Some 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.
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.
Quoting: einherjarSigh. 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.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: einherjarYou 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.Quoting: EikeQuoting: einherjarIsn'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.
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me