Free Godot engine port for Nintendo Switch

https://www.rawrlab.com/godot_nintendo_switch_free_port.html

by ekianjo • 2 years ago

398 223 2 years ago

fwsgonzo• 2 years ago

Unsurprisingly, no plugins. Just plain-old GDScript, but embedding a faster scripting solution into the C++ codebase is not too hard for serious work.

andybak• 2 years ago

Why unsurprisingly? I'm not familiar with console ecosystems.

a1o2• 2 years ago

The engine has an interpreter for Godot script so if you port it you can already run the games. Native code is it's own porting problem, it should be easy for a developer but game developers in particular that knows an engine may not be familiar with writing native code - they may have been using a plugin they found on the internet and now they will have to port that native code too by themselves.

runevault2• 2 years ago

I'll be curious if once the AOT c# hooks are added (hopefully with 4.3) if that will be able to work or not.

TheRoque• 2 years ago

What these people do is super cool. How can one learn to be in a team that does things like this ?

Grimblewald• 2 years ago

Couple of ways I can think of.

1. Build it and they will come 2. Talk to coworkers about a cool idea you had, gather the interested and start leading that project

echelon• 2 years ago

1. Build it and they will come

This is absolutely true. Make sure you have a Discord or some social means of connecting with folks.

delecti• 2 years ago

Best bet is probably to start by making a game. One option is to start by building a simple game using an existing engine, and eventually get deeper and deeper into the libraries you're using until you decide to contribute back to that engine, or create your own. Alternatively you could just start by making something incredibly simple, a Pong or NES Mario clone, and then work your way up through the generations to something more modern. The first approach is probably easier, as you'd have lots of tutorials from the community around the modern engine.

tussa• 2 years ago

Does Nintendo take a 50% cut if you publish on their eShop?

utf_8x• 2 years ago

It's most likely around 30% which seems to be the norm for stores like this

miohtama• 2 years ago

Also, physical retail distribution is likely around the same 30% ballpark.

teamonkey2• 2 years ago

Epic’s store is 12%. Tim Sweeney tweeted that Epic take 5% as profit and the rest are costs[1].

Puts the other stores’ 30% in context, though Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo do significantly more QA than Epic.

[1] https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/112044179501033881...

a1o2• 2 years ago

There are a few companies to choose from here: https://github.com/godotengine/godot-docs/blob/master/tutori...

kevincox3• 2 years ago

Currently, the only console Godot officially supports is Steam Deck (through the official Linux export templates).

This line makes me so happy that the Steam Deck is doing well. I hope they can show that by making it easier for developers and open source projects they will get more and better games. I'm sure it isn't a huge difference, but if over time an ecosystem can be built it would be very powerful.

weinzierl5• 2 years ago

My 12 year old and I made a little game in Godot and it turned out pretty playable.

I think in her peer group the second most popular device after the iPhone is the Switch. It would be incredibly cool if we could get our game to run there. I already found two GitHub repos with Godot ports, and this RAWRLAB announcement confirms that it will be doable on a technical level.

However, I reckon that we do not qualify for authorized Nintendo Switch developer. What would be the easiest way to get the game running on just our Switch?

I already ordered a Mig Switch and a dumper[1], but I'm not sure if this is the best way to go.

[1] https://migswitch.store/

falker• 2 years ago

The migswitch will not allow you to run unsigned code, only clones of official cartridges. Get an old “unpatched” v1 switch or newer with a rp2040 modchip.

lastgeniusua• 2 years ago

I'm not sure the Mig Switch will allow you to play homebrew, it is designed to replicate the (apparently reverse-engineered) security protocol of game cards signed by Nintendo. The Github repos you've seen previously are probably your best bet, they're designed for homebrew development, but to launch these you'd need to mod your Switch: with an unpatched original model (could easily be verified on https://ismyswitchpatched.com/) it's as easy as connecting two pins with a paperclip and injecting a USB payload with your PC, with patched later models this requires a modchip soldered onto the board.

gjsman-10007• 2 years ago

Even with that though, home-brew games are almost nonexistent on the Switch, or extremely minimal. Having the ability to launch a game with a modded Switch, doesn't mean you have access to the SDK, or the documentation. Without those things, you really can't write any useful programs. It's like gaining access to the cockpit of a plane, and having no manual or labels on what all the buttons do.

If you truly want to develop a Switch game, you need the SDK, and dev hardware is basically necessary as well. That's only coming from a deal with Nintendo.

realslimjd• 2 years ago

Nintendo really wanted to encourage indie gaming on the Switch, so any individual can register to be an authorized developer: https://developer.nintendo.com/.

weinzierl5• 2 years ago

I saw that initially and was encouraged, but my further research suggests that you need to buy a development kit about which I could find virtually no info. I can only assume that it is expensive.

revjx• 2 years ago

It's not that easy, unfortunately - I'm a registered developer (for the Wii U) and to be 'enabled' for Switch development, you need to jump through a bunch of hoops including describing your previous experience with games development and so on.

The barrier for Wii U was significantly lower thanks to the 'Nintendo Web Framework', a web tech SDK that let you build games without needing to use tooling like Unity or mess around with the more complicated SDKs Nintendo provide. You didn't need prior games dev experience to get registered for that.

That said - maybe they've relaxed the criteria a bit now to give first time game devs a chance to get published on Switch.

GlickWick• 2 years ago

It’s extremely hard. I’ve tried to get my released games into the Switch and am rejected because I don’t have a team with console launch experience. Nintendo asks for team member resumes etc.

Of course at the same time they have tons of junk in the store. It turns out the trick is to just use a publisher.

stavros4• 2 years ago

How does the Mig Switch site not say at all what the product is? I clicked around for two minutes and still have no clue what it is or does.

weberer2• 2 years ago

It is a flashcard. It lets you load copies of games onto a SD card and the Switch will read them as official cartridges. The site mentions that its only for backups of your own purchased games, but most people buy them for piracy.

traverseda3• 2 years ago

Well one of it's main uses is playing pirated nintendo switch games, which they're not going to advertise.

cptaj• 2 years ago

Its a flashcart

roryokane• 2 years ago

A product description is available if you click the “View full details” link to the bottom right of the Buy button, which leads to https://migswitch.store/products/mig-switch-pre-order. I agree that that information should be more prominent.

jchw• 2 years ago

If you're dealing with a Nintendo Switch that has the RCM exploit, that is probably the easiest path to getting unsigned code. I think Mig Switch is probably only useful for commercial game backups and piracy.

I have only used the RCM exploit to boot Linux, but I believe you can also use it to boot custom firmware like Atmosphere, and presumably that is the path to which you could see your own games running in Horizon.

fxtentacle• 2 years ago

Just email Nintendo. They sometimes make exceptions for interesting indie developers and/or hobbyists. And the dev kits are affordable.

gundamdoubleO• 2 years ago

I wouldn't recommend using the mig unless you're willing to risk a console ban from all online services (if you care about that).

joenot443• 2 years ago

Your best bet would be to buy an unpatched Switch from eBay (https://www.ebay.com/itm/144952360896, etc), make or purchase an RCM jig, and dive into the homebrew scene. GbaTemp is a good place to start.

Outside of buying an official dev kit, I think that may be your only option.

torginus• 2 years ago

I honestly don't get why console makers get a boner at the thought of disallowing third party software.

What do they gain out of this?

With proper security protocols you can sandbox your application well enough that hackers shouldn't be able to get to the OS.

And if they do find an exploit, the vendor can always force an OS upgrade, and prevent downgrades with hardware fuses, with new games requiring the latest OS.

It's not like console vendors aren't doing all this right now.

djur2• 2 years ago

Making piracy more difficult, primarily.

ranger207• 2 years ago

It's largely the same reasons Apple doesn't want alternative app stores on their phones

ook• 2 years ago

Royalties.

Quality Control.

Brand Alignment (historically a big deal for Nintendo).

Scheduling input.

Security by obscurity.

araes2• 2 years ago

Tragedy of the commons. By making the barrier to entry high, it means that only significantly capitalized businesses with significant assets to wager and lose can actually publish anything. It means that there's (less) app spam, because not every couch publisher can type "ChatGPT, make me a game with the default Unity assets."

graphe5• 2 years ago

If you want a device that does everything buy it. I don't care if my Roku doesn't do something all arm devices can do even though it can. I didn't buy a PS4 to install Ubuntu I want to pop a game in.

Retr0id6• 2 years ago

I'd recommend canceling your Mig Switch order.

First and foremost, it financially supports some very sketchy players in the commercial piracy (under)world.

Secondly, it won't let you play homebrew games - only officially signed nintendo software.

Thirdly, you'll have to keep your console offline forever, if you plan to use it - you can bet Nintendo will start revoking cart certificates and banning consoles at the first opportunity (each genuine cartridge is uniquely identifiable).

We have completely free solutions to both """backups""" and homebrew. Your best bet is to find a cheap model with an unpatched bootrom, and your second best bet is to install an rp2040-based glitching modchip (or find someone to install it for you, if you're not comfortable with microsoldering).

graphe5• 2 years ago

What online switch game is worth playing? I'm sure the mig will be decrypted, and they will just fake the signature for the homebrew games. I think that's how some of the older homebrew worked. The scene is pretty dead since smartphones exist though.

I agree he should just get an old one but aside from maybe not liking the mig guys I don't see a problem with the product. The amount of blood from mining in Africa for my minerals probably isn't too moral either.

Nullabillity5• 2 years ago

Buying a Switch in the first place supports some very sketchy players.

punkybr3wster• 2 years ago

Unrelated but I’m kind of terrified what the mig is going to do to the market. Crazy piece of tech but the signed carts getting cloned are going to get real interesting real fast.

DeltaWhy• 2 years ago

Others have commented on homebrew, but there are a couple "game engines" available for the Switch that don't require modding. Nintendo released their own, Game Maker Garage, which uses a block-based coding environment. There are also two I know of that use a more traditional programming language: SmileBASIC and Fuze.

Both are similar to PICO-8 or other "fantasy consoles" where you get a full environment that runs on-device, with a code editor, tools for editing sprites, tile maps, music, and sounds, and a library of stock assets. Fuze also has a cheap "player" app so your kid's friends wouldn't need to buy the full app to play anything she makes. I've only poked around them a bit, but they seem like pretty capable environments that might be a good option for a kid that's interested in programming. The obvious limitation is that you're locked in to that platform - as far as I can tell there's no way to run your games on PC.

weberer2• 2 years ago

My Switch is hacked. Can I still use this to make unsigned Godot games and run them on my Switch?

thejsa• 2 years ago

Not without a Nintendo SDK license agreement and signing their NDA.

On the other hand, there’s a nice homebrew port you could certainly use that’s been around for years:

https://github.com/Stary2001/godot

Aissen• 2 years ago

It's interesting that they did not keep this a paid product, and use that as a lever:

1. to either get more customers

2. or to get Nintendo to remove the terms forbidding the open source release of software built on their platform

I am guessing that 1. will happen anyway, and 2. isn't needed since they have found a middle ground with Nintendo hosting details on their developer portal.

teamonkey2• 2 years ago

The fact that Godot requires/required a third party studio to port your game to consoles is a major turnoff and one of the things preventing developers jumping on the Godot train. From a solo dev point of view, too scary and expensive; from an indie company's point of view it's an unwanted extra expense and a potential point of failure that you can't control.

This opens things up considerably, despite the Nintendo walled garden.

LelouBil• 2 years ago

I'd assume for solo devs porting to multiple platforms is harder without external help.

TillE2• 2 years ago

"Official" paid console ports are coming very soon (Q1 2024) from W4 Games, the company run by Godot's core developers.

https://w4games.com/products/

runevault2• 2 years ago

No open source project can do it without third party support, the NDAs/etc required for getting access to the SDKs to build against those platforms prohibits it.

weinzierl5• 2 years ago

What does 2. mean exactly? That I am not allowed to publish the source code of my Switch game as open source? What if my Switch port shared code (for example all the GDScript) with other ports. Does Nintendo also forbid me to publish this as open source? Can you use open source assets in a Switch game?

crysin• 2 years ago

I'm not a licensed Nintendo developer but off of my knowledge from the Wii U era...

The Godot game engine cannot include any of the Nintendo Switch SDK nor can your game include any of the Nintendo Switch SDK or APIs unless you are a registered Nintendo developer and have signed their NDA. You cannot share any of Nintendos proprietary code or information.

So you could share your source code for a Switch game, minus any code or SDKs specific to the Switch.

drzaiusx11• 2 years ago

I thought Godot was already being used in Switch games for the past couple years; for example, Sonic Colors used Godot for the engine. What differentiates this release? Did the sonic team make their own port or something?

koromak2• 2 years ago

In the PC-to-console world, there is no open solution. Everyone either builds their own ports, or (more likely) pays a porting company to do the work for them, who in turn have built there own solution. Console developer kits are proprietary, no one is allowed to share the API or source code.

This seems to be unique in that, if you get a License from Nintendo, you're allowed to access this companies kit for free.

ukd12• 2 years ago

Which then is MIT licensed - so why can't that then be further shared?

ufo• 2 years ago

What was the status quo before this?

koromak2• 2 years ago

You find a company who does Godot ports and pay them, with zero visibility into the underlying tech

magic_hamster• 2 years ago

This is great news! Too bad there's no C# support as of yet. But it's definitely a step in the right direction. Plus, not all projects need the performance boost of C#. Seems like Godot is about to grab a bit more market share from Unity.

FrustratedMonky4• 2 years ago

In what way? The website says there is C# support. What facet are you describing needs it?

Curious, because would also like to use C#, and website says it does, you say it doesn't. I'm wondering what is up.

mattsan2• 2 years ago

The website says this: https://arc.net/l/quote/btugrszz

tslater2006• 2 years ago

The linked page says the following:

No C# or GDNative/GDExtension: Only GDScript is supported. Native extensions are not supported, but you can try to convert them into internal modules.

lionkor• 2 years ago

C# is fully supported, you just install godot mono

sandyarmstrong• 2 years ago

From the page:

No C# or GDNative/GDExtension: Only GDScript is supported. Native extensions are not supported, but you can try to convert them into internal modules.

vunderba3• 2 years ago

Even outside of the Nintendo switch, C# is only partially supported. If you want to develop web games in Godot 4 you can't use C#.

wly_cdgr• 2 years ago

Very cool project, but if they want this to matter for commercial indie devs, it needs to have C# support. It's not so much about performance, it's more about working with a marketable-skill language, ease of coming over from Unity / Monogame, and expertise level of developer community.

Vespasian• 2 years ago

How does that work with the MIT license?

I presume they signed a rather restrictive proprieatary license and/or an NDA to get access to nintendos sdks and tool (as is common on other consoles).

Then one person breaking the NDA would make the Switch Godotport (and therefore some of Nintendos property (method names /usage )) legally available to anybody else (they didn't sign an NDA after all and it's probably not a copyright violation unless it includes actual code/binary).

I am not a lawyer so I'm probably very wrong.

anthk3• 2 years ago

MIT allows that. LGPL would in theory but you would need to release the potential changes you did to the game engine. GPL woudn't in any way.

kevincox3• 2 years ago

But if they give me the source under the MIT license then I am free to redistribute it.

So while they would be in their right to make a proprietary port it seems like they wouldn't be able to legally release it under MIT. (Or at least not the whole thing, as code that touches Nintendo's API would need more restrictions)

Capricorn24812• 2 years ago

I am interested in Godot, but seeing these projects makes me more nervous than not. I always wonder

- How seamless is it

- How screwed am I if it doesn't work

- Would the headache/risk of dealing with Unity be less than the potential catastrophe of not getting a working switch version

tombert2• 2 years ago

I know "asymptotically close to zero" about game development and the like, so if someone who works in this space could answer this I'd be appreciative: what, if anything, would make you use Unity or Unreal instead of Godot for making a game today?

This isn't meant as a passive aggressive question to push some kind of open source narrative, but a genuine curiosity. Since I know basically nothing about the industry, I'm curious to what something like Unity or Unreal still offers over an engine that has no licensing fees.

sbergot• 2 years ago

I am also not from the industry but here are some godot downsides from what I understand:

- script performances are worst than unreal or unity

- no asset market place

- 3d features are not up to par with other engines (level of details, shadows, etc)

For a classic 2d game it seems to have no significant downside. For a resource intensive 3d game it will depend.

LarsDu88• 2 years ago

I've done game jams with both Godot and Unity.

Mainly the plug-ins, particularly third party plug-ins for unity are better.

One of them being cinemachine.

Another example would be a tool call technique collider creator that let's you paint collider primitives. That tool alone saved about 300 hours of work.

For many developers the Cinemachine tool is very useful as well.

The other feature is the ability to edit game objects while the game is running in editor mode for debugging. This is the sole major feature Godot currently lacks compared to unreal and Unity imo

Beyond that Unity has a better overall design IMO encouraging users towards composition over inheritance and NOT encouraging use of some one shot interpreted scripting language (GDscript)

Does this justify the 100x greater size of Unity as an organization over Godot? Probably not

tombert2• 2 years ago

This is exactly the feedback I was interested in...thanks!

I think these kinds of criticisms are necessary for open source stuff to become competitive with proprietary offerings; it feels like Blender, for example, has taken these criticisms pretty seriously and as a result it's started to become competitive with proprietary tools (at least in the "prosumer" and lighter professional spaces).

I'm sure they're already doing this, but Godot should probably keep a list of all these bits of feedback and start fundraising to build these features.

gs173• 2 years ago

cinemachine

Check out Phantom Camera: https://github.com/ramokz/phantom-camera

mattlondon3• 2 years ago

The other feature is the ability to edit game objects while the game is running in editor mode for debugging.

+1 to this. Having switched to trying Godot Vs unity, this was the biggest "missing feature" that made godot harder to work with Vs unity. (I am no pro, not even indie, just a hobbyist)

In unity you can pause that game and view and/or modify game object's variables/properties/etc in real time. In Godot it feels like it just compiles and runs a binary that is disconnected from the editor. Yes you can debug the code, but the "live" integration with the visual editor is very useful when prototyping and trying out ideas as it lets you move things around and change variables, which you can't really do with debugging

pfist• 2 years ago

I have over ten years experience with Unreal, so the cost of switching engines would be very high, and must offer something irresistible in return.

Regarding your second question: Unreal effectively has no licensing fee for most developers. The engine is free, you get access to the full source code, and you pay a 5% royalty only after you have made $1 million gross revenue.

beardedmoose2• 2 years ago

A few years ago I started messing with Unity and for the most part it was a decent engine with many platforms you can target which is a huge plus. Their whole licensing issue of late made me think though, do I really want to put years of my life into building a game when the owner of the engine can make changes which negatively impact my project?

Now, this could happen with any engine that you don't own but Epic uses their engine to create games themselves so they have an interest in further development which also benefits the users of the engine.

Godot is a newer kid on the block but has gained a lot of interest, especially after the Unity stunt. Now that it can target a Nintendo Switch there is even more reason to choose this engine as coding for game consoles can be pretty tricky as they usually have a lot of restrictions and tests they have to pass before you can launch on the platform.

Unreal and Unity offer maturity and vast knowledge available on the web for both if you want to learn the engine. Unreal has a visual scripting language which some love, both engines have storefronts where you can buy plugins, code, objects, all sorts of things to help make your game.

Capricorn24812• 2 years ago

But does it target switch? Or does a company offer porting to switch with potential issues?

SXX7• 2 years ago

Indie gamedev company co-founder here: 14 people team, 2 games released + next in progress and signed with publisher. There are few big reasons why you can't just go and use Godot.

Publishers. Basically 3 years ago when we made our first game together using Godot it was main reason why we were rejected by some publishers. Now situation can be slightly different, but many publishers still have in-house pipeline that only work for Unity and Unreal: QA, localization and console porting.

Asset Stores. Majority of modern games are not built from scratch and selection of ready-to-use components and assets available commercially would be like 1000x for two major commercial engines.

Hiring. It's take years and several commercial projects of experience to actually become effective at using specific game engine. There are just far less Godot experts arounds especially those with experience of making commercial game while working in team.

These reasons can sound like inertia, but it took decades for Unreal and Unity to conquer their market share and build their moat. I myself big open source and Linux nerd, but sadly it's will take another decade for Godot to make sensible dent in this market.

PS: We released first game on Godot and our following projects are built on Unity.

cevn4• 2 years ago

Sounds really unfortunate. I also know little about this process, what do the publishers do that we cannot do ourselves? I guess they have pre existing deals with the major console makers that allows them to send things to market with little friction? Maybe that's why some indie devs just target PC, they lock themselves out of the console market but also don't have to deal with publishers?

mardifoufs2• 2 years ago

Unity was already massive by its 5-7th year. It had tons and tons of released games at that stage. Not sure exactly why that hasn't happened with Godot but i guess it might still happen, just a bit more slowly.

ghostbrainalpha• 2 years ago

Nice answer. I have to say both the games on your Profile look great, and I am definitely going to try one tonight.

Do you recommend I start with Dwarven Skykeep or Vengence of Mr. Peppermint if I'm playing on a Steam Deck?

johnnyjeans2• 2 years ago

My opinion as a gamedev who doesn't work with engines like this:

-Unity and Unreal both offer better performance guarantees and more featureful runtimes than Godot

-Both represent much more mature ecosystems, with tooling that's again, more powerful than Godot

-Both have more robust communities and larger talent pools

All of this said, I'd be more likely to use Godot for a quick personal project than either Unity or Unreal. But then I'd be more likely to choose Raylib over any of these options to begin with. Other people's choices might be influenced by the above, or they might choose Unity/Unreal out of familiarity, or possibly even something as simple as marketing hype/market perception. I'm not really sure the current state of Godot, but last I toyed around with it, I got the impression of something that was in-between Gamemaker and Unity and that dominates my perception of it today.

xgkickt• 2 years ago

Whatever toolset most of the team are experienced and productive in, and support basically.

kevindamm• 2 years ago

Unity and Unreal still have more brand recognition, I'm sure there are project managers and creative managers that hadn't heard of Godot yet (though that is diminishing, I'm sure).

More importantly, there is institutionalized knowledge and established tooling in place at a lot of dev studios. The expertise in one engine takes at least a year or more to acquire before you can really make the engine purr. But it also affects the whole toolchain, not just the part inside the IDE -- assets created elsewhere (models, animations, audio) typically go through some massaging to be compatible in Unity or Unreal, or the particulars of the scene/project and this often done through some automation, that automation would likely have to be rewritten for a Godot workflow, or even if it didn't, that's certainly what a PM or other decision maker would anticipate.

There's also the asset store full of plugins, or in-house developed plugins, which extend the engine and would also likely need at least some part of it rewritten or replaced.

tezza3• 2 years ago

Unity so much more polished

Unity has Timeline (and Cinemachine)

Unity has Entity Component which is superior for many coders to Godot’s node system

Unity has better 3D

Unity has large bank of answered questions

Unity exports to WebGL

Unity Asset Store Assets are high quality, abundant and cost effective

djur2• 2 years ago

Entity Component which is superior for many coders

In what way?

gs173• 2 years ago

and Cinemachine

Phantom Camera does most of that in Godot.

Unity exports to WebGL

Godot also does that, albeit without C# support until the next major version.

djmips2• 2 years ago

Efficiency - if you really need it. Unreal, gives you source, so you technically have everything you need to customize and optimize for the console you're targeting.

jimmaswell2• 2 years ago

Compared to Godot, as a hobby/volunteer game dev on some projects spanning a decade or more: I know Unity already, I enjoy it and have no compelling reason to leave, and it's much more mature in features, optimization, etc.

Thaxll• 2 years ago

You're taking the problem in the wrong order, it's more why would I use Godot which is vastly inferior to unreal and unity.

Now what is inferior, well performance is bad, they have their own scripting language which no serious dev would want to use, they have c# integration but it's not on part. Assets, tooling is also inferior, you can't make console game with Godot etc...

Networking wise Godot has not much either.

That's the difference between an open source engine with not much investment and 100's $ put into unreal and unity.

tubs• 2 years ago

The navigation and path planning in godot are pretty primitive.

b33j0r• 2 years ago

So to clarify, a free game engine is being made available for free, if I have paid and/or been approved to be a qualified developer?

At least words still mean something

SXX7• 2 years ago

Console version is using proprietary SDK and they can only provide you source code if you signed NDA with Nintendo. That's it.

s17n2• 2 years ago

How can they restrict access to authorized developers but also use the MIT license? Can't any authorized developer simply post the code on the internet?

fl0id• 2 years ago

You answered your own question.

SXX7• 2 years ago

Basically to use code they provide under MIT you also need to couple it with a proprietary SDK from Nintendo. If you post any proprietary bits on internet Nintendo will eat you alive.

kevincox3• 2 years ago

But presumably the port touches the proprietary bits. So either A) that interface is not allowed to be distributed under the MIT license and they have a problem with Nintendo or B) the interface is fine to publish under MIT so why not make it more available?

Ghufran007• 2 years ago

I'm intrigued by Godot popping up in Switch games - Sonic Colors being a case in point. What's newsworthy about this particular use? Did Sonic Team do a custom port with Godot?

ChadNauseam• 2 years ago

Ignorant question: I don't understand why this type of thing is necessary. IIUC there is nothing illegal about looking at leaked SDK docs and using emulators to contribute a Switch build target for Godot. Then game developers who want to develop Switch games could buy a devkit and build their games for switch, just like how I can build an APK for Android in Unity and load it onto my phone. Is the only thing stopping open source game engines from doing this a lack of time/funding/expertise/interest?

danShumway5• 2 years ago

License: The source code is distributed under the MIT License, offering broad usage and modification rights.

I might be missing something, but how did they manage to swing this? I thought proprietary NDAs around the Switch's API were the biggest holdups preventing Switch support from being added to Godot itself.

I would have assumed this would be free but would require signing some kind of source-available license that forced you to still respect the NDAs.

wmf4• 2 years ago

It's not vanilla MIT but some kind of MIT + NDA.

danShumway5• 2 years ago

MIT + NDA

Okay, that's... not MIT then? I don't understand, you can't just call things MIT if they're not actually MIT and don't have the same license terms. Is the page just lying about what the license is?

"I'm giving away a product for free, but it's the special kind of free where it's free and you have to give me 20 dollars to get it."

This was annoying enough when Mongo released source available code and called it Open Source, but have we graduated to releasing full-on proprietary code that doesn't even hit common thresholds of source available licenses and we're just calling it Open Source anyway?

fifilura• 2 years ago

If you want to make games together with your kids there is also Fuze4 for Switch.

https://www.fuze.co.uk/nintendo-switch.html

Free Godot engine port for Nintendo Switch

Related Stories