Well, it is your engine… one kind of expects it would be your personal favourite 
Sinan, would that be ? No export option ?
If that gonna get approved ,they should say it pretty soon …so the people not waste time with it anymore ,neither the devs …
Has anyone read the blogpost? It does not say he wants to remove the BGE, just “the idea to make Blender have an embedded “true” game engine”. Reread the last paragraph:
On the positive side – I think that the main cool feature of our GE is that it was integrated with a 3D tool, to allow people to make 3D interaction for walkthroughs, for scientific sims, or game prototypes. If we bring back this (original) design focus for a GE, I think we still get something unique and cool, with seamless integration of realtime and ‘offline’ 3D.
Ton still wants a game engine integrated with Blender. And rewriting the entire BGE from scratch would be a lot of work. I think we are just looking at a shift of focus, and a major code change. Not a removal.
Then again, Ton just posted this and disappeared. I have no idea what his actual plans are.
Somehow I am excited but also worried!! 
I would love to see improvements in this direction! I still want to export games and not package blender completely. But as it sounds there won’t be a blenderplayer anymore! Am I right? And I think that there will be some compatibility breaks! Hopefully the python api doesn’t change to much!
I hope Ton will be more clear on some points!
I think this is the best way to go, at the end of the fork and the hard work the GPL licence will still in the salad… and that in my opinion will give the same big deal to the developers that need more flexibility in the licence for comercial purposes.
Right now there exist the GameKit in a premature stage and with very little atention from the Blender comunity for its lag of documentation… but if we want a real change what stops you to bring a hand to that engine to take the level of BGE and more?
https://code.google.com/p/gamekit/
Greetings
With work being done on threaded drawing and updates, viewport (compositing) effects, unified physics, node based animation, and everything that’s currently real-time in Blender already, I also propose to refocus the current game engine to re-use much more of this work.
Or more radically worded: I propose to make the GE to become a real part of Blender code – to make it not separated anymore. This would make it more supported, more stable and (I’m sure) much more fun to work on as well.
Instead of calling it the “GE” we would just put Blender in “Interaction mode”. Topics to think of:
- Integrate the concept of “Logic” in the animation system itself. Rule or behavior based animation is a great step forward for animation as well (like massive anims, or for extras).
- Support of all Blender physics.
- Optimizing speed for interactive playback will then also benefit regular 3d editing (and vice versa)
- Singular Python API for logic scripting
- Ensure good I/O integration with external game engines, similar to render engines.
What should then be dropped is the idea to make Blender have an embedded “true” game engine. We should acknowledge that we never managed to make something with the portability and quality of Unreal or Crysis… or even Unity3D. And Blender’s GPL license is not helping here much either.
On the positive side – I think that the main cool feature of our GE is that it was integrated with a 3D tool, to allow people to make 3D interaction for walkthroughs, for scientific sims, or game prototypes. If we bring back this (original) design focus for a GE, I think we still get something unique and cool, with seamless integration of realtime and ‘offline’ 3D.
My interpretation of Ton’s post:
- The future goal of the BGE is NOT to be a true game engine but as a tool in Blender - “interaction mode”. It may have limited capability to create games but it is tangential.
The tone in his post makes it seem as through since BGE failed to mature enough to compete with other game engines or to produce any significant commercial games, it might as well be converted into something more useful.
Yeah, I did. I (& folks on the dev mailing list in a position to know what’s going on) tend to interpret it as Mahalin does…
Reading this post and the subsequent discussion here & elsewhere, it would seem that Ton wants to keep features of the BGE, not keep it as a game engine (or at least one capable of more than some basic prototyping).
Yeah. It does have the hallmarks of a Friday evening news bomb doesn’t it. Sure is riling up the fan-base (both for & against the proposal) 
Hopefully the python api doesn’t change to much!
Well I hope if does: there’s a mis-match of different styles in there.
And I am not going to say anything on the future of BGE yet because I don’t know exactly what he means by that post. But I think it’s only likely to be about a year away, with the 2.8 branch or so. So, we’ve still got a while to decide what to do.
From Ton’s post:
‘What should then be dropped is the idea to make Blender have an embedded “true” game engine.We should acknowledge that we never managed to make something with the portability and quality of Unreal or Crysis… or even Unity3D.’
So, if bge can’t compete with others, we make it not ‘true’.
Therefore, if the sculpting tools can’t compete with zbrush or mudbox, we make it not ‘true’.
If the animation tools can’t compete with maya, we make it not ‘true’.
If the modelling tools can’t compete with 3dsmax, we make it not ‘true’.
How about motion tracking? compositing? video editing? etc…etc… What do we have left for ‘true’?
When did ‘compete’ become this open source goal?
Most of the time, one step wrong is all it takes! Be warned!
@love blender
yep, that is something I thought too. And better I/O in generell is great! But it also indicates a different focus in the future! Lets hope we misunderstand Ton
Blender seems me well to start learning make games, but if you have experience I believe that Ogre is better.
21 April ogre changelog
New LOD Volume Rendering Component with LOD from GSoC 2012
Terrain Improvements from GSoC 2012
Android platform support
Windows Phone 8 platform support
Windows Metro / WinRT support
OpenGL3+ Render System (still experimental and under heavy development)
Improvements to all Render Systems, e.g. DirectX11 from GSoC 2012
multitude of bug fixes
This is all you want to blender game engine. However I agree with continue BGE Patches BugFixes
I think this is the best way to go, at the end of the fork and the hard work the GPL licence will still in the salad… and that in my opinion will give the same big deal to the developers that need more flexibility in the licence for comercial purposes.
Right now there exist the GameKit in a premature stage and with very little atention from the Blender comunity for its lag of documentation… but if we want a real change what stops you to bring a hand to that engine to take the level of BGE and more?
https://code.google.com/p/gamekit/
Greetings
I know that the roadmap is far off from being implemented (a year or more), but since game projects can easily stretch into several years (Valchion is 1.5 years old or so by now), it might be good to think about what you’re going to do now if you plan on working on something complex. In the year that it takes to change the BGE, you could be familiar with another engine entirely.
I was wondering if anyone was planning to choose another engine. I know Sinan likes Urho3D, which looks nice. I’ve personally used jME3 (jMonkeyEngine 3.0). It was a bit different, but after learning more about how to go about using it, it has a fairly nice workflow between Blender and the engine. It’s not as nice as the BGE, of course, but it wasn’t painful. JavaScript seems to be a pretty nice language - something like ActionScript. It’s not as loosely typed as Python (i.e. you have to say what type variables are before you assign them), but it gets the job done.
I like the idea of a fork, but I wonder if that’s the best approach. I mean, with a fork, you still have the GPL issues present, and the engine and Blender itself becomes incompatible with the original. So, if the original Blender creates some cool modeling tools, it might be difficult to add it into the fork. Developers who are interested in the other engine and who like the source could help out with development.
I think I will still use blender for modelling but for an engine I will most likely use Unity,but all this depend on the changes which Ton will make to blender game engine.
So I think that until the new Interactive blender version comes out we can’t really say that it will be bad maybe it will be even more easier and better than the BGE.
But as I have said before it all depends on the outcome.
So, we can all calm down now and get back to work
Maaaaaaaaaan,the ton reply sounded so cool!
Indeed ,everyone …back to work and “shut up” :D.
It seems like he just wants to make it better ,to make it a real part of blender,a part that is update and with new features! I feel so much better now!
thank you ton!
He even said :a “player” build! We can still publish stuff !
Also,it would mean a core development from scratch which is Awsome!
I am for the change ! Totally !
It does sound reassuring. I’m glad that Ton sees the benefit of the BGE and would rather not see it go. I’m interested in this “tool-based” approach to game engine development, though. He mentioned the BGE and Blender sharing code, which sounds pretty interesting. It might then be possible to do what can’t be done in the BGE currently (add and remove vertices and faces, merge and unmerge objects, etc). That sounds pretty exciting.
now I read Ton’s answer to the issue… but that let me with the same little fly in the soup
What will happen WITH THE GPL LICENCE!? :ba:
I really really hope that IMT where in the head (or even LGPL)
Greetings
I would support it if it means that a lot of the projects currently seen in the BGE WIP forums can be recreated in the new system when it comes to graphics, logic, GUI schemes, presentation, and the use of multiple levels/scenes.
Generally in this case, it probably wouldn’t hurt to keep focusing on BGE development as part of the core project as this proposal gets fleshed out, so a possible new focus would be to really get development going on the existing BGE so as to show Ton that there is a demand for the creation of fully fledged games in Blender and use that development to show why the proposal for the new GE should reflect that.
To note; one of the main reasons I use the BGE nowadays is that since I have a copy of Blender to work with features like Cycles, I already have a copy of the game engine, this is combined with the fact that there is no need to import or export assets along with the flexibility of the Python API.
Perhaps if there was a future addon that created the same approach for Unity Pro or another engine (ie. the addon creating enough of the necessary interface elements in Blender to create the game and then using ‘P’ to launch the new GE), a switch then might sound more convincing. (in short, having Unity Pro for example running in the background and then seeing its player being launched when you press ‘P’ or a ‘Launch game’ button).
I think it would be great.But would it be better than voxels?