Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Zhyl 1442 days ago
With 4.0 getting more and more advanced features [0] and Unity merging with an Ad company [1], Godot is looking like it could be an attractive proposition for a lot of Unity shops.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32003065

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32081051

4 comments

Godot is really cool, but a clear and publicly delineated path to console distribution (and not "go talk to these guys", as they currently do) is going to be necessary to get material interest out of most of the gamedev space.
Yes. This is the main and only major thing that is holding Godot back from mass indie adoption. I would choose GMS2 or Unity over Godot for a 2D commercial indie project even though GML is worthless on a resume and Unity has all the Unity problems, because they build to all the consoles. Or Defold, since it is really nice and at least can target Switch. And I would choose Unreal or Unity or maybe even Cocos Creator (which recently added Switch support) for a 3D project for the same reason.

If you want mass adoption, you need to make it financially viable for commercial indies to use your engine, and good luck convincing those people if they know they need to hire a 3rd party company to port to consoles.

Since Godot can't really go the console route, though, they basically need to do the work of figuring out how their users can make enough money on just web, mobile, and/or desktop, and then articulate and successfully sell that solution to them. Steam Deck could help for sure, but it's a big ask

> Since Godot can't really go the console route

Wait, why not? I thought it was a deliberate choice on the devs' part not to prioritize native support for consoles, not something that's actually impossible (since obviously other third party engines do it).

As explained in [0]:

- To develop for consoles, one must be licensed as a company. As an open source project, Godot does not have such a legal figure.

- Console SDKs are secret and covered by non-disclosure agreements. Even if we could get access to them, we could not publish the platform-specific code under an open source license.

[0] https://github.com/godotengine/godot-docs/blob/master/tutori...

1. This doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm sure there's some legal-fu you could do here to have a 'company' that's the primary contributor to Godot. Wikipedia has a company of some sort, does it not? And Mozilla's a company.

2. So what? Yes, the console-specific stuff has to be kept secret, that sucks, but it's better than not having support for consoles at all. I'd rather have a closed-source module to port to consoles than having no official method whatsoever.

Is there a practical difference between "Godot does not target game consoles" versus "Godot does target game consoles, but we can't tell you where or how or help you in any way"?
MonoGame gets around it by having core team members that grant access to private trees for approved developers. It's not open source, but it's available.
It absolutely can. It's just not open sourced.
The consoles make this explicitly incompatible with open source though. That could possibly be a separate entity I suppose, or hopefully if Godot becomes big enough the consoles could arrange something.
Seems like they might be reading HN, posted yesterday: Godot and consoles, all you need to know https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-... (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32119337)
I'd love official console support but it's not possible being open-source. Porting it yourself is an option, but not many will be inclined to do that and would have to opt for paying a third-party to do so.
Couldn't you just have a bridge library of some sort that's not open source and contains only the console-specific code?
From the official Godot docs:

The reason other consoles are not officially supported are:

- To develop for consoles, one must be licensed as a company. As an open source project, Godot does not have such a legal figure.

- Console SDKs are secret and covered by non-disclosure agreements. Even if we could get access to them, we could not publish the platform-specific code under an open source license.

- Consoles require specialized hardware to develop for, so regular individuals can't create games for them anyway.

Source: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/platform/co...

1. This doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm sure there's some legal-fu you could do here to have a 'company' that's the primary contributor to Godot. Wikipedia has a company of some sort, does it not? And Mozilla's a company.

2. So what? Yes, the console-specific stuff has to be kept secret, that sucks, but it's better than not having support for consoles at all.

3. Okay? Godot isn't just being used by "regular individuals", whatever that means, it's being used by people who want to make games and then sell them -- including, yes, companies -- and those people want to be able to publish games to consoles.

That last one is just bizarre. Who do they think their userbase is, exactly? "People who want to make games for PC and mobile but have zero interest in any consoles ever"?

> People who want to make games for PC and mobile but have zero interest in any consoles ever

I don’t understand why you are surprised by this? By your own admission, nobody that wants to develop for consoles would use Godot, so logically, their entire userbase are people that don’t want to do that.

@TulliusCicero

This was posted earlier today by the Godot team: https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-....

The Reddit discussion regarding the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/godot/comments/vzo8tk/godot_and_con....

I don’t think that’s necessary at all, since it’d take away from core Godot development.
Why? It's dependency-free C++. It's easy to port.
It's definitely Godot's opportunity to drive a lot of adoption, I'm seeing a ton of disgust from a lot of indie devs I follow, and looking for alternatives to Unity now.
Unity is already an ad company
Godot is an amateur project compared to Unity, it's not even close. What game actually shipped on Godot? I can't cite a single major game on it.

https://godotengine.org/showcase

Looking at any of thoses games looks bad tbh it's like weekend project / low indie games.

> weekend project

If Godot lets you make games like that in a weekend, then it's lightyears ahead of Unity.

FWIW, I'd bet I could replicate many of these games sans release polish in a weekend in Unity solely because of their expansive asset store. Building them from scratch would take longer, but not that much longer.

If Godot had even the beginning of an asset store, it'd be way more appealing to devs like myself migrating away from Unity. Especially with Unreal's recent megascans and Quixel integrations making their asset store look inspiring, I can't imagine many Unity studios (who, IME, primarily focus on rapid development and tooling over asset work) will be drawn to Godot.

Obviously context is important, though: the asset store isn't the end-all reason people use Unity and rarely the reason a studio chooses the engine, but it is still a big factor for both groups. Other factors will apply, YMMV, etc.

Lot of AAA studios use Unity to prototype games when they have in-house engine.
Sonic Colors: Ultimate, made by Sega.

Here are some other games

Carol Reed Mysteries[53] (since 2021) Commander Keen in Keen Dreams (Nintendo Switch port only) Cruelty Squad Deponia (iOS and PlayStation 4 ports) The Interactive Adventures of Dog Mendonça & Pizzaboy Hardcoded Kingdoms of the Dump Sonic Colors: Ultimate

>What game actually shipped on Godot

Cruelty Squad is probably one of the best selling Godot game yet its missing from that page.

Sonic Colors remaster, iirc?

The games in that showcase look pretty decent to me? Plenty of games I play look like that, lol.

If I'm remembering correctly the new UI elements in the remaster were done in Godot, but the actual game was not. The new Godot menus are slow and unresponsive, so Colors isn't a great showcase for Godot.