Also the barista may not want to talk to you but they are forced to nicely interact because they’d lose their job if they told you to go away.

I don’t think it’s rude. I’ve been in many places where people just don’t make needless conversation. We interact just fine overall. Specially if you go to some place like southern California. Just Seattle in particular is a lot like the UK not only in weather but in social grouping. People in the UK also don’t needlessly interact.

How to order coffee, get what you want and keep the line moving without any needless human interaction.

I’m from Seattle and so many tourists want to chat up the barista. Go to the stripe and sip coffee stand for that. If you are ordering something that requires more than 10 words, use the app or be prepared to get something left off and move on. For the love of choice don’t try to chat with some stranger in the line.

if I get this error I just open the project in Visual Studio Code and remove the references manually. It’s dangerous and requires a bit of knowledge of the tscn format.

So has beehaw.

Unreal is what I have the most experience in. It’s very strict and structured. Everything in Unreal is a UObject. There are Actors and Actor Components. Every feature has a requirement, such as, some of the AI features require you to have your AI as Pawns which are Actors that can have a Controller (an actor that manages the connection to a player) which then there is a PlayerController and an AI Controller which can hold a behavior tree to tell the AI how to control their pawn.

In Godot, things are far less structured. Godot has everything based on Nodes like Unreal but it expects you to build out whatever you want. So it doesn’t come with Behavior Trees or the concept of a player. It expects you to build these things. Mainly because it’s a budding engine that hasn’t had the maturity or time put into it like Unreal.

Unity is a mix of both. Unity has a huge freeform nature to it. Again Unity starts with a class, everything in Unity is an Object. It has the concepts of Components that attach to a GameObject (which GameObject and Object are different). There is no Actor class, and no defined way to move an actor across a floor, a controller object in Unity is seen as the place where all the logic to control the actor is. So Unity has its own structure but it’s also less built out like Godot. As such the AssetStore in Unity has taken the task of providing whatever the developer needs. So a Behavior Tree system on Unity differs from project to project from whatever they made or bought off of the store. Unreal allows you to, of course, use something else for behavior trees but no one does because their base implementation works and works well. It’s standardized.

So overall, Unreal is standardized, strict, and gives you a ton of features. Unity is less strict, provides less standardized features, and forces developers to make their own things. Godot furthermore is less strict, has very little built-out, and the standardization it’s attempted to create gets changed in the next major update because it’s very new.

My guess is that because those games target DirectX during development then they add a native build at the end that uses Opengl. What Proton does is take the DirectX version and route it to Vulkan. So it’s potentially just the Vulkan usage being better than actually Proton itself.

I mean, you aren’t wrong in your joke. Godot’s pattern is slightly but not much better. Unreal is far more structured and realistic but still lacking in a lot of ways.

Godot follows the same pattern though… oh no.

I could see that being better than Verified/Playable. At the end of the day though, seeing these games under 30 FPS getting verified is a shocker.

It’s also okay for Valve to accept that some of these new releases aren’t going to run well on the steam deck. I don’t think they are willing to take that answer though. Frankly, in my mind, Starfield should never be verified on steam deck. It’s not playable at 20 FPS.

We had this conversation over on Beehaw chat just yesterday. I absolutely think it’s okay for Valve to say “No, your has to meet performance standards to become verified.” Personally, I feel like Verified should guarantee 60 FPS, with dips in places. Playable should be a stable 30 FPS. That said they have zero performance requirements right now so running 10 FPS could potentially be verified status.

Right now though, Valve is verifying everything they can to say “see we have high-end releases on the steam deck.” and in the end, it’s going to hurt them.

Don’t care about other people’s opinions but when presented with facts, consider them.

I don’t exclusively own my own works anymore. Which is different than just owning your own work. Exclusivity allows you to sell something. Without that ability, you can’t convert a product into money as easily.

I rarely run into patents but I could see that being a strong argument for Apache.

Well, remember, this is why I don’t GPL my own code, not why I don’t use GPL’ed code. I want to provide to others what I want to be provided to me. I make my games from Godot, MIT-licensed. Allows people to make commercially viable games. I also contribute what I can to Godot and attempt to backport engine improvements to Godot when I can. This exchange is fair to me and I believe fair to Godot.

Games exist as products directly to the consumer. There are reasons why GPL’ed games haven’t been commercially viable and those who’ve GPLed their game (after they have made tons of money from it) still don’t include the art. They still want to keep the game as profitable as possible while GPLing what they can.

Essentially the GPL is at odds with our capitalistic society, which is fine, our capitalistic society could be a lot better if we were more socialist or communist. The place it breaks down though is that we are still in a capitalistic society and people need to be able to sell their works for money.

Using other people’s code in general does remove your exclusivity of ownership, regardless of license, since the code other people wrote belongs to them.

it removes my exclusivity of ownership over my own code. Not talking about the small snippet that I don’t have exclusive ownership over. Pretty basic distinction here.

What you are saying is you should be entitled to make money off of someone else’s work. If you want to make money on something, you may be required to do the work yourself.

I’d gladly pay them a smaller fee but that’s the reason I don’t GPL my code. I don’t feel like the fee the GPL charges by default (the requirement to license all the code it touches into GPL) is fair. You clearly disagree and that’s fine. I won’t use your code.

Individuals writing software and selling licenses for is not, in the grand scheme of things, a “large way” to get money. The vast majority of money made from writing software is programmers being paid to write software for someone else who will own the license.

I’m an indie game developer so I disagree. How I get my money is selling copies of my software is largely how I make money. If you want to argue that in the business corporate software complex everyone is just writing code for money and no one is selling it as a copy, that’s fine, I don’t care about that work. I just know why I don’t like GPLing my code. It’s too restrictive for me and thus I feel it’s unfair to ask of other people to follow.

Sure, it’s a disagreement on what fair sharing is, and honestly. I don’t want your code if I can’t meet the intent of the license. That’s fine. It’s just the reason I don’t GPL my code. It feels like I am enacting restrictions on someone else that doesn’t feel fair.

A snippet? Surely you don’t need to include a snippet of someone else’s labor.

I mean, it’s an example sometimes people want to just include a library to say, parse a file format. A small snippet of code that could be GPLed, all just to support a random file format that the users want.

It does belong to you. You still own the copyright of the work. You can still license it however you want, you just also need to make it available under the GPL.

Eh, I guess I can dual-license it but it still removes my exclusivity of ownership which is important in our capitalistic society in order to gain money which you use to live. Essentially GPL removes a large way to gain money. If you offer something for free but you have to compile it, or you offer it pre-compiled but paid for. Someone is typically just going to just compile the free code and offer binaries on their own site.

That’s a good one too! I’ve used it a few times and it’s always very satisfying. It really feels like you truly threw something into the void of the internet and let it be free.