Unreal Engine 4 Launching With Full Source Code

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unreal Engine 4 Launching With Full Source Code

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday March 19, 2014 @07:30AM from the see-the-man-behind-the-curtain dept.

jones_supa writes "Today Epic launched Unreal Engine 4 for game developers. Supported platforms are Windows, OS X, iOS and Android, with desktop Linux coming later. The monetization scheme is unique: anyone can get access to literally everything for a $19/month fee. Epic wants to build a business model that succeeds when UE4 developers succeed. Therefore, part of the deal is that anyone can ship a commercial product with UE4 by paying 5% of their gross revenue resulting from sales to users. This gets them the Unreal Editor in ready-to-run form, and the engine's complete C++ source code hosted on GitHub for collaborative development."

94 of 149 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

This is very exciting for indie devs by glasshole · 2014-03-19 07:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

and even medium sized devs who couldn't shill out for the giant license fees before.
1. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-19 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  UDK used to be free to play with. It's exciting until you realize there's a subscription attached and if you build a game with it 5% of the gross. That doesn't sound like much but when you stack it on top of the ~30% gross from your preferred sales channel, plus the fees from whatever other middleware you might want (Scaleform, FMOD, Bink, and Havok come to mind) and then add taxes, you're struggling to break even.
2. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-19 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you're making $0 on each unit to begin with. Learn math.
3. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by alen · 2014-03-19 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  or do what they did in the 90's, code your own engine for every game you make
  or pay the thousands of $$$ upfront to Unity for their engine
  this is where you have to make a good game and not just a copy of the latest IAP crap in the app store or some FPS. unlike 20 years ago people are willing to license you lots of software for no upfront fee and all you have to do is make an awesome game.
  they are taking most of the financial risk of losing lots of money you may have invested in your project and you're still complaining?
4. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by alen · 2014-03-19 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  then don't license everything under the sun
  or buy your software upfront
  or write your own engine. go start an open source game engine project that supports all the new hardware tech before it comes out and see how it works out
5. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by brit74 · 2014-03-19 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  Unreal has had some good licensing terms for years. Three years ago, I their offer was 25% of sales and your first $50,000 of income is free (i.e. you owed nothing to Epic if your game grossed less than $50,000).
6. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by Adriax · 2014-03-19 08:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  https://store.unity3d.com/
  $1500 gets you the pro version, or $75 a month. That's not thousands.
  Android and iOS are another chunk of cash each but are not required unless you're targeting those pro features.
  Of course you can use and release free if you don't need the pro features...
  And what financial risk are they taking? If I make a game and it flops badly with no sales they are still ahead by my monthly subscription.
  
  --
  I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
7. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by alen · 2014-03-19 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  $1500 per user
  10 guys is $15000
  then more money for the other software
  you can always start up a company with a few hundreds thousand $$$ of your own money and have it fail and lose it all. Epic is giving you software to make a professional product with very little upfront cost
8. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by brit74 · 2014-03-19 08:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Geez, it's 5%. Stop pretending like this is an onerous burden on developers. Commercial 3d engines used to cost a flat fee in the mid-six-figure range (i.e. $250,000 to $500,000).
9. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Assmasher · 2014-03-19 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  5% of gross is a lot. 5% of net is not.
  
  --
  Loading...
10. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by Adriax · 2014-03-19 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  $15000 would get you a 28 person team license with unity pro.
  It would also get you an infinite person team license with unity standard and $15000 in change.
  Both save you the 5% royalty.
  And you have yet to explain what financial risk epic games is bearing for you when you use the unreal engine.
  Why are you so intent on making it look like unity is a horribly overpriced alternative?
  I'm going to assume you're just an angry fanboy, because a paid shill would have better grammar.
  
  --
  I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
11. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by alen · 2014-03-19 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  epic is not as dumb as the authors of popular books licensing their works to hollywood
12. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by glasshole · 2014-03-19 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  You can't develop a commercial game with Unity Standard though. Even if you're a single developer, the watermarking is a but of a put off. Sure you could develop for years and then just license to purchase, but that isn't likely a 28 person teams biggest concern.
13. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by SuperDre · 2014-03-19 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm.. yes it's great until you realize it's $19 or 19 euro per developer per month.. UDK is still supported, but won't get any real new options..
14. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Adriax · 2014-03-19 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  A watermark? I haven't built anything with unity but all I can find is as long as you make less than $100k/year you can build and release with free with just a required splash screen.
  And even if unity suddenly does become an overpriced piece of junk, there's other game engines including a good number of GPL and MIT licensed free ones.
  For the hypothetical 10 man team looking to break into the market with no money to spare for a big license, there are alternatives. And if they refuse to do without the extra pretty unreal rendering provides, then they probably lack the ability to compromise on other aspects of their vision and are pretty much doomed to fail.
  Unreal's licensing scheme looks like nothing more than a way to squeeze some cash out of students looking to learn the engine before applying to a big company.
  That and court small to mid sized studios that have the resources to actually utilize the unreal pretties, and hopefully score a popular enough release to afford a real license and cut down the royalties.
  
  --
  I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
15. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by hairyfeet · 2014-03-19 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  Its 5% of GROSS not net, so it really ought to be labeled as more than 35% because they are getting their cut before a single one of your costs is figured in.
  I know being a little shop owner I don't care what you offered me if it were for a % of the gross? Kindly do piss off. oh and UDK used to be 100% Free to download and play with so its actually worse than it was before as it'll cost you a $20 to even try the thing.
  I have a feeling that while they may get some indies (who don't know the difference between gross and net) a LOT of the big studios will either negotiate for a flat rate or just switch to another engine, not like there aren't great engines out there besides Unreal.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
16. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by spire3661 · 2014-03-19 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  NO one is forcing you to go through channels that cost 30%
  
  --
  Good-bye
17. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by angel'o'sphere · 2014-03-19 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  If you can not afford to pay $19 per month for a piece of software, I really don't want to know what you consider to pay your developers per hour.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
18. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by Guru80 · 2014-03-19 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  There is no Watermarking in Unity. There are commercial games developed in standard Unity just not high quality games for the most part but there are some of those as well, there are plenty of high quality Unity Pro version of games. Aside from lack of real time shadows and the like the only mark is the powered by Unity splash screen during initial loading of the game that is only up a couple seconds.
19. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-19 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  The pricing is targeted at indy devs; large developers who routinely gross 8 or 9 figures on games will not be paying for it this way, and if Epic thinks they will I suspect they're in for a surprise.
  The only people who will get burned by this deal in reality are the very few low-budget indy games that hit enormous success -- think Minecraft, Braid, etc. For the vast, vast majority of indy games, 5% of gross is far less than the one-time fee for licensing a top-notch engine.
20. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by suutar · 2014-03-19 10:41 · Score: 2
  
  I don't see what you mean. Assuming revenue of 100 and 40% expenses (taxes, sales channel), 5% of gross is 5 bucks, but 5% of net is only 3 bucks. 2 bucks difference on the bottom line may not sound like a lot, but scale it up and it starts to matter more.
  Since it seems I'm misinterpreting what you said, could you please clarify?
21. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by stoborrobots · 2014-03-19 11:42 · Score: 1
  I really don't know the indie game industry very well so I don't know what constitutes "mildly successful", but based on the numbers given, the break-even point is $5m-$10m (so that 5% is $250k-$500k)... So if your expected gross income from the game is less than $5 million, then this is a good deal, and if not, it's a bad deal.
  Even if your expected gross is $10 million over the life of the game, if that's made up of $2 million a year for 5 years, this might be an attractive option given the following choices:
  
  Spend $250,000 now, hope and pray that you make some money, gross $2 million in the first year (so that costed you 12.5%!!!!), then recoup the expense over the next few years, or
  Spend $20 now, gross $2 million each year, then from that income spend $100,000 each year.
  You end up spending more in the second situation, but you spend it after you've earned it, with the risk transferred to the vendor. Not always the right option, but often worth considering even if it's not the chosen path.
  --
  "Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
22. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Stickiler · 2014-03-19 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the 'big hit' indie developers will get burnt by this new system a shit load less than the previous UDK system. The previous UDK system was 25% net, with the first $50k free. Assuming 30% fees on top of UE fees, the new system equals the old system at $400k gross revenue, and from that point on is just flat out cheaper than the previous one. Obviously the new system gets worse the higher additional fees you have, but on the flip side, the lower your additional fees, the more attractive the new system is. Plus not to mention you are allowed to contact Epic Games to try and work out a better deal with them.
23. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Assmasher · 2014-03-19 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  ...is the same at your bottom line.
  What is that supposed to mean?
  Epic wants 5% of your gross sales. Not 5% of what you get from a sale. You understand that there's a difference, right? Especially when a**hats like crApple want 30% of your gross sales already.
  
  --
  Loading...
24. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Guspaz · 2014-03-19 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  How much of a game sale do you think game developers get from a retail box on a shelf, after they've covered the cost of paying the publisher, the manufacturer, the shipper, the store, and any other middle men I'm forgetting? A damned sight less than the 70% that Apple gives you on their app store. Or Valve gives you on Steam.
  30% for digital distribution seems to be relatively standard.
25. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by gbjbaanb · 2014-03-19 20:39 · Score: 2
  
  What I find interesting is that the slashdot sqwark of outrage over unreal charging 5% seems to ignore that the 'sales channel' of Apple, Google or Valve's stores is more like 30%, yet no-one seems to care that 5% for writing a good-quality isn't such a bad deal.
  If you want to complain about costs - take umbrage with the sales channels that happily cream a fucking third of your revenue away for doing little more than hosting a download site.
26. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Barefoot+Monkey · 2014-03-19 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. The old UDK licence was absolutely wonderful as long as you didn't hit the revenue threshold - then suddenly became crippling. Meanwhile, Epic earned nothing until the threshold was hit. This is a definite improvement for both Epic and for commercial licensees... although the subscription fee does add a barrier for hobbyists and freeware-authors compared to the old arrangement.
27. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Assmasher · 2014-03-19 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not that this has anything to do with the topic, since I brought up Apple's gouging model simple to point out to the other poster that gross and net are VASTLY different things, but you're comparing the 43% makes in comparison to the developer of the actual software to the amount a storefront makes off your product when it's on the shelf?
  Apple is a storefront only. No games/software store in the world has a 30% markup.
  Apple does virtually nothing for their 30% cut. You seem to be trying to include publisher, production, advertising, and many other potential costs into your comparison.
  If you even think otherwise, ask yourself why Apple doesn't let anyone else have an app store (and please, don't think it is because they want to "protect the experience" LOL.)
  It's a racket, plain and simple.
  
  --
  Loading...
28. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Wootery · 2014-03-19 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  go start an open source game engine project that supports all the new hardware tech before it comes out and see how it works out
  Or, better, improve an existing FOSS game engine. There's enough fragmentation here as it is.
29. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by RCL · 2014-03-19 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  No sources though.
  
  --
  Coding etudes
30. Re:This is very exciting for indie devs by djnforce9 · 2014-03-20 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if Crytek hopped on board with the subscription model knowing that Unreal 4 was going to have it.
31. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by ranulf · 2014-03-20 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Most indie games don't make anywhere near this much money. Giving up 5% of revenue and a tiny up front cost is a much better deal for the majority of indie devs than taking the risk on fronting $250,000 up front when their game might not even get that much in revenue.
  Obviously, it's a decision the developer needs to make early on, but the kind of people this deal is aimed at are those that are operating on a small budget. Say for example your break even point on costs on a small team was $250,000, and $500,000 would make you able to fund the next game, and $1m would be very successful, then 5% still isn't that big a deal. If you ended up selling $5m and your the 5% became more than the $250,000 up front fee you could have paid, then it's still not a big deal because your game did $4m better than you'd ever dreamt possible.
  Any developers who seriously expect to be able to sell $5m worth of copies of their games would already be in discussion with Epic about other licensing deals. This 5% is clearly meant for small indies to reduce the barrier for entry.
32. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Anubis+IV · 2014-03-20 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  However I understand if you have to remove 'some fixed' costs at various stages the amount of fixed costs varies ...
  Great, because that's exactly what "gross" and "net" mean. Costs are removed in stages, with one set of costs being removed from your gross, and another set of costs being removed from your net. At each stage, the amount of money you have left will obviously be lower, so it's more desirable for you to have people take their percentage cut out of the later stages, since that will mean that more of the original pie will be left for you.
  For instance, pretend you grossed $1000 and that your only other expenses were the standard 30% you had to pay to your retail channel out of your gross. Here's what it looks like if I'm paying the UDK fee out of my gross:
  Gross = $1000
  Retail Fee = Gross * 30% = $1000 * 30% = $300
  UDK Fee = Gross * 5% = $1000 * 5% = $50
  Gross Costs = Retail Fee + UDK Fee = $300 + $50 = $350
  Net = Gross - Gross Costs = $1000 - $350 = $650
  Net Costs = $0
  Take-Home = Net - Net Costs = $650 - $0 = $650
  And here's what it looks like if I'm paying the UDK fee out of my net instead of gross:
  Gross = $1000
  Retail Fee = Gross * 30% = $1000 * 30% = $300
  Gross Costs = Retail Fee = $300
  Net = Gross - Gross Costs = $1000 - $300 = $700
  UDK Fee = Net * 5% = $700 * 5% = $35
  Net Costs = UDK Fee = $35
  Take-Home = Net - Net Costs = $700 - $35 = $665
  Thus, on $1000 gross, I'd take home $15 more by having them take the UDK fee out of my net instead of gross, meaning that I've just improved my bottom line by 1.5%.
33. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by angel'o'sphere · 2014-03-20 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  Apple does a lot which makes it for simple minded people easy to sell/distribute software (and books).
  It offers you a 'store system' for free, you can upload upgrades, you have cathegories to put your software into, users can rate it, comment it, you can do in app adverticing and in app purchases, everything via a platform which is basically free. If you had to set that up your own you spent more time setting up your sales and billing infrastructure than it takes you to craft your first App.
  On top of that: Apple handles the billing for you. That is again a majour obstacle if you want to set it up yourself: solved for you.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
34. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Assmasher · 2014-03-20 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  It offers you a 'store system' for free
  No it doesn't, even if you're app is free you pay $99 annually just to be able to build your product/game.
  
  If you had to set that up your own you spent more time setting up your sales and billing infrastructure than it takes you to craft your first App.
  Have you ever done this? I have, and unless you're app is "hello world" it doesn't take very long and it's mostly just waiting.
  
  That is again a majour obstacle if you want to set it up yourself: solved for you
  Maybe if you're lazy and/or a hobbyist.
  The only reason that game companies and larger indie teams use the App store is because YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.
  Everything else is just applies to hobbyists.
  
  --
  Loading...
35. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Hategrin · 2014-03-22 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  And if you made your game with a GPL licensed engine you would have to release your game for free. Sure, you could charge for it, but any jerk with an internet connection could upload it to the 2nd hit on Google and because of the GPL license you used you would have no legal grounds to sue them, or even issue a takedown request. As for the Unreal engine, it offers far more than "pretty rendering". What would you suggest a team use, Irricht, Ogre? I guess you expect a couple programmers to write their own terrain system, world builder, integrated physics, material editors, animation systems, sound engine, network protocals/layer, serialization system/file format, etc etc in a year or two when hundred man teams with million dollar budgets take years to build? Then again, what do you know, you were actually suggesting someone us the GPL license to publish a commercial product lmao.
36. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Hategrin · 2014-03-22 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why would it cost any more than the 20$ a month, where are you getting this "250,000" dollars from? All you need is a couple programmers, maybe 3-4 artists who enjoy this sort of thing, if you pay people 30 grand a year to make an indie game sorry, but if you think the indie games industry is full of talent people who want to work for nothing you're an idiot. Those that can produce something are going to publish themselves and enjoy the spoils, those that can't aren't worth hiring.
  The kind of people who get in on this are hobbyists who succeed or fail based on two things, their talent and technical ability and their personality and ability to make friends/connections. The second requirement isn't even required for some projects, there are indy games coming out made with UDK/Unity that were made by artists relying on the built-in features of the editor/graphical interface who STILL don't know how to write a single line of code.
37. Re: This is very exciting for indie devs by Guspaz · 2014-03-24 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Most game developers use Steam (which takes a similar 30% chunk of sales revenue, like Apple), even though there is nothing stopping developers from doing it themselves on that platform.
Y'know what would be awesome? by Voyager529 · 2014-03-19 07:41 · Score: 5, Funny

If Epic demonstrated the capabilities of this engine by also having a first-party game released along with it. They could make it a multiplayer first person shooter, which I know is a well-trodden field, but I really think Epic could do it - especially one that includes LAN play, which seems to be poorly represented in games these days. And then, they could bundle a few of the tools with the game so that some gamers could make their own content for it, and do something really earth-shattering - user-generated DLC, FOR FREE!
If only I could think of a name for this game....
1. Re:Y'know what would be awesome? by Chris+Mattern · 2014-03-19 08:06 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They could call it Quake!
2. Re:Y'know what would be awesome? by i+kan+reed · 2014-03-19 08:13 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That doesn't sound like a real thing.
3. Re:Y'know what would be awesome? by aliquis · 2014-03-19 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  You know Steamworks exist right?
4. Re:Y'know what would be awesome? by AnontheDestroyer · 2014-03-19 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  It's truly unreal that they didn't do this.
5. Re:Y'know what would be awesome? by Neo-Rio-101 · 2014-03-19 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, well that they'd be cloning that "Unreal Tournament" game, but it could show off the engine at least!
  
  --
  READY.
  PRINT ""+-0
6. Re:Y'know what would be awesome? by aliquis · 2014-03-19 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't get your Whoosh.
  EPIC's game was Unreal Tournament and EPIC haven't made Steam and Valves games would be Half-Life or Counter strike in this regard and their engine being Source so what's the whoosh really?
  The whoosh would be that there already existed moddable FPS games? That doesn't make much sense either.
  Stupid AC.
7. Re:Y'know what would be awesome? by aliquis · 2014-03-19 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  .. that UT was moddable and with current games on Steam now you have to buy DLCs?
If it's such a great development environment... by RDW · 2014-03-19 07:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

...couldn't they use it to build UT4? Please? After 6 years, I'm getting just a little bored of UT3.
1. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by i+kan+reed · 2014-03-19 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry to say, they've stopped needing UT as a selling point for their engine. They make money off of other people making games these days. They no longer need to make a market for themselves.
  Their last generation in major engine improvements was demo'd with gears of war, not unreal tournament. The arena shooter is dead.
2. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Kremmy · 2014-03-19 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  The arena shooter isn't dead, it just went free to play.
3. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by CanHasDIY · 2014-03-19 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  The arena shooter is dead.
  How do you mean, "arena shooter?"
  I presume it means something other than "multiplayer FPS game based on maps of finite size," since that would describe every single successful FPS game, er, ever.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
4. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by future+assassin · 2014-03-19 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Just go to Xonotic, download it http://www.xonotic.org/
  
  --
  by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
5. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Charliemopps · 2014-03-19 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Right, and that makes it hard to be profitable for a company like Epic. They want to produce the game, then sell it. It's all these other developers that want a never ending revenue stream and that takes constant attention. Those sheep need sheering.
6. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-03-19 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Loadout is the best FTP game I've seen.
7. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Nimey · 2014-03-19 08:10 · Score: 2
  
  Meh, why not fire up UT2004? IMO that's the best of the series.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
8. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by i+kan+reed · 2014-03-19 08:10 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No, arena shooters are ones where you spawn in random locations, run to grab guns and gear, move relatively quickly, and tend to have little incentive to not shoot(such as long reload times, precision weapons, stealth). With a tendency towards more explosive weaponry and "arena" styled battlefieds. It's a subgenre thing.
9. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by emj · 2014-03-19 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  In the old times, FPS was not about multiplayer. I stopped playing them around the time it became like that.
  That would be around 1996 when Quake was released.
10. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by CanHasDIY · 2014-03-19 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
  Personally I agree - UT was fun when it came out, but the concept gets pretty boring after a tick. Then again, I've noticed a number of newer games, mostly "freemium," that seem to follow at least a modified version of the arena shooter model - Dust 514 and HAWKEN immediately spring to mind (although, to be fair, I haven't actually played HAWKEN, so I could be dead wrong about that one).
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
11. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Saffaya · 2014-03-19 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of which, I usually end up playing the original UT while waiting for my online games to update.
  With Oculus Rift.
  And it still is great fun after all these years.
12. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by jrronimo · 2014-03-19 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  Totally agreed. My friends and I still play UT2k4 on a weekly basis. With the Heaven of Relics mutator and some of the great Community Bonus Pack maps, it's still fun, ten years on. As it came out March 16, 2004, happy Tenth Anniversary UT2k4!
13. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by TangoMargarine · 2014-03-19 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Games akin to Quake 3 Arena, presumably.
  
  --
  Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
14. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Arker · 2014-03-19 09:07 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Took a look at it based on your recommendation. Requires steam is a very long ways from "free."
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
15. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by phorm · 2014-03-19 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  "I haven't actually played HAWKEN, so I could be dead wrong about that on"
  You're not. It's pretty much an arena shooter with some of the addition option of some more modern FPS modes (capture the silo, etc), and exp-gathering to build upgrades (with the option to pay for them instead, of course).
16. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by fang0654 · 2014-03-19 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  Took a look at it based on your recommendation. Requires steam is a very long ways from "free."
  
  How so? It's free as in 'doesn't cost anything until you start shelling out for DLC', which is pretty much the case with all FTP games.
17. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-03-19 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's a cool thing about Loadout. You can pay for costumes and short term double XP periods- but there are no DLC maps or weapons.
  The base FTP game is very fun and it doesn't feel like you're missing anything. I tossed them $20 for some goofy outfits as a thank you.
18. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-03-19 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  Are they charging to download Steam now?
19. Re:If it's such a great development environment... by webmistressrachel · 2014-03-19 15:39 · Score: 1
  
  Do you really have hairy feet?
  
  --
  This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Release for Firefox? by hydrofix · 2014-03-19 07:59 · Score: 1

Really exicited to see if they port this to Firefox. They have already ported the version 3 of the Unreal Engine to Firefox, using OpenGL for graphics and Asm.js for code. The speed difference compared to the native version should be very small to non-existent, since Asm.js is statically compiled.
1. Re:Release for Firefox? by locopuyo · 2014-03-19 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  They did already, it was posted here a week ago. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/...
  
  --
  The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Re:A release for linux? by hydrofix · 2014-03-19 08:01 · Score: 1

Well, they did eventually port it to Firefox. The demo is down right now, but it ran fine at least on Ubuntu.
So, basically the cost is $19 by edxwelch · 2014-03-19 08:04 · Score: 1

So, basically you can just pay $19 for one month and then cancel your subscription
1. Re: So, basically the cost is $19 by ynp7 · 2014-03-19 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  Nothing?
  According to the UE4 EULA: "However, cancellation of your Subscription will not affect your rights under the License with respect to any Licensed Technology you have already downloaded under the License."
  https://www.unrealengine.com/e...
2. Re: So, basically the cost is $19 by Jesrad · 2014-03-19 20:42 · Score: 2
  
  The $19 a month is likely just for covering the costs of hosting and distributing the source code, binaires and documentation. You'd be paying for the continued convenience of accessing those anytime, the studio's clearly not intending to get rich over those subscriptions.
  
  --
  Maybe we deserve this world ?
Re:Unity eating Unreal's lunch? by i+kan+reed · 2014-03-19 08:15 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what you mean. If you're developing a fast-and-easy game in unreal, you use unrealscript. If you're a hardcore game developer doing fancy things anyways... you're going to use C/C++.
C#'s role in unity is very much like unrealscript's role in unreal. And as a c# developer, I won't hesitate to say that unrealscript actually has features oriented towards game development.
Re:Licensing if my game cost $0 ? by Rhacman · 2014-03-19 08:23 · Score: 4, Funny

So if I make a game from this and pay people to play it, will Epic cut me a check for 5% of what I'm paying the players?

--
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Re: Unity eating Unreal's lunch? by i+kan+reed · 2014-03-19 08:38 · Score: 1

Nope, that's pretty much it.
Re:A release for linux? by spark89 · 2014-03-19 08:50 · Score: 1

Linux and AAA games, holy cow... I never thought I'd live to see this moment
Re:A release for linux? by NotDrWho · 2014-03-19 09:03 · Score: 2

They promise to release it when winter comes to Game of Thrones.

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Re:A release for linux? by spark89 · 2014-03-19 09:10 · Score: 1

Why? Valve are making good thing for advancing Linux in to GameDev.
Seems a reasonable approach by Borgmeister · 2014-03-19 09:15 · Score: 1

From a laypersons perspective (by that, I mean not a programmer) this strikes me as reasonable.They are creating a sophisticated tool (is anyone going to dispute that it is, in fact, somewhat sophisticated?) for what appears to me an eminently reasonable figure, and a small haircut at the end of the process. You don't really want an EA hegemony forever surely?

--
*Insert ridiculous, apparently intelligent but ultimately meaningless phrase here*
1. Re:Seems a reasonable approach by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-19 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  5% of gross turns out to be 30-50% of net gain for most developers (unless you're Blizzard or EA). That's what's causing the controversy.
2. Re:Seems a reasonable approach by Voyager529 · 2014-03-19 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  5% of gross turns out to be 30-50% of net gain for most developers (unless you're Blizzard or EA). That's what's causing the controversy.
  The alternative, from EA's perspective, is accounting hell. Suppose you say that it's 10% of "net gain". Most would consider it reasonable to consider payroll something that would be deducted before EA's share, but suppose you're a single-op game developer, and you make a game that grosses $100,000. Suppose that after you've paid for your website, your bandwidth, your equipment, your Amazon EC2 instances, your Visual Studio licenses, refilled your Google AdWords account, and paid your electric bill, you've got $30,000 left over. Now since you're a single-op, you can write yourself a $30,000 payroll check. Epic now gets nothing, even though you've grossed $100,000 and netted $30,000, because you turned your profits into a payroll check. Conversely, Blizzard and EA can do soup-to-nuts Hollywood Accounting that shows that Titanfall and Starcraft 2 have both never made a cent.
  Now what Epic could have done was to create a 'floor' - the first combined $100,000 gross, for example, wouldn't be 'taxable', and after that it's a 5% gross income. That seems like the least objectionable method to me; let a company make a few bucks before you start charging for it, while still ensuring that Mass Effect 4 makes them a cool six figures.
A bit misleading by downix · 2014-03-19 09:33 · Score: 1

That is per-person involved in development. A 1-2 person team, sure, no big deal. A 300 man AAA, no thank you.

--
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
1. Re:A bit misleading by Adriax · 2014-03-19 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  I really doubt a AAA with a 300 person team is going to purchase a game engine for a multi-million budget AAA title by going to a publicly accessible web store and queuing up 1 pro license + 299 team addon licenses and plunk down a credit card for that $151,000 bill.
  Just guessing here, but the same sales team that processes their console licenses will probably give that AAA different licensing prices and terms for a huge order like that.
  
  --
  I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
A smart move for Epic by downix · 2014-03-19 09:40 · Score: 2

Epic's terms for 4 are quite affordable, that's why we made the move to 4 from three for City of Titans after our Kickstarter last year. These terms are very positive for those seeking to deal with a top end game engine which is, simply, a joy to work with.

--
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I'm laughing, but also crying by Phil+Urich · 2014-03-19 11:04 · Score: 1

Things have gotten much better in gaming as of late, but also a hell of a lot worse. A few titles have come out lately that actually have full editors and SDKs, but it's still a far cry (hurr hurr) from where it was at one point. I loved the Unreal Engine, but there came a point (with Deus Ex 2 and the post-Raven Shield Rainbox Six games) where UE titles stopped shipping with editors, and I found myself getting very little mileage out of them. And then of course Epic went from having fairly great Linux support to having none. I went from being a rabid fan of nearly anything built with that engine to a person who didn't even bother buying the first-party titles.

--
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
1. Re:I'm laughing, but also crying by Voyager529 · 2014-03-19 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Things have gotten much better in gaming as of late, but also a hell of a lot worse. A few titles have come out lately that actually have full editors and SDKs, but it's still a far cry (hurr hurr) from where it was at one point.
  Well, the fact of the matter was that CoD and Battlefield proved that it's far more profitable to released a game with a dozen maps, then charge $15 a pop for a half a dozen new maps every three months, than to equip players to make their own and circulate them around the internet for free.
  What bothers me the most is the complete lack of LAN play. Everything wants you to make an account and join a server and do all this matchmaking crap, when all I want to do is play against my friends, in the same room, by typing an IP address. Relatively few games within the past few years support this anymore, and I remember a friend and I sitting down for fifteen minutes trying to figure out how the hell to play against each other on Crysis 3... >.
Re:A release for linux? by Svartalf · 2014-03-19 12:27 · Score: 1

Really? I couldv'e sworn that Valve's got most of their titles over there...must've been my imagination.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Re:Unreal Tournament 4? by Fancia · 2014-03-19 12:28 · Score: 1

The only (IIRC) UE4 game publicly known to be in development from Epic is Fortnite, a survival sandbox game that sounds kinda like Sourceforts.

--

Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
Links by Anonymous Coward · 2014-03-19 13:40 · Score: 1

https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?53-Free-UE4-build-w-o-source-code-license
"Currently there is no planned trial or free version of Unreal Engine 4. If you would like, you can make a one-time purchase for $19 and then cancel your subscription to give it a try. You do not have to pay the subscription to use the engine, just to get the initial download, updates and additional content. There are two different builds you can download from this, one of which does not have access to source code and one that does, so you can choose whether or not you wish to have access to source. If your game does not turn out revenue you do not pay royalties."
https://www.unrealengine.com/custom-licensing
"If you require terms that reduce or eliminate royalty for an upfront fee, or if you need custom legal terms or dedicated Epic support to help your team reduce risk or achieve specific goals, we’re here to help."
Although I find the UDK terms superior, I think this is a fair price, if not a steal. They've got to make their money somehow.
Horrible idea by viperidaenz · 2014-03-19 14:14 · Score: 1

It's going to encourage "free" games full of mandatory in-app purchases
1. Re:Horrible idea by locopuyo · 2014-03-19 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, in-app purchases are also subjected to the 5%.
  
  --
  The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
2. Re:Horrible idea by viperidaenz · 2014-03-19 20:09 · Score: 1
  
  phew.
Re:Unreal Tournament 4? by Voyager529 · 2014-03-19 16:02 · Score: 1

Will this herald a new Unreal Tournament 4 game?
It seems to be in development by the same team feverishly coding Half-Life 3.
http://www.kdramastars.com/art...
Unfortunately, I too pine for a new Unreal Tournament release, though it seems that Epic would much rather I spend my money on Gears of War instead :/.
Not a bad price, but... by rebelwarlock · 2014-03-19 17:50 · Score: 2

$19/month honestly isn't that bad for what you're getting. I'm a member of a few indie dev communities, and I've seen what pre-release versions of the engine can do. It's very impressive, and one guy can do a whole hell of a lot more by himself in a month than he used to be able to, and make it look good in the process. However, I can't help but think they'd have a bigger market share if they used the old pricing model instead. It used to be free to play with, and free to sell games with unless you made over $50000usd. On the other hand, I doubt the decision was made arbitrarily. These guys watched the market, and saw how their engine was being used. I'm guessing a lot of indies had games that didn't make it to the $50k mark, so much so that a subscription cost is better.