Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Knights Says Unreal Engine is Broken
Yesterday we discussed Too Human's absence from this year's E3 event, and briefly mentioned the just-announced lawsuit between Silicon Knights and Epic. Today there's a bit of a clarification. Silicon Knights is suing Epic because, according to Kotaku, Epic failed to 'provide a working game engine' to SK causing them to 'experience considerable losses.' Essentially Knights argues that the Gears of War version of the Unreal engine was withheld by Epic so that Epic products could show up competitors at trade events. For a deeper look at this, the blog runs down the allegations in detail, and concluded by noting that a slew of next-generation titles slated to use the Unreal Engine have been delayed several times. This includes Stranglehold, BioShock, Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Rainbow Six: Vegas, Turok, Frame City Killer, Fatal Inertia and Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway ... a somewhat persuasive list, when it's all laid out in front of you.
Outside of exclusive, blockbuster-style releases that have significant backing by Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo, what game ISN'T delayed these days?
If it is even partially true that Epic has been funding development of their own titles by taking money from other developers and then botching or even worse failing to deliver on features or support Epic is done as a serious option for major game development houses.
At best Epic is incompetent in taking on the massive task of engine support for major commercial products without the staff or resources to be able to handle the job.
At worst Epic is outright guilty of fraud.
Why anyone would be crazy enough to entrust a AAA console title to a pc developer like Epic is a completely separate question.
Wow, that's an INCREDIBLY good idea! You know, they paid the $250,000+ to license the Unreal 3 engine probably 2 years ago, before Gears of War came out under the guise that the engine is incredibly solid, stable, and next-gen. Now they're finding out that the engine doesn't work! Sure, go ahead and tell the people who've ALREADY licensed the engine to, not license it. They'll just have to go back in time and tell their former selves what Epic will do to them AFTER receiving their money... Right. I did a good bit of mod work with the Unreal 2 engine, and I was quite impressed with the toolset. It's disheartening to see Epic mistreating Unreal 3. This is, if true, most definitely false advertising, maybe even to the point of being a bait-and-switch.
Except for the fact that they started working on this since before the xbox 360 was released, so they didn't even have a way to know that it was broken.
If you've read any of the articles you would know that the issue is Epic not delivering on their contracts (assumedly) for the purpose of being able to highlight their own games (Gears of War) over competitors who had licenses their engine. It's not as simple as "don't license it."
I was told that because of rising costs for making games that making a custom engine in house was a costly waste of time when you could go out and license a working engine from someone like Id, Epic, or Valve (I'm not going to name them all.)
I always thought this was odd. What if your game is going to directly compete with a game made by the people you license your engine from. They make money from the engine being listened and from whatever royalties system they implement, but in the end they still make way more money from there own games. They sell more if your game looks bad.
Unlike a middleware developer like the guys who make Havok or Kynogon they have a possible conflicting interest. hmm
You mad
I think what's really wrong here is that Epic specifically withheld the engine code from SK...if they really did that. I remember when HL2 was initially released that there was a new Vampire The Masquerade released with the Source engine and Valve made a deal with the developer that they could use the engine if they agreed to release the game after HL2. Seems like that was a valid deal to me. If these allegations are true, then Epic was either intentionally deceptive to promote their own game which I think Valve proves isn't necessary, or more likely as the Kotaku blog entry suggests, they didn't have enough employees to handle the work load.
Yeah, the toolset is great. And they release native versions for Linux and Mac. Hopefully they can work this out.
On the other hand though, I think it says something about Silicon Knights that they're publicly complaining about it and others don't seem to be. Perhaps it is because other developers haven't been failing to deliver their game for 10 years. Of course it could be that they just feel they have less to lose by going public...
The Farewell Tour II
I want to see some evidence, from both sides.
IANAL but my guess is:
The simplest and most likely scenario here is that Epic promised to ship some code out, and missed their deadline. It's not very unusual for this to happen, deadlines get missed all the time, particularly in the gaming industry. SK is covering their bases (which is the smart thing to do) by making the claim include the possibility that Epic did it intentionally, which would be considerably harder to prove, but is in there just in case that's what happened.
If it was just a missed deadline, it looks like whatever clauses were already in the contract's terms and conditions for this scenario will be invoked(why the HELL would they not include a late delivery clause? There has to be one in there already), or failing that, just a nulled contract, possibly with some compensation for the inconvenience. Slashdotters probably already know that there's very little chance of the Gears profits being handed over. People claim whatever they want, that doesn't mean the court will decide to award it to them.
Of course, since you say it's "boring," I'll give you the hint that you should skip to pages 24 ("Epic's Improper Withholding of Updates, Improvements, and Enhancements") and 30 ("Epic's Misrepresentations in Connection With the Unreal Engine 3 and the Agreement").
So, id software is going to get a lot of business in the coming years, huh?
To me, this sounds like a typical software development fuckup. Epic probably underestimated what it would take to get GoW out. So they decided to take development resources away from the engine to the game. Then, they fixed the engine specifically for the game, because that is easier than fixing it in a generic fashion - but this leads to a kind of merging of the two code bases. Obviously, they didn't want to give out the code for GoW, so they ended up with a crappy version of the engine - which they did give out - and a good version of the engine married to the code of GoW - which they didn't want to give out (at first).
I have absolutely no insider information, but I could easily see something like this happening. As always, Hanlon's Razor applies: "Never ascribe to malice, that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
Not I am not kidding but the PS3's programing model looks like a real bear to deal with I saw these comments in the article.
"Epic once again supposedly missed a deadline for an Engine Silicon Knights was going to use on a PLAYSTATION 3 game. Epic missed this deadline by six-months. A functional UE3 for the PS3 was supposed to be delivered by February 2007. It wasn't.
According to SK, the Engine apparently caused the game to "slow down significantly" due to lengthly load times and "memory-spikes" during loading. Epic apparently had known about this problem with the Unreal Engine since 2004 and promised a solution by 2005. It never came. "
I am not a big console gamer but didn't I hear that many of the "Hot must get" titles for the PS3 will not be out until March 08?
I have heard on Slashdot time and time again that the PS3 programing model will not be a problem because everybody will use game engines that will deal with it for you. Seems like the game engines are having some issues now.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
'cause that court is cheaper and the verdict is usually already spoken after hearing just one side, i.e. the one that whines?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Silicon Knights are publicly complaining about the (lack of) PS3 Unreal Engine that they've paid for. Those other non-complaining developers, however, have been discreetly cancelling or postponing the PS3 versions of their games for quite some time now, however.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
One: Middleware (and just about any production software) is constantly in a state of flux, and there is never a "final" version of it. People who licence the Unreal Engine technologies are given secure access to Epic's CVS repository, where daily engine builds and patches can be checked out for use by the game developers. SK's claim that they didn't have access to a "finished" version is a load of bunk.
Two: the Engine framework is delivered "as is". It is up to the game developer to modify the engine to suit that particular game's needs, not Epic. If the developers at SK are incapable of programming the engine to suit their needs, that is their problem, not Epics. SK started receiving alpha versions of the engine right after the first X360 dev kits went out and they have access to the CVS like everyone else. The fault is with SK, not Epic.
Three: if you read up on it you will find that SK is looking to claim that all of the modification work that they are doing on the game constitutes an "entirely new engine" and that they should retain all rights to it. In other words, they want the benefits of using UE3 technology without having to pay for it.
Four: SK is seeking damages - they want the complete profits from Gears of War. Think about that for a minute. Here's the relevant part: The document then asks that "The Court award damages to Silicon Knights in an amount proved at trial for the damages as set forth above", and that "Epic be required to disgorge all profits obtained on its Gears of War game as a result of the misconduct set forth above." This is a straight-up scam to get money, period.
Five: Epic has licenced its technology to a rather vast collection of developers, including some of the biggest in the business. No one else has complained, just Silicon Knights - a company that has been pushing Too Human (the title in question) since 1999 (when it was being developed for the Gamecube). Think about that - a company that has been making the same title for 8 years suddenly decides to launch a lawsuit when they find themselves unable to show the goods at E3. At least 3DRealms isn't making grandiose claims about Duke Nukem Forever all the time...
Six: Epic has a long history of supporting developers, from the corporate level all the way down to the hobbyist modder at home. Epic provides tools and help free of charge to anyone who wants them. If SK gets their way, this could have severe ramifications for the entire gaming industry and engine middleware licencing in general.
SK Business Plan
1). Licence middleware engine 6 years after beginning development. Have incompetent programmers who cannot understand simple instructions program the game.
2). Show off screenshots, brag - and then fail to deliver goods at E3.
3). Blame middleware provider for own problems.
4). ???
5). Profit.
I remember the issues the Vampire: Bloodlines folks had with the HL2 engine. The problem is that the HL2 folks kept making engine changes while Troika worked on theirs. Integrating updates was a big deal. When Obsidian made Neverwinter Nights 2, they had Bioware's code base, but there were some broken functions even though the first NWN had been out for a long time.
Like you say, the U3 engine likely went through a lot of changes and neither they nor the licensee understood how much work is involved in using a piece of software that's still being developed.
So far this seems like a "Harvard vs Yale" thing where it is inconsequential who wins. The cynic in me does have a suspicion that blame can be laid at the feet of both Epic and SK.
Epic is to blame because it seems to complete Gears of War with the "Unreal Engine 3" required a lot of work from Epic themselves. Or in other words, the engine wasn't as complete as it really needed to be so Epic did a lot of specific fixes for Gears to bring up the game. This seems to indicate that UE3 isn't that complete or polished and Epic is unable (technically or contractually) or unwilling to merge these changes into the basic engine leaving any ISV who got a license wondering how in the world they can make a game that is remotely close to Gears in function and quality.
Silicon Knights is to blame because their management seems to be way out there (yes Denis Dyack I'm looking at you). No engine can make a game beautiful where the performance of Too Human was entirely your ball to drop. That is the job of the artists, programmers, and ultimately the "director" where if they were not happy with the platform given they needed to voice their concerns. I have a sneaking suspicion they believed the marketing instead of their own technical assets then it is yet another bad decision by management.
So whatever. These two can hash it out where the ultimate fall out is that Too Human is probably 2009 time frame if SK goes through with this, reclaim their money, and rebuild their own engine.
Maybe they should try using a real engine instead.
That doesn't jive with what we know of reality. For one, the Unreal Engine is continually updated. While they have major versions of it, it isn't as though there's a one point in time thing you get, buying it gets you updates. Another would be that there are Unreal Engine 3 games out right now that you can get. Rainbow 6 Vegas and RoboBlitz would be two that I know of and there's a whole bunch more in development. So if the engine really didn't work, you'd think that maybe we'd hear something form the other dev shops, maybe there's be less games using it.
Sounds more like Silicon Knights is having trouble delivering what they promised, and is looking for a scape goat. I'm not going to pass judgement because I don't know the whole story, but this "OMG Epic screwed people over because of GoW!" just doesn't jive with what is known. When you've got a bunch of licensees, some with products out, some with products coming out soon, it doesn't seem as though you are screwing over people if one happens to whine.
Will this delay Duke Nukem Forever, too?
(not that there would be YAEC {yet another engine change}, no that'd be silly)
(very tounge in cheek, BTW)
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Well, in practice it isn't always a problem.
Naughty Dog's game engine for Jak and Daxter was also used for the Ratchet and Clank series from Insomniac, and (I believe) for the Sly Cooper series from Sucker Punch. The three franchises definitely competed with each other; Jak & Daxter were often directly compared to Ratchet and Clank.
For my money, R&C was by far the best series of games, followed by SC, with J&D coming in third. Naughty Dog did a great job of building a game engine, but their game design was often poor. (Particularly Jak 2, which was truly horrible in places.)
(Oh, and the game engine used Lisp. How cool is that?)
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Oops. Bad example.
I admit my bias as a Bioware fanboy, but I was bummed when they announced Mass Effect when the 360 was launched. Didn't have one and didn't plan to get one. A year passed and I broke down and got a 360 end of last year (actually two if you count the returns). I pre-ordered ME when I bought the thing and it was supposed to launch in January. Looks like it will be September. It'd would be interesting to know if it was issues with the engine was behind some of the delays. I prefer to think that Bioware is more like Blizzard and they don't release total crap.
HTH
"Sure, they could provide more support to the community, but that would mean other parties get less attention."
You left out the fact that they provide a stand-alone version of the engine. I know of no other developer that does that.
Whether deliberate or not, it looks like developing a game to compete with someone else's game while licensing their technology may be a fatally flawed idea.
[clever sig]
Silicon Knights has been working working on this game for almost a decade now, and now they're desperately looking for a way to pull out a profit when they still don't have anything to show. This lawsuit is pretty fucking ridiculous, did you see what they are looking for in damages? The profits from Gears of War. Yeah, okay, we'll just hand that right over to you since we totally did screw you. Nobody else seems to be complaining about these sorts of problems; I smell a scam.
No joke. ED FTW!
This must also be one of the reasons why DN4 still isn't ready. IIRC they switched from the Quake2 engine to the Unreal engine sometime back in the late 90's. They could claim billions of dollars in delay costs after all these years!
Clickety Click
Wow.... they've come a long way from just saying "NI!".
Free as in mason.
Or it could be that (as I said) AND that they're whining bitches. As much as they're probably correct (for the most part) I think I'd have a little bit more respect for them if they hadn't been working so long on a game that looks so "meh" without much to show for it. As much as I love Eternal Darkness (up until the point where you get basically unlimited sanity recovery, anyway), SK just hasn't built up their credibility enough for me to not jump to calling bullshit when they appear to be whining.
I know if any EA studio had come out and said the same thing we'd all be calling them whiners and the apologists would be getting modded to hell.
The Farewell Tour II
Maybe the bad idea is to use a game engine that is still being developed instead of in optimization mode... Obviously, developing a game base on a alpha / beta engine with constant API changes is going to be much more of an effort than using an engine a few months after the first games with it have been released. API changes at that time are much less likely, and the problems and some workarounds are probably well=known by then....
The world always seems brighter when you've just made something that wasn't there before. - Neil Gaiman
I don't know much else, but Silicon Knights is *NOT* a new studio, they've been producing games for damn near 14 years now, maybe longer (They did a game or two under SSI's banner WAY WAY back in like '92-'93 I believe Fantasy Empires.)
So while they could just be whiney bastards, keep in mind that at least as a company they're not new to the game biz, and if they're complaining like this it's quite possible they are on-target.
"Our code is the most elegant, best-structured base code in the world. When we started out with id Tech 5, we didn't hack onto an old engine and then sort of replace parts as we went along. It's an entirely new engine. The structure is super-fundamentally sound." - Steve Nix, to Gamespot
Thirteen year old delinquent's daydream?
Oh, I'm quite aware of that. You'll probably notice upon re-reading it that I never claimed nor inferred otherwise. I just haven't cared about their games apart from Eternal Darkness. I might even go as far as to say that it hurts their credibility to have only put out one really standout title in all those years. Kind of like Valve when they put out Half-Life (which I'd argue isn't that great, but lots of people love it) and then didn't do anything for 6 years but milk their fan community.
Even if they had put out a ton of games that I liked, it doesn't necessarily translate into credibility on the subject of game engines and middleware. Just because you make games that are fun doesn't necessarily say anything about the technical chops or sound reasoning of your team.
So I'll say it again, they're probably right but they still come off like whining bitches because they haven't built up the credibility with me to sound authoritative and the ton seems more like a petty swipe at Epic in an attempt to deflect attention away from their continued failure to deliver Too Human. Which if I'm not mistaken has been in some stage of development for most of those 14 years that you mentioned.
The Farewell Tour II