Should Developers Still Pay For Game Engines?

Nerval's Lobster writes: Game developers no longer have to pay for the software they need to make great video games, because the tools used by some of the biggest and most successful studios in the world are available to everyone, for free. Among the existing major engines, there is one holdout that does not offer a free version: Crytek continues to charge everyone for CryEngine, and is intent on continuing to do so. That's not to say Crytek is being unreasonable. The company introduced a $10-per-month subscription last year, making it accessible to indie developers who can't afford the higher-priced package that includes full source code. "With CryEngine, Crytek is going to the high-end," Crytek co-founder Faruk Yerli recently told Develop, a news site for developers. Unity3D is going for the low-end while Unreal is aiming for everything from low- to high-end, he added. But according to some developers queried by Dice, there is little reality to the idea that the big three engines are divided between low, mid-end, and high-end capabilities. If you're a developer, is it still worth paying for a game engine?

Comments

They're not free

[Anonymous Coward]

You end up paying either way, assuming your game actually has any sales, since the "free" and subscription plans all include a pretty healthy royalty for the engine developer. So, what's $10 a month?

Re:They're not free

[durrr]

$120 a year and it's a needless cost for anyone trying to get into gamedev. The pay-when-you-make-it approach of UE4 and Unity is much easier to stomach when you're new.

Unreal engine is not free

[Squapper]

You still pay a 5% royalty, which is a rather high price if you make high-end games. For indies and students it might be a good deal, but if your studio is into AAA, paying up-front is a better deal.

Re:Should people keep trying for first post?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should readers continue to read Slashdot with Dice junk making it to the front page?

No.