• TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Godot’s only issue is the lack of console support, but that’s because they can’t get the licenses as an open source project.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Godot developers created a new business entity that will facilitate porting games to closed platforms.

      • atocci@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was going to say, I know Cassette Beasts released on Switch and it uses the Godot engine, so there’s no way it doesn’t support consoles.

        • 520@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It essentially allows for special closed source builds. These closed source builds can have the engine support for consoles and still be in keeping with Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo’s licenses.

          • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t know that. How do the developers get access to these builds? Are they sold? Or do they need to build it themselves?

              • PostColonialMyAss@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                1 year ago

                This, right here.

                Hey EU. How about lowering that barrier to entry by pumping a couple of million Euro’s into cold-room reverse engineering the API’s and developing an open source alternative that can be distributed freely.

                We’ll invite Sony lawyers, Microsoft lawyers, watch them cope and seethe as their framework is made more open…

                …aaaand then realising that a lot more people will take the shot to pay for actual licensing. Go figure.

                • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’re still going to need them to sign your binary for the console to recognize it as legit.

                  Circumventing the official path worked back in the 80s and 90s, but modern consoles and their SDKs were designed with those lessons in mind.

                  • 520@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s still valuable information for those that would seek to load homebrew (unsigned code) onto their systems.

                    Console security is one of those things where every additional barrier helps. The goal isn’t to outright prevent homebrew or piracy but to limit the scope of breaches and delay them as much as possible. Even modern consoles like the Switch and PS5 are not immune

    • insomniac_lemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am not sure this is something other engines even offered at this level, but my issue is bindings support.

      3.X had (3rd-party) production-ready bindings, even for niche languages.

      4.X, with hopes of improving support for compiled languages, has a new bindings system meaning that all bindings need to be redone as a new effort. This happened with the language that I’m interested in, the group that made the production-ready 3.X bindings abdicated the crown and there have been splintered efforts by individuals to work on 4.X bindings.

      So it (3.X vs 4.X) is language vs engine features. When/if 4.X bindings do come out, it is not known how similar they will be so (aside from non-Godot-specific code) that will likely add complication to it as well.


      I don’t really care about consoles (needing to jump through hoops to develop for it is one reason) so a different potential issue would web export limitations. Both for different languages and for visual quality (AA). Those were issues in the past, though I’m not actually sure where they’re at now (the 4.1 docs do say you can’t have C# web exports in 4.X).