- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Begun, the enshittification has.
Since when has an asset store been detrimental?
-
Monetization Strategies: If Godot’s asset store adopts aggressive monetization strategies similar to those seen in other platforms, it could alienate developers and users. This includes high fees for asset sales or restrictive policies that limit creators’ earnings.
-
Quality Control: A decline in the quality of assets available, either through a lack of curation or an influx of low-quality submissions, can diminish the value of the asset store. This could lead to frustration among users seeking reliable resources.
-
Community Trust: The perception of a platform’s integrity is crucial. If developers feel that the asset store prioritizes profit over community support, it could lead to a loss of trust and engagement.
-
Comparison with Other Platforms: Observing the trajectory of other game engines, like Unity, can provide insights. If Godot’s asset store begins to mirror the negative aspects of those platforms, it could signal a shift in its community dynamics.
-
Feedback and Adaptation: The response of the Godot community to the new asset store will be critical. If the developers are responsive to feedback and prioritize the needs of their users, it may mitigate concerns about enshittification.
You know Godot is an open source community developed game engine right?
The asset store obviously isn’t, so I feel these concerns are valid. I don’t want Godot to end up like Unity 5-10+ years out.
I would assume that the actual infrastructure of the asset store is also open source. But even if not, forking Godot is very possible. It’s not like there is a megacorp making most PRs. It really is a community project.
I don’t want Godot to end up like Unity 5-10+ years out.
I’m sure your whining and moaning are certainly helping enormously.
-
If someone is creating assets, they should be compensated. This is also good for getting high quality assets. Are people just supposed to do everything for free? Maybe the game should be free too right?
The Engine is still open.
Seems I struck a nerve. See my other response in this thread for my concerns.
Indeed you did. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a living off your craft. And one of the reasons that people go with the other engines is precisely because of high quality assets. I saw the post seems like it was written by ChatGPT.
I’m not sure why you’re beating up a strawman so hard. I never said anything remotely close to that.
Seems I struck a nerve.
no, you pissed and moaned about something that’s hardly an issue. Godot isn’t going hard commerce, the idea that it would is patently stupid. fuck there’s nothing even on the store that you can buy atm.
reserve your vapors for when shit gets worse, this is ridiculous.
free as in freedom != free as in ‘free beer’
I feel the issue is not so much that you can buy/sell software, but that the Godot Asset store is proprietary, and being advertised alongside a project that was attractive for being “free and open source”.
This also potentially could cause a conflict of interests when it comes to making improvements / promoting the previously existing Godot Asset Library (which was FOSS).
Maybe the game should be free too right?
Well, the more of it you make it FLOSS the further away from enshittification you get.
I’ve purchased every free and open source game on Steam that has been put there with a price tag precisely because I do prefer when they are open… in the same way that I prefer Godot over Unity because of being open, in the same way I would prefer an open source Steam alternative if it truly existed (and I don’t mean a repo to download games… that’s not what steam is… I mean a store with support for purchases too, one that can be navigated from the couch, with controller support, with cloud saves, with input API and controller remaps per game, with friend group integration and chat, etc etc).
It’s also a matter of perspective… you’ll see complains when something gets shittier and you’ll see praise when something gets less shitty… but just because there are complains in one place and praise in another does not necessarily mean the one getting praised is in a better position. I may complain about an additive added to my juice, and I may praise if the flour used in highly-processed mcnuggets is organic, but that does not mean the juice is worse than the mcnugget… it just means that the juice is getting shittier and the mcnugget is getting less shitty.
bro… that’s a lot of words for a bad take. They aren’t going to stop you or anyone from making
your own store and making it all free = freedom. You can also make your own steam. Point is, the engine is free both in beer and freedom.
This is a way to make it MORE popular by allowing better assets and for people to be able to make a living making assets.
Again if you want to make a FLOSS alternative nobody will stop you and the license allows it.
Do they have DRM or something? I hope not. But if it doesn’t, what’s stopping anyone who bought the asset from uploading it somewhere else?
This is an issue with open source app/resource stores that to my knowledge no one has solved. If you stay true to the Free (as in freedom) software philosophy, then you can’t really put anything in to enforce paid access to something, and even if you do, anyone with a text editor can just take that code out. But if you just let anyone who buys it redistribute it for free, you’re not going to attract many sellers because they wouldn’t trust their content to remain paid access only. Add to the fact that paid content is inheretly proprietary, or at the very least, the author certainly wouldn’t choose to put Free as in freedom licenses on their content because that would literally legally allow anyone to redistribute it for free.
