> I get why Epic probably funds this
Is it just to fuck over Unity?
Is it just to fuck over Unity?
I've got the picture that Tim actually likes the software, not just because they want to squash their competition. But of course they might have motivation to take users away from Unity, who knows.
In my books, Godot is a really nice engine that will get closer to AAA -engines when the 4.0 release comes out, their open source policy is really nice and you have access to all the source code, which can help a lot while developing your apps, so It's all positive and everyone who wants to develop games or 3D apps will gain from this if they choose to put their time into Godot, not just Unreal.
They basically exploited their Fortnite money-making machine to try to become a monopoly on PC.
How is that not anti-competitive?
For reference, Steam has never forced exclusivity on partners to distribute their games.
As for cheaper, Epic didn't become they couldn't charge the same. As simple as that.
This sounds good for developers all around, and a minor inconvenience for gamers who are free to buy from as many stores as they like on PC. Yet could benefit gamers long term as it motivates Steam to be more competitive.
Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice.
Then Intel would enjoy a monopoly and instead of being stuck at Skylake for 4 years, we may have been stuck at Core 2 for 10 years.
Or maybe ARM, MIPS, Power or Itanium (!) would have had better opportunities to catch up with x86 and would be the dominant CPU.
Who knows, but AMD dying would have not benefited anyone who was stuck on x86.
Indie game studios have a very hard time surviving.
Giving them instantaneous access to a huge pile of money that allows them to declare success even before releasing a project is something most people cannot reject.
> Anti competitive would be buying up competing battle royale franchises to reduce consumer choice.
That is what they are doing but with game stores. They are effectively buying everything to dry the rest of the stores, reducing other stores choice of customers.
> This sounds good for developers all around
Not really. Devs get money, but they lose the product. Indie devs are not independent anymore. Etc.
If Epic had success building the monopoly, everyone would have suffered, not just devs.
Are you a pc gamer? Because if you are, I don't understand how you can't see Steam as a massive monopoly.
Perhaps you don't because they have done almost all GOOD with their monopoly power. Offline mode, library sharing, massive sales, etc.. but they are quite a monopoly.
If 99% of my library is on Steam, why should I bother buying somewhere else? It's just an inconvenience to me. Ok I can buy off GOG and have no DRM.... how does that really help me? I can already play it on steam with no problems, my friends can play the shared game on steam, I don't have to worry about multiple platforms etc..
Anyway- steam is a massive monopoly and we are lucky they use their powers for good!
Like Walmart or Amazon, the problem is for devs, not customers.
That is why they have been forcing exclusivity. That is the point: they are anticompetitive.
The enemy (Godot) of my enemy (Unity) is my friend.
At this point (ie. Epic sitting on truck loads of cash), lost revenue for Epic Games competitors is almost as good as revenue for Epic Games. That is what people are talking about when they say anti-competitive. It's another form of a price squeeze.
If anything well regulated markets might tax oversized competitors to fund upstarts to maintain a balanced, competitive landscape. There's room for more than just two game-making tools.
Therefore, Epic's exclusivity deals rub some people the wrong way.