you could maybe include a link to the Nintendo Developer Portal application process. at 0:44 "...its going to cast you anywhere from eight hundred dollars a year to four hundred dollars a year..."
Considering you can't run your builds on a switch without being a nintendo develloper anyway this is as available as it can be. Great news as always with Godot, steadily growing to become the Blender of game engines.
@@UltimatePerfection You can install Godot android builds on a moded switch already, much simpler than trying to get your hands on a switch developer sdk for which you wouldn't have support or documentation. Blender does a lot already and the game engine failed to generate the hype Godot is receiving. So long as we have widely adopted open source 'standard' I'm happy. Be it Godot or something else.
idk about you guys but It was basically just a sugarcoated way to advertise paying to be an authorized Nintendo Switch Developer Cause by the end of the day you need to pay to be an authorized Nintendo Switch Developer. Why they even need to mention MIT license when that is a house hold term for FOSS? It's like Unity saying the unity api is MIT but you need to be an authorized Unity Developer which the requirements are -- Money. They could just announced Godot api was added to the Nintendo Switch Developer support and need to sign an NDA. It's like exploiting the tag Free-to-play again but in the end it's actually P2W, even more than retail.
@@MangaGamified I'm not sure what you mean. If you want to release the games on Nintendo Switch you need to be an authorized Nintendo Switch Developer (which does not cost anything by itself if I remember correctly except the cost of the devkit you need to buy to develop the games). If you want to use Unity/Unreal for the same purpose you also need to be authorized and only then you'll get access to a plugins/source code necessary to build games for Nintendo Switch. Heck, even if you code your own engine you need to be an authorized console developer to release the game on those platforms and get access to SDK and build tools. This project is made by a group of developers that decided to give their tools to anyone that wants them, without any additional costs. It uses proprietary SDKs from Nintendo and because of the NDA's with Nintendo they legally can't share them with anybody who hasn't signed the NDA as well and the best way to verify it is to just give the access through the Nintendo Developer Portal because only those that have signed the NDA with Nintendo can access it. This project allows developers that want to release their games on the console officially do it much easier. If you want to make homebrew games for modded consoles then there are other ways to do so and this project is not aimed for you anyway.
This is absolutely incredible! I was considering switching to Defold for Switch games due to W4’s cost but it looks like I won’t have to do that anymore. I’m so excited to eventually get my games running on the system (whenever I actually sign up lmao)
It's MIT, so if you already have a copy of the source you're free to do whatever you want with it, with attribution. Unfortunately, Nintendo devs are under NDA regarding the specifics of the SDK, and distributing the source widely would be in violation of *that* legal agreement, which the MIT license can't touch.
The “limitation” of needing to be a developer is the same for all major game engines anyway… the console makers want you under NDA before they’ll let you access that stuff and even technical issues can’t be openly discussed on Unity/Unreal Engine forums (there are special private sections)
Awesome! This was one of the things I was mildly concerned about when considering Godot over Unity. Now I'll be able to more fairly compare it against Unity once I have more experience with Godot
Instead of porting to Switch, I usually just take my buggy mess of a game, place it gently into the Recycling Bin, violently bash my computer to bits with a hammer, delicately reconstruct those bits into a miniature rocket ship, and launch that rocket ship into the surface of the sun. Much easier.
I really wish godot gets to form some legal body similar to the linux foundation to be able to integrate console exporting into the engine itself. I know the godot foundation exist, but i guess it's a matter of capital
The biggest problem is that to export for consoles, you need to link against proprietary libraries, the specifics of which (function signatures, etc.) are locked behind NDAs. for a large open source project, you can either: - have non-NDA'd reverse engineers with no access to proprietary information reimplement the SDK (very time-intensive, but doable) and get the manufacturer to accept the use of the 3rd party SDK on their store (literally impossible) or - release the source to all developers who have access to the official SDK (this)
When you have a Nintendo quality game ono your hands you obviously have some coding chops, so this might be an option. When you have that kind of game you probably can also pay for a decent port. Still, having an extra option is a good thing.
This is really great for the Godot engine, and also a great bit of PR for the company especially since they port games. This is what the Godot people/W4 should be doing. Give access if you are a verified developer, charge you if you want help. Hopefully this move by Rawrlabs gets the ball rolling on free console ports.
1 It not free at all, you need to be authorized by nintendo to use it for free. 2 w4 Games provides a lot of services with their ports compared to this simple system like support , enterprise services, optimizations already made that help, a lot of UX to make it easier to port, and they support all of the native godot features, gdextension c#, and all the complex functionality. 3 This port is still pretty much basic: It lacks optimizations, and supports basic features, without gdextension or c# support, and it just the switch , 1 console unlike w4 which will support all the main 3 and ps4 and xbox one(5). 4 This version is still outdated compared to the w4 ones( 4.1 and 3.5 only support them , not 4.2 ), meanwhile w4 support’s the latest. 5 Godot is not just capable because it MIT , it also has the policies of software freedom conservancy which makes this stuff even harder to have. Meanwhile other engines like Defold can do it via their partnerships with lots of team, which allows them to get the people necessary to develop this ports.. Moreover as their engine is mostly 2d and really Basic 3d functionality(as far as i know), it makes it simpler to port, and yea while it file size is bigger than godot by far, that because of all their template kits and services are the reason of the size, which doesn’t count as complexity but pure bloat. 6 This company was capable, because it had a partnership with nintendo forum people, which were the ones to add this support for free , for the people that are authorized to use.
Is it worth the hassle at this point in time though? Switch 2 on the horizon, you'd be better pressed releasing on steam with focus on having it run flawlessly on the Steamdeck, I'd guess or just go mobile in the first place. Both seem the better deal, remember, nothing in live you can have for free is worth having.
Man… call me crazy, I know my chances or actually releasing a game on the switch are incredibly low, even if I decide to just jailbreak it and port my game there and installing it there… but thats a dream i still haven’t discarded and in consequence I chose to learn Unity starting this year (or rather go back to, already used it but about 6-8 years ago)… also since I still want to have the career path open in case a job opportunity comes I have no option but to stick with unity (my day job I’m a software developer, hobbyist 3D modeler and recently got into pixel art and 2D). Meanwhile godot is getting cooler every day (also I love the logo/mascot)…
I cannot seem to understand why there are those who pronounce access as assess. The first c is hard. That is why it is spelled differently to assess. Nothing major. I just notice it and it's like nails down a chalkboard for me.
I don't understand why Godot makes this so difficult, they're shooting themselves in the foot by not offering built-in console porting. EVERY game engine has the same problems with NDA, regardless if they're open source or not. For example, Defold doesn't seem to have much trouble doing it. They don't just offer those parts of the code to everybody, they offer it to authorized developers. Godot could do the same, rather than overcomplicating this.
I’m more annoyed that I can’t import an mp4 video to godot and have to use some weird ass format instead that most video converters don’t have. I love godot but it’s definetely limited in multiple assspects
@@DEADEYESTUDIOwait really? I'm confused why that would be necessary, couldn't Godot just use FFMPEG to convert .mp4 into a format it understands? if licenses are incompatible, then heck make the user download it separately like that one fbx converter thing, and then it just works!
"H.264 and H.265 cannot be supported in core Godot, as they are both encumbered by software patents. AV1 is royalty-free, but it remains slow to decode on the CPU and hardware decoding support isn't readily available on all GPUs in use yet. WebM was supported in core in Godot 3.x, but support for it was removed in 4.0 as it was too buggy and difficult to maintain."
Wait, is this actually MIT licensed or are they just saying that? Because if the access is restricted to people with Nintendo Developer certifications, and one of them distributes it to people without them, then they don't have any restrictions on what they can and can't do with the SDK because of the MIT license (might be against nintendo's terms of service, but homebrew development is not illegal). Unless if there are crucial missing parts of the SDK not available with the MIT-licensed part of the software.
It is MIT licensed but you're also bound by Nintendo's NDA before you can get it so you're not allowed to distribute it but if you do, there will be consequences as Nintendo repeatedly demonstrates. Not only that, the Nintendo Developer Kit portion is not MIT licensed so same rules apply with regards to distribution i.e. you're not allowed to distribute.
tl;dr: MIT license but you also need to sign an NDA; also only authorized Nintendo Switch Developers can have it. If I may put it in my own words, it's only FOSS to "rich" companies who also needs to pay, who are also not allowed to "FOSS" it themselves. In the grand scheme of things -- Just an extra bonus to current and future Nintendo Switch Developers? I never imagined they'll do dirty to the term MIT license and FOSS. I hope this MIT license + NDA combo won't become popular.
As far as the Nintendo gatekeeping: let's be honest, we don't want every Chinese knock-off being able to flood the store with a dozen reskinned gatcha games per week. (I give Nintendo a break because they really make good games. Apple, on the other hand, is terrible.)
Then they can gatekeep the official store. But what they're doing is gatekeeping the ability to run code on YOUR console at all, even if you explicitly want to run that code. It's okay if they want to curate their own official storefront, it is NOT okay if they prevent you from using the device YOU BOUGHT however you see fit, for example by running homebrew.
@@ilonachan Oh that would be awesome!!! You should totally be allowed to sideload on the Switch (as long as you're not pirating). I take it back, Nintendo needs to be regulated to allow sideloading.
I somehow don't believe the code is 100% MIT licensed, for sure there must be some extra conditions attached. Otherwise the restriction for Nintendo developers wouldn't make sense, since anyone is granted the right to redistribute the software. Would just take one person to publish it to Github.
Well you would either need to be a developer or have a delopment license to use it, since you would need a development switch to run the games. I doubt there would be any reason to change the liceness. I dont know that the switch can be jailbroken to allow otherwise
It's a funny thing this one. The source code is in fact MIT licensed BUT in order to get access to it you need to sign up with Nintendo, and when you sign up with Nintendo, you sign an agreement to not share a whole bunch of things. So while it would be "legal" from the ports point of view, it would be "illegal" from the point of view that you signed an agreement not to share anything you've obtained or something along those lines. So if you decide to sign up, download the port, then upload it somewhere public, RAWR won't go after you, but Nintendo will (I'm no lawyer, but this is how I take it). This is also why the Godot Foundation can't do this as we have a mandate to openly publish the port. But we're more than pleased this exists provided Nintendo backs this, and they seem to so..
@@BastiaanOlij You can't just distribute software under MIT then not actually let people use it as MIT licensed software, can you? That would probably be grounds for a lawsuit
@@hartvenus I thought it was strange too, but as far as I've been told, nothing stops you from adding restrictions. I do think it's a little misleading but alas... All in all, I think it's a win though.
Surely if it's MIT licensed then all it takes is one person who is a nintendo dev to republish this and then the homebrewing community can go fully ham with it
@@RealPigeonzIf it is really the actual MIT license, there won't be any court and fines, since the license explicitely allows redistribution of the code to other platforms. "Permission is hereby granted [...] without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software"
@@lordquadrato437 The MIT license only allows redistribution of code covered under that license. The Nintendo SDK is under a proprietary license and is protected by an NDA. If you think Nintendo wouldn't sue you then you should learn a little more about Nintendo.
Huh, this doesn't make sense at all. The Godot Engine can't export to consoles for legal reasons, not for technical ones. Same reason Unity can't export to consoles by default. You need to pay for the licenses and dev kits. That's no Godot's problem, its Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, etc. Obviously you need be part of Nintendo's developer program, their SDKs and dev kits are not free, and they very likely will never be, just as any other console. Godot, Unity, and pretty much any other engine won't get "free console export" anywhere soon unless the companies behind the SDKs stop selling licenses. I wouldn't trust any of it simply because there's no official statement on Nintendo's part. The "multiple members of the forums on the Nintendo Developer Portal" could be other devs, not official Nintendo staff. Something like this can't be just "another day at Nintendo".
Interesting. So this whole time we were told that Godot could not support consoles because it was open source (even while other open source engines have done it). And W4 Games gets close to $24 million dollars USD to provide console ports, and in 2 years they still don't have it, yet some random company I never even heard of releases Nintnedo Switch support MIT license for free?!?!? I'm very confused.
1 It not free at all, you need to be authorized by nintendo to use it for free. 2 w4 Games provides a lot of services with their ports compared to this simple system like support , enterprise services, optimizations already made that help, a lot of UX to make it easier to port, and they support all of the native godot features, gdextension c#, and all the complex functionality. 3 This port is still pretty much basic: It lacks optimizations, and supports basic features, without gdextension or c# support, and it just the switch , 1 console unlike w4 which will support all the main 3 and ps4 and xbox one(5). 4 This version is still outdated compared to the w4 ones( 4.1 and 3.5 only support them , not 4.2 ), meanwhile w4 support’s the latest. 5 Godot is not just capable because it MIT , it also has the policies of software freedom conservancy which makes this stuff even harder to have. Meanwhile other engines like Defold can do it via their partnerships with lots of team, which allows them to get the people necessary to develop this ports.. Moreover as their engine is mostly 2d and really Basic 3d functionality(as far as i know), it makes it simpler to port, and yea while it file size is bigger than godot by far, that because of all their template kits and services are the reason of the size, which doesn’t count as complexity but pure bloat. 6 This company was capable, because it had a partnership with nintendo forum people, which were the ones to add this support for free , for the people that are authorized to use.
@@saulsantos4132 regarding item 4. If porting to newer versions of godot is difficult, don't you think there's a conflict of interest between w4 and updates like this? Unnecessary Api breakage / rewrites prevent competition like this package.
What Godot said "this whole time" is exactly what has happened. They won't deal with console ports because they don't want to handle the messy licensing. They never expressed any technical problems. And exactly, as Godot suggested, an intermediary that is willing to take that on has stepped in. This is good for two reasons. If Rawrlab makes a mistake and gets sued, that won't tie up or possibly take down Godot itself. And second Godot team can focus on Godot. I've never ported to a console, so I don't know how much use the Rawrlab code would be with or without the Switch SDK, but it's enough that they feel safe releasing the source. So probably something like "if I see this command in Godot, tell the SDK to do this" - but it's the SDK that writes the propitiatory bits, not the Rawrlab code.
@@Bargeral"They never expressed any techincal problems" "Godot is orders of magnitude more complex than any of those projects. Porting the platform layer can be relatively simple, but porting the rendering engine and making sure it works well is extremely laborious. Given consoles are exclusively a commercial market, It is very unlikely that anyone would do this for free if it can’t be made open source afterwards." - Juan Linietsky on why Godot is not doing console ports
@@saulsantos4132 Bro they actually made a FREE NINTENDO SWITCH port you are still telling people Godot is not capable of doing it because of licensing issues 💀and people are actually liking your comment
it was not donation, it was investment. also it is understandable that these godot founders want to make finally some money with godot. the time and effort that they have put to the development is huge.
1 It not free at all, you need to be authorized by nintendo to use it for free. 2 w4 Games provides a lot of services with their ports compared to this simple system like support , enterprise services, optimizations already made that help, a lot of UX to make it easier to port, and they support all of the native godot features, gdextension c#, and all the complex functionality. 3 This port is still pretty much basic: It lacks optimizations, and supports basic features, without gdextension or c# support, and it just the switch , 1 console unlike w4 which will support all the main 3 and ps4 and xbox one(5). 4 This version is still outdated compared to the w4 ones( 4.1 and 3.5 only support them , not 4.2 ), meanwhile w4 support’s the latest. 5 Godot is not just capable because it MIT , it also has the policies of software freedom conservancy which makes this stuff even harder to have. Meanwhile other engines like Defold can do it via their partnerships with lots of team, which allows them to get the people necessary to develop this ports.. Moreover as their engine is mostly 2d and really Basic 3d functionality(as far as i know), it makes it simpler to port, and yea while it file size is bigger than godot by far, that because of all their template kits and services are the reason of the size, which doesn’t count as complexity but pure bloat. 6 This company was capable, because it had a partnership with nintendo forum people, which were the ones to add this support for free , for the people that are authorized to use.
Why would they in this case? And on what grounds could they? This does not allow a person to publish a game for the switch, this allows a person to publish a game for a DevKit switch.
@AnonymousAnarchist2 Well if you went ahead and published a switch game, and your characters look like Link. They'll be all over you in a blatantly hostile way that you're in the poor house for life.
@@murderedcarrot9684 You still have to get the game licensed by nintendo to publish a nintendo game, you still need to send it to them for approval. This software does not change that, it just makes it less expensive
Least interesting? People still buy and play on that platform. And if you have a good game being interesting for a general audience you can make good money on that platform.
You have a weird definition of interesting that must mean the opposite of what everyone else thinks interesting means. Xbox and PS are archaic and biding, there is nothing interesting or novel about them. The most interesting thing to happen with Xbox or PS in the past 15 years was allowing Discord to be published on their stores.
@@askeladden450maybe in kindergarden it is, not in the world of consoles. Besides you all seem to have lived under a rock and missed the new mobile consoles popping up after the SteamDeck. That's the hot shit, not the Switch. LOL
Links
----------
gamefromscratch.com/godot-gets-free-nintendo-switch-port/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Support* : www.patreon.com/gamefromscratch
*GameDev News* : gamefromscratch.com
*GameDev Tutorials* : devga.me
*Discord* : discord.com/invite/R7tUVbD
*Twitter* : twitter.com/gamefromscratch
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you could maybe include a link to the Nintendo Developer Portal application process.
at 0:44 "...its going to cast you anywhere from eight hundred dollars a year to four hundred dollars a year..."
Considering you can't run your builds on a switch without being a nintendo develloper anyway this is as available as it can be.
Great news as always with Godot, steadily growing to become the Blender of game engines.
how about running it on a modded switch?
Also Blender could have been a Blender of game engines, had they not removed Blender Game Engine.
@@UltimatePerfection You can install Godot android builds on a moded switch already, much simpler than trying to get your hands on a switch developer sdk for which you wouldn't have support or documentation.
Blender does a lot already and the game engine failed to generate the hype Godot is receiving. So long as we have widely adopted open source 'standard' I'm happy. Be it Godot or something else.
@@Pumpkinwaffle Because they've let the BGE become obsolete very fast. I mean, it didn't even have VBOs when all other engines had them. Or particles.
idk about you guys but It was basically just a sugarcoated way to advertise paying to be an authorized Nintendo Switch Developer
Cause by the end of the day you need to pay to be an authorized Nintendo Switch Developer.
Why they even need to mention MIT license when that is a house hold term for FOSS?
It's like Unity saying the unity api is MIT but you need to be an authorized Unity Developer which the requirements are -- Money. They could just announced Godot api was added to the Nintendo Switch Developer support and need to sign an NDA.
It's like exploiting the tag Free-to-play again but in the end it's actually P2W, even more than retail.
@@MangaGamified I'm not sure what you mean. If you want to release the games on Nintendo Switch you need to be an authorized Nintendo Switch Developer (which does not cost anything by itself if I remember correctly except the cost of the devkit you need to buy to develop the games).
If you want to use Unity/Unreal for the same purpose you also need to be authorized and only then you'll get access to a plugins/source code necessary to build games for Nintendo Switch. Heck, even if you code your own engine you need to be an authorized console developer to release the game on those platforms and get access to SDK and build tools.
This project is made by a group of developers that decided to give their tools to anyone that wants them, without any additional costs. It uses proprietary SDKs from Nintendo and because of the NDA's with Nintendo they legally can't share them with anybody who hasn't signed the NDA as well and the best way to verify it is to just give the access through the Nintendo Developer Portal because only those that have signed the NDA with Nintendo can access it. This project allows developers that want to release their games on the console officially do it much easier.
If you want to make homebrew games for modded consoles then there are other ways to do so and this project is not aimed for you anyway.
Regardless of the limitations, this is a big step forward! I'm sure it will continue to improve in the future thanks to it being open source
One more WIN for the Godot community!
👀Fantastic news for Godot! It's nice to know if a project picks up stream, there's always a free option there for a switch port, limitations and all.
Godot is getting there, day by day and one step at a time!
This is absolutely incredible! I was considering switching to Defold for Switch games due to W4’s cost but it looks like I won’t have to do that anymore. I’m so excited to eventually get my games running on the system (whenever I actually sign up lmao)
Great. Wouldn't expect it to be open to public. If Ur a registered Dev u can now port :) great news
..and nintendo only gives the sdks to the worst developers to ever exist. foot clinic, seriously?!
@@notChocoMilk haha. I got denied like 4 times before they accepted me. Just got keep trying :p
If access is limited to those in the Nintendo Developer Portal, it is not open source, by definition. Still very cool
It's MIT, so if you already have a copy of the source you're free to do whatever you want with it, with attribution. Unfortunately, Nintendo devs are under NDA regarding the specifics of the SDK, and distributing the source widely would be in violation of *that* legal agreement, which the MIT license can't touch.
Incredible news! You’re the first one I hear this from - thank you!
The “limitation” of needing to be a developer is the same for all major game engines anyway… the console makers want you under NDA before they’ll let you access that stuff and even technical issues can’t be openly discussed on Unity/Unreal Engine forums (there are special private sections)
now THAT makes clear. I was not sure why there was only information but no link to download the portal.
Maybe we'll see a cruelty squad port
This is actually some great news. Now we just need a free port option for Xbox and PlayStation developers to go along with Nintendo.
Godot is getting better by the day and I love it!
Awesome! This was one of the things I was mildly concerned about when considering Godot over Unity. Now I'll be able to more fairly compare it against Unity once I have more experience with Godot
Instead of porting to Switch, I usually just take my buggy mess of a game, place it gently into the Recycling Bin, violently bash my computer to bits with a hammer, delicately reconstruct those bits into a miniature rocket ship, and launch that rocket ship into the surface of the sun. Much easier.
Lmfaooo......I imagined every step of this
Gotm will also port your game to switch for you for 10 percent revenue share up to $800 a year
Great video! I saw this yesterday am I was a little confused Thank You!
This is so cool! I hope it supports games made with C# eventually
where does it say 4.1 or higher? your article says 4.1.x. X does not mean "or higher"
I really wish godot gets to form some legal body similar to the linux foundation to be able to integrate console exporting into the engine itself. I know the godot foundation exist, but i guess it's a matter of capital
The biggest problem is that to export for consoles, you need to link against proprietary libraries, the specifics of which (function signatures, etc.) are locked behind NDAs. for a large open source project, you can either:
- have non-NDA'd reverse engineers with no access to proprietary information reimplement the SDK (very time-intensive, but doable) and get the manufacturer to accept the use of the 3rd party SDK on their store (literally impossible) or
- release the source to all developers who have access to the official SDK (this)
When you have a Nintendo quality game ono your hands you obviously have some coding chops, so this might be an option. When you have that kind of game you probably can also pay for a decent port. Still, having an extra option is a good thing.
Yay, this makes me super happy... but no C#?
0:44 The spoken "four hundred" should have been "four thousand."
Good. Someone noticed. I was like "what?"
Best news in a loooong time! :D
nice news, thanks for sharing
This is actually huge!
ok this is crazy tf
This is really great for the Godot engine, and also a great bit of PR for the company especially since they port games. This is what the Godot people/W4 should be doing. Give access if you are a verified developer, charge you if you want help. Hopefully this move by Rawrlabs gets the ball rolling on free console ports.
1 It not free at all, you need to be authorized by nintendo to use it for free.
2 w4 Games provides a lot of services with their ports compared to this simple system like support , enterprise services, optimizations already made that help, a lot of UX to make it easier to port, and they support all of the native godot features, gdextension c#, and all the complex functionality.
3 This port is still pretty much basic: It lacks optimizations, and supports basic features, without gdextension or c# support, and it just the switch , 1 console unlike w4 which will support all the main 3 and ps4 and xbox one(5).
4 This version is still outdated compared to the w4 ones( 4.1 and 3.5 only support them , not 4.2 ), meanwhile w4 support’s the latest.
5 Godot is not just capable because it MIT , it also has the policies of software freedom conservancy which makes this stuff even harder to have. Meanwhile other engines like Defold can do it via their partnerships with lots of team, which allows them to get the people necessary to develop this ports.. Moreover as their engine is mostly 2d and really Basic 3d functionality(as far as i know), it makes it simpler to port, and yea while it file size is bigger than godot by far, that because of all their template kits and services are the reason of the size, which doesn’t count as complexity but pure bloat.
6 This company was capable, because it had a partnership with nintendo forum people, which were the ones to add this support for free , for the people that are authorized to use.
Is it worth the hassle at this point in time though?
Switch 2 on the horizon, you'd be better pressed releasing on steam with focus on having it run flawlessly on the Steamdeck, I'd guess or just go mobile in the first place. Both seem the better deal, remember, nothing in live you can have for free is worth having.
i will end my own life if i hear one more person compare the steam deck to the nintendo switch
Nice. But I suppose that it's switch only, right? No 3ds support.
Why would there be 3ds support lol
@@Midrule that one is easy. I don't have a switch and I have a 3ds. And I want to make easy homebrew for my 3ds. There's nothing more than that.
Man… call me crazy, I know my chances or actually releasing a game on the switch are incredibly low, even if I decide to just jailbreak it and port my game there and installing it there… but thats a dream i still haven’t discarded and in consequence I chose to learn Unity starting this year (or rather go back to, already used it but about 6-8 years ago)… also since I still want to have the career path open in case a job opportunity comes I have no option but to stick with unity (my day job I’m a software developer, hobbyist 3D modeler and recently got into pixel art and 2D).
Meanwhile godot is getting cooler every day (also I love the logo/mascot)…
Epic, even more reasons to switch to godot
Does this also make it possible to make honebrew games?
I cannot seem to understand why there are those who pronounce access as assess. The first c is hard. That is why it is spelled differently to assess. Nothing major. I just notice it and it's like nails down a chalkboard for me.
oh yes!!
I don't understand why Godot makes this so difficult, they're shooting themselves in the foot by not offering built-in console porting.
EVERY game engine has the same problems with NDA, regardless if they're open source or not. For example, Defold doesn't seem to have much trouble doing it.
They don't just offer those parts of the code to everybody, they offer it to authorized developers. Godot could do the same, rather than overcomplicating this.
because they want to make money.
I’m more annoyed that I can’t import an mp4 video to godot and have to use some weird ass format instead that most video converters don’t have. I love godot but it’s definetely limited in multiple assspects
@@DEADEYESTUDIOwait really? I'm confused why that would be necessary, couldn't Godot just use FFMPEG to convert .mp4 into a format it understands? if licenses are incompatible, then heck make the user download it separately like that one fbx converter thing, and then it just works!
"H.264 and H.265 cannot be supported in core Godot, as they are both encumbered by software patents. AV1 is royalty-free, but it remains slow to decode on the CPU and hardware decoding support isn't readily available on all GPUs in use yet.
WebM was supported in core in Godot 3.x, but support for it was removed in 4.0 as it was too buggy and difficult to maintain."
Excellent news!
Wait, is this actually MIT licensed or are they just saying that? Because if the access is restricted to people with Nintendo Developer certifications, and one of them distributes it to people without them, then they don't have any restrictions on what they can and can't do with the SDK because of the MIT license (might be against nintendo's terms of service, but homebrew development is not illegal). Unless if there are crucial missing parts of the SDK not available with the MIT-licensed part of the software.
It is MIT licensed but you're also bound by Nintendo's NDA before you can get it so you're not allowed to distribute it but if you do, there will be consequences as Nintendo repeatedly demonstrates. Not only that, the Nintendo Developer Kit portion is not MIT licensed so same rules apply with regards to distribution i.e. you're not allowed to distribute.
oh cool, so we've now found the loophole that makes open source licenses fucking useless. Love big corporations destroying everything.
tl;dr: MIT license but you also need to sign an NDA; also only authorized Nintendo Switch Developers can have it.
If I may put it in my own words, it's only FOSS to "rich" companies who also needs to pay, who are also not allowed to "FOSS" it themselves. In the grand scheme of things -- Just an extra bonus to current and future Nintendo Switch Developers?
I never imagined they'll do dirty to the term MIT license and FOSS. I hope this MIT license + NDA combo won't become popular.
You are overthinking this
@@GianniLeonhart Thanks but that comment doesn't add info
Holy moly
As far as the Nintendo gatekeeping: let's be honest, we don't want every Chinese knock-off being able to flood the store with a dozen reskinned gatcha games per week. (I give Nintendo a break because they really make good games. Apple, on the other hand, is terrible.)
Then they can gatekeep the official store. But what they're doing is gatekeeping the ability to run code on YOUR console at all, even if you explicitly want to run that code. It's okay if they want to curate their own official storefront, it is NOT okay if they prevent you from using the device YOU BOUGHT however you see fit, for example by running homebrew.
@@ilonachan Oh that would be awesome!!! You should totally be allowed to sideload on the Switch (as long as you're not pirating). I take it back, Nintendo needs to be regulated to allow sideloading.
@@ilonachanSideloading hurts their business model. That's the same reason Sony didn't want to allow online crossplay.
Nice. I only cared about 2D on Switch anyway.
Yes Yes Yes Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssss
I somehow don't believe the code is 100% MIT licensed, for sure there must be some extra conditions attached.
Otherwise the restriction for Nintendo developers wouldn't make sense, since anyone is granted the right to redistribute the software.
Would just take one person to publish it to Github.
Well you would either need to be a developer or have a delopment license to use it, since you would need a development switch to run the games. I doubt there would be any reason to change the liceness.
I dont know that the switch can be jailbroken to allow otherwise
It's a funny thing this one. The source code is in fact MIT licensed BUT in order to get access to it you need to sign up with Nintendo, and when you sign up with Nintendo, you sign an agreement to not share a whole bunch of things.
So while it would be "legal" from the ports point of view, it would be "illegal" from the point of view that you signed an agreement not to share anything you've obtained or something along those lines. So if you decide to sign up, download the port, then upload it somewhere public, RAWR won't go after you, but Nintendo will (I'm no lawyer, but this is how I take it).
This is also why the Godot Foundation can't do this as we have a mandate to openly publish the port. But we're more than pleased this exists provided Nintendo backs this, and they seem to so..
@@BastiaanOlij You can't just distribute software under MIT then not actually let people use it as MIT licensed software, can you? That would probably be grounds for a lawsuit
@@hartvenus I thought it was strange too, but as far as I've been told, nothing stops you from adding restrictions.
I do think it's a little misleading but alas... All in all, I think it's a win though.
Surely if it's MIT licensed then all it takes is one person who is a nintendo dev to republish this and then the homebrewing community can go fully ham with it
Yes but only if this licensed dev really wants to go visiting courts, pay hundreds of thousands of fines and lose his license for life :3
@@RealPigeonz
Losing license?
It is a developer not a lawyer.
@@FutureChaosTV (Nintendo) Publishing license.
@@RealPigeonzIf it is really the actual MIT license, there won't be any court and fines, since the license explicitely allows redistribution of the code to other platforms.
"Permission is hereby granted [...] without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software"
@@lordquadrato437 The MIT license only allows redistribution of code covered under that license. The Nintendo SDK is under a proprietary license and is protected by an NDA. If you think Nintendo wouldn't sue you then you should learn a little more about Nintendo.
Huh, this doesn't make sense at all. The Godot Engine can't export to consoles for legal reasons, not for technical ones. Same reason Unity can't export to consoles by default. You need to pay for the licenses and dev kits. That's no Godot's problem, its Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, etc.
Obviously you need be part of Nintendo's developer program, their SDKs and dev kits are not free, and they very likely will never be, just as any other console. Godot, Unity, and pretty much any other engine won't get "free console export" anywhere soon unless the companies behind the SDKs stop selling licenses.
I wouldn't trust any of it simply because there's no official statement on Nintendo's part. The "multiple members of the forums on the Nintendo Developer Portal" could be other devs, not official Nintendo staff. Something like this can't be just "another day at Nintendo".
I believe Unity allows us to port our games to Nintendo Switch for free? I'd prefer to use C# because it's faster than GDScript
What does "basic functionality" even mean?
yes, this will appease the gods
Your pronunciation of rawr is amusing.
Rawrlab games
Considering this might be the last year for the Switch, what timing....
Nice.👏
I made a game called unreal roblox💀
😍
Interesting. So this whole time we were told that Godot could not support consoles because it was open source (even while other open source engines have done it). And W4 Games gets close to $24 million dollars USD to provide console ports, and in 2 years they still don't have it, yet some random company I never even heard of releases Nintnedo Switch support MIT license for free?!?!? I'm very confused.
1 It not free at all, you need to be authorized by nintendo to use it for free.
2 w4 Games provides a lot of services with their ports compared to this simple system like support , enterprise services, optimizations already made that help, a lot of UX to make it easier to port, and they support all of the native godot features, gdextension c#, and all the complex functionality.
3 This port is still pretty much basic: It lacks optimizations, and supports basic features, without gdextension or c# support, and it just the switch , 1 console unlike w4 which will support all the main 3 and ps4 and xbox one(5).
4 This version is still outdated compared to the w4 ones( 4.1 and 3.5 only support them , not 4.2 ), meanwhile w4 support’s the latest.
5 Godot is not just capable because it MIT , it also has the policies of software freedom conservancy which makes this stuff even harder to have. Meanwhile other engines like Defold can do it via their partnerships with lots of team, which allows them to get the people necessary to develop this ports.. Moreover as their engine is mostly 2d and really Basic 3d functionality(as far as i know), it makes it simpler to port, and yea while it file size is bigger than godot by far, that because of all their template kits and services are the reason of the size, which doesn’t count as complexity but pure bloat.
6 This company was capable, because it had a partnership with nintendo forum people, which were the ones to add this support for free , for the people that are authorized to use.
@@saulsantos4132 regarding item 4. If porting to newer versions of godot is difficult, don't you think there's a conflict of interest between w4 and updates like this? Unnecessary Api breakage / rewrites prevent competition like this package.
What Godot said "this whole time" is exactly what has happened. They won't deal with console ports because they don't want to handle the messy licensing. They never expressed any technical problems. And exactly, as Godot suggested, an intermediary that is willing to take that on has stepped in. This is good for two reasons. If Rawrlab makes a mistake and gets sued, that won't tie up or possibly take down Godot itself. And second Godot team can focus on Godot.
I've never ported to a console, so I don't know how much use the Rawrlab code would be with or without the Switch SDK, but it's enough that they feel safe releasing the source. So probably something like "if I see this command in Godot, tell the SDK to do this" - but it's the SDK that writes the propitiatory bits, not the Rawrlab code.
@@Bargeral"They never expressed any techincal problems"
"Godot is orders of magnitude more complex than any of those projects. Porting the platform layer can be relatively simple, but porting the rendering engine and making sure it works well is extremely laborious. Given consoles are exclusively a commercial market, It is very unlikely that anyone would do this for free if it can’t be made open source afterwards."
- Juan Linietsky on why Godot is not doing console ports
@@saulsantos4132 Bro they actually made a FREE NINTENDO SWITCH port you are still telling people Godot is not capable of doing it because of licensing issues 💀and people are actually liking your comment
ahora pueden coexistir mas juegos eroticos
EH?!
Free my ass
omg
Correction: or 4000 a year
damn, Godot is growing faster than the height of a girl on puberty. Really looking forward to the future of Open Source
Godot 🤮
Unfortunate that its only GDScript support. But one step closer to Godot being a truely viable and mature engine.
Console doesn’t mean it mature.
Makes me wonder, W4 with their 15 million dollars donation probably could do this too but they paywalled it :)
it was not donation, it was investment. also it is understandable that these godot founders want to make finally some money with godot. the time and effort that they have put to the development is huge.
1 It not free at all, you need to be authorized by nintendo to use it for free.
2 w4 Games provides a lot of services with their ports compared to this simple system like support , enterprise services, optimizations already made that help, a lot of UX to make it easier to port, and they support all of the native godot features, gdextension c#, and all the complex functionality.
3 This port is still pretty much basic: It lacks optimizations, and supports basic features, without gdextension or c# support, and it just the switch , 1 console unlike w4 which will support all the main 3 and ps4 and xbox one(5).
4 This version is still outdated compared to the w4 ones( 4.1 and 3.5 only support them , not 4.2 ), meanwhile w4 support’s the latest.
5 Godot is not just capable because it MIT , it also has the policies of software freedom conservancy which makes this stuff even harder to have. Meanwhile other engines like Defold can do it via their partnerships with lots of team, which allows them to get the people necessary to develop this ports.. Moreover as their engine is mostly 2d and really Basic 3d functionality(as far as i know), it makes it simpler to port, and yea while it file size is bigger than godot by far, that because of all their template kits and services are the reason of the size, which doesn’t count as complexity but pure bloat.
6 This company was capable, because it had a partnership with nintendo forum people, which were the ones to add this support for free , for the people that are authorized to use.
Remember kids, Unity subscription feature is bad, Godot paid console support is good.
@@Capewearer it is not free in unity either, you need to have unity pro.
@@Capewearer kkkkkkkkk, 10.000$, kkkkkkkkk patethic kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
I don't know, Nintendo seems lecherous and hostile. They will sue a guy for small reasons.
Why would they in this case?
And on what grounds could they?
This does not allow a person to publish a game for the switch, this allows a person to publish a game for a DevKit switch.
Look up lecherous in a dictionary
@AnonymousAnarchist2 Well if you went ahead and published a switch game, and your characters look like Link. They'll be all over you in a blatantly hostile way that you're in the poor house for life.
@@murderedcarrot9684 You still have to get the game licensed by nintendo to publish a nintendo game, you still need to send it to them for approval. This software does not change that, it just makes it less expensive
Do you understand the concept of intellectual property?
Well thanks for the information, this is why unity and unreal are better.
No it's not.
Unity can suck my hairy ass with their shitty choices. Tho I have no comment on unreal as I haven’t given it much of a try
Cool the least interesting and oldest console now is free.
Least interesting?
People still buy and play on that platform.
And if you have a good game being interesting for a general audience you can make good money on that platform.
You have a weird definition of interesting that must mean the opposite of what everyone else thinks interesting means.
Xbox and PS are archaic and biding, there is nothing interesting or novel about them. The most interesting thing to happen with Xbox or PS in the past 15 years was allowing Discord to be published on their stores.
yeah you mean like the 3rd most sold console of all time?
Bruh, its literally the most popular console nowadays. By far.
@@askeladden450maybe in kindergarden it is, not in the world of consoles. Besides you all seem to have lived under a rock and missed the new mobile consoles popping up after the SteamDeck. That's the hot shit, not the Switch. LOL
"only available to nintendo devs"
what a rip, fuck that
You can thank Nintendo, Sony and MS Xbox for this :) closed platforms YEY!(NOT)
Yes, only people who are going to be releasing a game for the Switch can release a game for the Switch. Oh noes.
@@stevethepocket dumbass
@@stevethepocket only people that pay Nintendo and get permission
nice!