Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Valck

Quoting: constAs an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

Founded by Godot Engine veterans Juan Linietsky, Rémi Verschelde and Fabio Alessandrelli

I took that line from the article to indicate that it is in fact about (some of) the developers of Godot.

Thank you. I have already been educated on the matter, but still. If one isn't familiar with these names, "Godot Engine veterans" could mean any number of things, from "people whose work has encompassed using Godot Engine for a long time" to "people intricately involved in the creation of the Godot engine itself". Turns out it was the latter, not the former.

And still, I stand by my point; neither the article nor my comment were about the developers of Godot, but about the entrepreneurs of W4 Games, even if both groups are (at least in part) composed of the same people.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: const

Quoting: Valck

Quoting: KimyrielleWell, if they work on proprietary stuff to allow games to run on consoles, they simply CAN'T upstream -everything- just...as much as they can?

Not sure if you read evil intent into their words when there isn't any? At least I don't think they are going to last in this business for very long if they build a reputation for exploiting the open source engine their business is based on, without giving back.

Specifically "the video game industry" has a reputation for exploiting technology, exploiting artists, exploiting developers, whenever, wherever, and however they can. What we "consumers" think – and so much less we Linux users, fraction of a market share of consumers – has never stopped "the video game industry"[...]

Exploitism is hardly their fault, no idea why you would imply that.

I'm not implying anything, I am pointing out that in "this business" it is common practice to play with hard bandages, and it takes a lot of bad press before exploitative behaviour reflects negatively on the bottom line.

They certainly use a more inclusive definition of "video game industry" then you.
AAA studios are hardly their target.

And this is were we agree to disagree.

Read the article about porting I linked.

They obviously use a less inclusive definition of "video game consoles" than I do ;)

---

Quoting: const

Quoting: Valck

Quoting: constAs an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

Juan Linietsky, Rémi Verschelde and Fabio Alessandrelli are without doubt the core developers of Godot.

Thank you for pointing that out, it wasn't clear enough at least for me, from the article that the "Godot veterans" are or were actually Godot core developers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: constAs an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: KimyrielleWell, if they work on proprietary stuff to allow games to run on consoles, they simply CAN'T upstream -everything- just...as much as they can?

Not sure if you read evil intent into their words when there isn't any? At least I don't think they are going to last in this business for very long if they build a reputation for exploiting the open source engine their business is based on, without giving back.

Specifically "the video game industry" has a reputation for exploiting technology, exploiting artists, exploiting developers, whenever, wherever, and however they can. What we "consumers" think – and so much less we Linux users, fraction of a market share of consumers – has never stopped "the video game industry", at best it might have given them a short second to pause, before they get the spin doctors spinning in the right direction again.

Again, I hope I read evil intent where there is none, but I'm all too wary of the long and strong arm of the industry we're talking about. This is not about indie studios or small companies; they already don't need this company's help.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: const

Quoting: Valck

Quoting: mr-victoryEven their FAQ says so!

Are other successful commercial open source companies using a similar philosophy?

Yes, W4 is deeply inspired by the original Red Hat business model. This model consists in providing commercial services to complement and support a fully free and open source ecosystem. That open source ecosystem stays independent and strives from the contributions of multiple commercial actors.

Just to put things into perspective, that business model isn't exactly original to Red Hat; it's basically dictated by the GNU license of the kernel and the GNU toolchain. That quote just makes it sound like Red Hat invented it, which definitely isn't the case.

I do respect that they (promise to) say they take the same approach, even though Godot is licensed under the much more "permissive" MIT license that theoretically wouldn't require them to give back any changes they make.

EDITed after jumping over to read the actual FAQ:

Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

And there you have it... "as much as we can", as opposed to "everything because we have to". Marketing speech and business as usual.

They will port games to consoles and that means NDAs, license issues and so on. They can't just add a PS5/Switch export to the engine, Sony/Nintendo would probably sue them and win.

What they MIGHT do is build the engine so the last step after users get a license from console manufacturers is as easy as possible ... that's a different story.
They made a very informative blogpost about that issue: https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-know [External Link]

They are obviously not the first company that will offer professional porting to consoles and it's great that such companies exist. Maybe they can even offer the necessary code to the console manufacturers, so these can include them in their SDK (I think that is what Unity did)

Otherwise, I'd trust these people to contribute back. Considering what they did for Godot so far, they are really underpaid.

Quoting: from the linked article"Unfortunately, consoles are entirely closed ecosystems. This means that there is a very simple rule that must be followed in order to develop for them: Unless you sign an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) and the manufacturer approves you, it is impossible for you to obtain any kind of information in regards to how they work (and much less publish games)."

Which looks like it is about to change with the Steam Deck and other, independent (gasp), consoles – and by the looks of it, "the video game industry" is already up in arms.

I freely admit wihout shame that I haven't been following them and what they have done before founding this company, and maybe I'm doing them injustice; I sure hope you all are right and I am wrong.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

And talk about marketing speech – the more I read about them, the less I like what I see.

"Incorporated in Dublin" – all the power to the Irish people, but Ireland is well known as Europe's tax haven par excellence – coupled with investment capital (in itself a big red flag) from "a leading investment fund in Open Source Software" and "a Silicon Valley giant" which doesn't help to make it sound any better.

Spoiler, click me

Quoting: wikipediaIreland ranks among the top ten wealthiest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita, although this has been partially ascribed to distortions caused by the tax inversion practices of various multinationals operating in Ireland.

"We want to help the video game industry reclaim their control on the technology powering their games"
Wait what? Who exactly are we talking about? The video game industry that is just about beginning to lose the tiniest bit control of their grip on the technology because of independent studios and engines like Godot, neither of which ever lost control over their technology because they develop it?

"both enterprise and independent developers can use the community-developed Godot platform with peace of mind" – which independent developers always could; just the suits in the marketing department weren't at ease with, so that is what this is all about?

Certainly a company to keep our eyes on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mr-victoryEven their FAQ says so!

Are other successful commercial open source companies using a similar philosophy?

Yes, W4 is deeply inspired by the original Red Hat business model. This model consists in providing commercial services to complement and support a fully free and open source ecosystem. That open source ecosystem stays independent and strives from the contributions of multiple commercial actors.

Just to put things into perspective, that business model isn't exactly original to Red Hat; it's basically dictated by the GNU license of the kernel and the GNU toolchain. That quote just makes it sound like Red Hat invented it, which definitely isn't the case.

I do respect that they (promise to) say they take the same approach, even though Godot is licensed under the much more "permissive" MIT license that theoretically wouldn't require them to give back any changes they make.

EDITed after jumping over to read the actual FAQ:

Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

And there you have it... "as much as we can", as opposed to "everything because we have to". Marketing speech and business as usual.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeWait, what? It is case insensitive? That is the grossest thing I have ever heard...

"C:\VMLINU~1 /linux /love"

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: ValckAnother part of the equation may be that usually software comes with a complete and fairly decent English localization, if it wasn't translated from there to begin with.

Is that true, though? I remember Debian making an effort to translate its texts into proper English, as large parts had been written by non-native speakers... Opinions from native speakers on this?

I don't doubt that, but I stand by what I said: even if large portions are fine, it only takes one bad egg. The easiest way to avoid the smell is avoiding translations altogether.

Well, it helps to read first, then post...
I think I have to agree with Debian on that. I always wonder how cringeworthy it has to be to read just what I am posting :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Regarding the "market share" when all it really ought to be a survey of what hardware is out there and in use - not everyone submits their data when asked for.

I guess that goes for both Linux and non-Linux, and of course I may be completely wrong, but I think there's a slight possibility that people using Linux are generally a bit more conscious about privacy and big data, and as such might appear to make up a smaller portion of the sample than they actually are.

PS.:
Kudos to Valve for asking in the first place, and not simply collecting straight away. Sadly, that seems to be the rare exception, and as such I feel it merits specific mention.

View this comment - View article - View full comments