Was having a chat with a graphics coder at work yesterday, and he said that he can see in 5-10 years there no point using any engine other than the big heavyweights -> they're going to become like OS's. I can kinda see that happening too.
I hope UE4 gets some better world constructing tools, though. Compared to Source's Hammer or ProBuilder for Unity it's slow as shit to greybox levels.
That makes me very happy to hear
...also, a bit sad. Honestly, when I heard the UE4 news, I was seriously intrigued, but hopefully their in-editor modeling isn't all THAT bad, is it? :S Devving ProBuilder has be mostly hooked into Unity, but UDK was my "first"...
when it rains, it pours... so many new offers, it will be hard to keep the overview, so thanks for this thread!
I have started with unity one year ago, and I really like the engine. the only thing that really annoyed me was the shading model, and I am quite happy about the new standard shader (already tested it within beta). It is simple, efficient and beautiful.
One thing that is special about unity is hutong playmaker - what an incredible tool for non coders like me!
It seems to me that Unity 5 is beeing a bit pricey, compared to the other offers.
One thing that is special about unity is hutong playmaker - what an incredible tool for non coders like me!
I thought the same. But Blueprint sounds just as capable, if not more so. I will be investigating Blueprint for sure. Especially as I prefer Unreal 4's licencing deal to Unity's (for what you get).
All I will say on the whole matter here, is that over the past few days, I couldn't help but think that practically overnight, we've all entered into a whole new age for independent game development.
Of course, what game engine one choices will come down to their project scope, service offerings, their personal preference of engine workflow, and their own level of investment (experience) in a given engine.
But I will imagine that Unity will no longer be the "no-brainer" choice for many. People will carefully weigh their options, and keep their options open.
Most of all, I imagine that AAA indie game development will see its rise towards becoming the most stable end of the entire game industry, in an age where big companies are staling and small less-than-stellar indie games are superfluous.
A new standard is likely to rise from this unprecedented age of powerful tools accessible for indie development. May it lead to a new golden age of gaming.
It's very clear to me that many artists will compare graphics capabilities and of course the pricing.
But we shall also consider which has the must stable editor.
And also consider which one has simpler and intuitive asset pipeline.
Among many, those are the two crucial features that I think people overlook the most.
10$ monthly / 20$ monthly / 1500$ one time, all seems very close.
I was using CryEngine, mainly only for environments and not an actual game. But with UE4 combined with the power of blueprint and access to the full source code, even with the crutch of baked lighting compared to real time lighting, I might just switch to Unreal all together and try and make something out of it. I wanted to make games with CryEngine, but with only a little coding experience, and no real in-depth documentation, it just seemed impossible to make anything other than an FPS by yourself. Also, Unreal opens it's arms to the new PBR pipeline (which I don't understand fully, just starting to learn) and I want to keep current.
No. You essentially pay only for updates. So pay 20$, cancel sub, pay again when interesting update come out. Sub is only for people who want access to Marketplace, bleeding edge source code, and ability to contribute to Epic code repository.
No. You essentially pay only for updates. So pay 20$, cancel sub, pay again when interesting update come out. Sub is only for people who want access to Marketplace, bleeding edge source code, and ability to contribute to Epic code repository.
Don't you think it's like cheating?
20$ is not that expensive and you're essentially contributing to the development of the engine. (Which I think is a good thing)
Don't you think it's like cheating?
20$ is not that expensive and you're essentially contributing to the development of the engine. (Which I think is a good thing)
Depends a lot on the user. Hobbyists are skeptical of even spending the first $20 and anybody who used UDK solely for learning purposes rather than professional work will likely not pay $20 a month because that ends up being a subscription fee that won't return any profits.
I wouldn't really call it "cheating" and you can still give feedback on existing features so you can still contribute to the engine.
Depends a lot on the user. Hobbyists are skeptical of even spending the first $20 and anybody who used UDK solely for learning purposes rather than professional work will likely not pay $20 a month because that ends up being a subscription fee that won't return any profits.
I wouldn't really call it "cheating" and you can still give feedback on existing features so you can still contribute to the engine.
You bring good points.
But, in life we pay on lot of things that won't turn us profit.
Developing an engine isn't cheep.
I think we should respect developers for their hard work by paying them what they've asked.
Of course, as long as it's reasonable.
Don't you think it's like cheating?
20$ is not that expensive and you're essentially contributing to the development of the engine. (Which I think is a good thing)
Well it's option that is confirmed by Epic Staff. you can tell them they are cheating on them selves by suggesting it to people ;p.
Besides those 19$ is hardly a profit to Epic anyway. The must pay for site, hosting support staff for sire and github repository (yes non opensource and private repositories on github cost money). https://github.com/pricing
It's not like people allow game modding with tools anyway.
The problem is, that by using Editor you can essentialy make game on top of another game . I guess that is the reason why you can't simply bundle it along.
On other hand 19$ for editor to mode game is not that bad. Most people will be turned off by this, but for some it won't big big cost to modify game.
The $19 is a great deal if you are gonna make a game out of it, but for educational or game modding purposes, it really kills people off.
I've read that they won't be able to release the editor for modders now with any game that runs on UE4. Thats goodbye to any mods on any UE4 games.
They're expecting modders to pay the subscription fee to access the editor, to mod UE4 games. I genuinely just don't see that working. I want to ship the base game of my next title for $10. People aren't going to want to pay $20 to mod it. I don't want people to have to pay $20 to mod it, because I'm already paying a subscription fee and royalties.
Then there's the issue of me releasing a game in 2015, and how different the tools will be down the line - not to mention the changes we might make to the engine and the middleware we might include
Just curious as to whether people think the UE4 subscription plans will affect AAA dev in a positive way? instead of having to shell out $1,000,000 in advance for source access, they could hire more developers instead, right?
its $20..... Even if you are not serious about game dev thats a steal. I spend that much on food atleast on any given day, or to go see a movie. I cannot belive how people will find anything to cry about if its not free. Personally if you are not willing to invest something like 20 bucks in some tech to help you learn and stay current i would not consider that person serious about it in the first place.
I spend tons of money on tracks for when i dj, i will not really make a profit off it unless i get more known, so i invest in myself and what i am passionate about even if it sets me back a bunch of coin in the short term. Besides that most hobbiests who do cg are probably running cracked software for everything anyways so being forced to spend something is probably a good thing.
It depends, on how much profit you are predicting. Though 1mln $ for middle ware seem excessive.
AAA developers will be striking individual deals with Epic anyway. Though I'm 100% sure, some of them will just buy indie license just to tinker around, maybe even make game, and then contact Epic for individual license.
They're expecting modders to pay the subscription fee to access the editor, to mod UE4 games. I genuinely just don't see that working. I want to ship the base game of my next title for $10. People aren't going to want to pay $20 to mod it. I don't want people to have to pay $20 to mod it, because I'm already paying a subscription fee and royalties.
Then there's the issue of me releasing a game in 2015, and how different the tools will be down the line - not to mention the changes we might make to the engine and the middleware we might include
Yeah no one's gonna pay more for the editor than the game apart from the most dedicated modders. I would be better if a deal could be struck to include the editor along with the game.
Again the indies shine again, no AAA is going the way it is.
Just curious as to whether people think the UE4 subscription plans will affect AAA dev in a positive way? instead of having to shell out $1,000,000 in advance for source access, they could hire more developers instead, right?
It won't change too significantly. 200 seats is a snip under $4000 per month - or over a two year development period you're looking at $100k.
That's way better than half a million bucks, but I'm sure the console platform licenses don't come cheap on top of that.
Just curious as to whether people think the UE4 subscription plans will affect AAA dev in a positive way? instead of having to shell out $1,000,000 in advance for source access, they could hire more developers instead, right?
It won't have much of an effect on real AAA development.
I think it will encourage a lot of wannabe AAA development. People will spend a lot of time making a shiny tech demo without having the skills or financing to run a AAA size team.
Replies
That makes me very happy to hear
...also, a bit sad. Honestly, when I heard the UE4 news, I was seriously intrigued, but hopefully their in-editor modeling isn't all THAT bad, is it? :S Devving ProBuilder has be mostly hooked into Unity, but UDK was my "first"...
I have started with unity one year ago, and I really like the engine. the only thing that really annoyed me was the shading model, and I am quite happy about the new standard shader (already tested it within beta). It is simple, efficient and beautiful.
One thing that is special about unity is hutong playmaker - what an incredible tool for non coders like me!
It seems to me that Unity 5 is beeing a bit pricey, compared to the other offers.
I thought the same. But Blueprint sounds just as capable, if not more so. I will be investigating Blueprint for sure. Especially as I prefer Unreal 4's licencing deal to Unity's (for what you get).
Of course, what game engine one choices will come down to their project scope, service offerings, their personal preference of engine workflow, and their own level of investment (experience) in a given engine.
But I will imagine that Unity will no longer be the "no-brainer" choice for many. People will carefully weigh their options, and keep their options open.
Most of all, I imagine that AAA indie game development will see its rise towards becoming the most stable end of the entire game industry, in an age where big companies are staling and small less-than-stellar indie games are superfluous.
A new standard is likely to rise from this unprecedented age of powerful tools accessible for indie development. May it lead to a new golden age of gaming.
20 dollars, stop subscription, done. Though I'd probably wait a couple months for some primary bugs to fix
But we shall also consider which has the must stable editor.
And also consider which one has simpler and intuitive asset pipeline.
Among many, those are the two crucial features that I think people overlook the most.
10$ monthly / 20$ monthly / 1500$ one time, all seems very close.
You can try this great articles by the awesome guys at 'marmoset':
http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-theory
http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/learn/pbr-practice
No. You essentially pay only for updates. So pay 20$, cancel sub, pay again when interesting update come out. Sub is only for people who want access to Marketplace, bleeding edge source code, and ability to contribute to Epic code repository.
20$ is not that expensive and you're essentially contributing to the development of the engine. (Which I think is a good thing)
I wouldn't really call it "cheating" and you can still give feedback on existing features so you can still contribute to the engine.
But, in life we pay on lot of things that won't turn us profit.
Developing an engine isn't cheep.
I think we should respect developers for their hard work by paying them what they've asked.
Of course, as long as it's reasonable.
Well it's option that is confirmed by Epic Staff. you can tell them they are cheating on them selves by suggesting it to people ;p.
Besides those 19$ is hardly a profit to Epic anyway. The must pay for site, hosting support staff for sire and github repository (yes non opensource and private repositories on github cost money).
https://github.com/pricing
I've read that they won't be able to release the editor for modders now with any game that runs on UE4. Thats goodbye to any mods on any UE4 games.
The problem is, that by using Editor you can essentialy make game on top of another game . I guess that is the reason why you can't simply bundle it along.
On other hand 19$ for editor to mode game is not that bad. Most people will be turned off by this, but for some it won't big big cost to modify game.
They're expecting modders to pay the subscription fee to access the editor, to mod UE4 games. I genuinely just don't see that working. I want to ship the base game of my next title for $10. People aren't going to want to pay $20 to mod it. I don't want people to have to pay $20 to mod it, because I'm already paying a subscription fee and royalties.
Then there's the issue of me releasing a game in 2015, and how different the tools will be down the line - not to mention the changes we might make to the engine and the middleware we might include
I spend tons of money on tracks for when i dj, i will not really make a profit off it unless i get more known, so i invest in myself and what i am passionate about even if it sets me back a bunch of coin in the short term. Besides that most hobbiests who do cg are probably running cracked software for everything anyways so being forced to spend something is probably a good thing.
AAA developers will be striking individual deals with Epic anyway. Though I'm 100% sure, some of them will just buy indie license just to tinker around, maybe even make game, and then contact Epic for individual license.
Yeah no one's gonna pay more for the editor than the game apart from the most dedicated modders. I would be better if a deal could be struck to include the editor along with the game.
Again the indies shine again, no AAA is going the way it is.
It won't change too significantly. 200 seats is a snip under $4000 per month - or over a two year development period you're looking at $100k.
That's way better than half a million bucks, but I'm sure the console platform licenses don't come cheap on top of that.
The subscription plan is great for allowing low risk indie projects.
It won't have much of an effect on real AAA development.
I think it will encourage a lot of wannabe AAA development. People will spend a lot of time making a shiny tech demo without having the skills or financing to run a AAA size team.