That’s most likely due to low rankings. Lemmy doesn’t prevent it.

My guess: The kids who used Discord for gaming grew up, and just went with the familiar thing when starting new communities and projects.

Also, Discord did heavy marketing early on, until it carved out a network effect. So here we are.

On the bright side:

Aggressive garbage collection and automatic thread locking are optional settings in most web forum software I’ve seen.

Lemmy shares some of the important parts of Usenet, and could develop into something that comes close.

• Terrible format for archiving knowledge
• Terrible tool for retrieving knowledge
• Locks community access behind a corporate license agreement
• Hands control of community-created content to a corporation
• Prevents indexing by web search engines
• Antithetical to interoperability
• Privacy-hostile

A web forum is far better in most cases. If you can’t manage to run your own, there are plenty of lemmy servers that will do it for you. Even an email list (with searchable archives) would be better than Discord.

If you have collaborative documents that outgrow the forum format, use a wiki.

If real-time chat is needed, irc or matrix.

A project hosting its community on Discord is a project that won’t get my contributions.

he’s gone off the rails in the last 6-12 months - complaining about needing more linux devs

It’s also ironic in light of his history of loudly bashing linux and linux game development.

I can’t think of anything good to say about Tim Sweeney.

I might give Backpack Battles a try. It doesn’t look like my usual style, but I heard there’s some good strategy under the surface, and I like that it’s made with Godot.

This is true in C, but not in D.

Relevant community, for people who like free games:

!freegames@feddit.uk

I’ll consider the possibility that the engine is blameless when I see two Unreal Engine games that do it well, hinting that it’s not unreasonably difficult. Sometimes a tool just doesn’t work well for certain uses. That could be due to a design that tries and fails, or one that doesn’t try at all and lacks a good foothold for a custom approach.

In any case, my comment is not about one specific issue. Thus the words “for example”. The point is that what GGP said was obvious is in fact not obvious. Blizzard might very well have passed on that engine because of limitations they found, regardless of whether they detailed them publicly.

Unreal Engine checks all of those

No, I don’t believe it does. In particular, Section 4: “How You Can Share the Licensed Technology When It Isn’t Part of a Product” imposes restrictions that contradict the very first clause in the Open-Source definition: “Free Redistribution”.

At a quick glance, I expect the royalty requirements fail the first clause as well, but there’s no point in combing through them for this conversation, given the above.

You obviously want to believe otherwise, though, and I don’t want to argue with you. Feel free to test it in court. Good luck.

https://opensource.org/osd/

Read the license. It’s what we generally call “source available”, but it does not qualify as open-source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available

It brings up the issue of royalties because those are part of Unreal Engine’s license terms.

The decision of whether to modify software to suit one’s needs is often about the level effort required, both initially and for ongoing maintenance and support. Having permission to do it doesn’t magically make it worthwhile.

And no, Unreal Engine is not open-source. (Which brings up another possible factor in Blizzard’s decision: Royalty payments.)

I’m not so sure.

Unreal Engine can obviously handle some things well, but when I’ve seen it used for less common mechanics, the results have been mixed. For example, climbing and traversing uneven terrain are pretty bad in games like Palworld and Palia. Compare to the Breath of the Wild engine, which handles those things beautifully.

It’s plausible that such mechanics were planned for this game, and that Unreal Engine made it difficult to get results that meet Blizzard’s standards.

So with normal use it should be fine for a few decades.

Considering that “normal use” can be so very different among different people/applications/climates, I don’t put a lot of stock in assessments like that, but it is at least one prediction to compare against when we see what happens in practice. Time will tell.

I’m curious how long the current gen OLED consoles will be in use before they develop screen burn-in.

Add 3D V-Cache, too, please. :)

Or by people formerly paying for their internet service with money that should have been going toward food or heat.

Losing the $30 monthly discount could force families to choose between broadband and other necessities,

Exactly.

It’s also important to note that some ISPs created a low-cost service plan specifically for ACP. (It’s reasonable to assume this was possible in part because ACP handled income verification and eliminated the costs of individual billing and credit card payments.) That plan will likely disappear if ACP goes away, leaving poor people stuck paying a bill much higher than the program ever paid.

I wonder how Palworld’s early access release is affecting development of DokeV.

Gameplay trailer, for those who missed it: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=LNXamzH_TQk

dedent() can help with that.