It isn't truly open source because copyright laws are still protecting it. If it were truly open anyone could do anything with the code without attribution or other requirements
@@jonnanieminen8848 Apache 2.0 and MIT are among the most permissive open source licenses, they require only attribution. This is truly open source and I suggest you read a bit more about what open source is. For example, viral licenses like GPL 3 effectively prevent you from using projects for commercial purposes.
This being the first open source game engine reminds me of when Jennifer Lawrence was the first female lead on a movie. The Hunger Games walked so Alien could run. The same is true for O3DE.
I am still VERY excited about the future of O3DE. But you are absolutely right that it's currently more of a 2-steps-forward-1step-back situation with the development.
Gotta watch the marketing speak on this one. It doesn't say open source in that title, it just says ' really open ', which can be abused to mean anything. I mean, I could interpret that to mean its bits are lying all over the ground because it's in the shop for being perpetually broken ... but that's me ;)
@@dermond Hmm I may had sound ridiculing but, I think names are also a tool for convenience. I mean try to search for guides for Cartoon Animator, you'll get mixed results, this even gets worse if it gets any less popular, but when I search for guides for like Live2D or Toon Boom Harmony, the list shown are clean & relevant cause they have non-universal names. The long name was Cartoon Animator 5 by reallusion.
Godot is an amazing engine, but not the best for all projects, in particular large long term projects. Firstly, you've got a dynamically typed language with GDScript. The language is an interpreter based one also, often times when making a larger project you want to make your own interpreter based scripting language developed in C++. I'm not a fan of this, but as for the case of applying for jobs within the game industry, as in say your indie studio is down on it's luck and looking for jobs...Most professional game studios and porters and all of that don't use Godot, they use their own engines or C++, C++ is the most portable and widely used as all of the SDKs for the Switch, Xbox and Playstation all use Visual Studio, Microsoft Windows with C++. Historically speaking, since the 90s, it's been C and C++ for all major consoles across the board. Godot was created in C++ even. So for example to get on a console, your project will be in the hands of a porting company, or Godot's tools to port, and that can be a messy process with a lack of control in your own hands. Open source, as in say you want to modify Godot, not only takes learning the Godot source code, but uses their coding principles and practices instead of your own, and the time it takes to learn that source code could be better spent making your own.
So to sum it up, yes godot is great, but to act like this all-star engine to rule them all, it may be the best for a game your studio makes that takes say 1, 2 years, but you invest your time in making your own tools to make a game no matter what you do, so say you're using Unity or Unreal or Godot, you're gonna be making your own toolset within those engines. A game studio's output often isn't based around the engine it uses, but the tools it makes for that engine (or their own). For example, Telltale games made 'Telltale Tool', and from there they were able to crank out game after game after game. If a game underperforms, you want to crank out more games and try again. These tools that you make, can take 2, 3, 4, 5+ years or even more of refinement, as you make a game, you refine the tools you use and speed up your process. That's what game making truly is on a professional level. I really like Godot, but I just can't imagine using Godot for making a serious toolset like that, because you just wouldn't want to use an interpreted language that's locked into their ecosystem, you're talking about potentially a decade's worth of investment.
@@astrahcat1212Well to be fair godot actually does have a really good extension system with native extensions, allowing you to use native c++ to extend the engine in really whatever way you like (through gdextension and modules mostly)
@@astrahcat1212Not only can you build a toolset around Godot (even Godot's editor is made using Godot), it has bindings for a lot of languages; you don't have to use GDScript, you can use C#, or C++, or even Rust. Though the point is that for O3DE to claim they are "the only truly open source game engine" is a blatantly false statement.
@@miroaja1951being interpreted also allows fast and easy creations of tools in engine, allowing you to write scripts that run in editor with the tool flag at the beginning of the script.
I spent some time in Lumberyard on a large scale project about 2 years ago. It did get the job done, but was lacking in some ways and needed a lot of engineering effort to maintain and work with, moreso than I’ve come to expect with other projects that were Unreal-based. O3DE looks like it’s trying to continue where Lumberyard left off which is kinda neat. Glad to know there’s more powerful engines out there, I’d certainly give this one a shot (I just hope they make more game development focused improvements and not… robotics?)
Yeah I can't think of a another project that used Lumberyard. There is New World, Star Citizen, and then shatterline. I think that is all games made using lumberyard@@JinKee
O3DE was CryEngine fork so it is not a cheap engine at all, it might be close to Unreal in potential, but obviously it might be harder to learn but great for big studios avoid royalties and etc. For triple A it sounds like it is the only option open source right now.
Eh AAA studios will usually just make their own engine if they want to avoid royalties. If you are gonna need engine programmers and custom tools and make billions you might as well hire 50-100 engine programmers and make your own
@@KomodoBitGames making a engine from scratch is a LOT of work, and that means it costs a LOT of money! if there is one thing corporations hate, it is spending money.
I've been waiting for this engine to finally start working because it's a very cool project and a major bummer that it just seems perpetually broken. Honestly same was true for lumberyard. I don't know why all the cry engine based projects just seem to be a bit crap but it sucks that they are.
The developers are complete A-holes as well. If you expressed your issues with engine they ban you from discord. One person got banned just for asking for video tutorials on getting audio working (which isn't supported by default and requires recompiling the engine just to get audio support ).
Cry engine needs to do something. I used it for a bit but it doesn't have the best documentation and tutorials. The community is very limited with few addons. It did seem to have a very solid editor and framework but releases and updates are very slow. The hunt is a great game that uses Cryengine.
I installed the from the latest installer. It's works for me. Here is what I did. I installed with defaults. Then I started the project manager and clicked through the tabs. Initially I saw three boxes on the first tab, but after I returned they were gone (suggests to me that some value changed from whatever it shipped it) *then* I created a new project, again defaults. Once it did that I clicked "build" once... as it turns out it still needed to download stuff (very odd). Once that was done I launched the project and it opened the editor. Again it worked on some things for a while (it was painfully slow) Once it was up I created a new level, saved it. Then in the new level I duplicated the shader ball object (as it was some default thing that came with it) and opened the material editor. I created a new material, made it red, saved it. Then made another blue one. Closed the editor and went back to the shader ball object. Now I changed the material to red, and the other to blue. Now.. while it worked it was still a slow and painful process. An editor shouldn't be so slow to work with so you can basically play a round of poker before it is done starting up. Then I closed the editor, and relaunched the project in the editor. This time it was fast. .. So, looking at the changes I can see they borrowed more than a little inspiration from Godot. Or I should say.. it felt very familiar. Update: It's still too buggy for my taste (after trying it) And I agree with the documentation woes.
Honestly I'm still super-psyched for O3DE; but right now we seem to be getting bleeding-edge stuff from them, which is a dangerous place to do work. Given the team behind it and the sheer volume of support it's getting, not to mention the proven track record of some of the engines it's derived from, one of these days it's going to be a default for a lot of people. It just isn't yet. I mess around with it as a hobby in a few months.
> Adopted by the Linux community > Doesn't work by default Yeah this kind of checks out. Open source is great until they expect you to be their quality control.
Yeah right, I'll stick with the "not so open game engine Godot". The fact that they put Huawei as the source of their quote tells you enough about the correctness.
@pimpuas and most of the EU I think. At the rest, I really don't mind Huawei using the engine or contributing to it. However, you just have to keep in mind their connections. Them working on the Linux kernel might be a bit different, but those commits are reviewed a lot more.
They actually yeeted the comment, good for them: "We have retracted a quote from this blog that stated that O3DE is the ‘only real open source game engine.’ The quote was never intended to be included and very unfortunately was taken out of context before we were able to make the correction. We deeply regret any misunderstanding, harm or inconvenience caused."
I finally decided to try out this engine and I gotta say I was happily surprised. It’s definitely not perfect, but it feels like a mix between unity and unreal, and it’s open source. The documentation sucks, but other than that it’s been going really well. Probably not godot level yet, but I think it does have a lot of potential. It’s been working great so far, I hope it keeps up like this. Edit: I take it all back. Well mostly. It ended it getting really annoying to use, and I can’t tell if I’m the problem or the engine is buggy. But the docs are horrible and I don’t know what I’m doing lol. I still think it has a lot of potential, and could end up being a better foss engine than godot, but it is not there yet sadly. I will be keeping an eye on it though for sure
@2:15 "...it's the only really open game engine out there, and it's the only fully open source, royalty-free solution that exists at this time." So even the Release Notes need patching? 😙
Any open source competition is good, it allows not only freedom of choice but also innovation by each party instead of a monopoly Surprised Epic Games funded this project considering they already have a game engine. Idk how to feel for Unreal Engine, it looks cool and runs very good, but it’s source-available only, not open source, so idk if I should use it or not Hope for the best of this engine
wow, you have a working copy of O3DE. This was the first engine I install after the Unity drama. And I couldn't make it work. Editor doesn't even start, no error, no log, nothing. It just doesn't work. I read about it, and looks like the engine is just... broken. No audio, some have no image. and a long etc.
I’m goingto try O3DE at my company as a simulation tool for our robotics projects. I’m really happy that a game engine finally supports robotics in a way that o3de does.
You can select version of documentation in upper left corner. And you looking at the old version of documentation. Never worked with it, but read a lot of documentations
O3DE seems to follow the Linux tradition of things never working out of the box, documentation being outdated, and basic or important things being buried in consoles! Jokes aside, I really hope the engine takes off eventually. It doesn't seem worth giving a shot at this moment in time, at least not for me, but I can see myself using it in a decade or two.
O3DE has a lot of fancy support badges but does that even matter? How much resources are actually being sent by these companies that are backing it, it seems not that much.
Open in this sense you open the rear hole to get sponsorship from Microsoft, then take the money and run, leaving behind half-baked features. But hey, you got another logo on your website too!
About things not working... It's just that, whenever they say that "a new thing has been implemented" you should read "a new thing has just started being worked on".
Most systems have major issues. You can actually crash the engine using Lua scripting. Everything is unsafe and poorly documented. If you try for long enough you can get it to work but discovering the "correct" way of doing something is long and difficult.
Or maybe it is safe for them to say that the engine is the only open source game engine TARGETTING Unreal? (Or maybe Armory / UPBGE can be taken as alternatives if Unreal is really unavailable?)
Yes, quite a while. First release as O3DE was 2021: gamefromscratch.com/the-o3de-game-engine-has-first-major-release/ As Lumberyard at Amazon, the first release was 2016: gamefromscratch.com/amazon-release-lumberyard-game-engine/
@@Ares9323The developers are complete A-holes as well. If you expressed your issues with engine they ban you from discord. One person got banned just for asking for video tutorials on getting audio working (which isn't supported by default and requires recompiling the engine from source just to get audio support ).
@@chancemcdonald4128 That's not true. I asked many questions there and every time devs were very helpful. Also didn't see any case where they blocked somebody just for asking. Maybe for unproductive whining, but not for asking.
It seems like the engine is still in alpha status, but the version numbers appear as though it is stable for a while. And it's kind of making people feel sorry that software under the name of Linux Foundation is only supported on one certain Linux distribution. And I cannot even install / launch the software normally on said distribution.
Well you can’t expect them to support Linux. Desktop Linux is a mess and it’s the job of the community of each of the billion distros to figure it out.
You can support linux Unity, Godot, UE4/5 have great linux support. It is just highly unusual that a project ran by the linux foundation doesn't have linux support as a priority. @@TheHermitProcess
First rule of O3DE: You don't talk about Godot. As someone who is actually into robotics development, I am exited to see something like this replacing Gazebo. However, Godot Also has ROS2 integration, but that breaks rule 1 of O3DE.
Lumberyard/O3DE is one of those projects that seems to be in perpetual development but doesn't go anywhere. You can sense there is a lot of money spent on the engine but you can't really see it in the engine. Just feels unfinished and untested. Mostly because you can't build a game engine in a vacuum. At some point you need to ship an actual game or have someone ship an actual game with the thing to see if it actually is a viable product. O3DE needs to stop what they are doing, hand the engine to a few game developers, see what the feedback is and take notes.
This is both the blessing and a curse for socialist/open source developed products, there is no market, no customers, so you don't have to care what other people want. This is great since you don't have to compromise to cater to the lowest common denominator and make just another generic no innovation clone, but it also sucks because of what you said, they might just end up making something nobody will ever use.
O3DE has so much potential, the docs say lua scripting is for "quick iteration of your game logic" and "canvas scripting is a general purpose, scripting environment". The question, is it suppose to be a visual scripting only engine like Snowdrop engine? Also why use canvas script for production ready game logic, when Torch library was built in lua scripting language which is part of PyTorch, frustrating. Still glade that the open source team is getting a lot of the kinks out atleast
I wonder if modular game engines should be more of a thing. Game Engines are basically a collection of tools to make games, why not make those tools interchangeable? I'm guessing there could be compatibility issues.
OpenSceneGraph was an engine agnostic renderer for example. Some map formats are also supported by multiple engines and editors, specially the ones from ID software games. There are some standards for assets too such as 3D models and volumetric images. Most scripting languages are also third party components. Shaders have standards too but they are tied to API being used. But I don't know how modular this can get.
I tried O3DE, but for some reason it capped all processor cores to 100% and just kept them there. I even gave it the chance of finish booting, but even with just an empty project after it finished loading it for some reason kept CPU at 100%. At that point I gave up on it, maybe the new version works better? Might give it a try again down the line.
I'm still waiting for them to add C# support so it can truly be a Unity replacement. But I worry if that will ever become a thing since on every thread I find (github or otherwise) on the subject there's a bunch of people doing the proverbial "ew c# so slow, never", regardless of benchmarks or proof to the contrary.
@@novh4ck i am not quite familiar with this engine, but if it's like every other open source software where asking for some help doing whatever leads to the response "you can do it yourself, it's open source, go figure it out on your own" then i can see why it has such a little community. Doesn't help if it's buggy too, constantly excusing it's "open source" nature for it and if the license forces you to share whatever you are doing with it (with corporations no less)
@@D0NU75 O3DE has Apache License 2.0. You don't have to share anything. It's just still associated with Amazon and mostly just other corporations (like those in the footer of their website) and open source developers generally don't like that much. Creating a community takes effort and good people skills and O3DE guys don't seem to make much effort in that part.
@@D0NU75 Also that response mostly follows after people demand something to be implemented in an open source project. Unless you pay the developers nobody is obligated to invest their time and do the work for you if they don't want to. Community open source is developed mostly by developers who need something implemented/fixed so they do it.
Wait, this is based on Lumberyard? So it's an open source version of Star Citizen's game engine? That potentially puts some SERIOUS power into the hands of indie devs. Shame it's a buggy mess, though. But since it's open-source, maybe that'll be fixed in time. I might try picking this up just to play around with it.
No. Very bad reasoning. From Lumberyard came Star Citizen and O3DE. O3DE doesn't use Star Citizen at all. Star Citizen forked an early version of Lumberyard and produced StarEngine which they use inhouse. The only improvement that I heard they did was a highly optimized renderer but I am sure there is more that was done. O3DE dropped over 2 million lines of cryengine code when it was forked from Lumberyard.
@@chancemcdonald4128 My bad, but how is making a mistake on info "bad reasoning"? Reasoning refers to the logic of a statement, not its factual basis. Either way, though, it's still an extremely powerful tool.
It is bad reasoning because you are drawing an inference where none could exist. I would also suggest you use simpler words because I don't think the ones you are trying to use right now you can use properly. It isn't powerful. For a project that started as a AAA game engine and ended up an unstable mess used by nobody not even the creators of the engine. It has no real ability to do what it is suppose to do. It isn't powerful it is sad. 100 million into a project that can't even offer basic functionality.@@VestedUTuber
@@chancemcdonald4128 pretty sure star citizen just ported lumberyard features to their overhauled version of cryengine 3 when they 'switched' to lumberyard. seems to be confirmed when cryengine sued star citizen for using cryengine 3 code without a licence, amazon came in and confirmed that they were licencing both lumberyard and cryengine 3 to star citizen. 1 or 2 weeks later the crytek lawyer quit the case.
Them talking about robotics shouldn't be a bad thing per say for game developers since it means there's decent focus on automation logic. Which your in-game units would also utilize. And other more physical world oriented robotics features such as image/vision recognition could be handy for AR games too. But that is not so say that robotics focus would make game developers happy necessarily, just that it shouldn't make game developers sad, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I don't have any issue with the robotics support. My "Scooby sense" went off that they LEAD with it. It's like when Unity did their developer conference and talked all about film and Digital twin, a few years back. It just sems a weird perspective, if that makes sense?
If it is a game engine I feel they should focus on adding support for common things used in video games like ..... native sound support. Yes O3DE doesn't support sound. You have to recompile to get wwise support but then your free game engine just got polluted with commercial software. They have a unofficial gem miniaudio but it isn't supported well. Robots is cool to add but how about support well video games first.
@@gamefromscratch Right, if it came off like that let me apologize and say that I didn't mean to criticize your statement just point out to the audience scrolling through the comments that it is not really a negative for game developers.
coming from "farcry sandbox mapping" (basically cry-engine mapping ) far back in the day, I try this steaming pile of **** like twice a year, so far I never got it to work. It sometimes crashes, but mostly just throws all kinds of errors and begs to be killed off immediately. See you next year again, O3DE
I have to wonder why they say its the "only really open source engine", I mean its great to have more options, and this being owned by the Linux foundation gives me great hope in its future but they must have had some reason to say this. Does Godot need some proprietary binary blobs to work on Apple or Windows that I am not aware of?
@@nolram Consoles are proprietary. They can't be shipped with FOSS. Godot can do consoles the same way all FOSS game engines and frameworks can - by you either hiring a company to convert your game for console, hiring a company to be the mediary and request the console tools through them, or by registering your company and requesting the console tools directly.
I think the guy meant "only open source AAA game engine", and that would be kinda true. Unreal is not FOSS, and Godot is not well suited (and not meant) for AAA. Still a jerk statement to make.
I really enjoy watching your videos. I'm trying to find the perfect game engine to grow into. But there are so many features and technology that needs to be considered when choosing an engine. Maybe you could do a video about the essential technology needed to build game engines in the order of importance. Eg platform support, programming languages based on industry preference, animation support like ik, VR support and so on.
generally, best advice to chosing an engine is more "is it enjoyable for you to work in" and "is it opensource" and if it fits those 2, problems can be resolved with some extra modification, but actually being able to use it, viscerally is basically the biggest essential trait
@@bloodmachine6049 yep I agree but for new game developers like my self there are alot of different features and technology that make modern game engines. Some are essential and some less important. My current preference is Godot because of its tooling and simplified integrated language compiler. But it seems if you want to target cross platform c# or possibly C++ is the way to go. I'm a senior software developer and worked with all these languages. So the programming side is the easy bit. I just don't want to implement my own physics engine integration because I find my self needing a feature that is missing. I guess what I'm saying is that there are core techs that are essential some really nice to have and some not important
@@chancemcdonald4128Godot 4 lacks raytracing, also its own occlusion culling system has serious performance overhead, and we even didn't remember that Go-doh is simply monolithic, so it hardens the development.
How they see VFX integration. Potential engine's users must go and buy Popcorn FX? Then if we got tricky parts of engine which works on youtube, it cost, not planning to integrate in future like built-in version. But engine must have things like this at start, and we must just go and buy it? Do we need unjustified risk to future projects which can be multiplied by zero? - Doubt Besides count of git commits and commiters incredibly reduced recently. Seems like project potentially dying. Then: UE, Godot(e.g.) are out hope.
The problem with engines like this is their lack of documentation and popular support. Unreal has only in the past few years been mature and had plenty of tutorials available, so it would take years for O3DE to reach the same kind of state IF people pick it up now.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that a marketer no one was watching typo'd that, and it's going to be fixed. Of all available game engines, I've seen some extraordinarily permissive licenses out there... I mean just off the top of my head, we have Godot, GDevelop, BabylonJS, Stride... I mean I'm honestly starting to wonder if it's a default option.
Hey, at least you were able to get the damn engine installed. O3DE's linux version ONLY installs with a deb package. So I guess people using distros using RPM (like me) can get screwed, huh... It genuinely baffles me that the engine only supports 1 type of Linux distro. I don't understand why they did it.
@@charlieking7600 Trying to install the snap packages just says there's no file or directory to install, and I didn't want to build the engine from source. It'll most likely ask me to install an Ubuntu specific dependency that I most likely don't have. For me anyway, deb is the only option, which doesn't work for my distro EDIT: Alright, I seem to have fixed the snap issue. Trying to install. let's see what happens. EDIT AGAIN: Knew it was too good to be true. It's not finding a valid engine.json file in snap/o3de/11/23.10.00, even though there IS an engine.json file there and I haven't tampered, altered or done anything to the files. The supposed valid engine.json file is on the correct folder, but its like the engine can't see it. And O3DE is so obscure and unknown that I can't find any post or anyone to help me run the blasted thing. This Engine sucks ass, and it's gonna die if they don't get their stuff together and actually make this thing more user friendly.
It appears that you were looking at the documentation for 23.05 instead of 23.10. Documentation version selector was at the top right and in your video shows 23.05. Still the functionality was not working as per their documentation though.
The documentation I was looking at was the result of clicking the READ MORE links from the 23.10 release notes. Since the video was made, they updated the documentation. This is good, although going live with bad documentation not so much.
This editor hardly looks different from Unity Ed. If you didn't tell me, I would've expected it to be an older version of Unity. That quote may just be outdated, and it may not have been correct at the time Lars Gleim endorsed it.
I've build from sources 23.05 and prefab system is enabled by default. Installed windows binary - it is there are you sure you use a proper tag when cloning?
Yes. It is glitchy and disfunctional. It's develoment doesn't go smoothly. And their marketing and PR staff is definitely the worst part of the team. But still - it looks very promising. The problem is - someone somewhere can develop some better engine, before this engine will bocome fully functional. There's a lots of free and open-source engines out there, and their developers continue to improve their creations - so O3DE could "miss it's ride".
I tried the 23.05 version, and it was the same, it doesn't work, for some reason i can't rename any assets, i tried to make a script using Script Canvas and when i deleted 2 nodes, the whole engine crashed, there was a error pop up, but i couldn't read it because the pop up window was complety white with no text.
Or you could just try it yourself and also try Godot and compare side-by-side? I don't get the trend of people trusting reviews more than their own judgement these days. Both Engines are free and open source, just try them.
For an open source project the first thing is community. They bring tools. Fixes. Tutorials. This engine lacks that important aspect and also only does 3D, no 2D.
O3DE is an engine for who wants make games with open source software but relying on proprietary software to get some jobs done(4example particles). In my opinion for now it doesn't make sense to me to use a software that claims to be open source but being pushed to use third party pay softwares.
that is not true it is missing basic features like sound and particles. You want a custom shader that is fine just have to write the C++ to interact with the shader. Most features can only being used from C++ and not from Lua or visual scripting.
I couldn't even get the online install to work. I can't even think of a time I've had an installer fail on my machine, but this one does. I even tried to have it create a local installer and I got the same results. Huge turn off when you can even install the darn thing. This was for their 23.10.0 Windows install.
Links
gamefromscratch.com/o3de-23-10-released/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GFS Patreon : www.patreon.com/gamefromscratch
GameDev News : gamefromscratch.com
GameDev Tutorials : devga.me
Discord : discord.com/invite/R7tUVbD
Twitter : twitter.com/gamefromscratch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't truly open source because copyright laws are still protecting it. If it were truly open anyone could do anything with the code without attribution or other requirements
I saw Huawie on that list you may wanna reconsider this engine they are pro censorship and chinease spys
MIT or Apache is fairly fucking free. @@jonnanieminen8848
@@jonnanieminen8848 Apache 2.0 and MIT are among the most permissive open source licenses, they require only attribution. This is truly open source and I suggest you read a bit more about what open source is. For example, viral licenses like GPL 3 effectively prevent you from using projects for commercial purposes.
Somewhere in the O3DE office you can hear an engeneer proclaim: "It works on my computer!"
Yes for sure.
This is why we have vagrant and unit tests. Maybe they don't.
O3DE just seems like it wants to exist but hisses at anyone who walks near it
It bites too.
I was inside their discord for a while, not really outsider friendly, it's more like a corporate working group.
@@leezhiengmaybe many of them have Cryengine and Lumberjad background and they are (or feel) professional, but that doesn't mean to be like that.
I'd love to use it, but it's so convoluted to get running.
@@leezhieng Yikes...
"It just doesn't work!"
Yeah, that seemed to be the opinion of Amazon Games Studio as well after Lumberyard was forced on them. 😢
This being the first open source game engine reminds me of when Jennifer Lawrence was the first female lead on a movie. The Hunger Games walked so Alien could run. The same is true for O3DE.
lol
Interesting choices all around and I'm not mad at them
I am still VERY excited about the future of O3DE. But you are absolutely right that it's currently more of a 2-steps-forward-1step-back situation with the development.
Wow! I didn't know Godot, Bevy, Gdevelop, Stride and Defold didn't exist! Very cool
Panda3D
Flax
😂
He put that statement in quotes which means that someone else said it. Not him.
Gotta watch the marketing speak on this one. It doesn't say open source in that title, it just says ' really open ', which can be abused to mean anything. I mean, I could interpret that to mean its bits are lying all over the ground because it's in the shop for being perpetually broken ... but that's me ;)
Oh, this is what happened to Lumberyard?! I must have lost track. I thought this was going to be about Oger3D. Thanks for keeping track.
I absolutely read the title as Ogre3D
And what's with their name? next we'll see asdasq
@@MangaGamifiedmany from the tech side likes acronyms so you have things like that
@@dermond Hmm I may had sound ridiculing but, I think names are also a tool for convenience. I mean try to search for guides for Cartoon Animator, you'll get mixed results, this even gets worse if it gets any less popular, but when I search for guides for like Live2D or Toon Boom Harmony, the list shown are clean & relevant cause they have non-universal names.
The long name was Cartoon Animator 5 by reallusion.
The cannon event sound effect blares as a superimposed image of Godot fades in
Godot is an amazing engine, but not the best for all projects, in particular large long term projects.
Firstly, you've got a dynamically typed language with GDScript. The language is an interpreter based one also, often times when making a larger project you want to make your own interpreter based scripting language developed in C++.
I'm not a fan of this, but as for the case of applying for jobs within the game industry, as in say your indie studio is down on it's luck and looking for jobs...Most professional game studios and porters and all of that don't use Godot, they use their own engines or C++, C++ is the most portable and widely used as all of the SDKs for the Switch, Xbox and Playstation all use Visual Studio, Microsoft Windows with C++. Historically speaking, since the 90s, it's been C and C++ for all major consoles across the board. Godot was created in C++ even.
So for example to get on a console, your project will be in the hands of a porting company, or Godot's tools to port, and that can be a messy process with a lack of control in your own hands.
Open source, as in say you want to modify Godot, not only takes learning the Godot source code, but uses their coding principles and practices instead of your own, and the time it takes to learn that source code could be better spent making your own.
So to sum it up, yes godot is great, but to act like this all-star engine to rule them all, it may be the best for a game your studio makes that takes say 1, 2 years, but you invest your time in making your own tools to make a game no matter what you do, so say you're using Unity or Unreal or Godot, you're gonna be making your own toolset within those engines. A game studio's output often isn't based around the engine it uses, but the tools it makes for that engine (or their own). For example, Telltale games made 'Telltale Tool', and from there they were able to crank out game after game after game. If a game underperforms, you want to crank out more games and try again. These tools that you make, can take 2, 3, 4, 5+ years or even more of refinement, as you make a game, you refine the tools you use and speed up your process. That's what game making truly is on a professional level.
I really like Godot, but I just can't imagine using Godot for making a serious toolset like that, because you just wouldn't want to use an interpreted language that's locked into their ecosystem, you're talking about potentially a decade's worth of investment.
@@astrahcat1212Well to be fair godot actually does have a really good extension system with native extensions, allowing you to use native c++ to extend the engine in really whatever way you like (through gdextension and modules mostly)
@@astrahcat1212Not only can you build a toolset around Godot (even Godot's editor is made using Godot), it has bindings for a lot of languages; you don't have to use GDScript, you can use C#, or C++, or even Rust.
Though the point is that for O3DE to claim they are "the only truly open source game engine" is a blatantly false statement.
@@miroaja1951being interpreted also allows fast and easy creations of tools in engine, allowing you to write scripts that run in editor with the tool flag at the beginning of the script.
I spent some time in Lumberyard on a large scale project about 2 years ago. It did get the job done, but was lacking in some ways and needed a lot of engineering effort to maintain and work with, moreso than I’ve come to expect with other projects that were Unreal-based. O3DE looks like it’s trying to continue where Lumberyard left off which is kinda neat. Glad to know there’s more powerful engines out there, I’d certainly give this one a shot (I just hope they make more game development focused improvements and not… robotics?)
Was the game Star Citizen?
Yeah I can't think of a another project that used Lumberyard. There is New World, Star Citizen, and then shatterline. I think that is all games made using lumberyard@@JinKee
At least you got O3DE installed. That's farther than I got with Lumberyard.
I had to switch from BlendOS to Kubuntu to install O3DE.
O3DE was CryEngine fork so it is not a cheap engine at all, it might be close to Unreal in potential, but obviously it might be harder to learn but great for big studios avoid royalties and etc. For triple A it sounds like it is the only option open source right now.
This is the best take. Yes, there are a lot of FOSS game engines, but this one has actual AAA chops.
Eh AAA studios will usually just make their own engine if they want to avoid royalties. If you are gonna need engine programmers and custom tools and make billions you might as well hire 50-100 engine programmers and make your own
@@KomodoBitGames Or just hire the The Forge.
@@KomodoBitGames making a engine from scratch is a LOT of work, and that means it costs a LOT of money! if there is one thing corporations hate, it is spending money.
I've been waiting for this engine to finally start working because it's a very cool project and a major bummer that it just seems perpetually broken. Honestly same was true for lumberyard. I don't know why all the cry engine based projects just seem to be a bit crap but it sucks that they are.
The developers are complete A-holes as well. If you expressed your issues with engine they ban you from discord. One person got banned just for asking for video tutorials on getting audio working (which isn't supported by default and requires recompiling the engine just to get audio support ).
@@chancemcdonald4128 hahaha, what are they thinking? Games don't need audio? jeeez, that's hilarious really.
Cry engine needs to do something. I used it for a bit but it doesn't have the best documentation and tutorials. The community is very limited with few addons. It did seem to have a very solid editor and framework but releases and updates are very slow. The hunt is a great game that uses Cryengine.
@@chancemcdonald4128 Lmao, what? It doesn't have audio? That's kinda wild
Probably has something to do with Cry Engine being a lot of spaghetti.
honestly, to me O3DE just looks like a game engine made by very skilled people that don't play or even like videogames
S tier comment well done
The "only really open game engine" quote isn't on the release blog post anymore lmaooo
I installed the from the latest installer. It's works for me. Here is what I did. I installed with defaults. Then I started the project manager and clicked through the tabs. Initially I saw three boxes on the first tab, but after I returned they were gone (suggests to me that some value changed from whatever it shipped it) *then* I created a new project, again defaults. Once it did that I clicked "build" once... as it turns out it still needed to download stuff (very odd). Once that was done I launched the project and it opened the editor. Again it worked on some things for a while (it was painfully slow) Once it was up I created a new level, saved it. Then in the new level I duplicated the shader ball object (as it was some default thing that came with it) and opened the material editor. I created a new material, made it red, saved it. Then made another blue one. Closed the editor and went back to the shader ball object. Now I changed the material to red, and the other to blue. Now.. while it worked it was still a slow and painful process. An editor shouldn't be so slow to work with so you can basically play a round of poker before it is done starting up. Then I closed the editor, and relaunched the project in the editor. This time it was fast. .. So, looking at the changes I can see they borrowed more than a little inspiration from Godot. Or I should say.. it felt very familiar. Update: It's still too buggy for my taste (after trying it) And I agree with the documentation woes.
Honestly I'm still super-psyched for O3DE; but right now we seem to be getting bleeding-edge stuff from them, which is a dangerous place to do work. Given the team behind it and the sheer volume of support it's getting, not to mention the proven track record of some of the engines it's derived from, one of these days it's going to be a default for a lot of people. It just isn't yet.
I mess around with it as a hobby in a few months.
> Adopted by the Linux community
> Doesn't work by default
Yeah this kind of checks out. Open source is great until they expect you to be their quality control.
Oh boy, here we go again...
Yeah right, I'll stick with the "not so open game engine Godot". The fact that they put Huawei as the source of their quote tells you enough about the correctness.
@@Maskharat well search in your fav search engine on huawei import restrictions. In short, they are considered an extension of the CCP.
So? It's an open source engine and everyone checks the code. What's your problem?
silly hate, I can smell the linux community, oh wait actual huawei is contributing to linux too, it may tell you enough aswell
@pimpuas and most of the EU I think.
At the rest, I really don't mind Huawei using the engine or contributing to it. However, you just have to keep in mind their connections.
Them working on the Linux kernel might be a bit different, but those commits are reviewed a lot more.
@pimpuaswell Unreal is partly owned by Chinese investors. 😂
_O3DE. When you absolutely positively need to ignore every other engine in the room - accept no substitutes._
They actually yeeted the comment, good for them:
"We have retracted a quote from this blog that stated that O3DE is the ‘only real open source game engine.’ The quote was never intended to be included and very unfortunately was taken out of context before we were able to make the correction. We deeply regret any misunderstanding, harm or inconvenience caused."
App developer here whose beta app is undergoing some pretty rigorous external testing. This makes me feel so much better about myself.
The potential here is huge, but it does seem like there's a ways to go to get there.
I finally decided to try out this engine and I gotta say I was happily surprised. It’s definitely not perfect, but it feels like a mix between unity and unreal, and it’s open source. The documentation sucks, but other than that it’s been going really well.
Probably not godot level yet, but I think it does have a lot of potential. It’s been working great so far, I hope it keeps up like this.
Edit: I take it all back. Well mostly.
It ended it getting really annoying to use, and I can’t tell if I’m the problem or the engine is buggy. But the docs are horrible and I don’t know what I’m doing lol.
I still think it has a lot of potential, and could end up being a better foss engine than godot, but it is not there yet sadly. I will be keeping an eye on it though for sure
Hi Mike from Gamefromscratch! Thank you for your video.
@2:15 "...it's the only really open game engine out there, and it's the only fully open source, royalty-free solution that exists at this time."
So even the Release Notes need patching?
😙
Any open source competition is good, it allows not only freedom of choice but also innovation by each party instead of a monopoly
Surprised Epic Games funded this project considering they already have a game engine. Idk how to feel for Unreal Engine, it looks cool and runs very good, but it’s source-available only, not open source, so idk if I should use it or not
Hope for the best of this engine
They probably want to avoid monopoly lawsuit.
You literally can't have a monopoly of an MIT licensed open source software. ANYBODY can use and improve it.
Epic Games also funded Godot engine
Well keep in mind Epic does have an App Store, Quixel, and the upcoming game engine agnostic Hub.
@@gamefromscratch never heard of them making a new engine before… will it be different than unreal engine?
wow, you have a working copy of O3DE.
This was the first engine I install after the Unity drama. And I couldn't make it work. Editor doesn't even start, no error, no log, nothing. It just doesn't work.
I read about it, and looks like the engine is just... broken. No audio, some have no image. and a long etc.
2:12 major red flag right there
I’m goingto try O3DE at my company as a simulation tool for our robotics projects. I’m really happy that a game engine finally supports robotics in a way that o3de does.
Lumberyard was the first game engine I ever downloaded. I downloaded when it launched. Its interesting seeing how much its changed over the years.
You can select version of documentation in upper left corner. And you looking at the old version of documentation.
Never worked with it, but read a lot of documentations
O3DE seems to follow the Linux tradition of things never working out of the box, documentation being outdated, and basic or important things being buried in consoles!
Jokes aside, I really hope the engine takes off eventually. It doesn't seem worth giving a shot at this moment in time, at least not for me, but I can see myself using it in a decade or two.
O3DE has a lot of fancy support badges but does that even matter? How much resources are actually being sent by these companies that are backing it, it seems not that much.
for the history that this engine has, i wonder how much baggage it carries behind the scenes.
I actually think they did a hell of a lot of work since forming as O3DE to remove a lot of that baggage. It’s mostly a new engine at this point
Not alot surprisingly, the engine/editor codebase has really great structure, its easy to find things, and they are in small readable components.
For a second I was second guessing my understanding of what the definition of "Open" was... lol
Open in this sense you open the rear hole to get sponsorship from Microsoft, then take the money and run, leaving behind half-baked features. But hey, you got another logo on your website too!
About things not working... It's just that, whenever they say that "a new thing has been implemented" you should read "a new thing has just started being worked on".
Most systems have major issues. You can actually crash the engine using Lua scripting. Everything is unsafe and poorly documented. If you try for long enough you can get it to work but discovering the "correct" way of doing something is long and difficult.
Or maybe it is safe for them to say that the engine is the only open source game engine TARGETTING Unreal? (Or maybe Armory / UPBGE can be taken as alternatives if Unreal is really unavailable?)
Has this engine been around for long? First time I'm hearing about it.
Yes, quite a while.
First release as O3DE was 2021: gamefromscratch.com/the-o3de-game-engine-has-first-major-release/
As Lumberyard at Amazon, the first release was 2016: gamefromscratch.com/amazon-release-lumberyard-game-engine/
@@gamefromscratch I downloaded it after your first video about it and deleted it the next day because nothing was working as intended 🤣
@@Ares9323The developers are complete A-holes as well. If you expressed your issues with engine they ban you from discord. One person got banned just for asking for video tutorials on getting audio working (which isn't supported by default and requires recompiling the engine from source just to get audio support ).
@@chancemcdonald4128 That's not true. I asked many questions there and every time devs were very helpful. Also didn't see any case where they blocked somebody just for asking. Maybe for unproductive whining, but not for asking.
@@fr0ziDo try to understand that your experience isn't reflective of everybody's.
This ones not done yet. At least you dont have to wait for Godot.
I see what you did there.. clever! lol
Godot 4 is still raw.
In context, he's right. O3DE is the only open source, AAA capable engine. There are no others. O3DE doesn't target hobbyists.
>engineer at huawei
>demonstrably false statement
Imagine my surprise… 🤨
Thank goodness I was already sitting down to watch this video!
It seems like the engine is still in alpha status, but the version numbers appear as though it is stable for a while.
And it's kind of making people feel sorry that software under the name of Linux Foundation is only supported on one certain Linux distribution. And I cannot even install / launch the software normally on said distribution.
Linux support is terrible. It isn't even a first class citizen.
Well you can’t expect them to support Linux. Desktop Linux is a mess and it’s the job of the community of each of the billion distros to figure it out.
You can support linux Unity, Godot, UE4/5 have great linux support. It is just highly unusual that a project ran by the linux foundation doesn't have linux support as a priority. @@TheHermitProcess
@@TheHermitProcess O3de is officially available on Ubuntu, though i cannot run it the that specific distro
Heard something about the linux foundation being in charge? No wonder why the documtation is wrong and the new feature doesn't work lol
i think no one is really "in-charge", they just "park" it under Linux Foundation.
I suppose they were talking about the licenses but ... O3DE is using Apache 2 and Godot is using an MIT with both allowing to do anything...
First rule of O3DE: You don't talk about Godot.
As someone who is actually into robotics development, I am exited to see something like this replacing Gazebo. However, Godot Also has ROS2 integration, but that breaks rule 1 of O3DE.
it's even funnier when you go to the blog post now and see that this quote has been removed
Lumberyard/O3DE is one of those projects that seems to be in perpetual development but doesn't go anywhere. You can sense there is a lot of money spent on the engine but you can't really see it in the engine. Just feels unfinished and untested. Mostly because you can't build a game engine in a vacuum. At some point you need to ship an actual game or have someone ship an actual game with the thing to see if it actually is a viable product. O3DE needs to stop what they are doing, hand the engine to a few game developers, see what the feedback is and take notes.
This is both the blessing and a curse for socialist/open source developed products, there is no market, no customers, so you don't have to care what other people want. This is great since you don't have to compromise to cater to the lowest common denominator and make just another generic no innovation clone, but it also sucks because of what you said, they might just end up making something nobody will ever use.
Amazon made several games with this engine: New World, Breakaway, Crucible and The Grand Tour Game
Rumor has it they have an internal fork that they use for their IPs and changes to it are not pushed downstream.
6:41 You know it's bad when Gamesfromscratch says "Bloody" XD
O3DE has so much potential, the docs say lua scripting is for "quick iteration of your game logic" and "canvas scripting is a general purpose, scripting environment". The question, is it suppose to be a visual scripting only engine like Snowdrop engine? Also why use canvas script for production ready game logic, when Torch library was built in lua scripting language which is part of PyTorch, frustrating. Still glade that the open source team is getting a lot of the kinks out atleast
Hilariously, they already removed the quote from the article. That is so funny.
Honestly though, this is a good thing. It's one thing to make a mistake, its quite another to promptly react to it and fix it.
I wonder if modular game engines should be more of a thing. Game Engines are basically a collection of tools to make games, why not make those tools interchangeable? I'm guessing there could be compatibility issues.
Because most of the implementations for those stuff are usage specific and don't necessarily talk to each other
OpenSceneGraph was an engine agnostic renderer for example. Some map formats are also supported by multiple engines and editors, specially the ones from ID software games. There are some standards for assets too such as 3D models and volumetric images. Most scripting languages are also third party components. Shaders have standards too but they are tied to API being used. But I don't know how modular this can get.
It was about time that someone would invent the first fully open source, royalty-free game engine.
Seems they should rename the engine to the The Only Really Annoying Engine
I tried O3DE, but for some reason it capped all processor cores to 100% and just kept them there. I even gave it the chance of finish booting, but even with just an empty project after it finished loading it for some reason kept CPU at 100%.
At that point I gave up on it, maybe the new version works better? Might give it a try again down the line.
I'm still waiting for them to add C# support so it can truly be a Unity replacement. But I worry if that will ever become a thing since on every thread I find (github or otherwise) on the subject there's a bunch of people doing the proverbial "ew c# so slow, never", regardless of benchmarks or proof to the contrary.
C# slow? they must be python users. It's simply not true.
I forgot *O3DE* exists
Not sure why this engine does not get more love. Maybe they need to also invest in more tutorials.
and need updated documentation
Open source is all about community and community effort. O3DE has no community so the only love it can get is from corporations.
@@novh4ck i am not quite familiar with this engine, but if it's like every other open source software where asking for some help doing whatever leads to the response "you can do it yourself, it's open source, go figure it out on your own" then i can see why it has such a little community. Doesn't help if it's buggy too, constantly excusing it's "open source" nature for it and if the license forces you to share whatever you are doing with it (with corporations no less)
@@D0NU75 O3DE has Apache License 2.0. You don't have to share anything. It's just still associated with Amazon and mostly just other corporations (like those in the footer of their website) and open source developers generally don't like that much. Creating a community takes effort and good people skills and O3DE guys don't seem to make much effort in that part.
@@D0NU75 Also that response mostly follows after people demand something to be implemented in an open source project. Unless you pay the developers nobody is obligated to invest their time and do the work for you if they don't want to. Community open source is developed mostly by developers who need something implemented/fixed so they do it.
Wait, this is based on Lumberyard? So it's an open source version of Star Citizen's game engine? That potentially puts some SERIOUS power into the hands of indie devs. Shame it's a buggy mess, though. But since it's open-source, maybe that'll be fixed in time. I might try picking this up just to play around with it.
No. Very bad reasoning. From Lumberyard came Star Citizen and O3DE. O3DE doesn't use Star Citizen at all. Star Citizen forked an early version of Lumberyard and produced StarEngine which they use inhouse. The only improvement that I heard they did was a highly optimized renderer but I am sure there is more that was done. O3DE dropped over 2 million lines of cryengine code when it was forked from Lumberyard.
@@chancemcdonald4128
My bad, but how is making a mistake on info "bad reasoning"? Reasoning refers to the logic of a statement, not its factual basis.
Either way, though, it's still an extremely powerful tool.
It is bad reasoning because you are drawing an inference where none could exist. I would also suggest you use simpler words because I don't think the ones you are trying to use right now you can use properly. It isn't powerful. For a project that started as a AAA game engine and ended up an unstable mess used by nobody not even the creators of the engine. It has no real ability to do what it is suppose to do. It isn't powerful it is sad. 100 million into a project that can't even offer basic functionality.@@VestedUTuber
@@chancemcdonald4128 pretty sure star citizen just ported lumberyard features to their overhauled version of cryengine 3 when they 'switched' to lumberyard.
seems to be confirmed when cryengine sued star citizen for using cryengine 3 code without a licence, amazon came in and confirmed that they were licencing both lumberyard and cryengine 3 to star citizen. 1 or 2 weeks later the crytek lawyer quit the case.
Them talking about robotics shouldn't be a bad thing per say for game developers since it means there's decent focus on automation logic. Which your in-game units would also utilize. And other more physical world oriented robotics features such as image/vision recognition could be handy for AR games too. But that is not so say that robotics focus would make game developers happy necessarily, just that it shouldn't make game developers sad, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I don't have any issue with the robotics support.
My "Scooby sense" went off that they LEAD with it. It's like when Unity did their developer conference and talked all about film and Digital twin, a few years back. It just sems a weird perspective, if that makes sense?
If it is a game engine I feel they should focus on adding support for common things used in video games like ..... native sound support. Yes O3DE doesn't support sound. You have to recompile to get wwise support but then your free game engine just got polluted with commercial software. They have a unofficial gem miniaudio but it isn't supported well. Robots is cool to add but how about support well video games first.
@@gamefromscratch Right, if it came off like that let me apologize and say that I didn't mean to criticize your statement just point out to the audience scrolling through the comments that it is not really a negative for game developers.
Looks like they removed the quote.
Well, at least they listen. ;)
That quote was pretty facepalm, so good thing it's removed.
coming from "farcry sandbox mapping" (basically cry-engine mapping ) far back in the day, I try this steaming pile of **** like twice a year, so far I never got it to work.
It sometimes crashes, but mostly just throws all kinds of errors and begs to be killed off immediately. See you next year again, O3DE
haha, probably the best thing to do is walk in a giant arc around it, really.
Have u tried Hazel angine from The Cherno?
I have to wonder why they say its the "only really open source engine", I mean its great to have more options, and this being owned by the Linux foundation gives me great hope in its future but they must have had some reason to say this. Does Godot need some proprietary binary blobs to work on Apple or Windows that I am not aware of?
Yes, the blobs are called "windows" and "MacOS"
Maybe they are talking about Consoles which Godot can’t do?
@@nolram Consoles are proprietary. They can't be shipped with FOSS. Godot can do consoles the same way all FOSS game engines and frameworks can - by you either hiring a company to convert your game for console, hiring a company to be the mediary and request the console tools through them, or by registering your company and requesting the console tools directly.
I think the guy meant "only open source AAA game engine", and that would be kinda true. Unreal is not FOSS, and Godot is not well suited (and not meant) for AAA.
Still a jerk statement to make.
@@nolram Several switch games do use godot, and a heavily modified version was used in sonic colors ultimate
They've already removed that quote from the bottom of the article. Guess they got enough blowback for that one.
I really enjoy watching your videos. I'm trying to find the perfect game engine to grow into. But there are so many features and technology that needs to be considered when choosing an engine. Maybe you could do a video about the essential technology needed to build game engines in the order of importance. Eg platform support, programming languages based on industry preference, animation support like ik, VR support and so on.
generally, best advice to chosing an engine is more "is it enjoyable for you to work in" and "is it opensource" and if it fits those 2, problems can be resolved with some extra modification, but actually being able to use it, viscerally is basically the biggest essential trait
@@bloodmachine6049 yep I agree but for new game developers like my self there are alot of different features and technology that make modern game engines. Some are essential and some less important. My current preference is Godot because of its tooling and simplified integrated language compiler. But it seems if you want to target cross platform c# or possibly C++ is the way to go. I'm a senior software developer and worked with all these languages. So the programming side is the easy bit. I just don't want to implement my own physics engine integration because I find my self needing a feature that is missing. I guess what I'm saying is that there are core techs that are essential some really nice to have and some not important
"they cou- they go dot wrong" lmao
so it's just Cryengine 3 from 2013. The real cryengine is on version 6 or something.
Imagine if Godot developers kudt borrow some codes from O3DE Engine and use it to improve the 3D aspect of Godot since it claims to be open source.
There would literally be no improvement.
@@chancemcdonald4128Godot 4 lacks raytracing, also its own occlusion culling system has serious performance overhead, and we even didn't remember that Go-doh is simply monolithic, so it hardens the development.
The animation system in this engine is more interesting than in Godot
I haven't checked out O3DEs animations what all they do?
@@stephensumpter5311 This is very similar to an animation blueprint in Unreal
This is true. The animation retargeting is great and easy to work with but IK is terrible. The animation graph also has alot of bugs.
Much better than Godot and Unity but not on the same level as UE or Flax@@stephensumpter5311
Please make a new video covering their latest updates, there have allegedly been huge improvements in the latest versions.
How they see VFX integration. Potential engine's users must go and buy Popcorn FX?
Then if we got tricky parts of engine which works on youtube, it cost, not planning to integrate in future like built-in version.
But engine must have things like this at start, and we must just go and buy it?
Do we need unjustified risk to future projects which can be multiplied by zero? - Doubt
Besides count of git commits and commiters incredibly reduced recently. Seems like project potentially dying.
Then: UE, Godot(e.g.) are out hope.
Not only GoDot, but also UpBGE and, possibly, Ogre
To be honest, that quote was by someone at Huawei so while wildly inaccurate for most of the world, I'm unsure about what's accessible to them.
I really want to see cryengine get more popular
Everyone's pal the Senior Engineer at Huawei also likes to say "We are the only manufacturer of smartphones"
The problem with engines like this is their lack of documentation and popular support. Unreal has only in the past few years been mature and had plenty of tutorials available, so it would take years for O3DE to reach the same kind of state IF people pick it up now.
While it looks interesting, im super sus about so much corporate support...
Be scared of anything FOSS. The more you know, the more you're scared.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that a marketer no one was watching typo'd that, and it's going to be fixed. Of all available game engines, I've seen some extraordinarily permissive licenses out there... I mean just off the top of my head, we have Godot, GDevelop, BabylonJS, Stride... I mean I'm honestly starting to wonder if it's a default option.
Hey, at least you were able to get the damn engine installed.
O3DE's linux version ONLY installs with a deb package. So I guess people using distros using RPM (like me) can get screwed, huh...
It genuinely baffles me that the engine only supports 1 type of Linux distro. I don't understand why they did it.
You can build from sources or install snap package. .deb package is not the only option.
@@charlieking7600 Trying to install the snap packages just says there's no file or directory to install, and I didn't want to build the engine from source. It'll most likely ask me to install an Ubuntu specific dependency that I most likely don't have.
For me anyway, deb is the only option, which doesn't work for my distro
EDIT: Alright, I seem to have fixed the snap issue. Trying to install. let's see what happens.
EDIT AGAIN: Knew it was too good to be true. It's not finding a valid engine.json file in snap/o3de/11/23.10.00, even though there IS an engine.json file there and I haven't tampered, altered or done anything to the files. The supposed valid engine.json file is on the correct folder, but its like the engine can't see it. And O3DE is so obscure and unknown that I can't find any post or anyone to help me run the blasted thing.
This Engine sucks ass, and it's gonna die if they don't get their stuff together and actually make this thing more user friendly.
average open source projects be like...
It appears that you were looking at the documentation for 23.05 instead of 23.10. Documentation version selector was at the top right and in your video shows 23.05. Still the functionality was not working as per their documentation though.
The documentation I was looking at was the result of clicking the READ MORE links from the 23.10 release notes.
Since the video was made, they updated the documentation. This is good, although going live with bad documentation not so much.
This editor hardly looks different from Unity Ed. If you didn't tell me, I would've expected it to be an older version of Unity.
That quote may just be outdated, and it may not have been correct at the time Lars Gleim endorsed it.
I've build from sources 23.05 and prefab system is enabled by default. Installed windows binary - it is there are you sure you use a proper tag when cloning?
I did not build from source, I used the 23.10 installer.
Yes. It is glitchy and disfunctional. It's develoment doesn't go smoothly. And their marketing and PR staff is definitely the worst part of the team.
But still - it looks very promising. The problem is - someone somewhere can develop some better engine, before this engine will bocome fully functional. There's a lots of free and open-source engines out there, and their developers continue to improve their creations - so O3DE could "miss it's ride".
I tried the 23.05 version, and it was the same, it doesn't work, for some reason i can't rename any assets, i tried to make a script using Script Canvas and when i deleted 2 nodes, the whole engine crashed, there was a error pop up, but i couldn't read it because the pop up window was complety white with no text.
Sounds like a 5 star review for anything related to amazon.
😂
they need to release this to steam so we can compare the quality by seeing the user reviews between this and godot
Or you could just try it yourself and also try Godot and compare side-by-side? I don't get the trend of people trusting reviews more than their own judgement these days. Both Engines are free and open source, just try them.
For an open source project the first thing is community. They bring tools. Fixes. Tutorials.
This engine lacks that important aspect and also only does 3D, no 2D.
@@madjunir o3de doesnt go for 2D games. it simply isnt their goal, same as unreal.
that is a godo idea but they couldn't control the comment so they will not do this. They also have their own launcher
O3DE is an engine for who wants make games with open source software but relying on proprietary software to get some jobs done(4example particles). In my opinion for now it doesn't make sense to me to use a software that claims to be open source but being pushed to use third party pay softwares.
But it can be so powerful game engine IMO! it has lots of powerful features and tools!
its possible to use c++ or is only supported lua scripting? you spoke to quickly, sry sry.
Hopefully they'll take this exposure in a good way and work on stuff rather than trying to proclaim they are something they are not.
"I know this came off as negative."
Id rather you be brutally honest. Inatead of trying to serve me some soft serve bullshit.
Thsnks as always
(1:06) You just named all of the worst corporations in gaming...like, in a row. Zero percent chance I'm trying this thing out.
It's like minecraft saying it's "The Only Really Block Game"
The quote was removed
its really great engine have been trying it since lumberyard days but documentation and tutorials are lacking
that is not true it is missing basic features like sound and particles. You want a custom shader that is fine just have to write the C++ to interact with the shader. Most features can only being used from C++ and not from Lua or visual scripting.
Hey man! Just take a break, relax and have some 🍵
He works for Huawei, cut him some slack behind the great firewall...
I couldn't even get the online install to work. I can't even think of a time I've had an installer fail on my machine, but this one does. I even tried to have it create a local installer and I got the same results. Huge turn off when you can even install the darn thing. This was for their 23.10.0 Windows install.