Support us on Patreon
PayPalSome good news to share for the free and open source Godot Engine, as the lead developer Juan Linietsky announced during GodotCon that Epic Games have approved them for an Epic MegaGrant.
This was announced during Linietsky's talk on porting Godot Engine over to the Vulkan API, which is coming with Godot Engine version 4.0 later this year. Epic Games have approved them for a sum of $250,000 USD which they've known for a little while, but they only just got the okay to announce it.
You can see the livestream below. As it's live, I can't seem to link to a time stamp.
YouTube videos require cookies, you must accept their cookies to view. View cookie preferences.
Direct Link
Direct Link
According to Linietsky, they're speaking with "many" other companies that may be looking to fund them too. So Godot Engine is definitely moving forward in the minds of all kinds of developers. This is true outside of funding in terms of actual usage too, with Godot gaining popularity when looking at the Global Game Jam.
So the Godot Engine crew join other software like Lutris, Krita and Blender who also previously got an Epic MegaGrant as well as the games ASYLUM and Ira. Epic Games certainly are starting to spread their cash around open source a bit more lately so that's great.
Find out more about the free and open source Godot Engine on the official site. You can also find more info on Epic MegaGrants here.
Hat tip to marc.
Update: Godot's official announcement is now up.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
EPIC did something nice with a positive effect to Linux and FOSS.
So calm down and do not hate them for doing something good.
Isn't that bizarre?
If they do something bad -> They get hated
If they do something god -> They get hated
Why should they do nice things then?
So calm down and do not hate them for doing something good.
Isn't that bizarre?
If they do something bad -> They get hated
If they do something god -> They get hated
Why should they do nice things then?
0 Likes
Gotta love Epic!! they give money to open source projects but at the same time they're killing Linux support for rocket league (they bought Psyonix) and actively trying to kill Linux support in games entirely.
Could you give us a source for that? Would Psyonix have continued supporting MAC/LINUX when they would not have been bought by EPIC? Where is the proof?
You don't have to compulsively blame everything bad on EPIC.
Last edited by einherjar on 4 February 2020 at 5:32 pm UTC
0 Likes
Guys. Guys. Do you realize how much money is $250k? ...
Than give another "nothing" to them. They will appreciate it.
2 Likes, Who?
If they do something bad -> They get hatedIf a close friend or partner betrayed your trust, is it wise to trust them again because they did something good after doing something really bad?
If they do something god -> They get hated
Why should they do nice things then?
It isn't that simple. It takes time for trust to be built up all over again, if it's not been irreparably damaged.
6 Likes, Who?
TheRiddick Feb 5, 2020
To be fair guys EPIC killed Linux and Mac support for Rocket League after claims that there wasn't enough player base to keep supporting it. Which leads me to believe the development upkeep cost of that studio is in real bad shape (devs costing way too much).
This is a problem when a gamedev studio get too big, suddenly they go from only needing 20k profit on a fringe platform to keep supporting it, to needing 10million.... THIS IS 100% what happened with Rocket League!
Last edited by TheRiddick on 5 February 2020 at 3:28 am UTC
This is a problem when a gamedev studio get too big, suddenly they go from only needing 20k profit on a fringe platform to keep supporting it, to needing 10million.... THIS IS 100% what happened with Rocket League!
Last edited by TheRiddick on 5 February 2020 at 3:28 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
To be fair guys EPIC killed Linux and Mac support for Rocket League after claims that there wasn't enough player base to keep supporting it. Which leads me to believe the development upkeep cost of that studio is in real bad shape (devs costing way too much).
This is a problem when a gamedev studio get too big, suddenly they go from only needing 20k profit on a fringe platform to keep supporting it, to needing 10million.... THIS IS 100% what happened with Rocket League!
It makes me wonder if the devs are costing too much, or if the board of directors is demanding a certain level of profit to justify buying them in the first place.
3 Likes, Who?
Isn't that bizarre?
If they do something bad -> They get hated
If they do something god -> They get hated
I'd find the opposite bizarre. You can't switch between love and hate every other day. You take into account what someone is doing and judge based on that. Of course, this judgement may change over time, but it shouldn't completely switch sides with every new action.
2 Likes, Who?
Isn't that bizarre?
If they do something bad -> They get hated
If they do something god -> They get hated
I'd find the opposite bizarre. You can't switch between love and hate every other day. You take into account what someone is doing and judge based on that. Of course, this judgement may change over time, but it shouldn't completely switch sides with every new action.
I do not hate and I do not love them. But I judge things they do. And even when a person/company I dislike, does something good, it is not automatically turning into something bad.
To sad that the world is not only black and white, eh?
0 Likes
You are missing the point and your insinuation is unwarranted. If someone has proved a few times that their motives are suspect, then it is not unreasonable to interrogate their motives if they do something that does not seems consistent with your assessment of their motives and personality.Isn't that bizarre?
If they do something bad -> They get hated
If they do something god -> They get hated
I'd find the opposite bizarre. You can't switch between love and hate every other day. You take into account what someone is doing and judge based on that. Of course, this judgement may change over time, but it shouldn't completely switch sides with every new action.
I do not hate and I do not love them. But I judge things they do. And even when a person/company I dislike, does something good, it is not automatically turning into something bad.
To sad that the world is not only black and white, eh?
Look, I've been on a union negotiating team at contract time. And I will tell you, that while sure, sometimes a management negotiator who was perfidious before may turn over a new leaf and decide to believe in win-win, if they told you they were making you a great offer, and someone on your team was willing to just assume that was true, you would not call your fellow negotiator "Someone who sees that the world is not only black and white", you would call them "an idiot".
5 Likes, Who?
You are missing the point and your insinuation is unwarranted. If someone has proved a few times that their motives are suspect, then it is not unreasonable to interrogate their motives if they do something that does not seems consistent with your assessment of their motives and personality.Isn't that bizarre?
If they do something bad -> They get hated
If they do something god -> They get hated
I'd find the opposite bizarre. You can't switch between love and hate every other day. You take into account what someone is doing and judge based on that. Of course, this judgement may change over time, but it shouldn't completely switch sides with every new action.
I do not hate and I do not love them. But I judge things they do. And even when a person/company I dislike, does something good, it is not automatically turning into something bad.
To sad that the world is not only black and white, eh?
Look, I've been on a union negotiating team at contract time. And I will tell you, that while sure, sometimes a management negotiator who was perfidious before may turn over a new leaf and decide to believe in win-win, if they told you they were making you a great offer, and someone on your team was willing to just assume that was true, you would not call your fellow negotiator "Someone who sees that the world is not only black and white", you would call them "an idiot".
It is really kinda LOL to me. You compare apples to pears. EPIC makes a grant, they do not want something in return. So they do not rely on what EPIC wants or not. That is a total different situation.
And if you really want to break everything down to your "Example", you end up that there is only "the good ones" and the "always bad ones". Nice, the world is so simple.
It gets more weird to me, when I remind me of what happens, when there is an article about Godot here in GOL. If they get funded well via patreon - OH THAT IS GREAT! A GREAT LINUX SUPPORTING FOSS PROJECT GETS FUNDED WELL.
If the money comes from EPIC, without asking for anything in return: Yeah.. of course that is just a bad thing! Just look at the comments above...
Then lets agree to disagree.
Last edited by einherjar on 7 February 2020 at 4:41 pm UTC
0 Likes
Sigh. It's not even about "good" and "bad", it's about assuming lack of multiple personality disorder. So for instance, I don't think Madonna is evil (although I'm not a fan), but if she announced she was going to go live in a Buddhist monastery and become celibate, my first instinct would not be to think "Ah, Madonna has found religion", it would be to think "interesting publicity stunt", because that is far more consistent with her track record.You are missing the point and your insinuation is unwarranted. If someone has proved a few times that their motives are suspect, then it is not unreasonable to interrogate their motives if they do something that does not seems consistent with your assessment of their motives and personality.Isn't that bizarre?
If they do something bad -> They get hated
If they do something god -> They get hated
I'd find the opposite bizarre. You can't switch between love and hate every other day. You take into account what someone is doing and judge based on that. Of course, this judgement may change over time, but it shouldn't completely switch sides with every new action.
I do not hate and I do not love them. But I judge things they do. And even when a person/company I dislike, does something good, it is not automatically turning into something bad.
To sad that the world is not only black and white, eh?
Look, I've been on a union negotiating team at contract time. And I will tell you, that while sure, sometimes a management negotiator who was perfidious before may turn over a new leaf and decide to believe in win-win, if they told you they were making you a great offer, and someone on your team was willing to just assume that was true, you would not call your fellow negotiator "Someone who sees that the world is not only black and white", you would call them "an idiot".
It is really kinda LOL to me. You compare apples to pears. EPIC makes a grant, they do not want something in return. So they do not rely on what EPIC wants or not. That is a total different situation.
And if you really want to break everything down to your "Example", you end up that there is only "the good ones" and the "always bad ones". Nice, the world is so simple.
But also, when it comes to corporations I hate to break this to you, but when they make charitable donations it is not because they care about charitable causes. It is because they think their profits will in some way be enhanced, directly or indirectly. Usually it is a form of public relations (well, combined with a tax break). People suspecting such things in this case are not engaging in bizarre conspiracy theories, they are hypothesizing that this particular corporation is engaged in corporate standard operating procedure. Anyone who is shocked by such speculation needs to learn a bit more about how the world works.
This is typically also the case with wealthy celebrities' personal charitable donations--it's a form of brand building. But it's nearly always the case for corporations of much size. That's why shareholders don't get upset about corporate charitable donations--they understand that it is not taking away shareholder value, but merely a different sort of maneuver to gain it.
3 Likes, Who?
See more from me