Define ethically sourced.

I guess it boils down to what you consider worst. Gangs, or a tyrannical government who disappear people without due process. It is like releasing killer monkeys to take care of your radioactive crocodile problem.

Have you heard about asswipes

Lack of important features, no asset store, not as mature (more bugs), no native console support, no low-level rendering access, no texture streaming, and on and on.

Spot-on, this would be my bet too.

It is classic internet outrage complely disconnected from what smaller game devs have to go through. Don’t get in the way of a good internet outrage as a legit, actual gamedev who knows why this is damn near impossible, or you’ll get downvoted.

The whole argument of leaving Unity hinge on the fact that Godot is a close replacement, it is not.

Godot is fine for solo/very small indies and people trying to learn gamedev, but it is not ready quite yet. Most devs still are stuck using proprietary engines.

“Moral enough”, let’s not pretend they’re not thirsting for their own genocide, just read their catchphrase “God Is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam”".

Two wrongs does not make a right.

Style over substance, and a ugly style at that. Of course lots of people are gonna love it and say it is the best thing ever.

A crepe is like 100 calories and you can pour like 5 in less than 10 minutes. But anyway, to reach their own. personally I hate chopping stuff even if it takes 1 minute.

I also think so. You can usually tell who is close to your own level, but anything too far off andthe signals for what is considered smart or dumb tend to blend together.

The one trait which usually don’t lie is the person ability to learn. Fast learners and autodidacts are almost always smart, and people who are slow to learn are almost always left of the curve. Other signals you mentioned are deeply rooted in culture and can reqlly give the wrong impression.

Removing bias from IQ tests is one hell of a challenge, but if we put that aside and only analyse IQ results from people from similar backgrounds, it definitely measure something, and it usually gives accurate results. Meaning your score would not change much by taking the test again.

IQ score correlate with someone general ability in pattern recognition, languages, logic, bias check and etc. It also correlate with grades, salary, lifespan. So, is that intelligence? I don’t know, but it is something.

I’d argue given enough time and effort almost anyone can become a domain expert in specific things and do incredible stuff. What distinguishes smart people from simpler folks usually boils down to them having a very easy time processing new stuff, which includes the ability to filter noise and fact check.

I don’t like the term “stupid”, but there hasn’t been a whole lot of evidence supporting the idea that human intelligence is compartimented. Humans with high IQs tend to outperform in average at most of what they try. Low IQ probably means you will work harder and have to specialize to achieve the same degree of competency. This just my hot take, I’ve fallen into this rabbit hole before and read a lot on the origin of IQs tests. In the end, intelligence alone does not determine a person’s worth anyway.

IQ tests were first developped because it seemed obvious not all students performed equally. On average a student that is good in a given discipline will also tend to do well in other unrelated disciplines. On average is the keyword here, outliers exist.

I think gifted students can easily tell what side of the curve they’re on, even though they might not want to acknowledge it. It is not even avout the grades, because gifted students also often learn early on that they can get away by doing the minimum amount of work and still get passing grades. So they’re not necessarily top of classes.

Gifted students get told they’re fast learner all the time, and they notice how everyone else seem to be progressing in slow motion. They know.

I think it gets harder to self-evaluate the closer you are to the average, since most of your peers will be more or less just as intelligent as you. Then, the dullest you are, and the less you can identify competense and the more likely you are to be over-confident.

I think in the end, most people will end up believing they’re above average because we tend to notice dumb people a lot. Ironically it is probably students who are just slightly above average who will have the most self-doubts, because they feel different from their peers, yet they can probably tell more gifted students are around.

Source: 50% my ass, 50% being surrounded by incredibly smart people who shared their personal experiences with me.

You would think all those AAA devs would know by now that voicing that kind of stuff publicly is shit PR. Strangely enough sometime the indies appear to be the professional one.

That being said, I read the 5 Tweets, which I doubt many here did, and it is really not that bad. It is probably in response to some reviewers calling the game thrash with made-up fanfiction how game development goes. I think it is the later he has an issue with. Not that some players dislike the game.

Calling out your customers is always a losing bet. But he’s absolutely right in its rant. Anyone who worked professionally in a game studio understand that the very vast majority of gamers are clueless, and especially those who speak with authority on YouTube and big platforms. Listening to such bs takes and misinformation over time certainly has its toll. “Gamers” in general, or should I say vocal gamers, are a very annoying and whiny bunch to please. You can hate playing a game all you want, but some gamers take it too far by attacking the devs directly and making it personal on top of making up bullshit about the nature of the job. “Gamedev is hard” is a terrible response to tell your userbase, but if more people understood how fucking true it is maybe they’d have a bit more empathy and would realize how petty some of the complaints.are in the bigger scheme of things.

It has been patched.

I’ve been told the cat thing twice in my life, in both cases I ended up cutting contact years later because both persons turned out to be borderline sociopaths. Truth is we can’t really be sure for most animals, but to immediately assume most animals can’t feel shit is such a stretch.

This but non-ironically.

Who on earth would rely on a game engine in bankruptcy?

They aren’t nearing bankruptcy first of all, and I as I mentioned even in this doom-and-gloom scenario they would likely just get acquired and operations would continue as normal. Is that what you think? That Unity is about to go bankrupt? I am not sure what we’re arguing here.

Engines need a constant conveyor belt of new games to sustain their revenues and I don’t see this happening.

What are you basing this observation on? Unity never made money from the volume of games released using their engine. Also, the part where everyone is suddenly dropping Unity is mostly just a narrative here on social media, and the bulk of the reason why it might not be happening is that there is no true alternative.

And yes there is pain and a learning curve to moving to other engines though I think most programmers would be able to cope with change and if they’re that incurious and inflexible that they can’t then maybe it’s time to find new programmers

It is not about coping and being incurious. Changing engine means trashing a part of your team, trashing your content pipeline, trashing your internal tools. It costs a lot of money, money which most studios don’t have. It would make sense if there was a true alternative to Unity for those mid-sized studios, which there isn’t.

As for Godot, I am sure it is not a 100% feature for feature replacement for Unity. But it sure as hell is capable of powering 95% of indie games out there no trouble whatsoever and I daresay some more challenging titles

Again, not sure what you’re basing those numbers on. Godot can’t even do consoles natively so there is definitely some troubles and headache in using Godot in 2023. I would agree that Godot is perfectly fine for solo devs and very, very small teams, but it is not a serious alternative for even mid-sized productions. It is still pretty much a toy compared to the bigger engines, and it lacks commercial support to really attract those studios.

I get it. The popular sentiment here is that Unity is doomed to fail, and the internet as a whole kind of wish it did. I am not gonna gather sympathy and votes by saying otherwise, but I just don’t see it. Godot is not ready, switching to Unreal does not make much sense since it is the same proprietary “garbage”. It is easy to make big statements here on Lemmy and claim how easy it would be for game studios to get rid of Unity, and how this would improve their business, but to be honest I don’t think you guys have a clue. If you are actually a developer or own a game studio then I am sorry for assuming.

Unity is not going anywhere, even in a bankruptcy it would get acquired by the likes of Microsoft or Meta. The “good guys startup” Unity is long gone, and it’s been replaced by the same corporate structure you would expect anywhere.

Tying yourself to Unreal would be just as naive, and Godot is nowhere ready to fill the niche Unity is filling. I would place the opposite bet as yours, the vast majority of actual game devs are not rich enough nor care enough about corporate drama to ever switch engine for possibly worst. Also, experienced C# Unity devs and experienced C++ Unreal devs are not that interchangeable. Unity made this move to survive and they know there is no true alternative.

This is my pov, I worked in the industry for over a decade and I am an Unity ex-employee.