• linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It could be that, or they just really know their community. If the cost of getting it working on steam deck and maintaining it is not substantially less than the income brought from the platform It doesn’t make any sense to utilize the platform.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the same thing basically, you could have unlimited devs if cost wasn’t an issue

      But they have 9 platforms already that all have to work together and every feature has to work on before release so it’s a lot of work.

      Like the last line says, they want the user base to be big enough for them to support it

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Exactly, Sweeney isn’t a complicated man, he’s just a greedy one. If choice a is less profitable than choice b, he’ll pick choice b. In this case, it’s Linux support vs other dev efforts, and the other dev efforts are apparently more profitable than Linux support.

        And that’s my favorite quality about him, and it makes it really easy to avoid his products. It’s why I mostly play indies and use lemmy, I’m fine with lower production value if the quality of the overall experience is better.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s a side effect, not the goal. The goal is to make a ton of money on microtransactions, that’s why they have a revenue sharing licensing model, not a per seat model. They don’t lose much by being friendly to smaller devs, because they’re banking on raking in profits from the few that go viral.

            I argue that until the recent change, Unity was the best engine for indie devs. You pay per seat and that’s it, you keep the rest. And you don’t pay until you make more than $100k, just like Unreal (Unreal is 5% after your first $1M). So if you earn $2M, you’ll pay $50k to Epic or $2k/seat for Unity (assuming pro plan). If you expect to make >$1M, Unity will probably be cheaper for smaller studios. If you want support, Unreal charges $1500/seat/year for the Enterprise option, and you still need to pay for royalties.

            So here’s how I’d decide which to use:

            • Godot - most indie games
            • Unity - indie games with high revenue expectation (if it takes off), and studios with infrequent releases (you only pay if you’re making >$100k)
            • Unreal - big 3D games with latest tech, or indie studios with lots of smaller games with lower average revenue targets

            Most studios don’t need the features of Unreal, so it’s an odd choice for your random indie studio.

            • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              indie studios with lots of smaller games with lower average revenue targets

              This is most people

              Also gamemaker/construct/stencyl fit in the worse space

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                In many of those cases, they wouldn’t cross the threshold for income for either, so the choice of tool wouldn’t matter. So use whatever you’re familiar with.

                But honestly, with Unity violating dev trust, I highly recommend indie devs use Godot. It’s plenty good for the scale of most indie games, and there’s no royalties or costs (though donations are recommended).