cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/5555641
Developers of indie puzzle game Orgynizer have claimed that Unity said organisations like Planned Parenthood are “not valid charities” and are instead “political groups.”
In a blog post, the EU-based developer LizardFactory said the plans to charge developers up to $0.20 per install if they reach certain thresholds would cost them “around 30% of the funds we have gathered and already sent to charity.”
As Unity clarified the runtime fee will not apply to charity games, LizardFactory reached out to the company to clarify their game would be exempt from the plan.
However, Unity reportedly said their partners were not “valid charities” and were viewed as “political groups.”
Profits made from the game go directly to non-profit organisation Planned Parenthood and C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, Michigan.
“We did this to raise money for a good cause, not to line the coffers of greedy scumbags,” the developers wrote in a blog post. “We have been solid Unity fanboys for over ten years, but the trust is scattered all over the floor.”
The developers are considering a move to open-source game engine Godot, “but we will have to recode our entire game because we refuse to give you a dime,” they wrote. “This is a mafia-style shakedown, nothing more, nothing less.”
Today, Unity responded to the ongoing backlash and apologised, acknowledging the “confusion and angst” surrounding the runtime fee policy.
The company has promised that changes to the policy will be shared in “a couple of days.”
Game’s made in Unity have literally nothing to do with this, that makes no sense
Yeah, you’re just being willingly daft. How the bloody hell do you not see the readily apparent connection?
Because it’s a tool, game development is a huge investment, there’s really not many alternatives, and if you think Godot is an alternative, you have zero gamedev experience. You have to be straight up ignorant to believe that completely unrelated game developers are somehow supporting this, and have zero basis in reality to think they can swap engines on the drop of a hat.
I don’t think anybody claimed they could do it “at the drop of a hat”. They’re saying it would be financially beneficial for these game developers to take the financial hit to jump ship from Unity because people will be less likely to buy Unity games
This is precisely my point, and why the OC resorted to ad hominem almost out of the gate is beyond me. That said, I do have a bit of experience in game development, and I think the short term gains from Unity would be outweighed by the losses incurred through negative PR and Unity’s stunts.
That’s not any less detached from reality. Like I said, you have no familiarity with these tools if you think it’s a simple choice to just not go with Unity. It’s also rarely obvious what engine a game is actually made in unless it’s a smaller indie game that still has the Unity stuff left in. Also if you think gamers actually have the ability to boycott games, then lol.
I’m not going to give any personal information about myself, but you are WAY off with your assumption about my knowledge regarding both the development side and business side of these kind of choices. It’s what I do
I don’t need to ask your personal info, I just need to ask how many actual medium+ budget (100k+) projects do you seen being worked on/ported into Godot?
The fact that you don’t recognize Godot as a viable alternative just proves you don’t actually have any dev experience yourself
Uh huh, Godot doesn’t have any texture/mesh/animation/audio streaming, has no access to low level rendering structures, lacks significant optimizations, lacks swarm logic, complete lack of mature tools, no paid asset/extension store, miles behind shader editing and vfx effects. Which part of these are wrong, and do you understand why these things are required for big games?
I didn’t say it was feature parity with Unity, 90% of Unity games don’t require most of the features Unity has that Godot lacks.
Streaming is not the only solution to efficiently loading assets
The VFX is not lacking from Unity in anyway other than not having Unity’s specific tools for organizing them, the Shader and VFX graph. It lacks access to the stencil buffer right now, but not much else. You can still make any shader in Godot that you can make in Unity.
W4 is opening a dedicated paid store.
Godot can run native C++, making it more optimized than Unity in several areas. DOTS can out do it in some areas, but again native C++ is still faster.
You have direct access to Godot’s render pipeline code so no idea what you mean by ‘low level’, no idea how’d you get lower level than direct access to the render pipeline itself.
Streaming is required for a lot of use cases, it’s probably the most important of everything I listed. Godot is miles behind even Unity in fidelity still. “Opening a paid store” still means it currently does not exist and also means there’s zero assets for actual purchase. Running native c++ has literally nothing to do with Engine optimization lol. That’s also just false, you don’t have access to the rendering server even from gdextension.
This isn’t coming from me btw, this is coming from the literal creator of Godot, so you’re disagreeing with him here. Really shows you how deep into the circlejerk we are here lol. https://godotengine.org/article/whats-missing-in-godot-for-aaa/
edit: nice the guy who calls me cringe blocks me after replying so he can’t be called out for being wrong. Maybe don’t be so argumentative when you reply and don’t know what you’re talking about. How toxic.
Edit, I didn’t block him, he’s being a troll I guess.
Firstly, I can tell you only skimmed that and haven’t actually read it because it contradicts multiple points you made in this and the previous comment. Like, actually read it before trying to use it as a source.
“Everyone who disagrees with me is circle jerking”
Lol, okay buddy. You’re a tad bit cringe
Like, “As such, this means that low level access to all the rendering server structures needs to be exposed via GDExtension.” Says it right there, in the page you linked. “Often developers need to implement rendering techniques, post processing effects, etc. that don’t come bundled with the engine.” You have to do some of it yourself, which means ITS VIABLE. Again, not on parity, but viable. Again, not feature complete, not as polished, but viable.
And on streaming “Of the above, most are relatively straightforward to implement”, meaning that users can already do this, the article even mentions how much of the ground work is just handed to you. I’m not arguing the point on if this should be fully implemented by the dev team to come fully prepackaged, im simply telling you that you’re wrong about godot not being viable. It should come by default, but it’s still easy to do. Again, if your point is it should come default, I agree with that.
I can tell you’re just being argumentive for the sake of it, so I’m just going to ignore you from here on out. You aren’t adding anything constructive and you’re not capable of reading something YOU linked, so you’re not worth the time or effort.
I remember when I first started using Unity years and years ago and people like you would just talk shit about it non stop. I remember when I started using blender in middle school and people like you should just talk shit about it.
I didn’t block you, you’re the one being toxic