This was the result for "Gimp vs. Photoshop" (from ChatGPT 3.5):
"The choice between GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) and Adobe Photoshop depends on several factors, including your needs, experience, budget, and the specific features you require. Here’s a comparison based on different aspects:
Cost GIMP: Free and open-source. It’s available for free, making it an excellent choice for those on a tight budget or for casual users. Photoshop: Requires a subscription. Adobe Photoshop is part of Adobe Creative Cloud, with a monthly or annual subscription fee.
Features GIMP: Offers a wide range of features suitable for most basic to intermediate photo editing tasks. It includes tools for painting, retouching, and enhancing images. Photoshop: Industry-standard tool with an extensive set of features. It includes advanced capabilities like 3D design, detailed photo manipulation, extensive plugin support, and superior RAW image processing.
User Interface GIMP: The interface can be less intuitive and feels less polished compared to Photoshop. It may take some time for new users to become proficient. Photoshop: Highly polished and user-friendly interface. It’s widely used in professional environments, so there are numerous tutorials and resources available.
Performance GIMP: Generally performs well, but can be slower with large files or complex tasks compared to Photoshop. Photoshop: Known for its performance, especially with large files and complex editing tasks. It’s optimized for professional use.
Compatibility and Integration GIMP: Supports various file formats, but may have compatibility issues with Adobe-specific formats and features. Less integration with other professional tools. Photoshop: Excellent compatibility with other Adobe products and industry-standard file formats. Seamlessly integrates with tools like Adobe Illustrator, Lightroom, and After Effects.
Customization and Extensibility GIMP: Highly customizable with a range of plugins and scripts available. Being open-source, it allows for extensive modifications. Photoshop: Extensive plugin ecosystem with many professional-grade plugins available. However, these can add to the overall cost.
Community and Support GIMP: Active community support with forums and documentation. Being open-source, updates and bug fixes can vary in frequency. Photoshop: Professional support available through Adobe. Extensive tutorials, forums, and official documentation are readily accessible.
Learning Curve GIMP: Steeper learning curve due to its interface and less polished user experience. Photoshop: More intuitive for new users, with a wealth of learning resources available, making it easier to pick up.
Use Cases GIMP: Suitable for hobbyists, students, and those who need basic to intermediate photo editing tools. Photoshop: Preferred by professionals in photography, graphic design, and digital art due to its extensive features and integration with other Adobe products.
Summary Choose GIMP if: You need a powerful, free tool for basic to intermediate photo editing, and budget constraints are a significant factor. Choose Photoshop if: You require advanced features, industry-standard compatibility, and integration with other professional tools, and are willing to invest in a subscription.
In conclusion, both GIMP and Photoshop have their strengths and can be the better choice depending on your specific needs and circumstances."
Oh I'm not the dev. I just saw their post on reddit.
I found it quite useful to ask ChatGPT to compare these products. Very good neutral explanations I thought. It seems that almost all of theses boil down to "are you annoyed enough by Adobe's subscription model to switch?".
More context (from dev on Reddit):
I will soon finish my university studies in Game Design and Development. I developed a tiny video game for my final project, and I'm considering uploading it to Steam.
For context: The game is a city-builder-style game about green energy and sustainability. It is somewhat educational (remember, this is a project made for the university). The game consists of building green energy generators, like windmills or solar panels, to provide energy to cities and villages. The game intends to inform about the various types of green energy recognized by the EU Commission and the infrastructure needed for them.
I believe the game has no business in the hostile Steam market. Additionally, it would be completely free, with no monetization whatsoever. The game will also be uploaded to Google Play for free, so why bother crushing 100 $ to publish on Steam instead of itch.io or any other page?
I want to learn the publishing process on Steam. I want to implement Steam API into a project (Achievements, for example). For personal satisfaction (probably the most important thing). It makes me happy to have something on Steam.
What a brilliant idea! Can other people join in in the comments?
Fireworks are a funny one because you're completely right and also not completely right I think. It's one of those unresolvable dichotomies of life where two opposing ideas are both true at the same time. I've often thought fireworks were the most obvious way to set fire to a lot of money that could be better used somewhere else. However, what is also true is that humans have a deep need to celebrate and to come together in large groups and have shared experiences. Fireworks are perfect for that. You can put a million people together and launch a massive firework display and they will all immediately connect with each other through the shared experience of going "Oooooohh" and "Aaaaaaahh" :) Fireworks are awesome and also, personally I feel they remind me that there are bigger things out there than the daily grind of existence.
