this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
941 points (99.2% liked)
memes
9607 readers
3178 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Last I checked Adobe doesn't have any 3d game engines, so that's not really a solution, heh. (Also, godot is already a FOSS 3d engine which is gradually replacing Unity)
Additionally, developing a game requires many, many different parts. It's not just the engine, it's making the models, it's making the materials, textures, shaders, programming, scripting, writing, and so on. Some, like 3d modeling, already have decent FOSS tools (Blender for example). Others, like the Substance suite (material authoring and texture painting) or Photoshop (image editing) don't have a good enough FOSS alternative to be replaceable. Furthermore, many studios have specialized plugins or companion programs the studios developed or purchased which are only compatible with Substance, Photoshop, etc.
So you're not just fighting game engines, you're fighting every step of the process. Adobe (and Autodesk, fuck Autodesk too) products, when used, tend to be deeply embedded in most professional workflows. You'd have to replace the software and any specialized plugins or programs designed specifically to interface with the software. I mean, good luck, it's just a hell of a lot more complicated than you seem to think.
Making a game isn't easy regardless of which software ecosystem you use. People just need to know there are options.
"more complicated than I seem to think". I'm not going to dox myself just to win an argument. I still stand by my claim that there are viable ways to develop fairly complex games that don't involve the unity + a bunch of corporate shit nor unreal + a bunch of corporate shit.
You say they're viable, but most people don't want to make their own engine to make a game. Most people wanna make a game, not a game engine. Furthermore, while I honestly believe that the FOSS community could easily match commercial projects, doing so requires people to acknowledge the software's shortcomings, talk to the professional users about what kinda UI they want, and so on. That means you can't throw lines at them like "user inexperience" or "just learn a new program". They're professionals, having to learn a new program cuts into their income. Learning new programs means they aren't making things, which means they aren't making money.
I know I'm kinda rambling a bit and may not be super coherent (if so, I apologize, I'm running on low sleep), but I'm not trying to be a doomer or say "that's impossible"; I think what I am trying to say is that I don't think the FOSS community currently has all the necessary software features or ease of access for professionals.
Last time I tried to develop a game I accidentally built a game engine instead. Consequences of just doing what seems interesting instead of focusing on building an actual thing
Macromedia Flash wakes up to find itself in a coffin under two meters of concrete with a tombstone calling it a dozen of different names.
Idk which one it was at the time, but when I installed Flash into my systems back then they did promote their capability to create 3d games.
Can't disagree. They both also love to litter their data all over the system. Worse than malware in that department.