But other than that, people are stupid whether they are thirteen or thirtyfive, and there’s nothing to do but keep your cool and act like an adult in all cases.
Exactly. It might seem obnoxious up front, but in the long run it can only be good.
Really you guys, there is only one person who has voiced any opposition to this and everyone has taken the bate and ran with it like wild fire.
Almost everyone in this thread sees the positive side of this. There’s really nothing to worry about. You’re making it sound as if there is some large contingent of forum users that are jumping all over Valve and jeopardizing the project. I think everyone is taking the so called “Negativity” and blowing it way out of proportion.
Hopefully that let think Ton a bit about Blender’s future as tool for game artists.
IMO complaining about an influx of dumb new users is like complaining about paying more income tax after you get a pay raise. Yes, you pay more tax… but your overall income is higher. Stop whining, it’s a false complaint. Would you rather make less money instead?
Overall, Valve has a great reputation in the industry as well as with their customers. And from what I’ve read they have a serious and open-minded approach to their business. I’m sure Blender will benefit by actively associating with Valve and I’m all for it! Great news.
Also, to be fair - I got my first start in 3D not with Blender, but with Worldcraft, the modding tool they distributed with Half-Life 1. Back in the 90s when I was about 12 years old. I had a lot of free time and enthusiasm for making 3D assets back then! I then found out about blender and the rest is history. There’s no harm in introducing kids to blender. They’re the ones who will help make it an alternative (or even main) industry standard 10 years from now.
This was also part of the discussion:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan-Peter Ewert
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:45 PM
To: bf-blender developers
Subject: RE: [Bf-committers] Steam-powered Blender
Hi all,
There have been some really good points brought up here.
The suggestion to ship at least some existing plugins that lend themselves very well to modding sounds like a very sensible one. SMD/DMX plugin seems like an obvious plugin to bundle with a version of Blender. If anybody else wants to suggest other plugins that are useful for modding and should be shipped in this bundle, I’m all ears.
The topic Ton brought up - how to do a license-compatible way to send models generated by Blender to another program - is something that I will need guidance on from the experts here.
I have looked at the license that ships with Blender, which is GPL V2. What we want is essentially provide the possibility to send API calls to our online service that make it possible to send data out of Blender (models, textures, animations,…?) there. As I said, the main call I have in mind is about Steam Workshop.
My understanding of GPL V2 is that this would in any case not be a problem if we did just a WebAPI call where you send the data via a clearly documented httprequests. At the moment, what the games on Steam that integrate with Steam Workshop do is they send the models to a compiled C program and that sends the data to our server.
My understanding of the GPL V2 is that this is still ok since we are not making function calls that will hide functionality - we are only sending off data, the same way that we would if we exported a file locally and then uploaded the data manually via the Steam Workshop website, except we are doing this in one mouse click.
Is this a fair assumption?
If not, what would be the license-compatible way to export models from Blender to a different program?
Best, Jan
I think we all need to remind ourselves about what Ton said earlier this year about the future of the Blender game engine because I think some people have forgotten. This is not a random occurrence and is all part of the plan.
PLEASE READ THIS: http://code.blender.org/index.php/2013/06/blender-roadmap-2-7-2-8-and-beyond/
You can scroll down to the part about the GAME ENGINE
In particular Ton says:
So, actually this means getting rid of the game engine as it exists now. But then, what happens to the GE? How will we make games in Blender?
Ton again:
Fair enough. He’s basically saying that it’s a lot of work to try and support some area of Blender that they could never really make into an actual contender. So, why not just cut your losses, integrate the game engine into an “Interactive” mode and use the game logic to build automatic animation systems like crowd sims and complex mechanical rigs.
And finally we get to the most important and relevant part of all of this; His last little bullet point of things to think about:
And there you have it folks. The plan is to transform the current game engine into an interactive mode inside Blender and start building better support for external game engines (read: Unreal, Crysis, Unity and yes, Valve).
So regardless of whether you happen to like the idea or whether you happen to be Zalamander, this is the way it’s going. I for one love the idea.
I sense a little “growin’ up pains” awkwardness here. The simple fact is, “Blender has arrived.” It is a professional-grade tool, and one of the best-all-around open source tools, and it is going to attract professional interest and collabs with for-profit concerns.
After all these years of people asking for it, looks like it’s finally time to build a python web calls module for Blender. 
LET THE HYPERLINKING BEGIN!
Agreed, his proposal came to mind when this thread popped up.
So regardless of weather you happen to like the idea or you happen to be Zalamander, this is the way it’s going. I for one love the idea.
Agree again, it is a wonderful direction for Blender. The nature of the industry is changing so much, that Blender could easily expand on its donation stream while hitting one of the fastest growing markets.
It’s funny too because I’m sure we will see many arguments mourning the loss of the game engine and how it spells the end of independent game development. All with shades of the same “Is BI on it’s way out?” topics I’m sure. But if you take a second and think about it, you’ll see that as independent game developers, you’ll ne long er have to suffer through any of the inadequacies of the BGE. Your options will be opened up to a wider array of engines. Support for those engines has been a sore spot over the years. My hope is that this will mean that getting your assents and animations into programs like UnrealEd and Unity will be even better than before. Eventually, as Blender is hopefully accepted as a professional tool for use with those engines, new opportunities could open up.
I’m sure Zalamander will say that this “Will never happen” and “You’re just making up hypothetical possibilities!” or “Show me one instance where this has actually happened!” I mean, you can choose to see it either way, I just like to look at the possible “Positive” outcome.
So regardless of whether you happen to like the idea or whether you happen to be Zalamander …
I’m sure Zalamander will say…
Sure, whatever… rolls eyes
nice!, that’s the way it should be…
blender’s game engine sucks in a lot of many different ways, its cool for quick prototypes and what not, but so far haven’t seen anyone doing one half decent game with it, so cutting the loses and using what’s good from it is the best way to go.
blender’s development will yes or yes benefit of this sort of partnership with valve, even more than the benefit that it gets from “open movie projects” because now it won’t be: “let’s try and figure out how the industry does it”… it going to be “industry is going this way, let’s move forward.”, which may or may not be in everyones mindset, but it’ll make blender more popular, have more users, and advance it’s development, which in the end I think is on everyone’s best interest…
thank you valve, for HL1, hl2 (and it’s episodes) and CS =)
and now this, you guys are an admirable company.
Maybe this argument might hold more water a year or so ago when the BGE’s development rate was at a rather low point, but this summer alone saw more than 2 dozen bugfixes, a built in LOD system that works in the viewport, ‘add’ mode for layer blending of actions, adaptive Vsync, major cleanup work in the Blenderplayer code, and other assorted small features and fixes. Kupoman is also working on improving the shadow system which may bring point light shadows and long distance sunlight shadows within the next month. Moguri meanwhile is experimenting with ways for tighter integration of the BGE into the Blender core (ie. code sharing and the like) so we will get that fully integrated interactive mode, but as an evolution of the existing BGE as is which will still be capable of full-size game creation that can be distributed and without massive disruption of current projects.
To be frank, dropping the current BGE in favor of supporting closed-source engines that you have to pay for to use all of the features would more or less be the death knell of FOSS having any sort of future for the near term in terms of game creation (as other engines like Jmonkey are either not fully integrated development apps. like Unity or are filled with bugs and/or performance issues.
This makes me wonder if some just assume that nothing goes on in the BGE forums, if you would read the forums you would find a lot more activity than what is implied here.
sure my knowledge about bge is probably super outdated, but maybe right now maybe it’s not the time for blender’s game engine, maybe it’s managed to be a unbeatable tool in every game creation pipeline, and then based on all that experience you build a bge that works, that’s multiplatform, that plays in mobile devices, etc etc, … it could be a more strategic approach.
Just thoughts, i don’t mean to hurt anyones feelings, nor dismiss anyone’s work, i’m probably the less appropriate person to talk specifically about the bge, but then again we all have our opinion, experience, background and ideas of where we’d want blender to go in the future.
Not to be a pain, Ace Dragon, but whilst there is a lot of activity in the BGE forums, there isn’t much in the way of great results. There are some awesome shader setups, cool physics experiments, and a wide variety interesting building blocks… but as for published and popular games, not so much forthcoming. I don’t say this to bag out the BGE, but to point out that forum activity is not an indicator it has a successful future.
With that said, no-one is saying that Blender only has to work with closed-source engines. There is a wide variety of open-source game engines outside those you refer to - GameKit, OGRE, Urho3D, Horde3D, the idTech series of GPL’d code, Cube/Sauerbraten, Torque3D, Panda3D, etc, etc. Just because the Blender Foundation is not the one developing a game engine doesn’t mean that the only engines it’ll work with are going to be closed source. Improvements in the modelling, texturing, and export functionality that Valve could/would contribute effort/funds towards are of benefit to everyone putting together game assets in Blender.
Let’s leave the issues with the Blender Foundation choosing to focus on Blender and not the BGE for another thread. Valve is not involved in, responsible for, or a party to the arguments about BGE & it’s future. It’s not fair on them (and those of us happy with their choice to get involved in Blender) to have this thread turn into something they cannot (& should not) be involve in.
The bigger question is what exactly have we seen get done using the BGE? Anything commercial? Does the licensing get in the way or help a developer?
These are questions thats important. If all it is is a toybox/sandbox for playing around with stuff, then its really wasted. Not all game engines are commercial in cost or scope, yet they manage to show more than the BGE has. There are so many better and more viable engines not changed down by certain licensing agreements that empower the developer far more. A major aspect of Blender is it is a content creation package, not a engine on its own…nor should it be (with its licensing restrictions).
Its far wiser, more logical to keep blender as the tool for the content creation and visualization than to make it a stand alone game engine.
Games are more often made with many tools in a pipeline, and encouraging users to only stay within blender isnt productive…and as such we havent seen much in the way of actual products/games.
Well removing the BGE will mean removing the one thing that makes Blender unique compared with all other packages, and that is a software that also acts as a game development tool capable of rapid testing and zero-pipeline development. Without the BGE, Blender becomes just another content creation package that forces use of exporters and other content pipeline tools (which I’m guessing is something that some want here, heck I’ve heard of a few people at CGTalk who advocate the creation of more pipeline with specialization of apps. and a common format).
Personally, I would prefer the Blender-BGE route rather than the edit > export > edit in the game engine > test > go back to step 1 deal that you have to do with other 3D apps. (I know that Unity was able to read .blend file contents at one point, but getting the changes in Unity required saving the file).
Of course the embedded solution also gives another interesting possibility, it’s quite easy to have many objects (with or without logic) that appear in just one scene in the entire game (providing the game calls for it), doing it in other engines means inflating the asset list and making for more searching for the ones that are common (and this includes many copies of the same basic object, but with a slight variance in each one). Also, Moguri, Kupoman, Agoose77, and HG1 have been removing various roadblocks for projects and will mean that little actually gets completed because of the lack of patience, skill, or commitment people have for large projects.
To which the immediate response I have is So what? That hasn’t resulted in anymore finished projects than engines that are not integrated into their content creation applications. Something being unique does not make it worth maintaining, especially by developers that are far from interested in doing so.*
If you could point to the fact that Blender & BGE being integrated resulted in more games being finished, the games being better, and/or the game engine being more flexible/powerful as a result; that might be something worth arguing about. Fact is, that’s not the case and the Blender Foundation has to prioritise it’s development efforts. The game engine really hasn’t borne fruit, so it’s prudent to consider it be removed or at least altered in a way that makes it useful for users that DO complete their works.
I can understand that and, due to the wonders of having the complete source code for doing that right now, there is no reason why you cannot continue to have that. No-one is getting rid of the versions of Blender that allow you to do that and, due to the licensing of the source code, you are free to change and alter it to your heart’s desire fixing the problems that have prevented it from being the premier game engine solution in the FOSS world. If you think that, perhaps, you lack the time, resources, knowledge, skill, and/or priority in your life to do that… then perhaps you might understand why the Blender Foundation is not that keen on keeping it around as is.
More to the point, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with Valve’s decision to get involved in Blender for those developing assets for their games. They aren’t coming to Blender advocating for/against the BGE. Their decision, and efforts, are to help make Blender a better &/or more popular asset creation tool for their external game engines. This is a good thing and trying to hijack the thread about it because you’re not happy with the decision the Blender Foundation made in regards to the BGE is pretty weak.
There are other threads where this has been discussed and is more appropriate. Complaining about a decision that has already been made to people not interested in the subject comes across (at best) like you’re just trying to derail the thread or (at worst) like you’re deliberately trolling. I’m assuming the former, given your commentary elsewhere, but I could be convinced of the latter easily - especially if you continue trying to wreck a thread about something good happening in regards to Blender support/involvement by organisations that actually DO publish games.
[SUB]* You don’t honestly think the BGE decision was reached by Ton over the howling cries of protest from other Blender Foundation developers, right?)[/SUB]
I’m quoting myself because I think it’s hilarious that not three posts later, it actually starts happening.
Look Ace, I get what you are saying and I think in some sense you are right that it is a unique feature and will surely be missed by many people. But Blender has many other things that make it unique that are far more successful. A built in compositor, video sequence editor, dynamic topology sculpting, animated pose sculpting, etc. are all very unique features that have a much better chance of being successful. The game engine is definitely not the one thing that makes it unique. It is definitely a unique feature but hardly the one. And really, Blender is a content creation tool. But I think that’s okay. It’s not like that’s a bad thing.
And I don’t think anyone was suggesting that we get rid of it entirely. Actually no one here even made that suggestion. It’s actually Ton who wanted to “Integrate” the game engine into the rest of Blender and make it and “Interactive” mode.
I’m hoping these early dealings with Valve are actually the prelude to figuring out a better export strategy then what you describe. To me, that’s kind of the point of this discussion though. I know there are no plans at the moment but if you read what Ton wrote, he is advocating a new kind of export system that’s patterned more like the 3rd party render API. So it’s conceivable that at some point there may even be a system or API for game engines where you don’t even notice the export stage. where the game engine runs right inside the Blender window. It’s actually not at all far fetched. Even right now, the unity game engine can be embedded in just about any app. I think it’s important to start brainstorming about this kind of thing now. We need to start thinking outside the box.
I’m sure there are some really great things happening inside the BGE. But the probelm is that they are only great in relation to the roadblocks of BGE and not in relation to the rest of the game industry. In order to make a competitive engine that people what to use, you need to keep up with the constantly shifting landscape. Blender has been able so far to do this with the Main App but the game engine has fallen way behind. The rest of the industry is already moving on to next-gen technology that we can only dream of and would take tons of work to get inside of BGE. Can you imagine trying to do real-time hair/fur/grass in BGE? What about real-time cloth or ambient occlusion? and those aren’t even next-gen technologies. I haven’t even mentioned things like real-time fluid dynamics or facial expression engines. Well, that’s just the kind of stuff that that rest of the industry is moving onto. I don’t think it’s fair to expect the BGE developers to be able to have the kind of focused rescourses needed to pursue this kind of development.
You may be asking yourself but why do indy game developers need these kinds of resources? If anything, Indy game developers need these things more than anyone right now to stand out from the crowd and be successful.
And if BGE isn’t going to pursue these kinds of effects and technologies then what’s the point?
Lastly, It seems like you’re kind of disregarding the info in the page I posted:
http://code.blender.org/index.php/20…-8-and-beyond/
If you scroll to the bottom, you’ll see the future plans for the BGE. I hope this doesn’t come off and insulting because I can’t imagine that you missed it. But it’s seems clear to me that this is a plan that is in motion.
… and who where afraid of letting some CS gaming kids in on this forum 