Threads for takecare

  1. 7

    At first it seems a bit strange that Epic would award a grant to another game engine but I guess they see Godot as a stepping stone for developers to learn and eventually go with Unreal.

    1. 9

      I would guess most of their money comes from players rather than Unreal licensing, so maybe the reasoning is that higher quality in game engines overall means more good games [to put on the Epic store]. Whyever - it’s great to see them doing this.

      1. 9

        That’s a rather new development, though. Licensing the engine is definitely in the companies DNA, it’s their huge innovation from Unreal. (Yes, ID did that as well, but more as a side business, while Unreal was always built as a separate kit)

        It could be a way to compete with Unity: funding a free competitor that people may pick over Unity.

        1. 8

          i think competing against unity is what makes the most sense here. godot’s popularity seems to be surging, namely as a begginer-friendly engine, which is something i don’t think a lot of people see unreal as, as opposed to unity

      2. 4

        Having people that can develop game engines = larger talent pool = more people to poach away into unreal engine as well

        1. 3

          I wouldn’t be surprised if unreal had nothing to do with this. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The more people make games, sell games, and are into games in general the better for Epic and the industry as a whole.

          1. 2

            I’ve heard the theory it may be an attempt to flank Unity from a business perspective - use Unreal to attack Unity from the high end, prop up Godot to attach Unity from the low end.

            1. 2

              also they potentially set some legal framework so that those grants are deductible from their taxes which makes them very interesting for them from not only a let’s improve the talent pool perspective but also from a financial and generating goodwill perspectives as well.

            1. 2

              hopefully: get some decent progress on a “pet-project” app; sourdough loaf; hit the gym

              1. 7

                baking bread, gaming (not the hardcore kind, mostly single player stuff), cycling (want to get more on this), trying to start with game development too. trying to pick up other things too, such as fermented drinks (e.g. homebrewing) and whittling (my issue with this is that i live in a flat and it generates a lot of “debris”).

                1. 34

                  This reads like an opinion-as-proof fluff piece.

                  The thesis of the article seems to be “policy can’t fix this, technology can”. Coincidentally(heh) the author is a cofounder of a cryptocurrency called “Consent Token” that allows you to use the blockchain to sell private information.

                  https://thenextweb.com/author/mindaugas-kiskis/ http://www.consentok.com/

                  1. 9

                    I hate it when people say “look at what this person built!” or “look at what this person supports!” as though it’s proof the person’s opinion is compromised. It’s totally expected that someone who holds this opinion would follow through on it by building something around it. If you’d like to suggest they’re just saying what’s convenient for their position, you can use as much popular psychology as much as you want; as is common with pop-psych, you’ll find false-positives everywhere.

                    1. 17

                      the guy is free to build whatever he wants on the grounds of whatever he choses to believe. the issue with this piece is that it’s presented as some form of journalism, without any disclosure, when it’s not. that’s the same as having a pro-fracking article in a national newspaper, criticising anti-fracking laws, written by a guy who owns a drilling company. can you not see the conflict of interest? his opinion is compromised, it’s biased! worst than that, is that this dude throws around statements w/o much backup:

                      I would be happy if the GDPR would at least slow down data processing without my knowledge and by parties with whom I have no relationship, but I see no sign of this happening.

                      i’ve seen loads of web pages now asking you to consent to things such as trackers. doesn’t that slow down data processing? does it not actually stop it?

                      the GDPR has not meaningfully changed the privacy status quo

                      how come? what would a meaningful change be in this author’s opinion be then?

                      There are dozens of situations when it’s actually socially undesirable to keep it private, (…)

                      what’s the issue here? this is just rambling at this point. does gdpr keep you from sharing your data in any way? no.

                      Equally questionable are formal and bureaucratic prescriptions for better data protection — more documentation, privacy impact audits, formal training, etc. Does anyone honestly believe that more paperwork will lead to more privacy? More security risks in handling of our data (say thousands of hand signed consents) are somewhat more likely, I’m afraid.

                      “hurr durr red tape”… this is just making stuff up… why is it questionable? why are there now more security risks? this article is total garbage.

                      is gdpr perfect? of course not. is gdpr solving every privacy issue? it certainly isn’t. that doesn’t invalidate it, still.

                      1. 1

                        …the issue with this piece is that it’s presented as some form of journalism, without any disclosure, when it’s not.

                        Would you rather the article be written by someone with no practical experience in the field? This isn’t rhetorical, it’s a genuine question: do we want experienced and potentially biased people, or inexperienced people with fresh perspectives?

                        In any case, I don’t think experts are responsible for disclosing everything that has shaped their opinion. I don’t think any of us is. I think dealing with that reality—with the fact that every opinion belies an entire life experience—is just par for the course.

                        It seems like you disagree with the article’s points, which I can respect. (There are some points that I disagree with as well, and I hope you don’t imagine my argument as just an extension of the author’s.) Going after that person’s prior experience, as though it invalidates their opinion, just doesn’t make sense.

                  1. 4

                    blood, sweat and pixels. each chapter is about a different game and it’s been interesting enough but not great, i’d say. mostly because it seems a bit repetitive. the chapter on stardew valley was the most interesting so far.

                    1. 4

                      ergodox (that my brother built for me) at the office. cheap mechanical with cherry knock-offs at home and the macbook (13” early 2015) when i’m out and about (which is usually 50%+ of the week)

                      1. 25

                        i… i gotta give it to whoever comes up with these crazy hacks, but it sure highlights the lack of ethics in our area.

                        1. 8

                          It’s true. I don’t like it and don’t agree with it, but pretty clever. Whoever came up with that, you thought outside of the box.

                          1. 5

                            I wouldn’t consider this any more “our area” than malware.