I'm not comfortable with it, but then again I have no need to port to consoles. I can't think of any case where commercializing a free software project has improved the project as a whole, but I can think of a few cases where the opposite happened. Still, I could be happy with godot 3.5 for a long time, even if the project goes in a direction I don't approve of.

    This is pretty much needed to get Godot devs. full support for platforms like the consoles, and one of the reasons why is because they are considered closed platforms and are otherwise unfriendly to FOSS in general.

    As far as the concern for Godot having a for-profit component in general, keep in mind that Blender has for years had a for-profit entity known as the Blender Institute, and nothing changed regarding what users are getting for free. In fact, W4 Games just donated an entirely new DirectX 12 backend to the Godot project (for the purpose of getting the community better support for publishing to Xbox or to the Windows Store).

    I think it's fine. You can look at projects like Ubuntu and see why this would be a good thing.

      duane
      The Windows among the Linuxes ...

      I read the DX12 renderer was done by a developer and the code put in the public domain. Nevertheless I'd be careful with the DX12 renderer if it depends on MS products. It probably needs .net or mono or some such to work ?

      From the FAQ:

      Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

      So in future you'll have to be careful which license you give to your game when using parts of the engine that are not openly sourced.

      Anyway, I'll have nothing to do with DX12 if it can be excluded from any published game. Not planning for consoles.

      Btw., does integration of DX12 delay the release of Godot 4.0 ?

        Well even if your game uses DX12, that doesn't matter. You can still open-source your game code, the engine code shouldn't matter. And you can also open source code written with DX12, that is no problem. The DX12 API is available with the Windows SDK, so you cannot modify DX12 and release your own version (this should be obvious) but it doesn't really restrict you in any way.

        It's worth it's own thread. That anything thread is hard to follow and all over the place. In any case, I'm pretty sure this will be good. The developers need financial support to work on the engine full time, and many of the issues with Godot right now are because of a lack of high quality professional users (which in turn is caused by things like a lack of console support). So if we want to see the engine grow and compete for real, then money and alliances with big companies are needed.

        Also, note, even the Linux kernel itself is supported by huge sponsors like IBM and Samsung. And you can argue that Google had a huge hand in popularizing Linux with Android and ChromeOS. So we can't expect to survive on just donations alone, especially when most Godot users are younger, or amateur, and are using it because it is free. It won't be sustainable long term.

          Why would adding a DX12 driver to Godot 4 be any different to the fact that Godot 3 already contains drivers for Microsoft's proprietary Xaudio2 and Microsoft's proprietary Windows Audio Session API (since Godot 2.1)?

            cybereality It's worth it's own thread. That anything thread is hard to follow and all over the place.

            Agreed. But maybe some of the posts should be moved to this thread then?

            I'm pretty sure this will be good.

            Oh… I wish I had that kind of optimism…

            So we can't expect to survive on just donations alone, especially when most Godot users are younger, or amateur, and are using it because it is free. It won't be sustainable long term.

            Commercialisation is definitely not "sustainable long term". Mentioning Google here is quite appropriate.

            Why is there a "Free" tag in here?

              Kojack Why would adding a DX12 driver to Godot 4 be any different to the fact that Godot 3 already contains drivers for Microsoft's proprietary Xaudio2 and Microsoft's proprietary Windows Audio Session API (since Godot 2.1)?

              Correct. I think most people that get upset (not just here, but in general in open source communities) have limited knowledge of how complex operating systems and 3D graphics APIs are, and how many components are needed to even make a game run (using both free and proprietary components of various licenses). Then you have people fighting over GPL and MIT or commercial, to the point that nothing gets done.

              Guys, let's not make this personal. I do have a glimpse of the complexity of an os, but only from compiling an own Linux for fun and with the help of a guide. It worked :-) And it is by far not as complex as some disciplines in the geo sciences.

              But complexity has nothing to do with the specific objections I have, which range from development power being drawn from the engine (which already evolves pretty slow) to the danger of licenses being drawn away from under you without prior notice. And a specific sound driver is easier to replace than a render back end.

              I am pc-centric, that should be mentioned. I see the whole mobile market (consoles are too specialized devices to interest me, my PC can do the same and much more) as a pretty smelly mass with repetitive games that serve as transport layers for ads and spy- and malware, that are generally low quality, bring undocumented features with them, if not themselves then via loaders or even OSes from the distribution companies. Of course there are counter-examples, but they are not the great mass. Games are a small part of the revenue generated in that market, yet and by the time of writing. Vulkan industry forged is also a nice example of that trend, with their validation layers that allow for any functionality being slid in from outside the application. Of course, it is all just for the user experience or to ease a programmer's debugging pain.

              From my personal pov, if Godot goes that way they'll take their uniqueness away and become competitive to other engines or frameworks that may offer greater flexibility and execution speed.

                Of course being careful of licensing is always important. it's good to be cautious.

                Godot already supports iOS and macOS, which are far more closed down and antithetical to FOSS than anything Microsoft related. I don't know if you've tried to develop for Apple platforms, but you need to pay money, get approved by Apple, go through a serious security certificate process, to the point where you can't even compile an app and run it on your own computer without Apple's grace. I'm not saying that is good, or what Microsoft does is good, it's not. But there is a certain amount of cooperation that is needed in the real world, and if you look at things in the black and white, then you literally cannot accomplish even the most simple task in your life.

                  The fact that W4 Games is founded and governed by Juan Linietsky (Godot's lead developer) and Rémi Verschelde (Godot's project manager) makes it quite shady, given their previous hypocritical decisions and ambiguity regarding Godot's direction itself.

                  What Godot leadership does undermines its non-profit mission now. You have to realize that Godot is currently governed by Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC), where Godot is a member project. All Patreon donations for Godot go through SFC, and Godot PLC (project leadership committee) handles absolutely all funds.

                  At the same time, Godot PLC is managed by the same people that founded commercial W4 Games company now, namely Juan Linietsky (Godot's lead developer) and Rémi Verschelde (Godot's project manager), etc. Godot's lead developer has the power of veto to block consensus, and many people in Godot community unquestionably trust Juan, which means that Juan has mostly the ultimate power over all decisions, unfortunately.

                  This will definitely lead to corruption in the future. It's already happening, in fact. See Lone Wolf Technology, a commercial company that ports Godot to consoles. The founder of that company is Godot's co-founder, Ariel Manzur, who's also part of Godot PLC, so he's also able to manage (your) Patreon donations. Having said that, I have no idea why would Juan decide to create W4 Games alongside Lone Wolf Technology which matches W4 Games' claimed mission. Looks like Juan and Ariel had an argument as competitors. 🤔

                  In my opinion, Godot totally betrayed the community and FOSS in general, unfortunately. If you truly believed that Godot has been community-driven all this time, it won't be community-driven from now on.

                  Remember when Juan Linietsky said that there's no company behind Godot two years ago? Quoting Juan:

                  • There is no company behind it. It's owned by every single of its contributors.
                  • We don't compete with Unity, Unreal, etc. In fact they are free to use any of our code.
                  • We make it because innovating is fun, and out of love for those making games.

                  Next in his thread:

                  The concept of customers does not exist for us.

                  But now, he founded W4 Games, a commercial company specifically tailored for Godot. And here's what Juan said recently on W4 Games, FOSS, and proprietary technologies:

                  As FOSS advocates, it pains us to see that the growing complexity in hardware is forcing the game industry to restrict their game technology choices to two proprietary vendors

                  Juan covertly refers to two proprietary vendors. Can you guess what are those vendors exactly? Right, Unity and Unreal. Godot definitely doesn't compete here, right? 🙃

                  Many people don't pay attention or check up Juan's claims and promises, but if you research this yourself, you'll find many contradictions in Godot that leadership ignores or refuses to resolve, which is the literal definition of hypocrisy. Remember that words != actions, when Juan says that he doesn't decide anything, it doesn't make it true.

                  All in all, the success of this is totally determined by community's trust in Godot leadership. Even then, their success is not necessarily our success as a community who are looking for free and open-source software. I stopped trusting Godot leadership a long time ago. I do not trust Godot leadership. I say this as an ex-member of Godot, being a contributor and even maintainer.

                  Reminder: Lets not go for ad hominem, let's discuss facts and be on-topic. Thank you.

                    cybereality Godot already supports iOS and macOS, which are far more closed down and antithetical to FOSS than anything Microsoft related. I don't know if you've tried to develop for Apple platforms, but you need to pay money, get approved by Apple, go through a serious security certificate process, to the point where you can't even compile an app and run it on your own computer without Apple's grace.

                    I'll simply never submit to that. The only reason I can imagine for myself is being in a job where this is necessary. Fortunately, I can choose my job :-)

                    cybereality I'm not saying that is good, or what Microsoft does is good, it's not. But there is a certain amount of cooperation that is needed in the real world, and if you look at things in the black and white, then you literally cannot accomplish even the most simple task in your life.

                    I look at this specific thing and I see the dangers for my own privacy and financial independence. I accomplished quite a lot during my life, up to now. I studied two times and I never missed an exam. But I am going to miss the rest of this discussion because my time is better spent debugging and refining things :-)

                    Peace on earth, hopefully.

                    Edit: @Xrayez : I hear you. I just think the two "proprietary vendors" are amd and nividia, and the technology choices refer to the different apis the two offer, that somewhat work together in some areas, in others not. I yesterday thought about which way to go if forced to abandon an engine. See, there it is, ambiguous babble ready to be interpreted this or that way, driven by the fantasy of the reader 🤦

                    If only there were 3 of me :-) Oh, they'd probably just play a German card-game all day long and get nothing done, proving @cybereality right ... :-) 😎

                      Pixophir

                      And a specific sound driver is easier to replace than a render back end.

                      To have Godot without DX12 if/when the pull request is accepted:

                      • Call scons without "d3d12=yes" as a parameter.

                      Pixophir Yeah, deciphering Juan's ambiguous messages is a tiresome process. Why wouldn't Juan mention those technologies explicitly, right?

                      In any case, I'd also like to clarify this: Juan oftentimes uses "two major technologies" phrasing to covertly refer to Unity and Unreal for the most part. Look at other Juan's tweet specifically in the context of game engines.

                      In the same way, the language behind W4 Games' website that describe its mission reads like a corporate press release with vague phrases like "complementary suite of commercial products and services". There's no concreteness to this.

                      You know, @Xrayez I think you may be correct on this one. The issue of DirectX 12 is a non-starter, as there are already proprietary APIs used in Godot for years and this never caused an issue before (such as export to Apple platforms). But I agree that this is a big leadership decision, and Juan frequently contradicts himself. Even though I have been using Godot for 2 years (almost 3), I have went back and read blogs posts going back to the beginning, as well as things Juan has said in public (Twitter, GitHub, etc.). And there seems to be some lack of cohesion.

                      For example, he has frequently been against console support saying it is not possible (when we know it is possible, as other FOSS projects have done) and now he finally concedes and says it is possible. Granted, that is the correct decision (I support W4 and I think it's a good move) but it's a huge 180 and puts into question everything else he's said. I've also seen him make bogus claims on Twitter, I won't call out the specific post, but he implied that shadow mapping was faster than baked lighting (when I brought up the issue of Godot not supporting mixed lighting modes). This may be true in some limited cases, but I'm pretty sure there is a reason almost every AAA game in the last 20 years has had some form of baked lighting. I don't like to call people out on BS, especially not a respected figure, but I feel he was either ignorant of what I was asking, or lying. There's been other times I have seen him comment on some technical issue with inaccurate information, that most people using Godot would not understand, so they believed him. Granted, I don't really care that much, it's just a software I use, and I don't want to start problems. But it does make me question things.

                      The other issue is competing with Unity and Unreal. First off, there is no chance of ever beating Unreal, so we can leave that off the table. But Unity, as a business, does not look good, and has been mismanaged for many years. So it's entirely possible for Godot to overtake Unity. Honestly, I think Unity's current financial troubles and user backlash may have gave Juan the idea that he could take a shot. And I agree with this. Unity is down on the floor, let's take advantage of the situation. So given everything I said, I still do support W4 and Juan's current goal. I think they line up with mine, and what I have been saying for years. So the argument could be that the market has changed, and the Godot leadership changed their position in response. Which I think is a reasonable theory.

                      However, since the beginning, Juan has been clear he did not want Godot to compete with the other 2 unnamed technologies (he won't even say their names) and has pushed back every time someone has asked about getting serious and competing. Like when anyone brings up technical issues or things that don't work in Godot, light baking was broken forever, poor mobile performance, significant shadow issues (that are still not 100% fixed in Godot 4.0), art pipeline insufficiency (also not fixed completely), and a ton of other stuff that stops Godot from being a viable alternative to Unity, he just falls back on that Godot is some toy hobby project and doesn't need to work for professionals. Which is a cop out.

                      That said, any project or company should have a solid mission statement. So it seems instead of changing what Godot is, which would be a poor choice, they made a new company to start a new mission. But the two can work together to achieve a common goal. This seems reasonable to me. So I think things are going to be good, even if I question a leader that changes his position on serious issues and appears to make some statements that are incorrect, or in bad faith. Like I said, it doesn't have to be a black and white. I think Godot is still very promising, and these developments do not change my plans. But it is good to look at the situation clearly.