News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow up'. Parent comment

Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by PlattypusRex on Friday September 06, 2024 @04:15PM (#41469390)
That's not really true. You can't modify it free of cost; you still have to pay the royalties to use it. You also can't modify it in any way you like, there are numerous restrictions in the EULA on how exactly you can modify/distribute snippets of code. Not only that, but you also aren't allowed to integrate it with any sort of software with a copyleft license, making it useless for any gamedevs who want to license their game with a copyleft license. Even people wanting to use copyleft libraries or code with their fork are completely restricted.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by tedunangst on Friday September 06, 2024 @04:21PM (#41469429)
Why did all these migrating game developers pick unity in the first place if they wanted to release a copyleft game?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by PlattypusRex on Friday September 06, 2024 @04:42PM (#41469560)
My reply had nothing to do with Unity. It was directed at the statement that Unreal being source-available is somehow equivalent to being able to freely fork and modify Godot to add specific features.

Furthermore, many of these devs have been on Unity for many years, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty much the only accessible and modern choice for smaller projects before Godot and other open-source engines were mature enough to release games with.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by pizza234 on Friday September 06, 2024 @04:40PM (#41469547)
This is not (entirely) correct:

> Free

> Game developers (royalties apply after $1 million USD gross product revenue)

> Individuals and small businesses (with less than $1 million USD in annual gross revenue)

> For educators and schools (no revenue limits)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by PlattypusRex on Friday September 06, 2024 @04:50PM (#41469619)
Yes, royalties apply after $1 million, hence, not free. Plenty of small/medium studios use Unreal.

Free for educational purposes means it is not free, since the royalties still apply if the game is released.

Last time I checked, free means free.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by jncfhnb on Friday September 06, 2024 @05:01PM (#41469701)
$1M per product. So if you’re talking about releasing engine mods for free, there is no cost.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by fragmede on Friday September 06, 2024 @05:01PM (#41469699)
free means whatever the reader wants it to mean, including free as in beer, free as in speech, or free as in puppies. In this case, free until you have $1,000,000 in revenue is free enough outside of pedantic online arguments about the definition of free. If you made a million dollars from something, having to pay the thing that helped you get to that place doesn't seem unreasonable, but maybe I'd I had a million dollars I'd feel differently.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by PlattypusRex on Friday September 06, 2024 @05:15PM (#41469781)
It's pedantic to say it isn't free when...it isn't? Plenty of smaller games make over $1 million. It's news to me that the concept of free is whatever the reader wants it to be. Free as in beer or free as in freedom, Unreal is neither.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by pizza234 on Sunday September 08, 2024 @07:37PM (#41484195)
Freedom in licensing definitely requires context and specification; an absolute view of freedom has little practical use. Game engines released, for example, under a GPL license may align with an absolute view of freedom, but they are useless for the vast majority of commercial games.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by mirekrusin on Friday September 06, 2024 @05:47PM (#41469962)
What needs to be below 1m? Revenue of the whole shop? Or just that game? If you have two games how is it calculated? Can you create legal entity per app to manage limit? Is it annual revenue? Can you set publishing legal entity in front that takes most revenue as publishing cost and pays peanuts to dev shop legal entity that holds license?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by jncfhnb on Friday September 06, 2024 @05:53PM (#41470000)
Per game, lifetime revenue.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by mirekrusin on Saturday September 07, 2024 @09:45AM (#41473915)
Thank you. But that’s very blurry, no? Is my Mario 2 new game? Mario 3D? What about Mario vs Donkey Kong? Smash Bros with Mario? If all are new games what about Mario v1.3? etc. Wonder how they formalised it with legal language.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Godot founders had desperately hoped Unity wouldn't 'blow... by jncfhnb on Saturday September 07, 2024 @10:00AM (#41473987)
No that’s not very blurry at all. Mario 2 is clearly a different game than Mario 1.

Epic is not claiming any rights on your IP.

Mario v1.3 typically means Mario 1 with some patches unless you’re kingdom hearts, so yes that is still the same game. I believe dlc is bundled into the parent game.

[ Parent | on HN ]