If the next Undertale/Minecraft gets built in Godot, W4 Games would be the easiest way to get that game to consoles and rack in tons of royalties, so I think the investment is justified (though hoping it doesn't poison Godot in some way)
> W4 Games is working on a complementary offering that is simpler in nature. We are developing and plan to offer fully middleware approved console ports for all platforms (Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony). This will place Godot in the same category (and offer the same assurances) as the large commercial game engines.
> Instead of offering porting services (which are still required by many developers and publishers), W4 Games will offer fully working console ports. These ports are intended to be middleware approved, meaning that the console manufacturer approves the port and certifies that it meets the required standards of quality, as well as supporting the full (or as close as possible) feature set of the console, including full integration to the console SDKs (for ease of development and deployment).
It seems like 2 of the 4 founders are also members ins the Godot board of directors and if I recall W4 has a strong voice in the Godot development team.
Maybe I'm just to pessimistic these days. (That speaks for Godot being a good project people care about).
I missed that. I'm glad if Godot remains independent. VC funded OSS projects do not have a track record of remaining open-source.
I did not expect W4 to get that much funding, but at it's current trajectory I could imagine it becoming a kind of publisher of Godot games. This is completely without any evidence, just my gut feeling.
I could also see them provide the kind of SaaS backend tools one needs to publish a game ( Network backend, payments, content delivery )
They just like the guy.
He’s now raised $23m publicly for the entity. Improbable said they raised $500m, I don’t know what reality was, but I’m sure it was similar.
It’s a lot of money for sure, I wonder what risky stuff they will spend it on. We have a lot of options for game development and we also had a lot of options for multiplayer engineering.
If you were a brilliant engineer, would you sign up for “port games to consoles?” I don’t know. So I’m sure there’s something really visionary behind the fundraising that hasn’t been said publicly.
Look at it this way: There's a good chance that more console games will be published using Godot than any other engine.
However, I have done COSS business models before. This sort of thing is ridiculously easy to monetize. You can look at Red Hat, MongoDB, and many other platforms to see how this works. The key is usually services.
Broadly, there are two types of service contracts:
- Low-cost. Find developers / support people / admins / ... in India for $10-$100/day.
- High-quality / money is not a issue. Find the best people (think BCG, McKinsey, law firms, boutique UX consultancies) and pay them $500/hour.
Something like Godot is used a lot in places you wouldn't expect. Major video games and kids learning are the high-visibility uses, but there's a lot of game-like systems used in corporate, military, and government settings built on systems like Godot, Unity, and Unreal Engine.
If you're developing an experimental airplane which _must_ work, costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and hinges on a pilot training system being developed, or you're making a marketing tool in a winner-takes-all-market worth a billion, you're very much in the later category of shops you'll outsource to.
If you're the major developer or contributor to an open ecosystem, you become the go-to shop for the latter. If something needs fixing in the core tool to make the app you're developing work, you have people in-house who can fix it.
A lot of these are also places with less than impressive competence to vet vendors (most specialize in another industry), and "major developer of Godot" is an easy way to not screw it up. It's the same reason people hire name-brand law firms or management consulting firms: it's not the best choice, but if you don't know better and need a problem solved, it's a safe choice.
2. Given the list and impact of 3rd party contributors and the absence of a CLA I think there is little ability for them to change the licensee in the future to something proprietary (nor is there any indication that the current key people at W4/Godot would want to do something like this)
3. That said, how do the venture capital companies hope that W4 makes them back their investment and a healthy profit on top. To be crystal clear, there is nothing wrong with that but I would like have it out in the open before. "Console support" seems a little bit thin although I'm ready to admit that I may not know enough about the industry.
If anyone could provide some additional information I'd be very thankful.
Edit: personally I prefer the open stewardship model like Blender or the Linux foundation where it is clear that Major financial contributors expect to get software for their own businesses out of it and support an open project in order to share costs and have a say in the direction it takes.