Gimp
This is the way
I'd recommend Photopea for casual use that's not miserable to use. It's in browser only and is basically a photoshop clone with slightly less features, but it's amazingly close to Photoshop when I need it to be, even with things like using a pen or a really specific option menu.
It does generate it's revenue via banner ads but I've never seen them with my adblock, if I'm needing to quickly whip something up and utilise my Photoshop familiarity, it's my go to.
“oh no I have to learn something new 😭😭😭😭”
It’s easy, real easy in a production setting. Different is not hard.
Publishing to other formats and opening more formats are an absolute strength!
Yeah…no. It’s objectively worse in many ways. Student on a budget? Hobbyist? Gimp will get the job done…but then again so will Pixlr 99% of the time. It’s gotta get a whole lot better before production houses seriously consider switching.
I would rather stab myself in the eyeballs than use GIMP. It's never the way and never will be.
They did, tim epic just said in the article they looked to service like Photoshop and Maya
🏴☠️
Being a browser app is not a plus imo. I'll take a snappy native app over easy portability every day.
Darktable is an excellent replacement
That's not what I see.

Yeh, I use 4 applications from Adobe in very limited amounts. I wish they did a pay as you use subscription! If you use them all every day it’s cheap, but I maybe use them about 10-15 hours per month at the most.
I have the $10 plan.
Americans will talk of $10 a month like it's chump change. It's more expensive than my water bill.
Now add every other tool that decides to take the same approach.
$10 is also more expensive than my water bill in the US*. I purposely have as few subscriptions as possible.
*other utility bills are higher though, like sewer capacity, which is $17/mo.
If you're using photoshop in a business or hobby capacity, $10/month is a fairly good deal.
I personally use Affinity Photo but I'm not going to pretend that it has feature parity with photoshop.
Paying forever is not a better deal than paying the price of a few months of use and then having it for years. Maybe a business can justify that, but for a hobby? No way.
Not at all surprised.
This bit got me: Evidently, all of Epic Games' business had been "heavily funded by Fortnite" in the last six years, and different parts of the company became "disconnected" from their revenue streams.
...Did you not see this coming? Have you really not had a plan for when Fortnite started to lose momentum? I get that having a product blow up will leaf to a period of manic spending because your cash flow suddenly feels infinite, but come on. You're not a small player in this, Epic. You've been around since the 90s. You know better than to mindlessly ride the wave of a success.
Of course the Fortnite money was going to run out. That's why you invested so heavily in UE5, right?.. Right?
But wootz! Don't you see! Fortnite was making inroads into the metaverse, and we all know that whoever cracks the metaverse concept is going to reap infinite profits right? Because that's certainly not a weird dystopian sci-fi pipe dream or anything! It was going to be all smooth sailing straight into forever profits!
At least they got a touch closer than most, hosting virtual concerts etc. Just... No-one I know went to one.
Unironically, no. They really thought Fortnite was going to be the new Minecraft and compete with Netflix/Disney for time and attention.
Fucking idiots. I swear, i dont know why we place CEOs and richer folks, in general, on a pedestal so much. Minecraft has longevity because its basically digital legos. Fortnite is a FPS with buildable aspects.FPSes come and go with the winds.
People have this tendency to associate wealth with knowledge, or business savvy. For many companies, it's just a matter of "creative accounting" coupled with a psychopath CEO and lucking out. Epic lucked out with Fortnite Battle Royale, don't forget their original "save world" was a total flop as a paid product
Their plan for when Fortnite stopped pulling in money was for their Epic Games Store (that they propped up by paying devs lump sums just to not launch their games on Steam) to actually make Steam levels of money because surely exclusives and freebies will make people spend money on their store. Turns out there's a lot of people that will never spend a dime on EGS, either because they won't install it or only use it for the free games.
So all that Fortnite money they used to pay devs to not release their games on Steam ended up being a failed investment, and they've had to change their incentives from "we'll give you a huge lump sum that's about equal to what you'd have made with a successful Steam launch" to "well we'll give you a better revenue split if you launch exclusively on our store that guarantees you get 10% of sales volume compared to Steam". Turns out 60% of 1m sales is better than 80% of 100k sales.
Unity gave them a fantastic opportunity here, they now have an excuse to raise their prices as well and still look like the good guy by doing it somewhat reasonably
Unity was too greedy at once. It tried to make devs pay retroactively. Unreal just needs to not do that and can still be greedy. Who’s to say they won’t do incremental pay increases over a few years to make devs more accustomed to price increases?
Why do game engine producers feel the need to increase prices so much currently?
Probably because most devs stopped making their own proprietary engines, so the supply for solid engines is at an all time low. With less options they can crank up the price, as there aren’t really any other options for most devs.
Hopefully Godot is the first of many
It's great that Godot is growing
But if it would have been pretty funny if it was vaporware
Because like all the tech industry, they grew massively on the back of low interest rates since 2008 where investors saw better returns putting money into companies than sitting on it, now the interest rates have shot up again post Covid, they need to show their investors they can make better returns than the 5%+ they'd make just leaving the money in the bank. Hence the cost cutting by sacking staff and gouging of customers by price increases.
Same reason everyone else is pivoting to profitability. Interest rates and loan servicing.
Or taking advantage of that happenning with the competition, to enhance profitability.
Make money is the point of pretty much all companies, and financially there are only 2 thinks stopping them from upping their prices:
Anyways, the point being that if there is a broader shift in pricing in the market, even companies that are not under the same financial pressures to up prices will still do it as the 1st of those price limitation is relaxed so they can make more money.
Capitalism is becoming unbearable. People are getting squeezed from every side.
This is particularly for people using the engine to write film rending software which gets bought one for a lot of money but low volume, and gets used as a huge cost savings for mid-high end production that can save on lighting and comp passes or even render time.
High volume software(games) probably won’t change much at all.
Or at least that’s what SHOULD be happening.
If anything, in this case it seems like a loophole they're closing more than a price increase.
Why should Hollywood studios making billions get to use Unreal Engine for free, being subsidized by gamers?
As recession looms, you have general inflation and increased interest rates. This affects overhead and loan repayments. That and probably other factors all contribute to the need to raise prices.
It's not just the gaming sector. Almost all other sectors are raising their prices or adjusting their service plans. Eg. shrinkflation and/or lower quality on products and services.
Because China is increasingly looking broke, so daddy Tencent's purse is tightening.
On top of that, the world's banks now have interest rates to look after again, so their free money streams have ended too. Meaning that companies have to prove their profitability.
But the rich want to keep their free money train going, so we're all paying now.
Tim Sweeney alone owns 50% of the company, he can pretty much make his own decisions independently from Tencent. Also China is slowly catching up to the US's GDP with way less government debt, what are you talking about?
US's debt to GDP ratio has decreased by 13% since 2019. To 77%.
China's real debt to GDP ratio is estimated to be 335%. (Via the IIF via the SCMP)
The most current projections is China will never catch up to US GDP. Just for posterity, China GDP per capita is under $14k, while US is above $80k. There is no conceivable path to closing this gap. Not with an authoritarian in charge who shuts down entire industries on a whim and murders political rivals who disagree with him.
I suspect that Unreal 5 is going to make Epic so much money in the coming years. Taking 5% after the first million dollars doesn't seem like a lot until you remember that the next Witcher and Cyberpunk are both Unreal 5 developments.
The next mainline Tomb Raider game is also going to be Unreal 5. That is if Embracer hasn't bankrupted themselves or sold Edios/Crystal Dynamics before then (although I'd be thrilled if that happened).
Cyberpunk made a million dollars?
https://gameworldobserver.com/...
$116,000,000
I love that you get me.
Many, many millions of dollars.
Seems like a fair move to me. If Hollywood studios like Disney are able to use it for free right now to save time and money producing shows and movies why shouldn't Epic get a fair fee for the product that enables those savings?
Non games meaning movies and TV shows that use Unreal Engine. IIRC, The Mandalorian uses UE for a bunch of stuff.
Yeah a game engine saving a studio hundreds of thousands of dollars or more per episode on lighting, comp, rendering, and set building or travel costs to shoot on location is not representative of the license fee paid
Deadmau5 uses it for his visual effects for concerts. Guy streams his work in it all the time
cool, then it's 20% of your "games" revenue if you want to do that.
Epic generally let companies self report, when using the engine you have to agree to allowing them to audit if they think your self-reporting is incorrect but that's not a very usual situation
Are you a Hollywood film studio?
Did you read the article?
I misinterpreted the headline and expected a joke article about Epic charging developers who don't use Unreal.
Altering the deal eh, at least they take smaller steps.
No. Previously if you used unreal but didn't ship any engine code to end users you didn't have to pay anything (games obviously ship engine code, so they're already paying once they pass a certain revenue threshold or upfront if they want a support contract, and the announced pricing changes explicitly don't effect games)
Unreal has been pushing hard into film and virtual production workloads, but they weren't getting paid anything due to the existing license terms.
Now if eg. you're using a virtual set (like the Mandalorian) or doing in camera previs (basically previewing approximately what a scene will look like with CGI, either between takes or even viewing it live on a second monitor attached to the camera as you film) with unreal you'll have to actually pay.
Doesn't appear so, it seems pretty minor and doesn't retroactively fuck people over.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
But.. photoshop is very expensive
save