4 ms·
It's interesting that Source doesn't get a mention here, when it used to be a rather popular engine. Given unreal is second, it's clearly not an objection to cl
by Macha 3y ago
It's interesting that Source doesn't get a mention here, when it used to be a rather popular engine. Given unreal is second, it's clearly not an objection to closed source engines
- hueho 3y agoSource is not easily licensable.
- mastazi 3y agoI follow indie games news and I don't remember seeing any recent indie release using Source. My guess is that it's no longer as popular as it used to be.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thisisonthetest 3y agoActually Source was never a popular engine among developers. If you exclude valve we’re talking dozens maybe? And when 250+ games are released on every week on Steam it’s a very rarely used engine
- Freedom2 3y agoWhen has Source ever been "rather popular"?
- teirce 3y agoThe only time period I can even think of that _might, maybe_ qualify would be the Source mod era, but that came and went over a decade ago. And of course they were free mods, not standalone games with purchases or licenses. Some of these mods turned into games later (Chivalry, Black Mesa, Insurgency come to mind) but without investigating I'm not sure they even use Source anymore.
- PrivateButts 3y agoI agree that it's barely used in this day and age but worth noting that Titanfall 1, 2, and Apex Legends are all heavily modified Source
- Freedom2 3y agoDefinitely worth noting, but +3 games does not make an engine "rather popular".