How does Source 2 not make it onto this "Market Map"? It's mostly used by Valve and a smaller number of studios than something like Unreal, but it's viable none the less. I suspect it has a much broader user reach than several of the entries on the Open Source end of this map.
It's also missing Panda3D, Armoury 3D, and Construct, which are all used in very well known indie games. While including GDevelop which is a teaching tool for children not actually meant to create commercial software, and Dreams which isn't a game engine but a sandbox game for the PlayStation 4 for creating interactive fiction. And meanwhile Yahaha isn't even a game engine, it's Web3 software designed for Decentraland and Horizon Worlds, which are so dead the corpse doesn't even smell anymore.
AFAIK there's no public sdk for it, only a single third party game is in development and it's by the developers of garry's mod (one of the biggest third party source "1" games).
I'd consider it still proprietary, at that point you'd want to add Snowdrop (ubisoft), RAGE (Rockstar), REDengine (CDPR), Frostbite (EA), etc.
a16z doesn't know anything about video games, basically. A bunch of stuff widely used isn't on this map at all and instead there are buzzword startups on the map that will never be used to ship a video game to customers.
> Although I personally suspect this is correct, the issue seems to be that there are a lot of people who feel otherwise, whether right or wrong, including some of the people involved in the research and/or running these companies.
There is a clear and perverse incentive to talk about "the coming AGI uprising" incessantly because it's free marketing. It gets and keeps people's attention as the majority of humanity is entirely unqualified to have a reasonable conversation regarding anything AI/ML related.
Doomsday fearmongering about AI is a form of grift, and I'll change that opinion only when shown clear evidence that there is something to actually worry about. The real danger of AI is as a weapon to be wielded by people against other people. Good luck having that conversation in any meaningful way because it basically amounts to the long overdue ethics discussion that this entire industry has been avoiding for decades.
If you cry wolf and agitate the masses with fear, then you gain free advertising for a "new" search engine because the spin of the "journalist" requires anxiety to circulate organically.
Why not sell licenses? Perhaps they could have nominal benefits that are low impact on the maintainer, like early access to various things? Maybe foosel doesn't want to run a business, but given the choice between doing what I love and avoiding some administrative overhead I think I'd always choose the former.
I'm reminded of what happened to the creators of Dwarf Fortress and it's hard not to recommend some form of commercialization for projects that need financial support.
It's really a shame, especially on a website like this. I can understand being frustrated with things, but we need some nuance a lot of times.
I'm not sure why we need to have holy wars over what is "open source" and rather recognize that it's a scale. Importantly, if an opensource operation can't be funded being unquestionably open source, then I see no issue making transitions like you suggested or the "free to user, cost to companies" method (how is that worth a holy war?). It's an extra shame given the average salary (current or future) of someone on this website. If you're not struggling, pony up, if you are, then I'm not sure how you don't have compassion.
After all, isn't the open source dream we all have about open communities, code, and everything? If we can't perfectly achieve that due to environmental constraints, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. That just discourages any other "open source" projects, by whatever definition you use. Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right?
[note to holy war people] I'll accept holy wars if you show me receipts that you fund >25% of the open source tools you use. That's a low enough bar, right?
If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD. I also bought printers from Prusa, so that already counted as supporting open source. That's thousand of dollars and increasing.
What I haven't done yet is to earn a single dollars doing anything related to 3D printing and design work.
Mostly open is still better than fully closed, right?
The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other.
We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values.
> If I make money off open source, I'll start paying more. As it is, I donate 5 bucks a month to OpenSCAD.
I'll refer you back to my zealot note. The question isn't about if you're making money from the product but if you use the produce and have the means to donate. If you got a big tech job and you're only donating only $60/yr to open source projects then I'm not sure you have a horse to sit on. You probably pay a lot more for things you probably use a lot less. If not, I'm not sure what I said to that compelled you to defend yourself.
> The dream is that commerce and open source aren't in direct opposition to each other.
Yes, the dream is post-scarcity or being independently wealthy, which in either case one can just work for fun. But transitioning to post-scarcity is an incredibly disruptive process that has the capacity to hurt a lot of people before it benefits so many. But until then, people need money so I'm not sure what conversation we're trying to have here.
> We do that by finding the right business models, not compromising our values.
See the above where I mentioned someone previously try unquestionably open source and failed, as is the context around octoprint. The __only__ business model for that is relying on donations. You got an alternative that you'd like to enlighten us? One that doesn't "compromise values?" (I don't see the business pay option as compromising but it's not an uncommon discussion here. Hence the specific call out)
Let's be straight, it's not compromising values if you're forced into a position: that's coercion.
I'll refer you back to my zealot note. The question isn't about if you're making money from the product but if you use the produce and have the means to donate. If you got a big tech job and you're only donating only $60/yr to open source projects then I'm not sure you have a horse to sit on. You probably pay a lot more for things you probably use a lot less. If not, I'm not sure what I said to that compelled you to defend yourself.
As I mentioned before, I paid thousand of dollars for Prusa products, which supports open hardware and support their slicer software. Though I have to note they seemed to waver a little on open hardware.
But fair enough, I paid 60 bucks a year currently for an open source software project. I should contribute more, and I have started supporting Octoprint before your reply. It's a pittance, but it's a start.
Yes, the dream is post-scarcity or being independently wealthy, which in either case one can just work for fun. But transitioning to post-scarcity is an incredibly disruptive process that has the capacity to hurt a lot of people before it benefits so many. But until then, people need money so I'm not sure what conversation we're trying to have here.
Not sure where you're going with that. Earning money with open source is the dream. I don't mean being supported by basic income or welfare, although I wouldn't be opposed to it, but in being able to bootstrap myself.
I don't have a sustainable open source career, and I am bad at business. I am working on that.
(I don't see the business pay option as compromising but it's not an uncommon discussion here. Hence the specific call out)
Businesses paying, corporate sponsorship, and support service, even software sale, are all perfectly fine and compatible with open source and free software philosophy...if it remains completely open source.
Let's be straight, it's not compromising values if you're forced into a position: that's coercion.
I am not sure what you mean by here. Open source developers doesn't have the right or expectation to expect being able to make a living, same as being a proprietary developer.
If you're not willing to make open source software for a living, then you're doing something else. Open source adjacent, open core, or just a plain old boring job at a proprietary software firm, whatever. You have the right to make a living under the current paradigm, but I'll keep searching for the business models that support my values.
Nothing wrong with selling supported binaries. Bug reports are a valuable contribution to any project, but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask. I'd say lock binaries behind a paywall altogether, but that's not going to stop packagers from putting it in distro repositories or AUR (without a non-open source license, at least).
> but if you want your issue prioritized then paying $$$ is a fair ask
The problem usually is that this will cause a conflict of interest with the maintainer role. Leading to demise of the open-source/community side, and the rise of better alternatives while you're busy navigating this transaction and trying to balance the stick.
I'm just saying that I haven't seen much successful examples of projects that went down that route.
"Rich people think thing that got them rich is good for everyone" should be a part of the zeitgeist by now. Individual attention and social learning doesn't "scale", so lets do the thing that does because "that's more efficient", the actual needs and desires of human beings be damned.
Somehow we forget that one of the most important aspects of learning is a clear understanding about why one does it and how it benefits us. This must be repeatedly reinforced over years, and close to zero people want that reinforcement in the hellish form of a gamified and entirely soulless piece of software.
> Rewind 15-20 years ago and all the folks who wanted to make a game, their first game, and they want to build an mmo. None of them succeeded. Not 1. The only ones since were from people who knew the ask. Or had a crowdfunded ponzi scheme.
This is an odd statement given that Ultima Online can out in 1997 and WoW came out in 2004. Are you referring to hobbyists?
Both of which were developed more than 20 years ago. I also think they knew the ask since they made games prior. I can see how words are confusing and math is hard.
RuneScape might be a better example. They had made hobby games, no professional experience, and launched a massively successful MMORPG.
If you are arguing they made it more than 20 years ago, so it was easier, I'd like to learn more about how things degraded in the early 2000s. I assure, I am not confused by words or math. :)
They have a YouTube channel and I hope they publish all of the talks after the fact. Should anyone from the conference read this it would be great if paid corporate packages were offered that made the recorded sessions available for download.
> At scale, many Terraform state files are better than one. But how do you draw the boundaries and decide which resources belong in which state files? What are the best practices for organizing Terraform state files to maximize reliability, minimize the blast-radius of changes, and align with the design of cloud providers?
Since I couldn't find any screenshots on their website and I wanted to recall what it was like (having used it for a time) this is the best I could find.
