Though I thought a company large as Microsoft would have the resources to build a cross-platform RHI with the most stable API available for each platform (DX12 for Windows and Metal for macOS)...
The relevant measurement is the resources Mojang has as a studio. And I expect the decision here is that they don’t want to commit to the long term maintenance of three renderer implementations on the Java side.
Another concern is that modding is a major part of why Java Edition is so popular, and that includes shaders specifically. This is already going to cause chaos in the modding world as it is, no need to compound that by making shader mods that much more burdensome to maintain.
At least split screen still works for free.
I run a 6 person server on an Intel NUC, without major issue.
I bought during the beta for a lifetime of goodies, had to buy it again after the buyout, then again after an update to MS accounts wasn’t acted on, and then for the Switch. I’ve bought Minecraft 4 times, with another on the horizon if it keeps popular.
Until it's possible to convert your world to Bedrock and not have anything in your 'finished' world break, except maybe some giant Redstone machine or one or two known annoyanced, I doubt they'd do it. Mojang presumably still has some autonomy within Microsoft so long as the money keeps coming in, and Mojang presumably knows that pushing this too early is a bad idea. But Microsoft being Microslop, who knows, maybe they'll just do it anyway.
So no. It is not one time purchase.
Then again, you'll never see a group of pre-schoolers wearing GTA5 hoodies and hats and backpacks, and you can't watch the GTA film in cinemas.
The other issue with bedrock is it is far from feature parity with java. If these two things were hit then java could be reasonably retired. However we are decades too late in it being acceptable to introduce a breaking change to mod loading. So it's java forever.
Games with robust modding will almost always feature a garbage collected language which is what's primarily used for the modding.
Consider this, if the mod interface was C/C++, do you think those poorly optimized mods could be trusted to also not leak memory?
Garbage collection does not solve memory leak problems. For example
- keeping a reference too long,
- much more subtle: having a reference to some object inside some closure
will also cause memory leaks in a garbage-collected language.
The proper solution is to consider what you name "poorly optimized mods" to be highly experimental (only those who are of very high quality can be treated differently).
It solves a class of memory leak problems which are much harder to address without the GC. Memory lifetimes.
It's true that you can still create an object that legitimately lives for the duration of the application, nothing solves that.
But what you can't do is allocate something on the heap and forget to free it. Or double free it. Or free it before the actual lifetime has finished.
Those are much trickier problems to solve which experienced C/C++ programmers trip over all the time. It's hard enough to have been the genesis of languages like Java and Rust.
Of course. Because they would fail loudly and would have to be fixed in order to run. Garbage collection is a crutch which lets broken things appear not broken.
A lot of the memory problems that you can see without a GC are hard to find and diagnose. Use after free, for example, is very often safe. It only crashes or causes problems sometimes. Same for double free. And they are hard to diagnose because the problems they do create are often observed at a distance. Use after free will silently corrupt some bit of memory somewhere else, what trips up on it might be completely unrelated.
It's the opposite of failing loudly.
The nastiest leak I've ever seen in a C++ production system happened inside the allocator. We had a really hostile allocation pattern that forced the book-keeping structures inside the allocator to grow over time.
It's since gotten a lot better with JVM updates, so much so that it's not a problem in Java 21 and 25.
I suppose, if someone in future might want to create their own godot-alternative. Why not just use bgfx with the language bindings instead.
I Love Godot from my time tinkering with it but one of the reasons why Godot is so hopeful in future compared to other engines is imo the fact that they support many many platforms.
I have seen some blogposts on HN where someone used godot to prototype an android GUI application (and not a game) and how the whole process actually makes sense when you think about where they talked about it in the blog post.
Actually there were discussions about even integrating bgfx into raylib (the goat) but looks like that its not getting integrated but it was interesting to read the discussion and maybe anyone more experienced than me could even contribute to the discussion below
For me the biggest obstacle would be the weird build system the project insists on using.
Funny to contrast with Bedrock edition, for which they paid for FMOD Studio to cover the audio features of those two (and more).
But you can easily make Vulkan run on macOS. Not sure what would be the reason to use DX12 in the new project today given free choice of technology, especially when team comes from OpenGL.
I'm making a joke, but it's also true.
Of course since Proton uses Vulkan to implement DX12, it means that our Vulkan implementation is simply worse than the one that Valve created to emulate DX12.
I'm sure it's possible to improve that, but it implies that there way to get the best performance out of Vulkan is less obvious than the way to get it out of DX12.