[shmerl]

> Professional game developers don't have any issues with walled gardens.

That's nonsense. Tell them that doing double work is a good thing (especially for the limited budget). No sane developer likes walled gardens and lock-in because it always translates in complications (not caused by real technical reasons), and doing the same work multiple times to address stupidity of vendors who push said lock-in.

> That is how the industry has survived

Saying that industry survives on lock-in is like saying that technology survives on the lack of progress. I.e. it's a completely backwards thinking.

[pjmlp]

It not non-sense at all.

It is how many in the industry make a living, by doing consulting as experts in porting games between platforms.

Arguing about the beauty of FOSS and OpenGL, and the dismay of them being ignored by professional game developers, only reveals lack of knowledge how the industry works.

Once upon a time I learned the hard way that being too focused on that, made me lose the picture how the inner workings of the industry are. Back when I still cared about game development and had the privilege to visit a few well known studios. One of them apparently owns a black console that is selling quite well.

Professional game developers don't care about FOSS, 3D standards or whatever.

The only thing that matters is getting their vision of game out in the hands of their fans, regardless of what the systems their fans might have available.

There are plenty of companies selling middleware and consulting services for porting activities.

Gate keepers help prevent a flood of low quality games and copy cats like the one that caused the 1983 crash.

[shmerl]

> It is how many in the industry make a living

Industry makes a living on technology progress. If someone makes a living on pushing lock-in (MS), they are doing a disservice to the whole industry. It has nothing to do with FOSS - it's about progress in general (lock-in is the opposite of it).

You didn't disprove what I said above. Duplication of work costs more money, and no one likes to waste money, especially when reasons for that duplication aren't even technical, but are caused by crooked vendors who force that extra expense on others with lock-in.

> Professional game developers don't care

They care about their budgets. Your idea that duplication of work is welcomed is complete nonsense.

[pjmlp]

Again, you don't seem to understand how the industry works.

Just walk around the corridors at GDC or attend a few IGDA meetings, and then you will see who is right.

I have done it several times and still have the badges, did you?

[shmerl]

> Again, you don't seem to understand how the industry works.

Economics work as usual here and gaming industry is no exception. If someone forces duplication of work on others, that increases costs, which ends up being passed to some party. And for the end user it can translate in lower availability, slower time to the market, higher prices and so on. So far you didn't manage to demonstrate that it somehow magically comes for free.

TL;DR: lock-in taxes the whole industry and slows down progress.

[pjmlp]

My whole point was to say how the industry works and that professional game developers, important word here professional not indie, don't care one little second about the point of view you are expressing.

I do not intend to demonstrate that something, whatever it might be, magically comes for free.

[shmerl]

> My whole point was to say how the industry works and that professional game developers, important word here professional not indie, don't care one little second about the point of view you are expressing.

You made several mistakes in that statement.

1. You claimed that only publisher funded developers are professionals, while those who are self funded or backed by other means (like investors or crowdfunding), i.e. independent (=indie) developers are not professionals. That's an insult to many truly professional people. There is no dependency on publisher funding to be a professional.

2. You assumed that publisher funded production doesn't care about this issue. Do you think they don't have to balance their budgets? Just because they are publisher funded doesn't mean they have infinite resources and doesn't mean that those publishers are happy about extra costs.

I.e. everyone cares about it and nobody normal likes it. The only ones who like lock-in are those crooked vendors who push it on everyone else. Also, if someone doesn't care about the industry progressing - they can't be called professionals.