8 ms·

Godot Engine Awarded $50k by Mozilla Open Source Support Program

335 points by wyldfire 8y ago

wishinghand 8y ago
This is heartening news especially in the wake of the licensing that Unity and Unreal have rolled out in recent years. Sure, the terms aren't too onerous, but it's always great to have at least one truly open source foundation in your corner. Interesting that Phaser was also a recent recipient of a Mozilla grant. Even though it targets a completely different developer audience, it's cool to see Mozilla take game making seriously.
PinkMilkshake 8y ago
Nice one! Such a great project. Every time I go and have a play with Godot my mind is blown that the whole program is a single ~45MB executable.
shmerl 8y ago
Godot is growing to be quite interesting. Hopefully they'll implement well parallelized Vulkan support in some near future.
- ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
  It's coming up. https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-gles2 https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-...
  - shmerl 8y ago
    Yes, but hard to say how soon it will be implemented.
    - ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
      Late reply here, but in a recent post Juan said that he would begin working on the Vulkan port in May. https://godotengine.org/article/godot-32-will-get-new-audio-features https://godotengine.org/article/godot-32-will-get-new-audio-... (at the bottom) In the post I previously linked he said he expected the port to take a "couple of months", so we could expect it in any release made in the 3rd or 4th quarter this year, maybe as early as July?
    - grenoire 8y ago
      Notably, the article being from February 2018 tells a lot.
forkLding 8y ago
Used Godot 3.1 for a game project recently, really surprised at how good it is.
ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
If you want to dabble with prototyping games, Godot is the way to go in my opinion. I've played with Unity and Unreal a bit, each with their own pros and cons, but for me Godot is the one I found most intuitive and easy to test new ideas with. Worth checking out.
- crocal 8y ago
  Thanks for the tip. Did you have a chance to compare with gamemaker?
  - bopbop 8y ago
    <not the original commenter> It's a bit more advanced and complex then gamemaker - when I used it a few years ago a more direct comparison would have been a 2d specialist Unity (although it does 3d as well, and this may have significantly advanced since I last used it)
  - hasahmed 8y ago
    Godot doesn't enforce any structure like game maker does. Additionally Godots default language (Gdscript) is awesome and intuitive, whereas gml doesn't really feel like a real language (argument0-15. Come on)
    - krapp 8y ago
      >Additionally Godots default language (Gdscript) is awesome and intuitive, whereas gml doesn't really feel like a real language (argument0-15. Come on) I agree with the comparison to GML, but whether one finds Gdscript intuitive depends on one's existing background. I personally found it frustrating because I was used to C/C++, but with time I can see getting used to it. It's not a bad language by any means. Also, both Game Maker and Godot share the problem of their scripting language being essentially a form of lock-in, since no one is going to use Gdscript anywhere else, and any code you write it in is no longer portable. Also, they use their own shader script rather than GLSL, which means your shaders aren't portable either. Godot can support different languages (unlike Unity or Game Maker), but IIRC that requires recompiling the engine and may break the editor.
orliesaurus 8y ago
Godot is ABSOLUTELY great, especially if you are a python developer! Thank YOU!
pkalinowski 8y ago
Godot approach to game development with nodes is superior to other solutions IMO. I think the biggest blocker for wider adoption is 3D performance and Inverse Kinematics now. Without it, nobody will ever produce high profile game on Godot.
- p0nce 8y ago
  Yup, most gamedev will talk about performance as a reason to prefer Unity, when asked about Unity vs Godot.
- nrjames 8y ago
  Isn’t there IK now? I’ve used it on 2D skeletons in Godot. https://godotengine.org/article/skeleton-inverse-kinematic https://godotengine.org/article/skeleton-inverse-kinematic
- gouh 8y ago
  Yes, if you come from Unity like me you will find Godot amazingly intuitive and clean compared to Unity. No more weird workflow, no more prefab. Just nodes in a tree and scenes. With Unity you have many features, a big asset store that allows you to very quickly prototype, the render engine is powerful, but the architecture & organization is just a massive mess. It's really the kind of editor were you can do everything because the dev added all the popular shiny features to make fancy trailers but nothing is planned & well organized, all features are just put one of top of another with no coherence. Not only the the architecture feels complicated but the editor itself is super heavy : mandatory Email & account, installation size of several GBs, etc. Godot has less tools and the asset store has almost nothing on it right now. The current render engine is not powerful but it is temporary, everything will get re-written with Vulkan to be on par with other engines. While it has not as many features as Unity, the foundations of Godot are really solid & clean, I think this will be a huge advantage on the long term
wastedhours 8y ago
Fantastic - whilst I need to run before I can walk with the dev I'm doing with it, increasing the focus on multiplayer work using web tech should make it easier to achieve some of the ideas that have been laying in notebooks for years. Congrats to the team!
sitzkrieg 8y ago
Godot is great and im glad they secured some funds they will put to good use. Right minds in the right place
krizzo 8y ago
This is great news. I recently just found out about this and have tried a few things with ease. I can see this going as the standard game Deb for open source if you don't want to or are unable to create your own engine / libraries.
MordodeMaru 8y ago
So happy for these guys. Met them at GDC 2019 and their project is wondeba!
ggambetta 8y ago
FWIW, there's a semi-official Godot-SpatialOS integration by an Improbable engineer: https://improbable.io/blog/godot-spatialos-and-engine-integration https://improbable.io/blog/godot-spatialos-and-engine-integr...
harryfcallahan 8y ago
Great news! Love the PROJECT <3
p0nce 8y ago
Godot is a very impressive project.
speps 8y ago
I was thinking "why not use bgfx?", thankfully it's already been discussed: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/19602 https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/19602 However, the arguments against bgfx seem to amount to "I want to do it myself", a classic "not invented here" issue. EDIT: found this too https://godotengine.org/article/godot-3-renderer-design-explained https://godotengine.org/article/godot-3-renderer-design-expl... > Added to that fact, Vulkan still has years to go until it's properly supported in most desktop and mobile platforms, which makes it unattractive to implement for us (as it means considerably more effort to write, debug and maintain). And then they're talking about the Vulkan PI in TFA which probably won't be ready for some time too...
- ArthurBrussee 8y ago
  So much of a game engine is how it's rendering works. It interacts with everything else. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for a game engine to want to implement themselves.
- jezeniel 8y ago
  It maybe reasonable at first glance, but when you start using a library you will hit a roadblock eventually especially if you are working on the lower-level things. If you need something from the library that it doesn't have you will either implement it yourself, create a PR, wait for it to be merged or work around it (which defeats the purpose of using a library).
- csdreamer7 8y ago
  > However, the arguments against bgfx seem to amount to "I want to do it myself", a classic "not invented here" issue. I disagree. It has been 9 months since that post. bgfx still does not list support for Vulkan. They already implemented DX12 and Metal. They still claim support for Windows XP and Vista. Godot says it will get Vulkan support in 3.2 which comes out in a few months. Otherwise they would have to wait and work on bgfx to get it working. DX9, XP, Vista, feels like a lot of baggage for what Godot is right now. A very quick and easy to use game editor that easily deploys on both Win and Linux. Also, your edit links to a pretty outdated article (2017). See Godot's about face on Vulkan here: https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-gles2 https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-... > Vulkan was always a tempting alternative to solve them and to ensure we are much safer from driver bugs (after all, this is what the API was intended for). Still, the lack of support on macOS made it unappealing. Having to write a Metal backend to support this OS is a lot of effort for a platform not used very much. > in a completely unexpected turn of events, it seems Valve has found an arrangement with the developers of MoltenVK (the commercial and proprietary Vulkan over Metal wrapper), ported Dota 2 to it, and got it open sourced. > It seems to be a mostly complete Vulkan implementation that runs on macOS and iOS. This pretty much lifts the only barrier we had for moving Godot to it.
cyborgx7 8y ago
Godot is my game engine of choice. As a patron, I am now in very good company.
vanderZwan 8y ago
> The WP also includes work to make the editor work on mobile browsers, such as touch screen gestures, responsive UI, etc. This should also make it possible for us to port the editor to Android and iOS natively to tweak your projects on the go. That sounds very ambitious, UI and UX wise. Wonder how that will turn out in practice

335 points by wyldfire 8y ago

This is heartening news especially in the wake of the licensing that Unity and Unreal have rolled out in recent years. Sure, the terms aren't too onerous, but it's always great to have at least one truly open source foundation in your corner. Interesting that Phaser was also a recent recipient of a Mozilla grant. Even though it targets a completely different developer audience, it's cool to see Mozilla take game making seriously.

PinkMilkshake 8y ago

Nice one! Such a great project. Every time I go and have a play with Godot my mind is blown that the whole program is a single ~45MB executable.

shmerl 8y ago

Godot is growing to be quite interesting. Hopefully they'll implement well parallelized Vulkan support in some near future.

ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
It's coming up. https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-gles2 https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-...
- shmerl 8y ago
  Yes, but hard to say how soon it will be implemented.
  - ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
    Late reply here, but in a recent post Juan said that he would begin working on the Vulkan port in May. https://godotengine.org/article/godot-32-will-get-new-audio-features https://godotengine.org/article/godot-32-will-get-new-audio-... (at the bottom) In the post I previously linked he said he expected the port to take a "couple of months", so we could expect it in any release made in the 3rd or 4th quarter this year, maybe as early as July?
  - grenoire 8y ago
    Notably, the article being from February 2018 tells a lot.

forkLding 8y ago

Used Godot 3.1 for a game project recently, really surprised at how good it is.

ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago

If you want to dabble with prototyping games, Godot is the way to go in my opinion. I've played with Unity and Unreal a bit, each with their own pros and cons, but for me Godot is the one I found most intuitive and easy to test new ideas with. Worth checking out.

crocal 8y ago
Thanks for the tip. Did you have a chance to compare with gamemaker?
- bopbop 8y ago
  <not the original commenter> It's a bit more advanced and complex then gamemaker - when I used it a few years ago a more direct comparison would have been a 2d specialist Unity (although it does 3d as well, and this may have significantly advanced since I last used it)
- hasahmed 8y ago
  Godot doesn't enforce any structure like game maker does. Additionally Godots default language (Gdscript) is awesome and intuitive, whereas gml doesn't really feel like a real language (argument0-15. Come on)
  - krapp 8y ago
    >Additionally Godots default language (Gdscript) is awesome and intuitive, whereas gml doesn't really feel like a real language (argument0-15. Come on) I agree with the comparison to GML, but whether one finds Gdscript intuitive depends on one's existing background. I personally found it frustrating because I was used to C/C++, but with time I can see getting used to it. It's not a bad language by any means. Also, both Game Maker and Godot share the problem of their scripting language being essentially a form of lock-in, since no one is going to use Gdscript anywhere else, and any code you write it in is no longer portable. Also, they use their own shader script rather than GLSL, which means your shaders aren't portable either. Godot can support different languages (unlike Unity or Game Maker), but IIRC that requires recompiling the engine and may break the editor.

orliesaurus 8y ago

Godot is ABSOLUTELY great, especially if you are a python developer! Thank YOU!

pkalinowski 8y ago

Godot approach to game development with nodes is superior to other solutions IMO. I think the biggest blocker for wider adoption is 3D performance and Inverse Kinematics now. Without it, nobody will ever produce high profile game on Godot.

p0nce 8y ago
Yup, most gamedev will talk about performance as a reason to prefer Unity, when asked about Unity vs Godot.
nrjames 8y ago
Isn’t there IK now? I’ve used it on 2D skeletons in Godot. https://godotengine.org/article/skeleton-inverse-kinematic https://godotengine.org/article/skeleton-inverse-kinematic
gouh 8y ago
Yes, if you come from Unity like me you will find Godot amazingly intuitive and clean compared to Unity. No more weird workflow, no more prefab. Just nodes in a tree and scenes. With Unity you have many features, a big asset store that allows you to very quickly prototype, the render engine is powerful, but the architecture & organization is just a massive mess. It's really the kind of editor were you can do everything because the dev added all the popular shiny features to make fancy trailers but nothing is planned & well organized, all features are just put one of top of another with no coherence. Not only the the architecture feels complicated but the editor itself is super heavy : mandatory Email & account, installation size of several GBs, etc. Godot has less tools and the asset store has almost nothing on it right now. The current render engine is not powerful but it is temporary, everything will get re-written with Vulkan to be on par with other engines. While it has not as many features as Unity, the foundations of Godot are really solid & clean, I think this will be a huge advantage on the long term

wastedhours 8y ago

Fantastic - whilst I need to run before I can walk with the dev I'm doing with it, increasing the focus on multiplayer work using web tech should make it easier to achieve some of the ideas that have been laying in notebooks for years. Congrats to the team!

sitzkrieg 8y ago

Godot is great and im glad they secured some funds they will put to good use. Right minds in the right place

krizzo 8y ago

This is great news. I recently just found out about this and have tried a few things with ease. I can see this going as the standard game Deb for open source if you don't want to or are unable to create your own engine / libraries.

MordodeMaru 8y ago

So happy for these guys. Met them at GDC 2019 and their project is wondeba!

ggambetta 8y ago

FWIW, there's a semi-official Godot-SpatialOS integration by an Improbable engineer: https://improbable.io/blog/godot-spatialos-and-engine-integration https://improbable.io/blog/godot-spatialos-and-engine-integr...

harryfcallahan 8y ago

Great news! Love the PROJECT <3

p0nce 8y ago

Godot is a very impressive project.

speps 8y ago

I was thinking "why not use bgfx?", thankfully it's already been discussed: https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/19602 https://github.com/godotengine/godot/issues/19602 However, the arguments against bgfx seem to amount to "I want to do it myself", a classic "not invented here" issue. EDIT: found this too https://godotengine.org/article/godot-3-renderer-design-explained https://godotengine.org/article/godot-3-renderer-design-expl... > Added to that fact, Vulkan still has years to go until it's properly supported in most desktop and mobile platforms, which makes it unattractive to implement for us (as it means considerably more effort to write, debug and maintain). And then they're talking about the Vulkan PI in TFA which probably won't be ready for some time too...

ArthurBrussee 8y ago
So much of a game engine is how it's rendering works. It interacts with everything else. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing for a game engine to want to implement themselves.
jezeniel 8y ago
It maybe reasonable at first glance, but when you start using a library you will hit a roadblock eventually especially if you are working on the lower-level things. If you need something from the library that it doesn't have you will either implement it yourself, create a PR, wait for it to be merged or work around it (which defeats the purpose of using a library).
csdreamer7 8y ago
> However, the arguments against bgfx seem to amount to "I want to do it myself", a classic "not invented here" issue. I disagree. It has been 9 months since that post. bgfx still does not list support for Vulkan. They already implemented DX12 and Metal. They still claim support for Windows XP and Vista. Godot says it will get Vulkan support in 3.2 which comes out in a few months. Otherwise they would have to wait and work on bgfx to get it working. DX9, XP, Vista, feels like a lot of baggage for what Godot is right now. A very quick and easy to use game editor that easily deploys on both Win and Linux. Also, your edit links to a pretty outdated article (2017). See Godot's about face on Vulkan here: https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-gles2 https://godotengine.org/article/abandoning-gles3-vulkan-and-... > Vulkan was always a tempting alternative to solve them and to ensure we are much safer from driver bugs (after all, this is what the API was intended for). Still, the lack of support on macOS made it unappealing. Having to write a Metal backend to support this OS is a lot of effort for a platform not used very much. > in a completely unexpected turn of events, it seems Valve has found an arrangement with the developers of MoltenVK (the commercial and proprietary Vulkan over Metal wrapper), ported Dota 2 to it, and got it open sourced. > It seems to be a mostly complete Vulkan implementation that runs on macOS and iOS. This pretty much lifts the only barrier we had for moving Godot to it.

cyborgx7 8y ago

Godot is my game engine of choice. As a patron, I am now in very good company.

vanderZwan 8y ago

> The WP also includes work to make the editor work on mobile browsers, such as touch screen gestures, responsive UI, etc. This should also make it possible for us to port the editor to Android and iOS natively to tweak your projects on the go. That sounds very ambitious, UI and UX wise. Wonder how that will turn out in practice