907
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
907 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59670 readers
1939 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Depending on how much money you expect to lose, that may be the more prudent option for some.
At the very least you'd have something to work with - it's not truly "from scratch".
I work in the AAA industry and I've ported code from one engine to another - it's not fast by any means, but at the very least you can assume the code that's there is largely correct. The killers are materials/shaders, porting over design work, and fixing timing issues. If you have netcode that can be tricky as well.
But at the very least you can have the core of your game running again reasonably. It's how things like Stanley Parable: Ultra Deluxe went from Source to Unity, and how Pokemon BDSP went from the proprietary Pokemon engine to Unity.
Indies and AAs can hire some extra hands to work temporarily with their existing engineers to port and they'd probably lose less money than Unity is charging.
That's why this is an existential threat for so many studios.
They can't survive with the Unity pricing, and they probably don't have the funds to transfer to a new system. So they will have to shut down.
Its the cheapest option, but its still company destroying expensive.