4 ms·

Betting on Godot is appealing from a philosophical position, but there's not much indication that it won't be the Firefox to Epic's Chrome. Likewise, Blender di

Betting on Godot is appealing from a philosophical position, but there's not much indication that it won't be the Firefox to Epic's Chrome. Likewise, Blender didn't and won't kill commercial 3D suites. In practice, Unreal is source available enough to satisfy the needs of commercial developers, and it's backed by a billion dollar incumbent that shows little or no sign of slowing down. Without serious revenue generation to fund its developers, Godot will struggle to attract the top talent. It will get great talent, like Firefox, but not in the numbers and dedication that Epic can pay for and so won't be able to take the same risks with development time. And then there's professional level support. Who can you pay six and seven figures a year to in order to acquire the services of a team of industry experts who work with Godot?

krapp 4y ago
>Who can you pay six and seven figures a year to in order to acquire the services of a team of industry experts who work with Godot? Why would you need to? It's an open source engine that uses straightforward C++, You can add PRs and requests in Github or contact the devs on Twitter or wherever. You can fork it and make whatever changes you like. FFS, Undertale was made in Game Maker of all things. A game engine doesn't need to compete against AAA studios to be successful.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  >> And then there's professional level support. Who can you pay six and seven figures a year to in order to acquire the services of a team of industry experts who work with Godot? > Why would you need to? It's an open source engine that uses straightforward C++, You can add PRs and requests in Github or contact the devs on Twitter or wherever. This is such peak HN, and misunderstanding why companies pay for professional support, that it hurts.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Most of HN doesn't really get the games industry anyway.
- dleslie 4y ago
  > Why would you need to? Well... > You can add PRs and requests in Github or contact the devs on Twitter or wherever. You can fork it and make whatever changes you like. So I don't have to do these things. If I can have someone capable solve the hard problems for us then I can focus the company on tasks it's better suited at delivering on.
  - krapp 4y ago
    Ok. Given that everything about Godot, including support, is already available for free, why do you want to pay a team of people six figure salaries to do that when countless indie developers manage to ship games on a fraction of that budget?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - snapcaster 4y ago
      I think the answer you want is "because everyone is stupid except you"
      - krapp 4y ago
        No. I was honestly hoping to get an anecdote from someone with experience in the game industry that would justify what to me seemed like an absurd claim, particularly in regards to a game engine that targets indie development and isn't even competing against AAA engines. dleslie seems to be the only one here who knows what they're talking about, but I think their assertion that not having a highly paid team of industry experts on call for Godot isn't actually a slight against the engine. I could very well be wrong. It would have been nice to have some actual insightful conversation about the differences in economies of scale between small and large games, to know why that kind of cost is justifiable for a non-proprietary engine. But it seems like you're just a poser who came into this thread to shit on me for karma. Enjoy your lunch. I'm out.
        4y ago
_hypx 4y ago
I'm gonna disagree with that statement about Blender. It is still growing and will probably drive a lot of commercial 3D suites into extinction. It just hasn't happened yet.
- culi 4y ago
  I honestly can't even name the "professional" competitors. I always thought Blender was like VLC. One of the few examples where the OSS has already won the competition and there's no reason to look for alternatives
  - dleslie 4y ago
    Autodesk and SideFx are doing just fine, and are hardly beaten. It might feel that way when working Indie on a shoestring budget, but their tools are worth the entry fee to many.
    - Teever 4y ago
      They're still worth the entry fee for now but I hear the rumblings of discontent from my professional friends about Autodesk and Adobe. In classic rent seeking fashion both these companies have strategically swallowed up many small to medium sized software companies whose products many other industries require to stay competitive. And again in classic rent seeking fashio n they've jacked up prices while coasting on quality. My architecture/residential friends tell me that Revit is a bloated mess. An EE at my work complains about the poor integration of Eagle and Fusion360 and the horrible subscription model with frequent downtime. My relative with a video game company curses the price he has to pay for Maya or 3DSM for his employees while praising Blender. These are conversations that I've and with people in the last month alone. Everyone is fed up of those two companies and I think that you under estimate how much they have tested on their laurels while competitors are soon to grow up around them. I couldn't be happier.
      - voakbasda 4y ago
        I used to be apathetic to Autodesk, until they swallowed up Eagle and destroyed that product for hobbyists. Now all of my old designs are locked on old systems or behind their subscription model. I hope they rot in hell for that. In the meantime, long live KiKad and other open alternatives.
amatecha 4y ago
> Who can you pay six and seven figures a year to in order to acquire the services of a team of industry experts who work with Godot? Here's one company you can hire: https://prehensile-tales.com https://prehensile-tales.com
Conscat 4y ago
Godot feels like an incredibly poorly designed programming model and Juan Linietsky alternates being sounding brilliant and insane depending on the lunar phase. :/
- polotics 4y ago
  Could you be more specific about the "poorly designed programming model" ?
Mikeb85 4y ago
> And then there's professional level support. https://w4games.com/ https://w4games.com/ You can literally get support from the original authors (and still main contributors) of the engine. And Godot has quite a few contributors. The Godot 4 rewrite is fantastic: modern rendering techniques, great features, very modular, clean code, etc...
torginus 4y ago
I think Unreal is increasingly going after the AAA space with stuff like Lumen and Nanite, which is great if you are a high end shop chasing after photorealism. On the other hand, I imagine it forces you into a workflow/rendering style, with custom, simpler art styles being much harder to achieve. On the low end, where people are still using the tried and tested VS/PS deferred forward rendering, with custom shaders, Godot is becoming increasingly viable. Fun fact: Tesla's mobile app uses Godot, so in a sense, Godot has already made it.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  I'm going to say mostly false. Realistic lighting makes things feel very... alive. It almost always looks better. It doesn't need to be a photorealistic game. Nanite works great with those ultra high resolution megascans, sure, but it also works well with simple things. A large benefit of it is that you don't need to make many levels of depth. Putting 2D games aside, I think Unreal is a pretty flexible choice. Moreso, I think the term AAA used to refer to realistic looking graphics, but now refers to the amount of handcrafted content in a game. Good looking graphics are simply becoming easy to obtain. I do hope Godot eats unity's lunch though

krapp 4y ago

>Who can you pay six and seven figures a year to in order to acquire the services of a team of industry experts who work with Godot? Why would you need to? It's an open source engine that uses straightforward C++, You can add PRs and requests in Github or contact the devs on Twitter or wherever. You can fork it and make whatever changes you like. FFS, Undertale was made in Game Maker of all things. A game engine doesn't need to compete against AAA studios to be successful.

ethbr0 4y ago
>> And then there's professional level support. Who can you pay six and seven figures a year to in order to acquire the services of a team of industry experts who work with Godot? > Why would you need to? It's an open source engine that uses straightforward C++, You can add PRs and requests in Github or contact the devs on Twitter or wherever. This is such peak HN, and misunderstanding why companies pay for professional support, that it hurts.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Most of HN doesn't really get the games industry anyway.
dleslie 4y ago
> Why would you need to? Well... > You can add PRs and requests in Github or contact the devs on Twitter or wherever. You can fork it and make whatever changes you like. So I don't have to do these things. If I can have someone capable solve the hard problems for us then I can focus the company on tasks it's better suited at delivering on.
- krapp 4y ago
  Ok. Given that everything about Godot, including support, is already available for free, why do you want to pay a team of people six figure salaries to do that when countless indie developers manage to ship games on a fraction of that budget?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - snapcaster 4y ago
    I think the answer you want is "because everyone is stupid except you"
    - krapp 4y ago
      No. I was honestly hoping to get an anecdote from someone with experience in the game industry that would justify what to me seemed like an absurd claim, particularly in regards to a game engine that targets indie development and isn't even competing against AAA engines. dleslie seems to be the only one here who knows what they're talking about, but I think their assertion that not having a highly paid team of industry experts on call for Godot isn't actually a slight against the engine. I could very well be wrong. It would have been nice to have some actual insightful conversation about the differences in economies of scale between small and large games, to know why that kind of cost is justifiable for a non-proprietary engine. But it seems like you're just a poser who came into this thread to shit on me for karma. Enjoy your lunch. I'm out.
      - 4y ago

_hypx 4y ago

I'm gonna disagree with that statement about Blender. It is still growing and will probably drive a lot of commercial 3D suites into extinction. It just hasn't happened yet.

culi 4y ago
I honestly can't even name the "professional" competitors. I always thought Blender was like VLC. One of the few examples where the OSS has already won the competition and there's no reason to look for alternatives
- dleslie 4y ago
  Autodesk and SideFx are doing just fine, and are hardly beaten. It might feel that way when working Indie on a shoestring budget, but their tools are worth the entry fee to many.
  - Teever 4y ago
    They're still worth the entry fee for now but I hear the rumblings of discontent from my professional friends about Autodesk and Adobe. In classic rent seeking fashion both these companies have strategically swallowed up many small to medium sized software companies whose products many other industries require to stay competitive. And again in classic rent seeking fashio n they've jacked up prices while coasting on quality. My architecture/residential friends tell me that Revit is a bloated mess. An EE at my work complains about the poor integration of Eagle and Fusion360 and the horrible subscription model with frequent downtime. My relative with a video game company curses the price he has to pay for Maya or 3DSM for his employees while praising Blender. These are conversations that I've and with people in the last month alone. Everyone is fed up of those two companies and I think that you under estimate how much they have tested on their laurels while competitors are soon to grow up around them. I couldn't be happier.
    - voakbasda 4y ago
      I used to be apathetic to Autodesk, until they swallowed up Eagle and destroyed that product for hobbyists. Now all of my old designs are locked on old systems or behind their subscription model. I hope they rot in hell for that. In the meantime, long live KiKad and other open alternatives.

amatecha 4y ago

> Who can you pay six and seven figures a year to in order to acquire the services of a team of industry experts who work with Godot? Here's one company you can hire: https://prehensile-tales.com https://prehensile-tales.com

Conscat 4y ago

Godot feels like an incredibly poorly designed programming model and Juan Linietsky alternates being sounding brilliant and insane depending on the lunar phase. :/

polotics 4y ago
Could you be more specific about the "poorly designed programming model" ?

Mikeb85 4y ago

> And then there's professional level support. https://w4games.com/ https://w4games.com/ You can literally get support from the original authors (and still main contributors) of the engine. And Godot has quite a few contributors. The Godot 4 rewrite is fantastic: modern rendering techniques, great features, very modular, clean code, etc...

torginus 4y ago

I think Unreal is increasingly going after the AAA space with stuff like Lumen and Nanite, which is great if you are a high end shop chasing after photorealism. On the other hand, I imagine it forces you into a workflow/rendering style, with custom, simpler art styles being much harder to achieve. On the low end, where people are still using the tried and tested VS/PS deferred forward rendering, with custom shaders, Godot is becoming increasingly viable. Fun fact: Tesla's mobile app uses Godot, so in a sense, Godot has already made it.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
I'm going to say mostly false. Realistic lighting makes things feel very... alive. It almost always looks better. It doesn't need to be a photorealistic game. Nanite works great with those ultra high resolution megascans, sure, but it also works well with simple things. A large benefit of it is that you don't need to make many levels of depth. Putting 2D games aside, I think Unreal is a pretty flexible choice. Moreso, I think the term AAA used to refer to realistic looking graphics, but now refers to the amount of handcrafted content in a game. Good looking graphics are simply becoming easy to obtain. I do hope Godot eats unity's lunch though