If Unity ceases to support something in the future, you basically have to rewrite it on a different system, and depending on how much of your gameplay depends on the core of how that worked, it may be very difficult or impossible to reproduce the same thing."ĭon't confuse the fact that Unity lets you churn out content quickly with the idea you need it to succeed. Once future consoles happen or current PC operating systems no longer work, we at least have the source code to the whole system so we can make it work in the future. How do you do that? Well, you don't necessarily do that by building it on top of a very complicated system, that you don't own, that somebody else will cease to support at some point in the future.
So I would like this game to be relevant 20 years from now, 40 years from now. They're expressive works that we're working very hard to make, and we want them to have as long of a lifetime as possible. Which is: when I'm making these games, they're not just commercial products.
> I don't have any desire to use a different engine for many reasons, and it's unclear which are the most important reasons, so let's start with the least usual one. The words of the creator of Braid, one of the most successful indie games of the decade: The notion that starting from a framework that includes the kitchen sink and more is magically a requirement to make a successful game is silly. Unreal is source-available, and while you owe them royalties (fairly enough for all the work they've done), you can port it to a new platform.Īnd how is using Godot, libGDX, cocos2d, or dozens of other engines and frameworks people used for decades "economic suicide"? >not using either it or Unreal is economic suicide. Yes I do, which is why I handily spotted your attempt to bury the lede Do you have any experience in game development?
0 kommentar(er)
