Godot can't be sold or purchased by any company. While the Godot Foundation holds assets on behalf of Godot including trademarks, contracts, and the bank account, the copyright to Godot's source is held collectively by every contributor. Pretty much can't resell the engine call it your own, the game you build on it you can call it your own and be build on it, or fork the code to make it better for your game.
Its Founders can still be targeted and its supply lines attacked. Microsoft bought Github, Epic developers sent Ai spam, Google will DDOS servers with Go.
@todd3382 (Godot's source is held collectively by every contributor.) So if someone try to resell the engine call it there own when the codes don't belong to them. Is not aloud. Anyone can change the code of the engine to make it work with their games, but they can't just fork over people work the contributor and resale it call the engine there own. Then be no point of the MIT license, if anyone can take your code add in there own stuff and sell it make money, that none did the work for.
@@tomtravis858 that's not how the MIT license works, the *only* thing the MIT license requires is that you don't remove it from the existing code (New code doesn't have to be MIT licensed). You aren't required to do anything beyond that.
Unity is over. Even if they 100% U-turn on their stupid decision, no sane developer would dare to touch Unity again. No sane developer would risk years of development just for Unity to pull some bullshits again on its payment model in the future. Please support Godot's free open-source model. Blender is the proof that free open-source model DOES work, as Blender (with the help of the community) nowadays rival fully funded proprietary modelling software like 3DS Max. Please contribute your skills and knowledge to improve Godot to attract as many ex-Unity developers as possible to make Unity obsolete and to make it disappeared on the face of the Internet altogether.
If you are a sane developer you don't do game dev. We already get fucked with publisher deals and steam cuts.. literally 80% cuts lol. All we care about is fast great tools and those are unreal and unity. Any professional dev will agree with me.
@@nullx2368 There's still a livelyhood to be a made and a sustainable way of supporting yourself while developing. Godot will likely improve and unreal is always a great choice for 3D.
Quick Anwser: NO, they are not a company, Godot is community driven and althought there ARE developers working on the game engine, the engine itself it's not owned by a company, it's Free(As in 'Freedoom') and Open Source, so you don't have to worry about Godot "pulling an unity"
Also, even if somehow the godot foundation was bought and the source went closed under a fauxpen or worse license, I am sure that Godot forks will be continued onto another repo. You can’t kill an idea, but you sure as hell as beat it up within an inch of the community’s life.
Indeed, the worst they can do is pull a R*st and conflate US domestic politics with open source software. Reputation does mean a lot in OSS. Of all the noise to come out of the whole trademark debacle that happened there, that part, as a non-American, I'm still scratching my head over. Makes it very unattractive for non-US people, ie the vast majority of the world.
There's still a risk there, if all we cared was the revenue share / cost nobody would've started with Unity or UE to begin with, if Godot went proprietary and majority of the developers joined in that would be that. The problem being that first it's really hard to find really productive and competent engineers for that kind of work there simply aren't enough of them, second they're expensive, third if you're a small indie studio merely forking Godot and self-supporting it would be outside the means of most small studios for the aforementioned reasons. That said it's a heck of a lot less likely they can pull such shenanigans, they're more likely to get finding by courting their big performers with features and services.
@@twenty-fifth420 Yeah. One of the tests debian-legal applies when evaluating licenses like the MIT license for compatibility with the Debian Free Software Guidelines is the very prescient "Tentacles of Evil test"... which basically asks how well the license protects downstream users from what Unity did. (They couch it in terms of "what if an evil company bought the rights and tried make life hell for existing users?")
Godot is such a great project! I'm happy that it exists and that there are people like Juan who spend a large part of their life in offering it to a larger audience. It's like a big community trying to realize the dream to build their own games.
Even in the very unlikely situation of all contributions accepted to change the license, when they tried do screw everything and start charging some kind of fee or something like that, that would end any chance of Godot (the original repository) continue to exist, because all donors, who support the engine for being free and open source would stop donating immediately. The few people who are hired to work on Godot thanks to the donations couldn't keep working. Godot would bankrupt and die and the repository would be forked and the people would start supporting the forked project financially and with code.
Reminds me of when Oracle bought Sun and all the OpenOffice contributors left to form LibreOffice, leaving Oracle with nothing but the OpenOffice name they bought the trademark for... and since they were no longer working under a CLA, the contributors' LGPLed commits were no longer compatible with the contract Sun and IBM had to use OpenOffice as the basis for the closed-source IBM Lotus Symphony.
They now also have a proprietary license that includes "in perpetuity" language, so even if Sweeney has a meltdown or a hostile takeover happens, it can't be retroactive.
I think 80-90% of all developers that invested more than 2-3 years in learning Unity at a deep level will go right back and tank the fees and roll with it. I think Godot is great even though I don't use it because i have some fixation with making my own mini engines.
No. Open Source allows FORKS and anyone could dunp the most recent version of Godot, add a few changes or features and then you have Godot 1.1 and the original godot can't do anything about it. Godot is safe, anything open source that allows derivatives means it cannot be permanently locked down or forced into privatization.
even if Godot somehow goes closed source (never going to happen) you can still use the versions of it which are open source with the same licensing, when you re-license a project it only applies to any new version of the project.
@@MrXrayez Haven't heard of them, I think it would be a smart move. In Godot you can make "modules" which is c++ code which gets compiled into the game, this is in it's own directory in the Godot codebase. If I was working on a game/platform which requires a game engine I would definitely use one that lets me make modifications while continuing the get free updates and improvements (through github commits). If you use the module system the API doesn't break except for major versions, this saves you from having to constant fix merge conflicts.
The only things the Godot team could do to screw the end-users is abandon the project or poison the well somehow in a way the community doesn't want to contribute anymore. But the only harm that causes is that there might not be any more future public updates to the engine. Godot has so much popularity someone will likely fork it and restart a community behind the fork (and create an update path where older version of Godot can be converted to the Forked Engine). There is no way the Godot team can cause a financial harm like Unity has where end users have to start giving money to Godot for any reason.
Open source projects do get abandoned from time to time for various reasons. If they do, and its a good project, someone can easily fork it and practically take it over if the community is behind them. Were the Godot development team to abandon it, no doubt the community would rally and take control of it. Maybe not the main branch, but a fork that would, in time, _become_ the "main" branch by default.
@@MrXrayez It's open source; people come and go. One of its co-creators, Juan Linietsky, is still leading it, and many who have contributed significantly to the project over the years are still around and contributing. And considering the financial backing they've received, Godot isn't going anywhere any time soon. Worst case scenario, Linietsky takes the money and runs and someone else volunteers to step up and take over.
@@HickoryDickory86 Just like the cult following of Intellivision Amico, Godot isn't going anywhere any time soon, see "Amico cult". But Godot lacks a development philosophy, vision, mission, etc. Users of Godot keep waiting years after years for Godot to stabilize. There's no such thing as a stable, robust version of Godot. I do wonder at what point Godot contributors, namely those coming from Unity, are going to eventually fork Godot. Because, as we know, Godot is not the new Unity.
@@MrXrayez Why are you talking about a cult? There is no cult surrounding Godot, and I am certainly not part of it even if there were. I just appreciate and endorse free and open source software. Other free and open source game engines I recommend are Bevy, Fyrox, O3DE, Stride, and Torque. But I guess with people's simplistic, extremist mindsets nowadays, simply liking and recommending something automatically makes you a cult follower? Meaning Mozilla, EPIC Games, and Re-Logic are also part of the Godot cult, considering their significant financial contributions. Unbelievable.
I would be investigating Godot right now if it didn't have a higher Open GL version requirement than my current computer has. I can't touch Unreal for a similar reason. When I eventually get a newer computer I'll check it out. I definitely respect the free open source model it has. I'm the most familiar with Game Maker. While most game ideas I have are 2d, some are 3d, and that's why I want to test out Godot for myself when I get the chance. Hopefully I find the ease of use and learning curve less than Unity. I didn't get highly invested in Unity for that reason, and it doesn't seem like a mistake in hindsight.
I FUCKING LOVE OPEN-SOURCE FREEDOM!!!!!!! I think everyone should look into the open-source/people powered way because it is obviously way better! Complete freedom over your own work and open source has the same quality as corporate-ran, if not better quality!
It's always possible. Hashicorp comes to mind they changed their licenses from open source to "source available" so they can extort money. The plus is almost all of the Hashicorp tools have been "forked" under the prior licenses and the development is moving to these open source forks. If Godot pulls this maneuver, we can always fork a prior release.
The Unity Terms of Service (TOS) change already has an interesting side effect. The publisher Devolver announced that is would need to know the ENGINE used for the game as it would mater for SALES. Valve, being on the hook as a distributer of Unity games via steam, may have altered the steam ALGORITM to favor Godot games over Unity games. This would imply that Godot games need LESS WISHLIST'S to make it to the front page or other REFERRAL parts. in fact I ALREADY think this is going on, but the algorithm is CLOSED so we will never know for sure.
I'm not so sure if the MIT license is perpetual and irrevokable. Because the benefit of that is you don't need to worry about such license changes either by the decision of the contributors or an expiration of a license that you need to renew. I've seen a video on youtube that I forgot its URL (and even if I do remember, I still can't post it because youtube's comment moderation is garbage at flagging for spam) about can facebook buy godot, and the answer is no due to being a contributor-open-source-base system.
The MIT License is irrevocable for the licensed software version. As I explain in the video, the license can change, but that would only affect future versions of the software.
Yes they can, but not as badly. Big money can close any project. Just look at what MySQL did when they closed up. So yes they can, but you can always use the last version that was under MIT and fork it. Unless they have enough money to sway the court system.
There's so many volunteers contributing to it that if they ever close up the source, the fork will be well maintained and people won't need to change their projects, only which version of the engine they're using.
If they become that crazy you beed to code in DirectX and Opengl or its replacement. I would build my own engine. I still will use game engine but I am a strong believer in building my own shit.
Another worse-case situation to consider is if the Godot foundation does something similar to what the rust foundation did with the trademark policy - while it is very unlikely and doesn't affect the developers anywhere near as much as what Unity did, it is still a possible scenario.
@@DavidSerranoIO I think they had quite a big controversy about trademark policy changes a few months ago, about restricting usages of rust name and logos, I don't know the full details or how it ended, but its something I heard.
@@gwch3481The bigger problem was the fact, they tried to add some clearly political requirements into the trademark policy, that have nothing to do with the Rust itself. IIRC there was a point about pandemic and about weapons, both could be kind of relevant for conferences, but were written in such a way, that it felt like inverse "own the libs" move.
Unfortunately, Godot is way behind Unreal for realistic graphics and massive scenes, since the creator said it will never adopt data-oriented design or ECS for its gameplay scripting. Its Nintendo Switch porting cost is $3,000 and there is no tool to port a Godot game to Switch ourselves
The worst that could happen, is stop of development and distribution, but that seems very unlikely in the near future. Additionally someone else could restart development or distribution.
Human greed always seems to win out over time. Terms and conditions can change as do company structures etc. I would expect Godot would be charging a fee within 10 years time and paying back to the contributors like shareholders for a while until it becomes like any other company....probably wont be as much as others and will be years away also so still worth using imo.
You're in the wrong frame of mind for thinking about open source software. Open Source Software isn't controlled by any single or small group of people. They don't sit at a conference table and plot how to squeeze their users for more cash. The principle of Open Source Software is that it belongs to the community that contributes to and uses that software as a whole, and can be forked by anyone without restriction. Human Greed Wins out in systems that prioritize profit seeking. Human Collaboration wins out in systems that prevents profit seeking all-together and instead encourages free development by people with the interest, know-how and will to do so. The only reason a lot of people tend to assume that humans only "operate by greed alone", or even that the tendency towards greed is greater, is a distortion of living in a system that operates primarily on those premises and attracts those kind of people to get into corporate structures where they can live out their greedy personalities.
Yea well, engines save a lot of time, but you are always susceptible to the change in the license, its like a trade off, also you have to invest some time on learning the software and if the engine is sold, normally they start to try to bleed the users , so godot's license seems like the most solid bet right now.
When you see the Unity administrative removed a term of agreement like a robber, in the dark, they just screwed the public relation..... They should have done it differently,
Capitalism is capitalism, an economic system characterized by private ownership, wage labor and market exchange. It was never conceived as an ideological system, but was in itself an evolution away from feudalism. there is simply no fake capitalism for as long as it meets those characteristics. What Unity is doing is merely an evolution of the capitalist system. Just because you have a fantasy version of capitalism that has never existed or will never exist in reality, does not mean that this is not capitalism.
you can also make your own game engine using libraries like SDL/OpenGL for 2D games, or OpenGL/Vulkan for 3D games. OpenGL is really flexible but require additional libraries to function properly, SDL is extremely simple to use but lacks basic features for vector graphics, primitive shapes, and shaders. Vulkan is mostly for 3D and I have very little experience with how it works. but there are more libraries for basically making an engine from scratch. you can even go and make an API yourself for GDI, GLX, and something something from android and make a cross platform engine with only built in libraries and OpenGL. GDI is the native 2D library for windows, GLX is the XWindow render pipeline for bridging the X windows system from linux with OpenGL(covering all non-apple PCs, cause fuck apple) and it can be bridged with some API calls with the render pipeline in the Android NDK(don't care about iOS cause, again, fuck apple) making a completely cross platform engine that works both on mobile and PC. should also be portable to Nintendo switch and PlayStation with no issue and should work on XBox because GDI should work on XBox to begin with. but not everyone have the years to spend on such a nightmarish adventure and just want to code something for fun. for those people: just use Godot.
@@dimanarinull9122 tried GMS2 when it was free and never tried RPGM cuz it's paid and unavailable on Linux... My game ideas rely on procedural generation of assets, because I'm unskilled and can't draw. But I'm SO unskilled that I failed to learn Python.
@Seacat17 as a fellow dumbass, who made his own engine because engines not made by me were too confusing to use before I made one myself. I can help you learn what you need to get into whatever programming language or engine you want(hopefully not java), no money, no scam, I just need someone to talk to about game design.
@@dimanarinull9122 well... If you really want to - there's a Discord link somewhere on my channel. I hope it still works. Just... Don't think I'll give you much help w/ game design, alright?
I Strongly disagree with your conclusions. Aseprite is a good case study of a project that started out as open source and eventually went proprietary. It would be trivial for the core Godot team to stop accepting pull requests and only release builds behind a paywall, they wouldn't even need to change the license to do this. And yes, people *could* fork the engine or distribute builds for free but that takes time and effort, and 99% of the time those kinds of projects die eventually if they can't get funding. Building your career on someone else's foundation will always be a risk, regardless how "open" that foundation is. The only risk mitigation strategy is to either *not* rely on others, or personally have the skills to fork and maintain the foundation should it be abandoned/taken away from you.
Compiling Godot is literally a matter of a few minutes, on my old laptop I think it is 3 minutes, let alone a more modern computer. But yes, I agree with you that the risk is never 0, however that is applicable to any area of life, there will always be dependency on someone or something. The key perhaps is to choose your business partners wisely to minimize the probability of failure; and in my opinion, with Godot the probability of getting screwed from one day to the next is much lower than with Unity.
There is the possibility that Godot will be led by someone incredibly toxic or scummy (it's not very likely, but it has happened a bunch of times in the open source world). But if that breaks a project, the source code can always be forked.
To think that a company could do well, go public, and start with predatory practices is not unreasonable. In the case of Godot there is no company involved or any commercial motivation, so I find it difficult for it to happen with Godot, along with the rest of the reasons that I explain in the video.
I think the question is pertinent. Not everyone is familiar with open-source, not everyone understands what the MIT license represents. Doubting whether an engine like Godot can do what Unity has done is a reasonable doubt, and one that everyone who wants to develop any commercial product with this engine should ask themselves.
Can you try to argue your claim? 1. If the player installs a pirated copy, you pay, why? Because Unity certainly does not have any infallible system to detect pirated copies, if it had that magic remedy it would sell it, it would become rich and piracy would end right now. 2. If your profit margin is less than $0.2, can you argue why this also seems like misinformation to you?
Most people who pirate games block the game from the internet. Thus eliminating any signal going to unity. So my advice. Just illegal download the games and block it from the internet....
Better for who? Not saying Unreal isn't a good engine, but it has a *completely* different business model and that model will not suit everyone - Unreal can also screw over it's users, but won't for quite a while yet.
They both have massive pros and cons in differences. You clearly aren't a developer because a real dev would be able to tell the difference and choose the one that meets their needs. If I was making a 2D game or especially a mobile game. I'd choose Godot. A first person shooter with realistic lighting. Then unreal.
GODOT JUST CHANGE THE SCRIPT FOR CHANGING SCENE IT WAS ORIGINALY get_tree.change_scene("yourmapname") AND NOW I DO THIS IN NEWEST GODOT VERSION AND IT SAYS IT'S NONEXISTENT CALL HOLY MOLY I HATE GODOT NOW
If you hate Godot for this you are going to hate every piece of software you touch, since making API modifications in new major versions is the most normal thing in the world.
@@DavidSerranoIO No that is NOT a normal thing, last time i check 2 days ago there was some major issues on downloading older versions of Godot and i made one or two games with one of those versions and the site was having some sort of issue for no reason, so i couldn't download it, if they wanted to change the whole script for the software then they should've care more about the older versions of their software forced me to use newest version of godot and they take 2 days to fix this? come on now and the scene change script for video game software is like the most basic thing in the game design i dont even care the only reason they keep changing the script is because they are evil they are full of nonsense they keep change the small script one by one each versions
@@999dunkins for the unlikely case that you are not a troll, and just inexperienced: 1.) the website of godot is not the only place where you can get the software. It is also available on github, where they and many other open source projects host their source code, which you can build yourself if you follow the instructions. In the case of godot there are also prebuild releases to download (including versions down to 1.0) 2.) it is actually pretty normal for interfaces to change on major version changes (from 3 to 4 for example) since thats what they are normaly for (atleast as long as marketing doesn't abuse it) 2.1) although yes, the godot-devs decided once (or twice?) during godot 3.x lifetime to change the script, which i also personally didn't like. but things can happen. and they typically post about how to do things differently with the change 3.) you do not have to upgrade the engine, if you are working on a larger projekt. but since the godot engine is so incredibly small, you can easly just try out a new version (obviously making a backup of your project just in case) and try and test if it works with what you have. and if it doesn't? then don't use it. at work we run on a 6 year old version of a library, just because the software that was written ontop of it works (and because the software that was written is mess no one understands, but thats beside the point)
Godot can't be sold or purchased by any company. While the Godot Foundation holds assets on behalf of Godot including trademarks, contracts, and the bank account, the copyright to Godot's source is held collectively by every contributor. Pretty much can't resell the engine call it your own, the game you build on it you can call it your own and be build on it, or fork the code to make it better for your game.
Its Founders can still be targeted and its supply lines attacked. Microsoft bought Github, Epic developers sent Ai spam, Google will DDOS servers with Go.
@todd3382 (Godot's source is held collectively by every contributor.) So if someone try to resell the engine call it there own when the codes don't belong to them. Is not aloud. Anyone can change the code of the engine to make it work with their games, but they can't just fork over people work the contributor and resale it call the engine there own. Then be no point of the MIT license, if anyone can take your code add in there own stuff and sell it make money, that none did the work for.
anyone can take the engine and resell it, as long as they leave a copyright notice
@todd3382 They would still need to provide the source code (for godot, not their modifications) if anyone asks for it
@@tomtravis858 that's not how the MIT license works, the *only* thing the MIT license requires is that you don't remove it from the existing code (New code doesn't have to be MIT licensed). You aren't required to do anything beyond that.
Unity is over. Even if they 100% U-turn on their stupid decision, no sane developer would dare to touch Unity again. No sane developer would risk years of development just for Unity to pull some bullshits again on its payment model in the future. Please support Godot's free open-source model. Blender is the proof that free open-source model DOES work, as Blender (with the help of the community) nowadays rival fully funded proprietary modelling software like 3DS Max.
Please contribute your skills and knowledge to improve Godot to attract as many ex-Unity developers as possible to make Unity obsolete and to make it disappeared on the face of the Internet altogether.
If you are a sane developer you don't do game dev. We already get fucked with publisher deals and steam cuts.. literally 80% cuts lol. All we care about is fast great tools and those are unreal and unity. Any professional dev will agree with me.
@@nullx2368 Please, press the pfp on the top of the main page of youtube and press "Log out". Thanks.
@@nullx2368 There's still a livelyhood to be a made and a sustainable way of supporting yourself while developing. Godot will likely improve and unreal is always a great choice for 3D.
Open-source rules the party
@EmiWi I changed industries for lively hood, i now develop games for the fun of it but I'm not dependent on it.
Great video! This is why open source is so important!
So true!!
@@DavidSerranoIOThis is also why Blender became so popular 😊
Quick Anwser: NO, they are not a company, Godot is community driven and althought there ARE developers working on the game engine, the engine itself it's not owned by a company, it's Free(As in 'Freedoom') and Open Source, so you don't have to worry about Godot "pulling an unity"
Also, even if somehow the godot foundation was bought and the source went closed under a fauxpen or worse license, I am sure that Godot forks will be continued onto another repo. You can’t kill an idea, but you sure as hell as beat it up within an inch of the community’s life.
Indeed, the worst they can do is pull a R*st and conflate US domestic politics with open source software. Reputation does mean a lot in OSS. Of all the noise to come out of the whole trademark debacle that happened there, that part, as a non-American, I'm still scratching my head over. Makes it very unattractive for non-US people, ie the vast majority of the world.
There's still a risk there, if all we cared was the revenue share / cost nobody would've started with Unity or UE to begin with, if Godot went proprietary and majority of the developers joined in that would be that. The problem being that first it's really hard to find really productive and competent engineers for that kind of work there simply aren't enough of them, second they're expensive, third if you're a small indie studio merely forking Godot and self-supporting it would be outside the means of most small studios for the aforementioned reasons.
That said it's a heck of a lot less likely they can pull such shenanigans, they're more likely to get finding by courting their big performers with features and services.
@@twenty-fifth420 Yeah. One of the tests debian-legal applies when evaluating licenses like the MIT license for compatibility with the Debian Free Software Guidelines is the very prescient "Tentacles of Evil test"... which basically asks how well the license protects downstream users from what Unity did. (They couch it in terms of "what if an evil company bought the rights and tried make life hell for existing users?")
Short answer no
Long answer nooooooo
Godot is such a great project! I'm happy that it exists and that there are people like Juan who spend a large part of their life in offering it to a larger audience. It's like a big community trying to realize the dream to build their own games.
Even in the very unlikely situation of all contributions accepted to change the license, when they tried do screw everything and start charging some kind of fee or something like that, that would end any chance of Godot (the original repository) continue to exist, because all donors, who support the engine for being free and open source would stop donating immediately. The few people who are hired to work on Godot thanks to the donations couldn't keep working. Godot would bankrupt and die and the repository would be forked and the people would start supporting the forked project financially and with code.
This is the real answer
Reminds me of when Oracle bought Sun and all the OpenOffice contributors left to form LibreOffice, leaving Oracle with nothing but the OpenOffice name they bought the trademark for... and since they were no longer working under a CLA, the contributors' LGPLed commits were no longer compatible with the contract Sun and IBM had to use OpenOffice as the basis for the closed-source IBM Lotus Symphony.
More people need to be asking this question about Unreal. Private companies can switch ownership, and/or go public later on.
Epic Games is 40% owned by Tencent and their shares could increase in the future
They now also have a proprietary license that includes "in perpetuity" language, so even if Sweeney has a meltdown or a hostile takeover happens, it can't be retroactive.
Unity: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further!"
I think 80-90% of all developers that invested more than 2-3 years in learning Unity at a deep level will go right back and tank the fees and roll with it. I think Godot is great even though I don't use it because i have some fixation with making my own mini engines.
No. Open Source allows FORKS and anyone could dunp the most recent version of Godot, add a few changes or features and then you have Godot 1.1 and the original godot can't do anything about it. Godot is safe, anything open source that allows derivatives means it cannot be permanently locked down or forced into privatization.
even if Godot somehow goes closed source (never going to happen) you can still use the versions of it which are open source with the same licensing, when you re-license a project it only applies to any new version of the project.
Rarely say never.
I've heard some Godot contributors working at The Mirror (the next Roblox) contemplated making a fork of Godot for their company.
@@MrXrayez Haven't heard of them, I think it would be a smart move.
In Godot you can make "modules" which is c++ code which gets compiled into the game, this is in it's own directory in the Godot codebase.
If I was working on a game/platform which requires a game engine I would definitely use one that lets me make modifications while continuing the get free updates and improvements (through github commits).
If you use the module system the API doesn't break except for major versions, this saves you from having to constant fix merge conflicts.
The only things the Godot team could do to screw the end-users is abandon the project or poison the well somehow in a way the community doesn't want to contribute anymore. But the only harm that causes is that there might not be any more future public updates to the engine. Godot has so much popularity someone will likely fork it and restart a community behind the fork (and create an update path where older version of Godot can be converted to the Forked Engine).
There is no way the Godot team can cause a financial harm like Unity has where end users have to start giving money to Godot for any reason.
Open source projects do get abandoned from time to time for various reasons. If they do, and its a good project, someone can easily fork it and practically take it over if the community is behind them.
Were the Godot development team to abandon it, no doubt the community would rally and take control of it. Maybe not the main branch, but a fork that would, in time, _become_ the "main" branch by default.
Several valuable contributors of Godot already abandoned the engine.
@@MrXrayez It's open source; people come and go. One of its co-creators, Juan Linietsky, is still leading it, and many who have contributed significantly to the project over the years are still around and contributing.
And considering the financial backing they've received, Godot isn't going anywhere any time soon. Worst case scenario, Linietsky takes the money and runs and someone else volunteers to step up and take over.
@@HickoryDickory86 Just like the cult following of Intellivision Amico, Godot isn't going anywhere any time soon, see "Amico cult". But Godot lacks a development philosophy, vision, mission, etc. Users of Godot keep waiting years after years for Godot to stabilize. There's no such thing as a stable, robust version of Godot. I do wonder at what point Godot contributors, namely those coming from Unity, are going to eventually fork Godot. Because, as we know, Godot is not the new Unity.
@@MrXrayez Why are you talking about a cult? There is no cult surrounding Godot, and I am certainly not part of it even if there were. I just appreciate and endorse free and open source software. Other free and open source game engines I recommend are Bevy, Fyrox, O3DE, Stride, and Torque.
But I guess with people's simplistic, extremist mindsets nowadays, simply liking and recommending something automatically makes you a cult follower? Meaning Mozilla, EPIC Games, and Re-Logic are also part of the Godot cult, considering their significant financial contributions.
Unbelievable.
I would be investigating Godot right now if it didn't have a higher Open GL version requirement than my current computer has. I can't touch Unreal for a similar reason. When I eventually get a newer computer I'll check it out. I definitely respect the free open source model it has. I'm the most familiar with Game Maker. While most game ideas I have are 2d, some are 3d, and that's why I want to test out Godot for myself when I get the chance. Hopefully I find the ease of use and learning curve less than Unity. I didn't get highly invested in Unity for that reason, and it doesn't seem like a mistake in hindsight.
My computer is pretty much a potato, but Godot 4.1 compatibility mode runs great on my laptop.
@@Random006 I'll give that a try to see if it will work in my case.
That's unfortunate. Hopefully you will be able to find an option that suits you best.
Godot3 have openGL version 2
Hopefully this destroys the "mobile games" market. They've been a plague on the industry since their inception. It won't, but one can always dream.
Oh it will
As long as we make fun-awesome mobile games then the current "movile games" will be kicked to the curve
I FUCKING LOVE OPEN-SOURCE FREEDOM!!!!!!! I think everyone should look into the open-source/people powered way because it is obviously way better! Complete freedom over your own work and open source has the same quality as corporate-ran, if not better quality!
After the Unity drama, yes, open-source is the way to go to be safe.
I wish you success, Godot
It's always possible. Hashicorp comes to mind they changed their licenses from open source to "source available" so they can extort money. The plus is almost all of the Hashicorp tools have been "forked" under the prior licenses and the development is moving to these open source forks. If Godot pulls this maneuver, we can always fork a prior release.
Not really, it's community driven, it's free and open source under the MIT license
@@RayOfSunlight984 That is not exclusive, but If you read the comment again you should realice It isn't really a problem.
The Unity Terms of Service (TOS) change already has an interesting side effect. The publisher Devolver announced that is would need to know the ENGINE used for the game as it would mater for SALES. Valve, being on the hook as a distributer of Unity games via steam, may have altered the steam ALGORITM to favor Godot games over Unity games. This would imply that Godot games need LESS WISHLIST'S to make it to the front page or other REFERRAL parts. in fact I ALREADY think this is going on, but the algorithm is CLOSED so we will never know for sure.
I'm not so sure if the MIT license is perpetual and irrevokable. Because the benefit of that is you don't need to worry about such license changes either by the decision of the contributors or an expiration of a license that you need to renew.
I've seen a video on youtube that I forgot its URL (and even if I do remember, I still can't post it because youtube's comment moderation is garbage at flagging for spam) about can facebook buy godot, and the answer is no due to being a contributor-open-source-base system.
The MIT License is irrevocable for the licensed software version. As I explain in the video, the license can change, but that would only affect future versions of the software.
@@DavidSerranoIO so technically it is perpetual on the current version of the software you agree with, right?
@@ghb323 Yes, that's correct.
@@DavidSerranoIO good
Yes they can, but not as badly. Big money can close any project. Just look at what MySQL did when they closed up. So yes they can, but you can always use the last version that was under MIT and fork it. Unless they have enough money to sway the court system.
There's so many volunteers contributing to it that if they ever close up the source, the fork will be well maintained and people won't need to change their projects, only which version of the engine they're using.
the open part of MySQL turned into MariaDB, if i remember correctly? Precisely how forking can benefit the community when this rugpull happens.
If they become that crazy you beed to code in DirectX and Opengl or its replacement. I would build my own engine. I still will use game engine but I am a strong believer in building my own shit.
@@dicksonZero exactly, pretty much everybody switched to MariaDB but still called it MySQL for convenience
@@dicksonZeroKeep in mind the 4 year gap between MySQL closure and MariaDB. Do you want to stop making games for 4 years out of the blue.
Another worse-case situation to consider is if the Godot foundation does something similar to what the rust foundation did with the trademark policy - while it is very unlikely and doesn't affect the developers anywhere near as much as what Unity did, it is still a possible scenario.
What did the Rust Foundation do?
@@DavidSerranoIO I think they had quite a big controversy about trademark policy changes a few months ago, about restricting usages of rust name and logos, I don't know the full details or how it ended, but its something I heard.
@@gwch3481The bigger problem was the fact, they tried to add some clearly political requirements into the trademark policy, that have nothing to do with the Rust itself. IIRC there was a point about pandemic and about weapons, both could be kind of relevant for conferences, but were written in such a way, that it felt like inverse "own the libs" move.
A year later, we found out its a yes.
I never dreamed that something like this could happen. After the Unity debacle, Godot had it on a plate. And now they do this... very unfortunate 😔
Unfortunately, Godot is way behind Unreal for realistic graphics and massive scenes, since the creator said it will never adopt data-oriented design or ECS for its gameplay scripting. Its Nintendo Switch porting cost is $3,000 and there is no tool to port a Godot game to Switch ourselves
Refuse realism. Embrace stylization.
@@Seacat17 I love stylish graphics, but we wouldn't be able to create a complex and massive game like V Rising with Godot
@@LouiszBr42 Thrive's graphics quality is nowhere near V Rising's
@valcaron Realistic graphics are required for architectural visualization, movie production and 3D e-learning app development, not just for AAA games
The worst that could happen, is stop of development and distribution, but that seems very unlikely in the near future. Additionally someone else could restart development or distribution.
Human greed always seems to win out over time. Terms and conditions can change as do company structures etc. I would expect Godot would be charging a fee within 10 years time and paying back to the contributors like shareholders for a while until it becomes like any other company....probably wont be as much as others and will be years away also so still worth using imo.
You're in the wrong frame of mind for thinking about open source software. Open Source Software isn't controlled by any single or small group of people. They don't sit at a conference table and plot how to squeeze their users for more cash.
The principle of Open Source Software is that it belongs to the community that contributes to and uses that software as a whole, and can be forked by anyone without restriction.
Human Greed Wins out in systems that prioritize profit seeking. Human Collaboration wins out in systems that prevents profit seeking all-together and instead encourages free development by people with the interest, know-how and will to do so.
The only reason a lot of people tend to assume that humans only "operate by greed alone", or even that the tendency towards greed is greater, is a distortion of living in a system that operates primarily on those premises and attracts those kind of people to get into corporate structures where they can live out their greedy personalities.
Yea well, engines save a lot of time, but you are always susceptible to the change in the license, its like a trade off, also you have to invest some time on learning the software and if the engine is sold, normally they start to try to bleed the users , so godot's license seems like the most solid bet right now.
When you see the Unity administrative removed a term of agreement like a robber, in the dark, they just screwed the public relation..... They should have done it differently,
Or just not do it at all
The only engine provider that doesn't have the potential to screw one over is one one owns.
1:16 - 1:23 - the perfectly describes corporate controlled tools traded on the stock markets. "american fake-capitalism" if you wish.
Capitalism is capitalism, an economic system characterized by private ownership, wage labor and market exchange. It was never conceived as an ideological system, but was in itself an evolution away from feudalism. there is simply no fake capitalism for as long as it meets those characteristics. What Unity is doing is merely an evolution of the capitalist system. Just because you have a fantasy version of capitalism that has never existed or will never exist in reality, does not mean that this is not capitalism.
4:42 I'm sorry but what is happening in the footage here? 😂
Nothing concrete, a silly demo I made a while ago 😅
you can also make your own game engine using libraries like SDL/OpenGL for 2D games, or OpenGL/Vulkan for 3D games.
OpenGL is really flexible but require additional libraries to function properly,
SDL is extremely simple to use but lacks basic features for vector graphics, primitive shapes, and shaders.
Vulkan is mostly for 3D and I have very little experience with how it works.
but there are more libraries for basically making an engine from scratch.
you can even go and make an API yourself for GDI, GLX, and something something from android and make a cross platform engine with only built in libraries and OpenGL.
GDI is the native 2D library for windows, GLX is the XWindow render pipeline for bridging the X windows system from linux with OpenGL(covering all non-apple PCs, cause fuck apple) and it can be bridged with some API calls with the render pipeline in the Android NDK(don't care about iOS cause, again, fuck apple)
making a completely cross platform engine that works both on mobile and PC. should also be portable to Nintendo switch and PlayStation with no issue and should work on XBox because GDI should work on XBox to begin with.
but not everyone have the years to spend on such a nightmarish adventure and just want to code something for fun.
for those people: just use Godot.
Even Godot is hard for me. That's why I'm not a developer :')
@Seacat17 yeah, common engine design is kinda annoying.
Did you try RPG maker, game maker, or game maker studio?
@@dimanarinull9122 tried GMS2 when it was free and never tried RPGM cuz it's paid and unavailable on Linux...
My game ideas rely on procedural generation of assets, because I'm unskilled and can't draw. But I'm SO unskilled that I failed to learn Python.
@Seacat17 as a fellow dumbass, who made his own engine because engines not made by me were too confusing to use before I made one myself.
I can help you learn what you need to get into whatever programming language or engine you want(hopefully not java), no money, no scam, I just need someone to talk to about game design.
@@dimanarinull9122 well... If you really want to - there's a Discord link somewhere on my channel. I hope it still works. Just... Don't think I'll give you much help w/ game design, alright?
I Strongly disagree with your conclusions. Aseprite is a good case study of a project that started out as open source and eventually went proprietary.
It would be trivial for the core Godot team to stop accepting pull requests and only release builds behind a paywall, they wouldn't even need to change the license to do this.
And yes, people *could* fork the engine or distribute builds for free but that takes time and effort, and 99% of the time those kinds of projects die eventually if they can't get funding.
Building your career on someone else's foundation will always be a risk, regardless how "open" that foundation is. The only risk mitigation strategy is to either *not* rely on others, or personally have the skills to fork and maintain the foundation should it be abandoned/taken away from you.
Compiling Godot is literally a matter of a few minutes, on my old laptop I think it is 3 minutes, let alone a more modern computer. But yes, I agree with you that the risk is never 0, however that is applicable to any area of life, there will always be dependency on someone or something. The key perhaps is to choose your business partners wisely to minimize the probability of failure; and in my opinion, with Godot the probability of getting screwed from one day to the next is much lower than with Unity.
There is the possibility that Godot will be led by someone incredibly toxic or scummy (it's not very likely, but it has happened a bunch of times in the open source world). But if that breaks a project, the source code can always be forked.
that's pretty much what happened to audacity
@@Callsign_Sturm Your concern is valid. I recommend researching this topic more.
gosh... It is 100% safe!
RPG in a Box is a game engine made in godot
Maybe game framework then?
The answer is yes. If in 2015 you said to someone Unity will become what it is today, people would laugh at you.
To think that a company could do well, go public, and start with predatory practices is not unreasonable. In the case of Godot there is no company involved or any commercial motivation, so I find it difficult for it to happen with Godot, along with the rest of the reasons that I explain in the video.
I think this video has an incredibly misleading title.
I think the question is pertinent. Not everyone is familiar with open-source, not everyone understands what the MIT license represents. Doubting whether an engine like Godot can do what Unity has done is a reasonable doubt, and one that everyone who wants to develop any commercial product with this engine should ask themselves.
0:25 missiformation start from here
Can you try to argue your claim? 1. If the player installs a pirated copy, you pay, why? Because Unity certainly does not have any infallible system to detect pirated copies, if it had that magic remedy it would sell it, it would become rich and piracy would end right now. 2. If your profit margin is less than $0.2, can you argue why this also seems like misinformation to you?
less??? likely
Most people who pirate games block the game from the internet. Thus eliminating any signal going to unity. So my advice. Just illegal download the games and block it from the internet....
how does that help the indie devs who are pouring their hearts and souls into their work?
@@flor18gatar shut up
So developers are still getting screwed lol...
@@FreeLeaks "pirating is coool brooo" - some 30 year old who never grew up
It's open source like linux so no
It's better to use unreal engine
Better for who? Not saying Unreal isn't a good engine, but it has a *completely* different business model and that model will not suit everyone - Unreal can also screw over it's users, but won't for quite a while yet.
UE is a great engine, but what are your reasons for saying that?
for 3d games
What if Epic hires John "the money's gone" Riccitielo a few years down the line?
They both have massive pros and cons in differences. You clearly aren't a developer because a real dev would be able to tell the difference and choose the one that meets their needs. If I was making a 2D game or especially a mobile game. I'd choose Godot. A first person shooter with realistic lighting. Then unreal.
Short answer: NO, long: ABSOLUTELY NO.
GODOT JUST CHANGE THE SCRIPT FOR CHANGING SCENE IT WAS ORIGINALY get_tree.change_scene("yourmapname") AND NOW I DO THIS IN NEWEST GODOT VERSION AND IT SAYS IT'S NONEXISTENT CALL HOLY MOLY I HATE GODOT NOW
If you hate Godot for this you are going to hate every piece of software you touch, since making API modifications in new major versions is the most normal thing in the world.
@@DavidSerranoIO No that is NOT a normal thing, last time i check 2 days ago there was some major issues on downloading older versions of Godot and i made one or two games with one of those versions and the site was having some sort of issue for no reason, so i couldn't download it, if they wanted to change the whole script for the software then they should've care more about the older versions of their software forced me to use newest version of godot and they take 2 days to fix this? come on now and the scene change script for video game software is like the most basic thing in the game design i dont even care the only reason they keep changing the script is because they are evil they are full of nonsense they keep change the small script one by one each versions
Bro, absolutely NOBODY force you to move on godot 4, just stay on 3, if you have godot 3 project. Godot 3 continue get new updates.
@@999dunkins for the unlikely case that you are not a troll, and just inexperienced:
1.) the website of godot is not the only place where you can get the software. It is also available on github, where they and many other open source projects host their source code, which you can build yourself if you follow the instructions. In the case of godot there are also prebuild releases to download (including versions down to 1.0)
2.) it is actually pretty normal for interfaces to change on major version changes (from 3 to 4 for example) since thats what they are normaly for (atleast as long as marketing doesn't abuse it)
2.1) although yes, the godot-devs decided once (or twice?) during godot 3.x lifetime to change the script, which i also personally didn't like. but things can happen. and they typically post about how to do things differently with the change
3.) you do not have to upgrade the engine, if you are working on a larger projekt. but since the godot engine is so incredibly small, you can easly just try out a new version (obviously making a backup of your project just in case) and try and test if it works with what you have. and if it doesn't? then don't use it. at work we run on a 6 year old version of a library, just because the software that was written ontop of it works (and because the software that was written is mess no one understands, but thats beside the point)
I'm sure if you you do a quick internet search you can find the updated way of doing the same thing :)