4 ms·

Most "disruptors"...fail to disrupt, largely because they misunderstood what the market wanted and "disrupted" the wrong thing. Being "indie" isn't enough for

Most "disruptors"...fail to disrupt, largely because they misunderstood what the market wanted and "disrupted" the wrong thing. Being "indie" isn't enough for Godot. Unity and Unreal are the market leaders because they provide a single-solution multi-platform engine. Godot does not, and a significant amount of work is required in order to make a Godot game run on multiple platforms. Until Godot can do multi-platform natively, it will be relegated to the sidelines.

Doxin 4y ago
What are you on about? It's trivial to get a Godot game to run on a bunch of platforms. In most cases it's just a matter of setting up the export template and hitting export.
andrewflnr 4y ago
Maybe, but again, one of the hallmarks of an industry about to be disrupted is confidence that some feature or other is absolutely critical, when in fact there's a segment that doesn't care. That segment can (sometimes, of course none of this is certain) buoy up the new solution until it eventually picks up the supposed critical feature as well. Of course, "disruption" seems to be one of those things where if someone says out loud that they're going to do it, rather than just talking about the customers they can help, they're probably full of it. Without those customers who are happy with the cheap, janky, new solution, it's just hot air. But I would be careful not to judge disruption as a theory by BS artists who just imitate its terminology.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  Your comment is kind of confusing but you seem to be supporting my point. Godot is all about "disrupting" game engines by being super indie. It's 99% of the conversation about Godot. The thing is that nobody actually cares about their game engine being indie. They want to make games, and Godot is actually pretty crap at making a game you intend to release. A game engine is defined by the games made with it. All kinds of games have been made with Unity and Unreal, by solo developers and by massive teams. Each engine can boast collective game revenues (of games made using the engine) in the billions this year. Godot has been around for 9 years. By this point in their lifecycles, both Unreal and Unity already had massive adoption. Meanwhile, Godot's single claim to fame in 9 years is being used as the graphical engine for the Sonic Colors remake, which was critically eviscerated for its many graphics-related bugs.
  - andrewflnr 4y ago
    Maybe I'd agree that if Godot succeeds in disrupting existing game engines, it won't just be because it's "super indie". Again, disruption is about "cheaper and good enough for some audience". You should read The Innovator's Dilemma, or at least a summary. Everything you're claiming about Godot is still on track for the disruption story (albeit slowly, but that's not surprising for such a complicated product developed without big funding).

Doxin 4y ago

What are you on about? It's trivial to get a Godot game to run on a bunch of platforms. In most cases it's just a matter of setting up the export template and hitting export.

andrewflnr 4y ago

Maybe, but again, one of the hallmarks of an industry about to be disrupted is confidence that some feature or other is absolutely critical, when in fact there's a segment that doesn't care. That segment can (sometimes, of course none of this is certain) buoy up the new solution until it eventually picks up the supposed critical feature as well. Of course, "disruption" seems to be one of those things where if someone says out loud that they're going to do it, rather than just talking about the customers they can help, they're probably full of it. Without those customers who are happy with the cheap, janky, new solution, it's just hot air. But I would be careful not to judge disruption as a theory by BS artists who just imitate its terminology.

gamblor956 4y ago
Your comment is kind of confusing but you seem to be supporting my point. Godot is all about "disrupting" game engines by being super indie. It's 99% of the conversation about Godot. The thing is that nobody actually cares about their game engine being indie. They want to make games, and Godot is actually pretty crap at making a game you intend to release. A game engine is defined by the games made with it. All kinds of games have been made with Unity and Unreal, by solo developers and by massive teams. Each engine can boast collective game revenues (of games made using the engine) in the billions this year. Godot has been around for 9 years. By this point in their lifecycles, both Unreal and Unity already had massive adoption. Meanwhile, Godot's single claim to fame in 9 years is being used as the graphical engine for the Sonic Colors remake, which was critically eviscerated for its many graphics-related bugs.
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  Maybe I'd agree that if Godot succeeds in disrupting existing game engines, it won't just be because it's "super indie". Again, disruption is about "cheaper and good enough for some audience". You should read The Innovator's Dilemma, or at least a summary. Everything you're claiming about Godot is still on track for the disruption story (albeit slowly, but that's not surprising for such a complicated product developed without big funding).