with this outcome. As to why we got it, there is a cynical side of me saying "Ah! The Supremes concluded Google's pockets were deeper than Oracle's!"
We're just lucky the bigger plutocratic guns were on our side on this particular occasion.

My exact reaction to this.
What we can all take from this ruling, is that Google wields more influence, and have better lobbyists, than Oracle does.

As with the time that Google (et al.) was "pro" Net Neutrality, we can praise ourselves lucky that their interests happened to align with those of the general public (insofar as the 'general' public cares about Java and Net Neutrality).

Companies ain't our friends, and they don't give two sh1ts about what benefits *us*.

The Supreme Court is not congress. There are no campaigns and no lobbying.

No campaigns, true. No lobbying? You are living in a different age. I have seen several exposes of members of the Supreme Court getting schmoozed and wined and dined and taken to "conferences" in very posh vacation spots and so on and so forth. Most of it isn't even illegal; the US has some odd oversights in terms of how you are and aren't allowed to bribe judges.
And most of them belong or belonged to the Federalist Society, which is fundamentally a right wing lobby group of lawyers and judges. The Supremes, in short, are only partly the ones being lobbied--in part they are lobbyists themselves, from way back. If they were the kind of people who went around trying cases based on the merits of the briefs in front of them, they wouldn't have been appointed to the Supreme Court.

What you are saying is not very specific. But which conferences in which vacation spots determined the outcome of this case? It is a rather extreme position to claim that legal arguments have nothing to do with it. The Federalist Society is much maligned, but more to the point several of the justices in this majority have never been a member of the Federalist Society. (And there certainly plenty of left-wing parallels to the Federalist Society) There are plenty of cases that simplistic theories of the court being "pro-business" or similar cannot explain [External Link]. This case incidentally being one of them.

If legal briefs had no impact on the outcome of cases, the outcome of cases would be vastly different than they are. It is simply far far from the case that those with the most money always win. Supreme Court justices rule against lawyers they worked with in private practice, their own former law clerks, the administrations that appointed them, their side of the political aisle etc etc all the time.

Also it is often the case that the law has a pro-business/big money bias, such that faithfully following the law requires a judge or justice to rule in a pro-business manner. So a pro-business result is NOT in and of itself evidence of bias on part of the judge or justice.

I am not saying that other factors can never have an influence, of course they can and probably do. I am only saying that they are not as all encompassing as you think they are.

View this comment - View article - View full comments