14 ms·

>> While Unreal engine currently does not have terms like Unity’s, there’s nothing stopping them from doing something similar. In fact if Unity manages to get a

>> While Unreal engine currently does not have terms like Unity’s, there’s nothing stopping them from doing something similar. In fact if Unity manages to get away with this it seems likely they will follow suit. Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change this. Tim Sweeney explicitly mentioned this often + the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. But what about Godot? He says as if "it's open source so no issue". Yeah but what if the devs stop supporting it? This "community will continue to work on it" is BS: in reality it's usually one or two guys who actually do the actual work. So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Good luck developing it further instead of focusing on your game. The same goes for his very own product.

TMM2K 3y ago
You're contradicting your own points. If it is not a problem that Unreal can change their license for next versions because you can use the old one (which is now unsupported and not worked on) that is fine. For Godot, if we were to stop developing it (and I'd like to note that Godot is one of the most active projects on Github right now) you would still have the version you have now. What is the difference between Epic not working on a game engine you use or an open source project not working on a game engine you use? Except that with Godot at least you could work on it yourself if you wanted to.
- chii 3y ago
  > Except that with Godot at least you could work on it yourself if you wanted to. let me play the devil's advocate - unreal's source is available (despite it not being actual opensource licensed). This means if Epic ever abandons unreal, you could theoretically also just make the changes you need to support whatever your project required - as long as you didn't distribute those changes (except perhaps the run-time? Not quite sure how unreal engine and the runtime are licensed).
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    Source available means you cant do shit at the end of the day before going in legal trouble
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - isaiahg 3y ago
      Except you can because of unreal’s perpetual license. You’d just have to use the same pricing attached to the version of source you use
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        If you'd amended the source, then it wouldn't be the same version and the license would be invalid. If you want to use the perpetual license, you can't do anything with the source.
        doikor 3y ago
        Except that is what the Unreal Engine license allows you to do https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal > 2. How You Can Use the Licensed Technology > Epic grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to privately use, reproduce, display, perform, and modify the Licensed Technology in accordance with the terms of this Agreement (the “License”). This means that as long as you are not violating this Agreement or applicable law, you can privately use the Licensed Technology however you want. If you want to share the Licensed Technology or anything you make with it, Sections 3 and 4 below address when and how you can do that. In section 3/4 it goes to that you can compile your game and give the output to outsiders if you pay the roylaties when applicable or share them royalty free on epics github (basically you make a pr to merge your stuff upstream) or on unreal marketplace (sell it)
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
echelon 3y ago
> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Good luck developing it further instead of focusing on your game. There's zero risk of this happening. Godot is going to become Blender for gaming and eventually eat into Tim's margins. (Unreal isn't even his cash cow.) Unreal might be significantly ahead now, but when Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. contribute to Godot, it's game over.
- raincole 3y ago
  My estimation is about 10 ~ 15 years for open source engine to catch up Unreal. (both feature and popularity) Amazon did make a game engine. It shows "Amazon money" doesn't magically solve every problem in the world. > Godot is going to become Blender for gaming Exactly. Blender still isn't the first choice for most animation and VFX jobs.
  - TMM2K 3y ago
    Depends on the market, for making the next pixar movie probably not (yet). However blender usage is way, way up and my game studio (Prehensile Tales) has no difficulty finding extremely talented blender users. An open source project doesn't have to be the very most used thing from the beginning in order to eventually eat everyone's lunch :)
    - Akronymus 3y ago
      That's an interesting name for a game studio. What's the story behind it?
      - TMM2K 3y ago
        I love monkeys, and I like making video games with stories in them. So "prehensile tales" is a somewhat oblique way of saying "gripping tales" Also, it let me have a cute monkey as a logo : https://prehensile-tales.com https://prehensile-tales.com :) (I'm not selling anything there, but you can see the logo)
  - 3y ago
raincole 3y ago
What if Unreal changes its term? Your answer: you can use the old version. What if Godot stops the development? Your answer: good luck (???)
- hahn-kev 3y ago
  You can also use the old version, it's not like an old unsupported version of something is any different for open and closed source
  - kgwxd 3y ago
    They are different, open source is obviously better in that scenario.
    - carstenhag 3y ago
      Except Unreal is also open source in the sense of them providing you full source code access & documentation on how to build it.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        That isn't what open source means. Open source means that you can make changes to the source code and distribute it.
- nokiz 3y ago
  > What if Godot stops the development? You can also use the old version. Also others can take it from where they left off, since it’s open source, as it's has been pointed.
  - raincole 3y ago
    And this is exactly my point.
    - 3y ago
bsza 3y ago
> if Godot devs stop working on it Then others can take it from where they left off, since it’s open source. As long as it has a user base, it is guaranteed to live on. Unlike Unreal.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  People are free to fork Unreal. People can continue working on Unreal even if Epic stops devoting reosurces to work on it.
  - MarcellusDrum 3y ago
    They are not free to fork Unreal as it is not open source, only code available.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      That doesn't matter. The fork will just not be an open source fork.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        You cannot fork it and change its licence unless orig unreal license permits you to do it. Does it? edit: it doesn't unless Epic Games grants you a specific license to do that. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal source: > 4. How You Can Share the Licensed Technology When It Isn’t Part of a Product > You may only Distribute Licensed Technology (including as modified by you) outside of a Product as expressly permitted by this Section 4. > a. Sharing of Engine Code > i. Sharing Engine Code with Another Licensee You may Distribute Engine Code (including as modified by you) in Source Code or object code to a third party who is separately licensed by us to use the same version of the Engine Code that you are Distributing. >Any public Distribution of Engine Tools (e.g., intended generally for third parties who are separately licensed by us to use the Engine Code) must take place through a marketplace operated by Epic such as the Unreal Engine Marketplace (e.g., for Distributing a Product’s modding tool or editor to end users) or through a fork of Epic’s GitHub UnrealEngine Network (e.g., for Distributing Source Code).
Fluorescence 3y ago
> use one version of their engine FOREVER In an age of locked down mobile OSes and forever changing graphics drivers and such, I don't think "FOREVER" is very long any more. It's like a perpetual license to a specific version of JetBrains Rider. It's sold as if I own a general purpose tool FOREVER and can opt out of an endless subscription but no, it doesn't mean much at all. It will not work with the next runtime update and past runtimes are obsoleted after a couple of years. They have managed to outsource their subscription lock-in as the release cycles of a third parties while pretending to be holier than thou. If they shipped the volatile parts as open source plug-ins, I would feel differently.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  What’s the alternative? That they keep giving people updates free forever after they buy it?
  - Fluorescence 3y ago
    I gave you the alternative: plug-ins that could be maintained by the community. They already have the module system but all the version sensitive .net features are in the core. For Unreal, I don't think there is a solution to closed platforms if it requires a large/sophisticated team to maintain compatibility. We can only point out that any notion of "forever" is a fiction - you have got in bed with a commercial dependency you may come to regret if they choose to change the rules.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  > I don't think "FOREVER" is very long any more. I can still run my first 3d engine from 2003 on Windows. Windows actually does a really good job with backwards compatibility.
felipesoc 3y ago
Unity had the same in its license. But they changed it without notifying and when you updated the engine the new license applies even if it's a minor version so Unreal can do the same thing.
objclxt 3y ago
> the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. Epic is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it because it is beneficial to them. Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation part owned by a massive conglomerate. > BS: in reality it's usually one or two guys who actually do the actual work. Over the last week, Godot had 32 authors pushing 52 commits. Over the last month it had 135 authors. This is not "one or two guys". > So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Guess what, if a closed-source company decides to stop working on their product you're also stuck, but now you're even more stuck because you don't have access to the source to make your own changes!
- plagiarist 3y ago
  It's hilarious that their arguments for the commercial engine are somehow both "you can use one version forever" and "you might be forced to use one version of something else forever."
  - Libcat99 3y ago
    Doubly so, since the "something else" is able to be updated by you, if necessary.
  - isaiahg 3y ago
    If you understood the problem then you’d know that their argument is about how Unity’s new pricing change is retroactive, affecting all Unity versions and charging fees to devs for games made years ago. Unreal uses perpetual licenses for their versions meaning this kind of bullshit behavior is not possible
    - plagiarist 3y ago
      Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand. We all get that part, and it makes sense in isolation. Yes, that is better. Then it's goofy af to say Godot might make a license change that necessitates using one version in perpetuity-except a version you and others are allowed to modify and distribute.
nottorp 3y ago
> the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. the Epic games leadership are bribing developers for exclusivity, including kickstarters where i was promised steam or gog the Epic games leaderhip makes money from free to play grinding/gambling simulators the Epic games leadership also comes from Tencent that made all their gaming money before trying to get into the western market from asian gacha The only reason their terms are more reasonable now is because they're the underdog and throwing a lot of money made from free to play crap at fixing that.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  Bribing implies an illegal act. Giving money in exchange for goods and services is completely normal: I don't bribe a restaurant for food. Exclusivity is just a way of competing for games, a sign of a good competitive market. Kickstarter is kickstarter. Half of them probably don't fulfill all their promises. That's the risk you're taking, and why it's not a preorder. Epic don't have gambling. They've even removed gambling from Rocket League after purchasing them too.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    > Bribing implies an illegal act. Giving money in exchange for goods and services is completely normal: I don't bribe a restaurant for food. Exclusivity is just a way of competing for games, a sign of a good competitive market. It doesn't have to be illegal, merely immoral. > Kickstarter is kickstarter. Half of them probably don't fulfill all their promises. That's the risk you're taking, and why it's not a preorder. I don't expect them to finish a project when i back them. I expect them to deliver my fucking GoG key when they finish the project and ask me what do I want it on and i say GoG! I don't expect them to say "Epic paid us a ton of money and you can get it on their gacha financed store". True story. So long, Julian Gollop. > Epic don't have gambling. They've even removed gambling from Rocket League after purchasing them too. They're free to play. That means the game is designed to keep you playing forever and keep you buying IAPs. It is not designed to entertain you.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
ekianjo 3y ago
> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Lol you can literally pay people to keep supporting it if the code is Free.
prmoustache 3y ago
> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Good luck developing it further instead of focusing on your game. > > The same goes for his very own product. The same goes for Unity and Unreal.
- mcv 3y ago
  But without the option to continue development. In the case of Godot, the rest of the community would probably fork it and continue development.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    You can even do it yourself without waiting for someone else to do it for you.
brookst 3y ago
> the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas That’s a very unique take. I would call a company that lets others take startup a buildout risks and the uses the courts and regulators to swoop in with a low cost competitor a pirhana. It’s a good strategy (for Epic), but it is extremely predatory. It’s no secret they have their eyes on the console market next; let HW makers popularize platforms using a business model of low margin HW and high margin SW, then get governments to mandate alternative stores so Epic can undercut the SW. Low risk, low effort, high return. It’s a solid business strategy but if it’s not pirhanic, I don’t know what is.
mcv 3y ago
> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change this. If I understand correctly, Unity had that too. And then they changed it anyway. I don't know the details, but apparently Unity maintained their license in a git repository for the explicit purpose that everybody could easily track changes to their license. Just before the license changes, they removed that repository, and later put it up again, but without the clause that you could always use an old version forever without new restrictions applying to you.
jackmott42 3y ago
Any product can end up no longer having work done on it, or the work can start getting bad. Such is life. With open source at least you have an option, if you run into one bug or missing feature, there is a chance you can patch it yourself and get the game done. In the distant past I wanted to use Unity and ran into a breaking bug in the particle system that wasn't fixed for at least 2 years, if ever.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
>>>"""But what about Godot? He says as if "it's open source so no issue". Yeah but what if the devs stop supporting it? This "community will continue to work on it" is BS: in reality it's usually one or two guys who actually do the actual work.?""" Exactly. We like to hate corporate greed and lionize the open source developers. I also hold open source devs in high regard. BUT. Open Source Dev have to eat too. If we want to keep the Open Source ecosystem moving, we do need to find a way to pay them. Even today, a lot of open source projects are supported by individual corporations that keep the devs on payroll to give them time, but that can also lead to influence and lock in, and even abandonment if desired.
gumballindie 3y ago
> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER For a 5% cut. Add that on top of taxes and steam and you’re basically an employee.
- 1323portloo 3y ago
  Yes, unless you build everything from the game engine to the distribution channel yourself, there is a cost to doing business. IIRC Epic Games Store offers a more reasonable 88%/12% revenue split, while Steam uses the same rapacious split as Apple and GOG at 70%/30%.
  - minimaul 3y ago
    However, Steam offers more eyeballs, and in particular, more eyeballs that actually buy games. The extra 18% doesn't feel as unreasonable when you get to make a lot more sales.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Cool, that's why godot and open source are much more reasonable paths moving forward.
distantsounds 3y ago
>Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change this. Maybe _you_ didn't research how Unity had this same exact clause and decided to just... remove it. The author is implying Unreal could do the same at any point in time.
theknocker 3y ago
[dead]
croes 3y ago
>So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support Isn't that valid for any software including Unity or Unreal? With open source at least you can try it yourself
throwaway2990 3y ago
> Tim Sweeney explicitly mentioned this often + the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. Haha this made me laugh. If you think epic isn’t piranha then you’re living in a bubble.
blibble 3y ago
> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. I thought the unity TOS had this too?
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  That was removed. Epic's still remains. Yes, if Epic removes this feature of the license, we can be concerned. But, Epic's license means I can remain on the previous license that has these more favorable terms.
mijoharas 3y ago
> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change this. Isn't part of the current furore that unity used to have similar terms and they removed them?
manvillej 3y ago
> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change this. so did unity, until they removed that clause
icemelt8 3y ago
> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. Unity also had a similar clause in their ToC, they removed that now and retroactively applied the new pricing model on ALL previous versions of Unity. Unreal can do it too.
- jzl 3y ago
  This still seems to be an unresolved legal question. Unity will almost certainly be getting sued for this by parties still using versions that shipped with that clause.
gustavus 3y ago
> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Good luck developing it further instead of focusing on your game. Exactly I'm glad someone is pointing out the problems with these piddly open source projects. Companies are too reliant on open source software, I mean it's not like open source tooling has ever taken off. Except for Emacs, and Vim, and VS Code, and maven, and ... But seriously though the over reliance people have on open source projects is staggering, I mean really what happens when the guy who maintains Linux gets bored and wanders off, everyone is boned. Therefore I agree with OP all open source projects are inevitably doomed to failure and can never work. Glad to see someone else who sees reason.
danaris 3y ago
> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. Even if this is 100% legally true, they can absolutely say that they are revoking all old licenses, and then if you used one, it's up to you to take Epic to court to prove that they can't.
ensignavenger 3y ago
There are already well over one or two Godot devs working on the engine. The community funding is already enough that it supports multiple full time devs salaries. If the current devs quit, this funding would be used to hire new devs. At this point, I think the Godot community is already well over the tipping point where it will continue no matter what the original devs decide to do.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > There are already well over one or two Godot devs working on the engine. The community funding is already enough that it supports multiple full time devs salaries. If the current devs quit, this funding would be used to hire new devs. At this point, I think the Godot community is already well over the tipping point where it will continue no matter what the original devs decide to do. Yeah. They've reached critical mass to, from this point on, be self-sustaining. I don't think Unity ever got to that point.
devwastaken 3y ago
Why would you need godot to be "developed further"? If your game is shipped, it's developed. You can continue doing this. When the source is private and behind a license you are forced to agree to the new terms when the old ones expire, or if you can't agree to them then you can no longer ship the game. These are not equivalent circumstances.
amitmathew 3y ago
I'm less concerned about Unreal pulling a Unity. The bigger issue is just a lack of attention. The last numbers I saw was that Unreal was pulling in $100m a year for Epic. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Epic makes off of Fortnite. In my experience, products that matter a lot to the consumer but not the company tend to stagnate. Just look at Google outside of search.
lolinder 3y ago
The worst case scenario for Godot is the same as the worst case scenario for Unity: you can keep using the last release that worked for you. As far as I can tell Unreal has no concept of an LTS version, so if you don't like the new license you're not getting any updates at all. This is where FOSS comes in: If support ends, you can keep using the latest version just like with proprietary software, but you can also fork it and fix pressing issues. It's not even a question of relying on the community continuing to create major new releases. If that fails, your org could fork it alone and patch any blocking bugs. My company already does this for several pieces of legacy software that we haven't had the time to migrate away from. We don't make any major changes, but we can and do fix things that get in our way. We'd get no such benefit from proprietary software that changes its terms to be unfavorable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
r053bud 3y ago
Yeah if Godot stops being maintained, at least I have the source! At least I’m allowed to fork it and move forwards.

TMM2K 3y ago

You're contradicting your own points. If it is not a problem that Unreal can change their license for next versions because you can use the old one (which is now unsupported and not worked on) that is fine. For Godot, if we were to stop developing it (and I'd like to note that Godot is one of the most active projects on Github right now) you would still have the version you have now. What is the difference between Epic not working on a game engine you use or an open source project not working on a game engine you use? Except that with Godot at least you could work on it yourself if you wanted to.

chii 3y ago
> Except that with Godot at least you could work on it yourself if you wanted to. let me play the devil's advocate - unreal's source is available (despite it not being actual opensource licensed). This means if Epic ever abandons unreal, you could theoretically also just make the changes you need to support whatever your project required - as long as you didn't distribute those changes (except perhaps the run-time? Not quite sure how unreal engine and the runtime are licensed).
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Source available means you cant do shit at the end of the day before going in legal trouble
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - isaiahg 3y ago
    Except you can because of unreal’s perpetual license. You’d just have to use the same pricing attached to the version of source you use
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      If you'd amended the source, then it wouldn't be the same version and the license would be invalid. If you want to use the perpetual license, you can't do anything with the source.
      - doikor 3y ago
        Except that is what the Unreal Engine license allows you to do https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal > 2. How You Can Use the Licensed Technology > Epic grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to privately use, reproduce, display, perform, and modify the Licensed Technology in accordance with the terms of this Agreement (the “License”). This means that as long as you are not violating this Agreement or applicable law, you can privately use the Licensed Technology however you want. If you want to share the Licensed Technology or anything you make with it, Sections 3 and 4 below address when and how you can do that. In section 3/4 it goes to that you can compile your game and give the output to outsiders if you pay the roylaties when applicable or share them royalty free on epics github (basically you make a pr to merge your stuff upstream) or on unreal marketplace (sell it)
        ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

echelon 3y ago

> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Good luck developing it further instead of focusing on your game. There's zero risk of this happening. Godot is going to become Blender for gaming and eventually eat into Tim's margins. (Unreal isn't even his cash cow.) Unreal might be significantly ahead now, but when Google, Amazon, Apple, etc. contribute to Godot, it's game over.

raincole 3y ago
My estimation is about 10 ~ 15 years for open source engine to catch up Unreal. (both feature and popularity) Amazon did make a game engine. It shows "Amazon money" doesn't magically solve every problem in the world. > Godot is going to become Blender for gaming Exactly. Blender still isn't the first choice for most animation and VFX jobs.
- TMM2K 3y ago
  Depends on the market, for making the next pixar movie probably not (yet). However blender usage is way, way up and my game studio (Prehensile Tales) has no difficulty finding extremely talented blender users. An open source project doesn't have to be the very most used thing from the beginning in order to eventually eat everyone's lunch :)
  - Akronymus 3y ago
    That's an interesting name for a game studio. What's the story behind it?
    - TMM2K 3y ago
      I love monkeys, and I like making video games with stories in them. So "prehensile tales" is a somewhat oblique way of saying "gripping tales" Also, it let me have a cute monkey as a logo : https://prehensile-tales.com https://prehensile-tales.com :) (I'm not selling anything there, but you can see the logo)
- 3y ago

raincole 3y ago

What if Unreal changes its term? Your answer: you can use the old version. What if Godot stops the development? Your answer: good luck (???)

hahn-kev 3y ago
You can also use the old version, it's not like an old unsupported version of something is any different for open and closed source
- kgwxd 3y ago
  They are different, open source is obviously better in that scenario.
  - carstenhag 3y ago
    Except Unreal is also open source in the sense of them providing you full source code access & documentation on how to build it.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      That isn't what open source means. Open source means that you can make changes to the source code and distribute it.
nokiz 3y ago
> What if Godot stops the development? You can also use the old version. Also others can take it from where they left off, since it’s open source, as it's has been pointed.
- raincole 3y ago
  And this is exactly my point.
  - 3y ago

bsza 3y ago

> if Godot devs stop working on it Then others can take it from where they left off, since it’s open source. As long as it has a user base, it is guaranteed to live on. Unlike Unreal.

charcircuit 3y ago
People are free to fork Unreal. People can continue working on Unreal even if Epic stops devoting reosurces to work on it.
- MarcellusDrum 3y ago
  They are not free to fork Unreal as it is not open source, only code available.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    That doesn't matter. The fork will just not be an open source fork.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      You cannot fork it and change its licence unless orig unreal license permits you to do it. Does it? edit: it doesn't unless Epic Games grants you a specific license to do that. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal source: > 4. How You Can Share the Licensed Technology When It Isn’t Part of a Product > You may only Distribute Licensed Technology (including as modified by you) outside of a Product as expressly permitted by this Section 4. > a. Sharing of Engine Code > i. Sharing Engine Code with Another Licensee You may Distribute Engine Code (including as modified by you) in Source Code or object code to a third party who is separately licensed by us to use the same version of the Engine Code that you are Distributing. >Any public Distribution of Engine Tools (e.g., intended generally for third parties who are separately licensed by us to use the Engine Code) must take place through a marketplace operated by Epic such as the Unreal Engine Marketplace (e.g., for Distributing a Product’s modding tool or editor to end users) or through a fork of Epic’s GitHub UnrealEngine Network (e.g., for Distributing Source Code).

Fluorescence 3y ago

> use one version of their engine FOREVER In an age of locked down mobile OSes and forever changing graphics drivers and such, I don't think "FOREVER" is very long any more. It's like a perpetual license to a specific version of JetBrains Rider. It's sold as if I own a general purpose tool FOREVER and can opt out of an endless subscription but no, it doesn't mean much at all. It will not work with the next runtime update and past runtimes are obsoleted after a couple of years. They have managed to outsource their subscription lock-in as the release cycles of a third parties while pretending to be holier than thou. If they shipped the volatile parts as open source plug-ins, I would feel differently.

scarface_74 3y ago
What’s the alternative? That they keep giving people updates free forever after they buy it?
- Fluorescence 3y ago
  I gave you the alternative: plug-ins that could be maintained by the community. They already have the module system but all the version sensitive .net features are in the core. For Unreal, I don't think there is a solution to closed platforms if it requires a large/sophisticated team to maintain compatibility. We can only point out that any notion of "forever" is a fiction - you have got in bed with a commercial dependency you may come to regret if they choose to change the rules.
withinboredom 3y ago
> I don't think "FOREVER" is very long any more. I can still run my first 3d engine from 2003 on Windows. Windows actually does a really good job with backwards compatibility.

felipesoc 3y ago

Unity had the same in its license. But they changed it without notifying and when you updated the engine the new license applies even if it's a minor version so Unreal can do the same thing.

objclxt 3y ago

> the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. Epic is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it because it is beneficial to them. Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation part owned by a massive conglomerate. > BS: in reality it's usually one or two guys who actually do the actual work. Over the last week, Godot had 32 authors pushing 52 commits. Over the last month it had 135 authors. This is not "one or two guys". > So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Guess what, if a closed-source company decides to stop working on their product you're also stuck, but now you're even more stuck because you don't have access to the source to make your own changes!

plagiarist 3y ago
It's hilarious that their arguments for the commercial engine are somehow both "you can use one version forever" and "you might be forced to use one version of something else forever."
- Libcat99 3y ago
  Doubly so, since the "something else" is able to be updated by you, if necessary.
- isaiahg 3y ago
  If you understood the problem then you’d know that their argument is about how Unity’s new pricing change is retroactive, affecting all Unity versions and charging fees to devs for games made years ago. Unreal uses perpetual licenses for their versions meaning this kind of bullshit behavior is not possible
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand. We all get that part, and it makes sense in isolation. Yes, that is better. Then it's goofy af to say Godot might make a license change that necessitates using one version in perpetuity-except a version you and others are allowed to modify and distribute.

nottorp 3y ago

> the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. the Epic games leadership are bribing developers for exclusivity, including kickstarters where i was promised steam or gog the Epic games leaderhip makes money from free to play grinding/gambling simulators the Epic games leadership also comes from Tencent that made all their gaming money before trying to get into the western market from asian gacha The only reason their terms are more reasonable now is because they're the underdog and throwing a lot of money made from free to play crap at fixing that.

ThatPlayer 3y ago
Bribing implies an illegal act. Giving money in exchange for goods and services is completely normal: I don't bribe a restaurant for food. Exclusivity is just a way of competing for games, a sign of a good competitive market. Kickstarter is kickstarter. Half of them probably don't fulfill all their promises. That's the risk you're taking, and why it's not a preorder. Epic don't have gambling. They've even removed gambling from Rocket League after purchasing them too.
- nottorp 3y ago
  > Bribing implies an illegal act. Giving money in exchange for goods and services is completely normal: I don't bribe a restaurant for food. Exclusivity is just a way of competing for games, a sign of a good competitive market. It doesn't have to be illegal, merely immoral. > Kickstarter is kickstarter. Half of them probably don't fulfill all their promises. That's the risk you're taking, and why it's not a preorder. I don't expect them to finish a project when i back them. I expect them to deliver my fucking GoG key when they finish the project and ask me what do I want it on and i say GoG! I don't expect them to say "Epic paid us a ton of money and you can get it on their gacha financed store". True story. So long, Julian Gollop. > Epic don't have gambling. They've even removed gambling from Rocket League after purchasing them too. They're free to play. That means the game is designed to keep you playing forever and keep you buying IAPs. It is not designed to entertain you.
  - ThatPlayer 3y ago

ekianjo 3y ago

> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Lol you can literally pay people to keep supporting it if the code is Free.

prmoustache 3y ago

> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Good luck developing it further instead of focusing on your game. > > The same goes for his very own product. The same goes for Unity and Unreal.

mcv 3y ago
But without the option to continue development. In the case of Godot, the rest of the community would probably fork it and continue development.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  You can even do it yourself without waiting for someone else to do it for you.

brookst 3y ago

> the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas That’s a very unique take. I would call a company that lets others take startup a buildout risks and the uses the courts and regulators to swoop in with a low cost competitor a pirhana. It’s a good strategy (for Epic), but it is extremely predatory. It’s no secret they have their eyes on the console market next; let HW makers popularize platforms using a business model of low margin HW and high margin SW, then get governments to mandate alternative stores so Epic can undercut the SW. Low risk, low effort, high return. It’s a solid business strategy but if it’s not pirhanic, I don’t know what is.

mcv 3y ago

> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change this. If I understand correctly, Unity had that too. And then they changed it anyway. I don't know the details, but apparently Unity maintained their license in a git repository for the explicit purpose that everybody could easily track changes to their license. Just before the license changes, they removed that repository, and later put it up again, but without the clause that you could always use an old version forever without new restrictions applying to you.

jackmott42 3y ago

Any product can end up no longer having work done on it, or the work can start getting bad. Such is life. With open source at least you have an option, if you run into one bug or missing feature, there is a chance you can patch it yourself and get the game done. In the distant past I wanted to use Unity and ran into a breaking bug in the particle system that wasn't fixed for at least 2 years, if ever.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

>>>"""But what about Godot? He says as if "it's open source so no issue". Yeah but what if the devs stop supporting it? This "community will continue to work on it" is BS: in reality it's usually one or two guys who actually do the actual work.?""" Exactly. We like to hate corporate greed and lionize the open source developers. I also hold open source devs in high regard. BUT. Open Source Dev have to eat too. If we want to keep the Open Source ecosystem moving, we do need to find a way to pay them. Even today, a lot of open source projects are supported by individual corporations that keep the devs on payroll to give them time, but that can also lead to influence and lock in, and even abandonment if desired.

gumballindie 3y ago

> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER For a 5% cut. Add that on top of taxes and steam and you’re basically an employee.

1323portloo 3y ago
Yes, unless you build everything from the game engine to the distribution channel yourself, there is a cost to doing business. IIRC Epic Games Store offers a more reasonable 88%/12% revenue split, while Steam uses the same rapacious split as Apple and GOG at 70%/30%.
- minimaul 3y ago
  However, Steam offers more eyeballs, and in particular, more eyeballs that actually buy games. The extra 18% doesn't feel as unreasonable when you get to make a lot more sales.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Cool, that's why godot and open source are much more reasonable paths moving forward.

distantsounds 3y ago

>Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change this. Maybe _you_ didn't research how Unity had this same exact clause and decided to just... remove it. The author is implying Unreal could do the same at any point in time.

theknocker 3y ago

[dead]

croes 3y ago

>So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support Isn't that valid for any software including Unity or Unreal? With open source at least you can try it yourself

throwaway2990 3y ago

> Tim Sweeney explicitly mentioned this often + the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. Haha this made me laugh. If you think epic isn’t piranha then you’re living in a bubble.

blibble 3y ago

> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. I thought the unity TOS had this too?

jasonlotito 3y ago
That was removed. Epic's still remains. Yes, if Epic removes this feature of the license, we can be concerned. But, Epic's license means I can remain on the previous license that has these more favorable terms.

mijoharas 3y ago

manvillej 3y ago

icemelt8 3y ago

> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. Unity also had a similar clause in their ToC, they removed that now and retroactively applied the new pricing model on ALL previous versions of Unity. Unreal can do it too.

jzl 3y ago
This still seems to be an unresolved legal question. Unity will almost certainly be getting sued for this by parties still using versions that shipped with that clause.

gustavus 3y ago

> So if Godot devs stop working on it you're stuck with a project with zero support. Good luck developing it further instead of focusing on your game. Exactly I'm glad someone is pointing out the problems with these piddly open source projects. Companies are too reliant on open source software, I mean it's not like open source tooling has ever taken off. Except for Emacs, and Vim, and VS Code, and maven, and ... But seriously though the over reliance people have on open source projects is staggering, I mean really what happens when the guy who maintains Linux gets bored and wanders off, everyone is boned. Therefore I agree with OP all open source projects are inevitably doomed to failure and can never work. Glad to see someone else who sees reason.

danaris 3y ago

> Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. Even if this is 100% legally true, they can absolutely say that they are revoking all old licenses, and then if you used one, it's up to you to take Epic to court to prove that they can't.

ensignavenger 3y ago

There are already well over one or two Godot devs working on the engine. The community funding is already enough that it supports multiple full time devs salaries. If the current devs quit, this funding would be used to hire new devs. At this point, I think the Godot community is already well over the tipping point where it will continue no matter what the original devs decide to do.

lelanthran 3y ago
> There are already well over one or two Godot devs working on the engine. The community funding is already enough that it supports multiple full time devs salaries. If the current devs quit, this funding would be used to hire new devs. At this point, I think the Godot community is already well over the tipping point where it will continue no matter what the original devs decide to do. Yeah. They've reached critical mass to, from this point on, be self-sustaining. I don't think Unity ever got to that point.

devwastaken 3y ago

Why would you need godot to be "developed further"? If your game is shipped, it's developed. You can continue doing this. When the source is private and behind a license you are forced to agree to the new terms when the old ones expire, or if you can't agree to them then you can no longer ship the game. These are not equivalent circumstances.

amitmathew 3y ago

I'm less concerned about Unreal pulling a Unity. The bigger issue is just a lack of attention. The last numbers I saw was that Unreal was pulling in $100m a year for Epic. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what Epic makes off of Fortnite. In my experience, products that matter a lot to the consumer but not the company tend to stagnate. Just look at Google outside of search.

lolinder 3y ago

The worst case scenario for Godot is the same as the worst case scenario for Unity: you can keep using the last release that worked for you. As far as I can tell Unreal has no concept of an LTS version, so if you don't like the new license you're not getting any updates at all. This is where FOSS comes in: If support ends, you can keep using the latest version just like with proprietary software, but you can also fork it and fix pressing issues. It's not even a question of relying on the community continuing to create major new releases. If that fails, your org could fork it alone and patch any blocking bugs. My company already does this for several pieces of legacy software that we haven't had the time to migrate away from. We don't make any major changes, but we can and do fix things that get in our way. We'd get no such benefit from proprietary software that changes its terms to be unfavorable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

r053bud 3y ago

Yeah if Godot stops being maintained, at least I have the source! At least I’m allowed to fork it and move forwards.