[HN Gopher] Luxe Game Engine
___________________________________________________________________
Luxe Game Engine
Author : garrypettet
Score : 135 points
Date : 2025-06-13 15:12 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (luxeengine.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (luxeengine.com)
| garrypettet wrote:
| This looks neat. It uses Bob Nystrom's Wren language for
| scripting and has been in development for a few years.
| pvg wrote:
| A thread in 2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16615251
| pier25 wrote:
| > _luxe itself is written in c++_
|
| Wasn't it written in Haxe originally or am I confusing it with
| something else?
| dismalaf wrote:
| Armory maybe?
| pier25 wrote:
| Luxe was initially written in Haxe and they migrated to C++
| eventually.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16616052
| prismatic6 wrote:
| Armory did, and it does still look like it's using Haxe -
| https://github.com/armory3d/armory/wiki/setup - it bundles it
| in.
| tecleandor wrote:
| Seems like there was a previous version of the engine that was
| written in Haxe [0]
|
| > alpha - deprecated 2015~2016. unrelated to the new engine!
| view the new engine here - https://luxeengine.com/
|
| Also, that old version used to be open source, but I think this
| new one isn't anymore. Old thread mentioned by @pvg still
| mentions being open source, but right now the repositories only
| have docs.[1]
|
| 0: https://github.com/snowkit/old-haxe-alpha
|
| 1: https://github.com/luxeengine
| prismatic6 wrote:
| It does still mention source here as well
| https://luxeengine.com/faq/#source-access
| cosmojg wrote:
| Sounds like they might be switching to a source-available
| model rather than an open-source model.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| It's neat, but not better than real open source solutions.
|
| Pay is what you want unless your at work and then it's price is
| under NDA isn't friendly.
|
| Godot is still probably the best FOSS engine right now. Arguably
| it's strongly in 3rd place behind Unity/Unreal.
| prismatic6 wrote:
| The FAQ mentions source https://luxeengine.com/faq/#source-
| access Where do you see an NDA?
| 999900000999 wrote:
| https://luxeengine.com/get/
|
| >Business - If you need more than 16 seats, or you have
| access to > $1m USD in the last 365 days, this tier is
| required, you must contact us to customize pricing.
|
| Customized pricing is very scary. It's whatever we feel like
| charging you under NDA. Why would I pitch this to my boss
| over using Godot under an MIT license?
| prismatic6 wrote:
| I read that as cheaper in bulk, but I see what you mean.
| swsieber wrote:
| Given that the prices are going up in with each tier, and
| you can get into that tier just by having a lot of money
| (x users OR x money), I'm not optimistic it'll be cheaper
| per user.
| crustaceansoup wrote:
| It's "source available", not open source. Unreal is "source
| available" as well.
|
| > Where do you see an NDA?
|
| The top price tier says
|
| > If you need more than 16 seats, or you have access to > $1m
| USD in the last 365 days, this tier is required, you must
| contact us to customize pricing.
|
| This is really weird, honestly. If you hire a 17th seat your
| pricing goes from $50/seat/mo to... what? How do I plan
| around this jump?
|
| I would also like to know what happens if my subscription
| lapses. Can I continue to use a version I previously
| downloaded? What if luxe goes out of business or, heaven
| forbid, suddenly increases their pricing to unsustainable
| levels? With Unreal I can keep using an old version.
| devrandoom wrote:
| I'm surprised they do this. The unity rugpull is still fresh in
| memory and mystery pricing is scary for newcomers.
| reactordev wrote:
| They'll learn when there's no sales
| Uehreka wrote:
| Idk that I'd say it's in 3rd place. My guess would be that
| something like Source Engine is 3rd.
|
| Having worked with Unreal, Unity and Godot, Godot is extremely
| rough. It has a terrible scripting language, an abysmal script
| editing UI, all while lacking the sophistication of Unity and
| Unreal's rendering. It gets way too much benefit of the doubt
| because it's open source.
|
| We desperately need an open source engine that can compete with
| Unity and Unreal, but we need to stop kidding ourselves that
| Godot is serious about filling that role. If they were they
| would've grabbed Lua (or JS, or Python, or anything well
| established) off the shelf, told devs to use the code editor of
| their choice, and focused on either building the best rendering
| pipeline they could with their limited resources, or focused on
| some sort of clever differentiating feature that Unity/Unreal
| won't implement. As it is it's clear Godot's team is more
| interested in reinventing wheels for fun than in making a real
| contender.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Source isn't really a publicly available engine. Valve
| doesn't appear to have much interest in licensing it.
|
| You're not wrong about Godot, but;
|
| 1. You can always fork/modify it. Getting a source code
| license for Unity is a 6 figure proposition.
|
| 2. Being open source is a big deal. No phone home
| spyware(Unity). Keep 100% of your revenue.
|
| 3. C# support is OK. Its very slowly getting better.
|
| I'm not a Godot zealot, one if it's biggest weaknesses is a
| community incapacitated of criticism. But still, your getting
| something very capable for small scale projects for free.
|
| Unity, if Microsoft brought them out and fixed the business
| side, would easily be my engine of choice.
|
| I learned to program in it. But I don't trust Unity the
| company. Every time you turn around they're laying off more
| people or doing something else strange.
|
| Unreal is very bad for the smaller scales projects I actually
| build.
|
| Lately I've been making weird prototypes using niche engines.
| I like Raylib, but it's just a rendering system. It's a much
| harder path to getting a game made.
|
| If you know someone building a better Godot let me know. I'll
| try it this weekend.
| Uehreka wrote:
| > If you know someone building a better Godot let me know.
| I'll try it this weekend.
|
| Three.js is better than Godot. Yes, even though it doesn't
| have a real editor. Yes, even though it's exclusive to the
| web. It is a useful and functional tool for building 3D
| experiences. It has compatibility with almost every file
| type under the sun. It supports modern/cutting-edge
| features like WebXR. It has a talented and disciplined
| maintainer (mrdoob) who has steered the ship for almost 15
| years through many big changes while maintaining the same
| solid core. It has hundreds of easily browsable examples
| that are kept working and up-to-date.
|
| I wish we were in a better place, but honestly this is
| where we're at. If you want to build 3D games/experiences
| and want an open source stack, use Three.js and stick to
| the web. There are no good options for native.
| Rohansi wrote:
| A modified Source 2 is kind of available right now with
| S&box. It uses C# with the latest .NET, no Mono. Not open
| source but licensing should be better than Unity.
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/590830/sbox/
| https://sbox.game/give-me-that
| CactusRocket wrote:
| > We desperately need an open source engine that can compete
| with Unity and Unreal
|
| I think this is a pipe dream. There's a lot of money behind
| Unity and Unreal, that buys a lot of developers.
|
| Actually I think it's amazing how far Godot has come, and
| what kind of amazing and big updates they regularly do given
| how little money they get, and being open source.
|
| It's seeing a lot of active development, so it's definitely
| not in its final form yet. It can still grow to be serious
| about filling that role...
|
| > As it is it's clear Godot's team is more interested in
| reinventing wheels for fun than in making a real contender.
|
| This is just a bad faith attack on the Godot's team, and not
| very much appreciated I'm sure.
| Uehreka wrote:
| > I think this is a pipe dream. There's a lot of money
| behind Unity and Unreal, that buys a lot of developers.
|
| I don't think it's a pipe dream. I watched Blender slowly
| build up from a "nice thing for hobbyists" to "actually
| kind of professional grade" to "the tool used to make an
| Oscar-winning film". Blender and its Foundation provide a
| blueprint for how open source projects can mount a
| meaningful challenge in a highly complex and cutthroat
| space, and anyone looking to do the same for game engines
| should study their moves.
|
| > This is just a bad faith attack on the Godot's team
|
| I may have been rude, but I was not arguing in bad faith.
| The decisions they've made and their fumbled execution (I
| could rant for an hour about GDScript's copious footguns
| and bad design choices) do not comport with what I expect
| from a project that wants to one day take on Unity and
| Unreal.
|
| If Godot is in fact just a fun little hobbyist thing, then
| yeah, they don't deserve this level of vitriol from me. But
| if that's the case, their community needs to stop
| overhyping them and suggesting Godot every time people have
| complaints about Unity/Unreal.
| npinsker wrote:
| In 2025, Godot games are being released at 40% the rate of
| Unreal games. This number is growing for Godot at +100% Y/Y,
| while Unity + Unreal are growing at +15% (https://steamdb.inf
| o/tech/Engine/Godot/?max_release=2025-12-...). By this metric
| at least, it's a very secure 3rd (with GameMaker in a distant
| 4th), and could take 2nd in as few as 3 years.
|
| I mostly do agree with what you said, but the project seems
| (slowly) headed in generally the right direction, and as time
| goes on, the space of games that only Unity can make will
| diminish. It's a totally defensible choice for almost any 2D
| indie game -- which wasn't true just two years ago -- and
| it's working towards being a viable alternative on XR and
| consoles too.
| runeblaze wrote:
| Yeah like I very much respect their work, and there is some
| genuine beauty in having this policy such as "have access to >
| 100k USD in the last 365 days, this tier is for you" or the
| fact that they seem dedicated to also support small indie
| creators. However this does differentiate them from true FOSS
| solutions.
|
| Note that small game devs have many types, and I imagine these
| "boutique" pricing solutions can work for many.
| npalli wrote:
| > luxe itself is written in c++
|
| Good, it bodes well for the future of this game engine.
| jmiskovic wrote:
| I love this bit <3 You may not use luxe for the
| following, no exceptions: * military use *
| the gambling industry * crypto/NFTs/related
| ekianjo wrote:
| interesting because you could still make gatcha games which is
| just like digital gambling
| georgeecollins wrote:
| Or you could use it to promote vaping, or a cult! How exactly
| would you write terms of service to preclude gatcha games? No
| in game transactions?
| CooCooCaCha wrote:
| Perfect is the enemy of good.
| kevingadd wrote:
| Gacha games are unquestionably gambling but you're right that
| there are loopholes here.
| TiredOfLife wrote:
| So no ssl.
| jlundberg wrote:
| Sad to see this kind of anti open source licensing which
| reduces real code reuse.
| sneak wrote:
| The entire video game industry is presently mostly
| indistinguishable from the gambling industry, and
| cryptocurrencies are just a special case of cryptographic
| authentication.
|
| That means these rules are subjective.
|
| Does "military use" include selling games to soldiers to play
| them whilst on base? Seems like a strict interpretation would
| say "yes".
|
| Licenses like this are complete and total nonstarters for
| anyone serious. It's risk and potential liability nightmares
| for no benefit.
| progx wrote:
| Have a look at the underrated Flax Engine:
| https://flaxengine.com/
| reactordev wrote:
| What has it shipped?
| detaro wrote:
| What do you like specifically about it?
| socalgal2 wrote:
| Maybe I missed them but given they say at the top of the page
|
| > make games for Mac, Linux, Windows, and *Web*
|
| it would help a bunch if they linked to some web demos/games
| joeld42 wrote:
| Some Jam Games with web builds:
|
| https://itch.io/jam/luxe/entries?ref=luxeengine.com
|
| https://ldjam.com/events/ludum-dare/56/terrarium-combinarium
|
| https://joeld42.itch.io/bridges
|
| More jam games that I didn't make a web build for but downloads
| are available:
|
| https://joeld42.itch.io/lighthouse-keeper
|
| https://ldjam.com/events/ludum-dare/54/cargo-space
|
| https://ldjam.com/events/ludum-dare/53/last-mile
|
| https://ldjam.com/events/ludum-dare/51/artichoke-key
|
| On Steam:
|
| https://store.steampowered.com/app/1836400/Mossfield_Origins...
| socalgal2 wrote:
| Thanks. Though, I guess I didn't make myself clear. To sell
| me on the engine working on the web I'd need to see a high
| quality game/demo running on the web. Instead, the links are
| to a bunch of game jam games that look no better than raw JS
| and then several native only games. I'm not trying to diss
| the engine. It looks great. Rather, I'm suggesting that
| impressive instant live demos speak louder than words.
| shayway wrote:
| I played around with it a few months back. Interesting project,
| but it never quite clicked for me. Sort of for the same reasons I
| bounced off Wren; both it and Luxe are more carefully structured
| and verbose than I want from something high-level, but not as
| flexible as something more low level. For ease of use I'd go with
| Godot, for control I'd go with something like Raylib.
|
| It's worth noting though that I'm a hobby game dev looking to
| make smaller solo projects, and Luxe seems more conducive to
| studio workflows; there's an emphasis on artist-focused tooling,
| for example. Godot is the obvious comparison for a new open
| source-ish engine but it's really more of an Unreal competitor.
|
| I'm still keeping an eye on it though, minimal docs/examples made
| it trickier to learn than it probably is (it is still in alpha
| after all). I'd highly recommend checking out the blog posts [0],
| they're great reads that go into a lot of detail.
|
| [0] https://luxeengine.com/blog/
| dzonga wrote:
| this is dope, made by an all female team.
|
| hopefully the games industry gets more female led, minority led
| studios
| ang_cire wrote:
| I really wish I was a video game dev. Alas.
| vhodges wrote:
| Unrelated to https://sillysoft.net/lux/ (I know the spelling is
| different)
| joeld42 wrote:
| I've been playing with this engine for a while. I really like the
| engine. For me the best features are:
|
| - Scripting is really ergonomic, and fairly fast performance-
| wise. And if you need something to be really fast writing native
| extension modules for wren is pretty straightforward. So it's a
| choice between "reasonable" perf scripting and "fast" native
| code, which is much better than something like Unity where
| everything is kind of in the middle.
|
| - Wren fibers (a form of cooperative threading) are fantastic for
| dealing with game logic (NPC state, game AI, etc) without
| introducing the complexity of true multithreading.
|
| - The graphics/render module is extremely configurable. The whole
| render module is just a script that sets up a fast c++ execution
| graph, and you can modify/script this.
|
| - The tools are very nice and a lot of care put into them. I
| don't use the editor too much, and mostly interact through code,
| but for things like level design it's really nice to have.
|
| - Many game engines feel like a good fit for a large project or a
| small one but not both. Luxe is great for small jam games and
| full-sized projects. A project can be pretty much just a project
| file, a few configs and a script, or a large structure and the
| editor encourages (but doesn't enforce) a good project layout.
|
| - Drawing is super flexible. You've got sprites and shapes and
| meshes and tiles and everything, but there's also an "immediate
| style" drawing api that is very high quality. Similar to having
| "Shapes" extension in unity but it's a first class citizen and
| built in.
|
| - The "Modifiers" (which is Luxe's ECS-like component thing) took
| me a while to get used to using, and can be a source of friction
| at first, but once I got it it really feels like a better way to
| do things. And it's entirely optional so you don't have to if
| you're still learning.
|
| - Outside of code and raw assets like images and mesh, almost
| everything is stored in ".lx" files which are very json-like,
| which can be really helpful for debugging and understanding
| what's going on, and on many occasions I've been able to automate
| stuff from script just by writing out or modifying lx files.
|
| - Features and fixes are added constantly, but done carefully in
| a way that doesn't break existing code too often or without a
| clear migration strategy (glares at bevy).
|
| It feels like an engine built for small teams and experimental
| workflows. Especially if you're looking for alternatives to
| Unity, I'd recommend it.
| krapp wrote:
| I see two games in progress by the engine authors' studio
| mentioned, but has anyone actually shipped a game in this
| framework?
| josephcsible wrote:
| The "Restrictions" section is incompatible with ever being FOSS,
| and for people who don't care about that, there's no advantage to
| this over Unreal or Unity.
| npinsker wrote:
| It's not pretending to be FOSS. Like other engines, you need to
| pay them if you make money.
|
| But _no_ advantage seems like a stretch? (or at least, in
| future, might be a stretch) They 're aiming for a superior
| workflow for small games (e.g. making stylized rendering way
| easier for non-technical devs). Also their pricing is 10% of
| Unity's, which is itself around 10% of Unreal's.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-13 23:01 UTC)