AppLovin’s attempts to acquire Unity last year turned sour when Unity opted for a merger with rivals ironSource instead . Now, in the ongoing shockwave of Unity’s unpopular introductio…

  • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s interesting to me that articles mention godot before unreal. I mean this is not the first time I see it

        • YMS@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is a privately held company with no plans for IPO and no dealings with venture capitalists

          According to https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/64901-80, there’s over 100 investors in Epic, and of course there is Tencent holding a 40% share.
          But those investors are not much of an issue either, because you forgot one important point in your list: Epic is swimming in money (and Unreal is just a side business for them).

        • lowleveldata@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying it’s going to happen. Still there’s a chance of stupid COP shits happening when compared to open source.

        • PlexSheep@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a company, they can just say “fuck it, pay more”. It would be weird, self destructive and illogical, but they can do it (like unity did it too.)

        • millie@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The thing is, this could change at any time. The problem with enshittification is that it spreads. A company that’s doing great work today could be bought out by corporate profiteers and leeched of its actual value at any point in the future. We’ve had plenty of companies that started out with a vision and a set of strong principles who’ve been reduced to predatory business practices that are bad for everyone. You can’t assume that because a company seems to have integrity now, that integrity will remain.

          Remember Elon Musk 15 years ago? Wasn’t quite the same, was it?

          To me, sitting in a position of getting started in game development, that makes me want to sink my time and effort into an engine that I know can’t be enshittified because it can’t be bought out. I want to know that in a few years I’m not going to completely scrub every asset and mechanic that I make for the engine because somebody’s pulled some Darth Vader shit.

          • Veraxus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            OSS is not a panacea, especially when there are upstream dependencies. Even things you think are safe can be compromised or enshittified. It happens all the time. The important thing is to take a close look at the indicators.

            Right now, as far as I’m concerned, Godot and UE are both very safe bets, depends on your project and business needs. Epic’s license is not conducive to retroactive shenanigans the way Unity’s was. Epic clearly invests heavily in fostering customer trust.

            • millie@lemmy.film
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unreal is safe now, but there are no guarantees under capitalism. A FOSS license does guarantee that enshittification won’t be a factor because it literally can’t become the exclusive property of some company with a greedy executive board. Unreal doesn’t have that protection, Godot does.

              Could Godot be compromised some how? Sure. Can it be enshittified? Not really.

      • Why9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The conspiracy theorist in me always thought stuff like this was the result of corporate espionage; a loyal employee of a rival firm joins their competitor’s ranks and works their way up and finally gets the commanding role, only to announce something this dumb and then take it back (losing their reputation without anything in return) and then the guy leaves the company and finds a comfortable position on the board of their original rival company.

        But… No? These people really are that stupid and actually did that to themselves.

        And these are the people being paid 300x the salary of ordinary, hard working people!

      • gila@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Epic allows devs to stay under the license terms for specific versions of the engine. If they started charging for installs, devs can just use the older engine versions and avoid the charges.

        • unexpectedteapot@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          They “don’t” allow it, that’s how licenses work.

          I keep seeing comments like these on source available nonfree software, but it really doesn’t factor in the fact that older software is NOT going to be used due to bugs, features missing, technical debt, secuity vulnerabilities, etc. So unless it is forked (i.e: OpenTofu), it is as good as useless for everyone but hobbyists.

          • gila@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s allowed by a specific clause in their TOS which assigns a EULA version dependent on the engine version. The EULA itself is different for different versions.

            The point is that devs choosing to stay on an old version would not be good for Epic, so they are unlikely to directly create the circumstances where that is the logical result.

              • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yup, they actually removed the entire GitHub repo that they made specifically to track those changes for transparency.

              • gila@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The clause is:

                If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to. However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to access certain Epic services or download the Licensed Technology unless you have accepted the amended Agreement.

                My understanding is this is fundamentally different to the Unity clause you’re pointing out.

                Another thing is that Unreal is open source source accessible. If there’s a bug in 5.0 that is resolved in 5.1 but you don’t want to accept the amended terms for 5.1, it’s possible to fix the bug and build the engine yourself. In the event of a significant change like the one with Unity, I imagine some dev group would just fork it and maintain it themselves.

          • Veraxus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They do, though. Not only do they offer multiple, flexible licenses, their basic license specifically guarantees that it is irrevocable. In fact, if that basic license isn’t good enough, they are open to license negotiation.

            I strongly recommend reading their basic license. It’s already one of the most fair and reasonable “out of the box” licenses in the industry.

            https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal

      • natsume_shokogami@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        However it’s currently difficult for games made for Godot to port to consoles (XBox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch,… not those non-Switch “gaming handhelds” since they are all just Windows/Linux handheld PCs) while keeping Godot open source since the SDKs, APIs, porting kits of these consoles are proprietary and you have to sign in NDAs. If most of your games’ revenues are from consoles, you don’t have much choice currently.

        • float@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hopefully a new generation of consoles based on regular PC hardware takes the market so we don’t have to deal with locked-down platforms, NDAs, exclusive titles, and overpriced games anymore. The Steam Deck is doing great so far.

      • Kes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unreal Engine royalties only start after you make $1 million from a project. Even then, it’s 5%, and waived for sales done on the Epic Store (whose 13% cut is almost a third of what Steam takes). If you are a small indie dev, you won’t be paying Epic a dime unless you start rolling in some serious dough, and even when you do, 5% of your revenue for using one of the most powerful 3D game engines is pretty fair

        • Veraxus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes! This is why the hate I see for Epic (or non-Steam in general) bugs me so much. Epic has done nothing but right by developers. While they could definitely make their storefront/app better (and they claim they are working on it) for the customer experience, I have nothing but respect for them as a company.

          I will still buy games on Steam first, given a choice, but that is only because I am now a staunch acolyte of the Steam Deck, and installing via Steam is much easier than trying to get EGS games running on the device.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s because both Unity and Godot use C# while Unreal uses C++ for development. It is much easier to move from Unity to Godot since they use the same language for development. Moving to Unreal basically means starting over.

      • jayrhacker@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure Godot has it’s own scripting language (hence the prompt converting all the C#/JS code from Unity).

        Unreal is C++ but it’s also another commercial proprietary engine, so they could rug-pull in the same way.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Makes sense to not immediately jump into another walled garden if you have the option.