18 ms·
Defold game engine source now available and free to use for commercial games
- SiempreViernes 6y agoA bit surprised there is only one King game in the list of showcases considering how prominently they are listed as the previous owner.
- n3k5 6y agoI'd guess this is because from the perspective of evaluating an engine, when you've seen one King game, you've seen them all.
- capableweb 6y agoProbably also to show that there are more companies than just King using it, so you'll get less scared of King "owning" the development of the engine and it's community.
- bjconlan 6y agoWow, this will hopefully ignite a sleuth of creativity. I think their choice of using lua to script while also having a pretty great user experience (in v2 and v1) should put them on the radar for most indie developers now. Hopefully this also creates some friendly competition with godot (though I think they have the momentum) but for 2d prototyping for programming novices, I'll always recommend defold. Kudos King.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- minxomat 6y agoThis is quite good news, to say the least. This is one of the most well-integrated, sensible engines and development environments I've ever used. Can't wait to patch more native moonscript support into a fork :evil: If you want to see an overview of a somewhat typical and polished mobile game done with Defold, here's a non-King dev showing off his work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK4pJ8A3YS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK4pJ8A3YS4 Also, in relevant news, Corona (the other major Lua game engine[1]) is also being open-sourced, and renamed to Solar2D: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22326462 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22326462 [1] with dev ecosystem of extensions, build services etc - without that Love2D might also qualify
- lasagnaphil 6y agoThe Corona SDK always have a special place in my heart. I was in middle school when I've used it back then, and it tremendously helped in me learning programming at a young age. Before, I would try to learn how to make games by dabbling with SDL/DirectX/Cocos2D/etc, but figured out that you can't really do much with these frameworks as a beginner than just copy-pasting code in the books and tutorials. I was really able to make "complete" apps once I've grabbed a no-nonsense batteries-included framework like Corona, and I would have wasted far more time on useless low-level stuff if I haven't stumbled upon it. Oh, and about the unfortunate name they've decided with: who really knew that this coincidence would happen haha...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- skocznymroczny 6y agoIs the name change related with coronavirus in any way? As in it's considered a negative brand right now?
- minxomat 6y agoThey did mention that in their blog post, yes.
- barbecue_sauce 6y agoCorona and Isis are two common branding gotos that will now be forever out-of-favor. Also, you probably can't name anything COVID, but I think that's a less likely scenario.
- the_mitsuhiko 6y agoOpen Source with an asterisk: > a) You do not sell or otherwise commercialise the Work or Derivative Works as a Game Engine Product; and
- INTPenis 6y agoAm I interpreting it wrong or does that mean you can still sell it as a game? Just not a game engine.
- vlaaad 6y agoYou can't rebrand Defold and sell it, your games can be monetized in any way you want no strings attached.
- britzl 6y agoYes, you can sell your games! The license page is very clear on this: https://defold.com/license/ https://defold.com/license/ * You are free to commercialise any software created using Defold * You are free to commercialise any plugin, extension or tool created for use with Defold * You are free to modify Defold and you are not required to share the changes * You are free to distribute original or modified (derivative) versions of Defold * You are given a license to any patent that covers Defold You can sell anything you want created with or related to Defold, but not package the engine+editor and sell those.
- trzeci 6y agoI think it does mean that I can't fork Deflod, rename it to Refold and sell as mine. Just a reflection as non-native English speaker. Game Engine Product is not the same as 'Product of Game Engine'.
- sk0v 6y agoWhy would you use this over say, Unity or Unreal? Seems more niche, less popular (so less assets/community libraries etc.) and less integrated into...everything?
- fxtentacle 6y agoEasier to use, fewer bugs, no need for expensive paid support or engine developers on your team. When I used Unreal Engine, I found and fixed engine bugs. When I used Unity, I found engine bugs and we had to work around them with ugly hacks. When I used Defold, we shipped without ruining into any trouble. Of course, Unity and UE are much more powerful. But if you don't need that, simple is king.
- Ponk 6y agoDefold is optimized to produce small binaries, and features you don't use can be turned to to further decrease your bundle size. It also focuses a lot on providing fast iteration times. You can hot-reload changed assets onto a device while the game is running. For most asset types, you'll see the change on device in less than a second. Similarly, a Build and Run cycle from scratch for a moderately complex game project such as Blossom Blast typically takes around a minute or so, and subsequent cached builds can start in a couple of seconds. (Edit: Full disclosure, I worked on the Defold editor.)
- ipsum2 6y agoI wonder why they open sourced it. Won't this create more mobile games, creating competition for them?
- britzl 6y agoThe question if Defold will be open sourced is one of the most common questions asked since Defold was launched in 2016. By open sourcing Defold and handing it to the Defold Foundation we build trust with the community. It guarantees that Defold will be around regardless of what happens with King. And by handing over Defold to the Defold Foundation we believe it gives a lot of credibility to Defold as a strong and independent open source game engine.
- detaro 6y agoI really do appreciate you making it available under such generous terms, but I fear you are wasting a lot of that credibility by calling it "open source" when it's not under an OSI-compliant license. This is something people feel very strongly about.
- britzl 6y agoThank you for the feedback. It was never our intention to step on any toes or misrepresent Defold. Please see this statement: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
- Intermernet 6y agoPlease, I implore you, don't claim it to be open source. Call it "a very permissive licence", or "source available", but don't claim to be open source unless you actually are. I love the release, I appreciate the time and effort, and I'm sure you have the best intentions, but the term "open source" has a very well defined meaning for very well defined reasons, and those reasons are hugely important to the last few decades of technological development. Please don't break the definition, even if you have the best of intentions! Once again, thanks and congratulations on the release!
- davidjgraph 6y agoThis is not open source. There is a well established definition of open source [0]. It includes "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" "You can not commercialise original or modified (derivative) versions of the Defold editor and/or engine" does not meet (6). I'm not even going to start on the use of the term "free". [0] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- britzl 6y agoTrue, Defold is only 90% open source according to that definition, but that is definitely a lot better than the 0% it was yesterday.
- sjamaan 6y agoThat's not how it works. These terms have a specific meaning and using them for something that's not covered by the definition dilutes their effectiveness. On top of that, they even use "free and open source", which refers to certain moral freedoms rather than license mechanics.
- gambiting 6y agoI don't think I agree - is the source publicly available? Yes? Then it's open source. I understand that Open Source Foundation has written a definition, good for them - but they do not have the monopoly or final say on defining the term or how it's used(or rather - I don't see why should I recognize and accept their definition).
- detaro 6y agoThey came up with the term, and it's extremely widely used that way. And large parts of the software community will assume malice on your part if you present something as open source that doesn't fit the definition. EDIT: IMHO it's in the best interest of everyone working on such licenses to come up with a new positive term and position that, instead of burning goodwill by trying to co-opt the "open source" label. (E.g. if I remember correctly, in the discussions around cloud software, "fair software" was one label used. Nice and positive word, not stepping on existing communities toes). And in reverse I hope people would be accepting of attempts with such new licenses if they keep the messaging straight.
- gfiorav 6y agoI'm a newbie to game dev so let me ask this here: What's the advantage of this vs Godot?
- vanderZwan 6y ago[The editor] is written in Clojure, which some people will probably like. Here's a video from a few years ago explaining how that makes the whole editor extensible with live-code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajX09xQ_UEg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajX09xQ_UEg (I don't know if this is an advantage/disadvantage compared to Godot or how that extensibility compares) edit: clarification, see Ponk's comment below
- anentropic 6y agoIs it though? https://defold.com/manuals/introduction/ https://defold.com/manuals/introduction/ > Defold uses Lua for all its logic control. The engine is a fast C++ piece of machinery, but it is controlled on a high level by Lua programs.
- Ponk 6y agoTo clarify, the Defold Editor is written in Clojure, whereas the runtime component is written in a carefully selected subset of C++ in order to keep executable sizes small and compile times fast. You can write game-specific extensions to the runtime in C++ if your game requires it, but most games are authored in just Lua. Edit: Typo.
- taneq 6y agoFor anyone who's used this, how does it compare with popular open source engines like Godot, and with the commercial industry standards like Unreal Engine and Unity?
- walkingolof 6y agoLong story short, Defold emphasize 2D (but can do 3D) and is scriptable in Lua with a neat IDE. This gives a good overview https://defold.com/product/ https://defold.com/product/
- vertex-four 6y agoGodot is actually open source, unlike this - you can modify it however you like and still sell your game. Defold allows you to see the internals, but if something doesn't work the way you want, you can't change it and still get to sell your game.
- AGulev 6y agoThe only one restriction: you can't sell the engine itself! You can sell the game made with Defold. You don't understand something or you are misleading people.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoNo, they are correct. 'Open Source' is a term-of-art in the software world. We use the OSI's definition, which is a good deal stricter than just making the source available. The licence used by Defold is not an Open Source licence. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23233336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23233336 , https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23235217
- vonmoltke 6y agovertex-four is correct that Defold is not Open Source. This statement, however, is absolutely wrong: > Defold allows you to see the internals, but if something doesn't work the way you want, you can't change it and still get to sell your game.
- SXX 6y agoIt's truly unfortunate how some companies try to sell their shared source products as "open source". I guess HN should change the title. UPD: Okay title has been changed and it's all good now.
- m0llusk 6y agoThere was plenty of objection to that point of view here on HN and yet you think you own the discussion? Wow, now I'm an official HN rebel because I think sharing means openness and zero cost means free. I hope your efforts to make the world understand the free and open software development scene is hostile, mean spirited, defensive, and always ready and anxious to play word games works out for the best.
- philipov 6y agoPlease change the title to reflect that the engine is merely available publicly, but not open source.
- ipsum2 6y agoSome older discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352546 (2016) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4791284 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4791284 (2012)
- bjarneh 6y agoI like the second line-comment in the startup file (com.defold.editor.Start.java); makes it seem familiar with all my projects. // A terrible hack as an attempt to avoid a deadlock when loading native libraries.
- dwheeler 6y agoThis needs retitle, e.g. "King claiming its Defold game engine open source (but isn't)"
- cocktailpeanuts 6y agogeez, what's up with all these armchair open source experts on HN? Looks like too many people on this thread thinks this is evil. A company gave away their app making tool for free, and these people are sitting in front of their keyboard talking shit about how "this is subverting the definition of 'open source'", seriously? Also what's so evil about the clause: > "You can not commercialise original or modified (derivative) versions of the Defold editor and/or engine" does not meet (6). What's so wrong about businesses trying to give back to the community while protecting themselves against the likes of Microsoft and Amazon who will naturally take the code and monetize if there's no clause that restricts anti competition? Lastly, who the hell cares what some website called opensource.org says what open source is? This is all subjective, and from my point of view, if the source code is open, it is "open" source. There are many reasons people open source their projects, for transparency, for giving assurance to the ecosystem, etc. By trying to box the definition down to a single very narrow minded idea, you're actually hurting the growth of open source instead of helping.
- koonsolo 6y ago> you're actually hurting the growth of open source instead of helping. Which definition of "open source" are you talking about in this case? I'm confused now. Do you mean "Open Source" or source-available?
- billme 6y agoBoth Wikipedia & Oxford appear for some reason to adopted what is at best a subjective understanding of the term “open source” — since no one in plain English would ever think some person, place, or thing being “open” would mean free to take and use as desired. Plain English is important. People are lazy. People do not like non-obvious meanings. Regardless of intent, any one prompting idea that “open source” means anything other than “viewable source code” needs to reflect on the clarity of their communication and the reality they may be seen as an chest pounding elitist; which to me is not in the spirit of the idles the claim to believe.
- 6y ago
- pojntfx 6y agoNot open source. Common clause.
- britzl 6y agoIt was never our intention to step on any toes or misrepresent Defold. Defold is a free and open game engine with a permissive license and we invite the community to contribute on GitHub. Please see this statement: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
- billfruit 6y agoIt is a polished product, and it is a good move. I did try to use it briefly in a small sample, it was reasonably easy to use as well. However I didn't like Lua, would have preferred something more flexible/expressive like JS. Lua has something of the schoolhouse feel about it, too prim and rigid like Pascal. So I am presently thinking of moving on to Phaser.io.
- frabert 6y agoWeird, I would consider lua to be _more_ expressive than JS, thanks to its optional syntax for function calls and the metatables which allow stuff like operator overloading.
- greybox 6y agoYou can accomplish quite a bit with this game engine, check out this narrative that I started making with Defold a few months ago (playable in browser) https://lilrooness.itch.io/control https://lilrooness.itch.io/control
- Kiro 6y agoHasn't it always been free to use for commercial games?
- AGulev 6y agoYes, it has, but now the source code of the engine itself is available for everybody to fork, modify, make contributions, and so on.
- britzl 6y agoWe are humbled by the mostly positive reactions to the news we shared earlier today but also sorry for misrepresenting the license under which we make the source code available. Defold is a free and open game engine with a permissive license. The source code is available on GitHub and we invite the community to contribute. We have updated the website to reflect this and we no longer use the term "Open Source" as to not confuse it with the OSD. The Defold license, complete with a summary of what you can and cannot do, can be seen on our license page: https://defold.com/license/ https://defold.com/license/ We have also Tweeted this: https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517 https://twitter.com/defold/status/1262744466311360517
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoGood move. Thank you for making that change.
- ddevault 6y agoHey britzl, I appreciate the attempt to compromise on the terminology here. But, this falls flat pretty badly. "Free and open" is still trying to capitalize on the "free and open source" brand, and is going to mislead people into thinking it uses a FOSS license - seemingly deliberately. Can't you just call it "source available", which is the term we use for this kind of licensing model? It's really not okay to be capitalizing on the FOSS brand without being FOSS. It's a kick in the groin to the FOSS community when companies do this.
- fluffything 6y agoYou seem to be confusing whether something is "open source" with "what kind of license does the code have". Something being "open source" does not imply anything about its license. Suggesting that only GPL-like software is allowed to use the term "open source" is crazy. It doesn't reflect the world we live in at all: there are thousands of projects on github without a license, or with some "free for non-military use"-type of license, or MIT/BSD-like licenses... EDIT: "the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” (Richard Stallman, GNU Philosophy: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... ). Not that Stallman did much better with "free software", which as the article argues, has the obvious meaning that 'the software is "for free"'. Having to avoid expressions like "free software" or "open source" because two organizations decided to appropriate common english expressions to give them a complicated meaning is nuts.
- andrewmcwatters 6y agoIf you're interested in game engines using Lua, please also consider Planimeter's Grid Engine (https://www.planimeter.org/grid-sdk/ https://www.planimeter.org/grid-sdk/ and https://github.com/Planimeter/grid-sdk https://github.com/Planimeter/grid-sdk) which has been in steady development for about a decade, having even more features than Defold and Solar2D, such as out-of-the-box multiplayer with client-server prediction, Tiled support, configuration bindings, and much more that you'd have to roll yourself in both engines! (and it's MIT licensed to boot.) No other game engine in Lua is going to provide dedicated server support out of the box besides Grid. It's all also built on the latest version of LÖVE, which gives you access to all of the software in that ecosystem, too. It's the only full fledged game engine on LÖVE that we know of. It's less known as we don't do much advertising and have had far fewer contributors, but our focus has been consistent over the years. Because we have fewer resources, we also work very closely with those using the software if you have any questions. While a collection of game engines using Lua seem to be tapering off in active development, such as Polycode, Corona, and perhaps now Defold, Planimeter's Grid engine is actively used by the group for game development projects, and will continue to be supported into the future, bringing commercial support in 2021.
- elisee 6y agoCan you point to some games (or game projects) using Grid Engine?
- andrewmcwatters 6y agoNo, I'm sorry, most of our users are hobbyists with projects that we're not aware of the state of for the most part. We hope to improve the engine to better serve the indie and hobbyist gamedev community with tools that aren't available elsewhere and if we hear about any projects one would like to showcase, we'd be happy to feature them!
- tomcam 6y agoLooks neat! These links give no info on the deployment story. Does it work everywhere Love2d works?
- fenwick67 6y agoKing's unsavory handling of trademark disputes (trademarking "Candy" and "Saga" and voraciously enforcing it against games like The Banner Saga and CandySwipe [which came out before Candy Crush]) is gonna steer me clear of this one.
- AGulev 6y agoDefold is not King anymore. A quote from the official web site: "game engine, has been transferred to the Defold Foundation"
- fenwick67 6y ago4 of the 5 listed board members work for King today, and King (as a company) has a seat on the board.
- britzl 6y agoNot sure how you are counting. Romain and Sara work for King. Elin is a consultant. Björn (me) and Mathias have left King to work on behalf of the foundation. This makes me realise that I need to update my LinkedIn profile if anyone bothers to check it!
- fenwick67 6y agoI was just looking at https://defold.com/foundation/ https://defold.com/foundation/ , it says Mathias "has spent the last 4 years at King" and that you became a product owner at King in 2018, I assumed you both still worked there since it doesn't say you ever left.
- markdog12 6y agoAre there any language bindings for the engine, so I don't have to use Lua?
- terrycody 6y agoSadly, this article has no Defold listed, but why? https://gist.github.com/raysan5/909dc6cf33ed40223eb0dfe625c0de74 https://gist.github.com/raysan5/909dc6cf33ed40223eb0dfe625c0...
- britzl 6y agoThe release of the Defold source code and the transition to the Defold Foundation was the culmination of many months of preparations. While most things went smoothly (except an SVG which crashed the Firefox browser!) we never anticipated the amount of feedback we received on our use of the term Open Source. We have summarised our thoughts and the actions we have taken here: https://defold.com/2020/05/20/Some-thoughts-on-the-open-source-discussion/ https://defold.com/2020/05/20/Some-thoughts-on-the-open-sour...