|
|
|
|
|
by chii
1441 days ago
|
|
why is it only when an engine support console do it mean "serious" competition? An indie game dev may make their game for non-console platforms, and if that game proves to be a hit, a separate development effort could be made to target a console. Or a re-implementation. If console is the first, or only choice, i would argue that the team is not really indie (by which i mean self-funded and small). And who knows - may be godot's popularity would change the way consoles engineer their legal contracts and not hide behind NDAs and secrecy to become more open. |
|
"Could." Sure. Or they "could" use an engine that doesn't require reimplementation to target Where The Market Is.
Which is why, even though people really don't like it much, Unity gets used.
> If console is the first, or only choice, i would argue that the team is not really indie (by which i mean self-funded and small).
This has not been a reasonable statement for at least five years. Indie games don't have lead platforms, but they do, as a matter of practice, need to be on all relevant platforms to have a chance of financial viability. (A grand strategy game might not need to deploy to consoles. Most other stuff really, really does.)
> And who knows - may be godot's popularity would change the way consoles engineer their legal contracts and not hide behind NDAs and secrecy to become more open.
Platform holders do not care about your engine and no indie developers, even en masse, have enough weight to make swing them. EA and Activision might not, at least not in a way that wasn't a special exception just for them, and they move a lot of product by themselves.