W4 Games formed to help developers using Godot Engine

Love they approach they are taking. <3
Very much Red Hat style.

Love they approach they are taking. <3
Very much Red Hat style.

Even their FAQ says so!

Are other successful commercial open source companies using a similar philosophy?

Yes, W4 is deeply inspired by the original Red Hat business model. This model consists in providing commercial services to complement and support a fully free and open source ecosystem. That open source ecosystem stays independent and strives from the contributions of multiple commercial actors.

Even their FAQ says so!

Are other successful commercial open source companies using a similar philosophy?

Yes, W4 is deeply inspired by the original Red Hat business model. This model consists in providing commercial services to complement and support a fully free and open source ecosystem. That open source ecosystem stays independent and strives from the contributions of multiple commercial actors.

Just to put things into perspective, that business model isn't exactly original to Red Hat; it's basically dictated by the GNU license of the kernel and the GNU toolchain. That quote just makes it sound like Red Hat invented it, which definitely isn't the case.

I do respect that they (promise to) say they take the same approach, even though Godot is licensed under the much more "permissive" MIT license that theoretically wouldn't require them to give back any changes they make.

EDITed after jumping over to read the actual FAQ:

Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

And there you have it... "as much as we can", as opposed to "everything because we have to". Marketing speech and business as usual.


Last edited by Valck on 9 August 2022 at 5:04 pm UTC

Even their FAQ says so!

Are other successful commercial open source companies using a similar philosophy?

Yes, W4 is deeply inspired by the original Red Hat business model. This model consists in providing commercial services to complement and support a fully free and open source ecosystem. That open source ecosystem stays independent and strives from the contributions of multiple commercial actors.

Just to put things into perspective, that business model isn't exactly original to Red Hat; it's basically dictated by the GNU license of the kernel and the GNU toolchain. That quote just makes it sound like Red Hat invented it, which definitely isn't the case.

I do respect that they (promise to) say they take the same approach, even though Godot is licensed under the much more "permissive" MIT license that theoretically wouldn't require them to give back any changes they make.

EDITed after jumping over to read the actual FAQ:

Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

And there you have it... "as much as we can", as opposed to "everything because we have to". Marketing speech and business as usual.

They will port games to consoles and that means NDAs, license issues and so on. They can't just add a PS5/Switch export to the engine, Sony/Nintendo would probably sue them and win.

What they MIGHT do is build the engine so the last step after users get a license from console manufacturers is as easy as possible ... that's a different story.
They made a very informative blogpost about that issue: https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-know

They are obviously not the first company that will offer professional porting to consoles and it's great that such companies exist. Maybe they can even offer the necessary code to the console manufacturers, so these can include them in their SDK (I think that is what Unity did)

Otherwise, I'd trust these people to contribute back. Considering what they did for Godot so far, they are really underpaid.


Last edited by const on 9 August 2022 at 5:23 pm UTC

EDITed after jumping over to read the actual FAQ:

Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

And there you have it... "as much as we can", as opposed to "everything because we have to". Marketing speech and business as usual.

Well, if they work on proprietary stuff to allow games to run on consoles, they simply CAN'T upstream -everything- just...as much as they can?

Not sure if you read evil intent into their words when there isn't any? At least I don't think they are going to last in this business for very long if they build a reputation for exploiting the open source engine their business is based on, without giving back.

And talk about marketing speech – the more I read about them, the less I like what I see.

"Incorporated in Dublin" – all the power to the Irish people, but Ireland is well known as Europe's tax haven par excellence – coupled with investment capital (in itself a big red flag) from "a leading investment fund in Open Source Software" and "a Silicon Valley giant" which doesn't help to make it sound any better.

Spoiler, click me

Ireland ranks among the top ten wealthiest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita, although this has been partially ascribed to distortions caused by the tax inversion practices of various multinationals operating in Ireland.

"We want to help the video game industry reclaim their control on the technology powering their games"
Wait what? Who exactly are we talking about? The video game industry that is just about beginning to lose the tiniest bit control of their grip on the technology because of independent studios and engines like Godot, neither of which ever lost control over their technology because they develop it?

"both enterprise and independent developers can use the community-developed Godot platform with peace of mind" – which independent developers always could; just the suits in the marketing department weren't at ease with, so that is what this is all about?


Certainly a company to keep our eyes on.

Even their FAQ says so!

Are other successful commercial open source companies using a similar philosophy?

Yes, W4 is deeply inspired by the original Red Hat business model. This model consists in providing commercial services to complement and support a fully free and open source ecosystem. That open source ecosystem stays independent and strives from the contributions of multiple commercial actors.

Just to put things into perspective, that business model isn't exactly original to Red Hat; it's basically dictated by the GNU license of the kernel and the GNU toolchain. That quote just makes it sound like Red Hat invented it, which definitely isn't the case.

I do respect that they (promise to) say they take the same approach, even though Godot is licensed under the much more "permissive" MIT license that theoretically wouldn't require them to give back any changes they make.

EDITed after jumping over to read the actual FAQ:

Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

And there you have it... "as much as we can", as opposed to "everything because we have to". Marketing speech and business as usual.

They will port games to consoles and that means NDAs, license issues and so on. They can't just add a PS5/Switch export to the engine, Sony/Nintendo would probably sue them and win.

What they MIGHT do is build the engine so the last step after users get a license from console manufacturers is as easy as possible ... that's a different story.
They made a very informative blogpost about that issue: https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-know

They are obviously not the first company that will offer professional porting to consoles and it's great that such companies exist. Maybe they can even offer the necessary code to the console manufacturers, so these can include them in their SDK (I think that is what Unity did)

Otherwise, I'd trust these people to contribute back. Considering what they did for Godot so far, they are really underpaid.

"Unfortunately, consoles are entirely closed ecosystems. This means that there is a very simple rule that must be followed in order to develop for them: Unless you sign an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) and the manufacturer approves you, it is impossible for you to obtain any kind of information in regards to how they work (and much less publish games)."

Which looks like it is about to change with the Steam Deck and other, independent (gasp), consoles – and by the looks of it, "the video game industry" is already up in arms.

I freely admit wihout shame that I haven't been following them and what they have done before founding this company, and maybe I'm doing them injustice; I sure hope you all are right and I am wrong.

Even their FAQ says so!

Are other successful commercial open source companies using a similar philosophy?

Yes, W4 is deeply inspired by the original Red Hat business model. This model consists in providing commercial services to complement and support a fully free and open source ecosystem. That open source ecosystem stays independent and strives from the contributions of multiple commercial actors.

Just to put things into perspective, that business model isn't exactly original to Red Hat; it's basically dictated by the GNU license of the kernel and the GNU toolchain. That quote just makes it sound like Red Hat invented it, which definitely isn't the case.

I do respect that they (promise to) say they take the same approach, even though Godot is licensed under the much more "permissive" MIT license that theoretically wouldn't require them to give back any changes they make.

EDITed after jumping over to read the actual FAQ:

Throughout the development of our products we will be open sourcing as much as we can, including additions to Godot that strengthen the engine.

And there you have it... "as much as we can", as opposed to "everything because we have to". Marketing speech and business as usual.

They will port games to consoles and that means NDAs, license issues and so on. They can't just add a PS5/Switch export to the engine, Sony/Nintendo would probably sue them and win.

What they MIGHT do is build the engine so the last step after users get a license from console manufacturers is as easy as possible ... that's a different story.
They made a very informative blogpost about that issue: https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-know

They are obviously not the first company that will offer professional porting to consoles and it's great that such companies exist. Maybe they can even offer the necessary code to the console manufacturers, so these can include them in their SDK (I think that is what Unity did)

Otherwise, I'd trust these people to contribute back. Considering what they did for Godot so far, they are really underpaid.

"Unfortunately, consoles are entirely closed ecosystems. This means that there is a very simple rule that must be followed in order to develop for them: Unless you sign an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement) and the manufacturer approves you, it is impossible for you to obtain any kind of information in regards to how they work (and much less publish games)."

Which looks like it is about to change with the Steam Deck and other, independent (gasp), consoles – and by the looks of it, "the video game industry" is already up in arms.

I freely admit wihout shame that I haven't been following them and what they have done before founding this company, and maybe I'm doing them injustice; I sure hope you all are right and I am wrong.

There is no sign whatsoever that Sony/MS/Nintendo will open up their walled gardens. SteamDeck surely is important and awesome, my favorite piece of technology since ages, yet it's still a long way for it to pressure these companys.

As an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.


Last edited by const on 9 August 2022 at 5:47 pm UTC

Well, if they work on proprietary stuff to allow games to run on consoles, they simply CAN'T upstream -everything- just...as much as they can?

Not sure if you read evil intent into their words when there isn't any? At least I don't think they are going to last in this business for very long if they build a reputation for exploiting the open source engine their business is based on, without giving back.

Specifically "the video game industry" has a reputation for exploiting technology, exploiting artists, exploiting developers, whenever, wherever, and however they can. What we "consumers" think – and so much less we Linux users, fraction of a market share of consumers – has never stopped "the video game industry", at best it might have given them a short second to pause, before they get the spin doctors spinning in the right direction again.

Again, I hope I read evil intent where there is none, but I'm all too wary of the long and strong arm of the industry we're talking about. This is not about indie studios or small companies; they already don't need this company's help.

As an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

Well, if they work on proprietary stuff to allow games to run on consoles, they simply CAN'T upstream -everything- just...as much as they can?

Not sure if you read evil intent into their words when there isn't any? At least I don't think they are going to last in this business for very long if they build a reputation for exploiting the open source engine their business is based on, without giving back.

Specifically "the video game industry" has a reputation for exploiting technology, exploiting artists, exploiting developers, whenever, wherever, and however they can. What we "consumers" think – and so much less we Linux users, fraction of a market share of consumers – has never stopped "the video game industry", at best it might have given them a short second to pause, before they get the spin doctors spinning in the right direction again.

Again, I hope I read evil intent where there is none, but I'm all too wary of the long and strong arm of the industry we're talking about. This is not about indie studios or small companies; they already don't need this company's help.

Exploitism is hardly their fault, no idea why you would imply that.
They certainly use a more inclusive definition of "video game industry" then you.
AAA studios are hardly their target. Read the article about porting I linked.


Last edited by const on 9 August 2022 at 5:52 pm UTC

As an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

Juan Linietsky, Rémi Verschelde and Fabio Alessandrelli are without doubt the core developers of Godot.

Given the recent moves of both major proprietary engines (one using the devs as meat shields and then throwing them under the bus hoping to get an advantage in their legal crusade against the world, the other entertaining the opaque business opportunities offered by Malware practices) it should be clear to everyone that, pretty much like for OSs, engines too should be open, free and non controllable by a single actor for the sake of the whole industry. So I hope this workaround to console NDAs helps Godot to gain market share and features.


Last edited by Mal on 9 August 2022 at 6:43 pm UTC

Well, if they work on proprietary stuff to allow games to run on consoles, they simply CAN'T upstream -everything- just...as much as they can?

Not sure if you read evil intent into their words when there isn't any? At least I don't think they are going to last in this business for very long if they build a reputation for exploiting the open source engine their business is based on, without giving back.

Specifically "the video game industry" has a reputation for exploiting technology, exploiting artists, exploiting developers, whenever, wherever, and however they can. What we "consumers" think – and so much less we Linux users, fraction of a market share of consumers – has never stopped "the video game industry"[...]

Exploitism is hardly their fault, no idea why you would imply that.

I'm not implying anything, I am pointing out that in "this business" it is common practice to play with hard bandages, and it takes a lot of bad press before exploitative behaviour reflects negatively on the bottom line.

They certainly use a more inclusive definition of "video game industry" then you.
AAA studios are hardly their target.

And this is were we agree to disagree.

Read the article about porting I linked.

They obviously use a less inclusive definition of "video game consoles" than I do ;)

---

As an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

Juan Linietsky, Rémi Verschelde and Fabio Alessandrelli are without doubt the core developers of Godot.

Thank you for pointing that out, it wasn't clear enough at least for me, from the article that the "Godot veterans" are or were actually Godot core developers.


Last edited by Valck on 9 August 2022 at 6:25 pm UTC

What exactly does it involve? W4 making some contract with closed minded consoles to give developers access to special version that's bundled with console SDKs?

Also, it's a dumb dinosaur approach on the part of incumbent consoles to still keep SDKs closed in this century.


Last edited by Shmerl on 9 August 2022 at 8:04 pm UTC

So it's a consulting company that specializes in Godot? With a possible future focus of console integration?

That seems really niche... Like not supporting a business niche.

Or is it a consulting company that basically acts as a legal bridge to allow porting to consoles (or integrating other proprietary tech)?

I guess that could work. Still seems like a fairly limited customer base or am I missing something?

I guess that could work. Still seems like a fairly limited customer base or am I missing something?

If they offload the legal stuff from developers through some agreement, it allows much easier access to messed up console world for them. Isn't Unity doing something of the sort for developers?

As an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

Founded by Godot Engine veterans Juan Linietsky, Rémi Verschelde and Fabio Alessandrelli

I took that line from the article to indicate that it is in fact about (some of) the developers of Godot.

Desperately needed because there are a ton of devs that dont even know that it exsists

As an open source advocate and hobby game developer, I can't emphasize enough how important godot is. MIT was the correct license choice and the core developers clearly aren't in it for the money.

No one is denying that, but this isn't about the developers of Godot.

Founded by Godot Engine veterans Juan Linietsky, Rémi Verschelde and Fabio Alessandrelli

I took that line from the article to indicate that it is in fact about (some of) the developers of Godot.

Thank you. I have already been educated on the matter, but still. If one isn't familiar with these names, "Godot Engine veterans" could mean any number of things, from "people whose work has encompassed using Godot Engine for a long time" to "people intricately involved in the creation of the Godot engine itself". Turns out it was the latter, not the former.

And still, I stand by my point; neither the article nor my comment were about the developers of Godot, but about the entrepreneurs of W4 Games, even if both groups are (at least in part) composed of the same people.


Last edited by Valck on 10 August 2022 at 9:54 am UTC