×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Epic Releases Free Version of Unreal Engine

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the still-waiting-on-the-one-must-fall-engine dept.

Games 217

anomnomnomymous writes "Just a week after Unity announced its engine is now available for free to indie users, Epic Games has revealed a free version of its popular Unreal Engine technology. Called the Unreal Development Kit (UDK), it is a free edition of UE3 that allows community, modder and indie users more access to the engine's features and is available for all. Epic said game developers, students, hobbyists, researchers, creators of 3D visualizations and simulations plus digital filmmakers can all take advantage of the UDK for non-commercial use. The UDK site also offers detailed product features, technical documentation, commercial licensing terms and support resources."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

217 comments

Still behind id (0, Flamebait)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995444)

Still behind id software and their GPL releases of the game engines.

Re:Still behind id (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995548)

You mean the ones they won't be releasing anymore, because they're broke and have been owned by the man?

But whoa, I'm really looking forward to Doom 5 or whatever their working on now. I'm sure it will be nice and dark.

Re:Still behind id (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995594)

I found a screenshot of Doom 5 [e-try.com] .

Re:Still behind id (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995662)

Doom was released in December 1993. Doom II was released in October 1994, 10 months later. Doom III was released in February 2007, 148 months later. If this progression holds, then Doom IV won't be released this century and by the time Doom V is released the human race probably won't be recognisable, if it still exists.

Re:Still behind id (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996174)

How the hell did this get modded informative? Doom 3 was released in August of 2004. The final patch was released in February of 2007.

Re:Still behind id (3, Funny)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996344)

Didn't you notice the "sudo mod me up" at the end?

Now make me a sandwich.

No?

sudo make me a sandwich

Re:Still behind id (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29997036)

Someone with mod points didn't see that it was meant to be a joke.

Re:Still behind id (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995674)

Still behind id software and their GPL releases of the game engines.

But ahead in game quality.

Re:Still behind id (1)

dnaumov (453672) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995838)

Still behind id software and their GPL releases of the game engines.

Please point me to GPL'ed sources of ID software engine technology equivalent to the technology described in TFA. Thanks.

Xreal, evolution Q3, etc... (5, Insightful)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996756)

Please point me to GPL'ed sources of ID software engine technology equivalent to the technology described in TFA. Thanks.

Xreal [xreal-project.net]
Heavily improved version of the (GPLed) Id Tech 3 engine. Includes features such as shadow mapping, per pixel lightning, etc... bringing the whole project visually closer to what's available in modern engines.
Other questions ?

----

More seriously :

Giving away free (gratis) access to some proprietary technology is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to try to attract more commercial licensee in the long term, by gaining more fans and hackers in the short term. The basic idea is "let the Indie market play around with the engine, and if some group emerge with a new killer-app, they'll have to license our engine".

Whereas giving complete freedom to tinker with the GPL is the most community enabling. Granted, id Tech 5 is not in the GPL now. But on the other hand, the full freedom offered by the GPL has enabled heavy customisation such as the above and many other. And in the long term, are much more valuable for creativity.

Re:Xreal, evolution Q3, etc... (5, Insightful)

Disgruntled Goats (1635745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996830)

Giving away free (gratis) access to some proprietary technology is nothing more than a complex marketing ploy to try to attract more commercial licensee in the long term, by gaining more fans and hackers in the short term. The basic idea is "let the Indie market play around with the engine, and if some group emerge with a new killer-app, they'll have to license our engine".

Oh noes! Epic actually wants people to use their technology and make money from it! The horror! The horror!

Re:Xreal, evolution Q3, etc... (2, Insightful)

Teckla (630646) | more than 4 years ago | (#29997310)

...the full freedom offered by the GPL

The GPL does not offer full freedom. Public domain offers full freedom.

Re:Xreal, evolution Q3, etc... (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 4 years ago | (#29997660)

The GPL does not offer full freedom. Public domain offers full freedom.

Full freedom is a myth. A complete lack of rules results in tyranny, every time, because there's no rule against and mechanism to prevent some people taking away other people's freedom. Maximizing freedom involves finding the set of rules and mechanisms that give the most people the most freedom.

Behind ID? (3, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996086)

Well I guess if your goal is to GPL engine then ok. However in general that isn't the goal of a company, they want to make money so they can do things like pay their employees to develop more software. So how have licensing the engines gone? Well Unreal Engine 3, which was released after iD Tech 4, has about 150 games out using it. iD Tech 4? 7 games.

So I'd say Epic has been pretty successful at their primary goal of making a good engine that people wish to license for designing games.

Re:Behind ID? (2, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996640)

Frankly, I have no problem with that model to help indie and poorer developers make their mark. It improves the field by keeping companies on their toes constantly improving and allows people with little/no upstart cost get a foot in the door.

Re:Still behind id (3, Insightful)

ComputerPhreak (1057874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996668)

Still behind id software and their GPL releases of the game engines.

What a troll. id releases its old generation engines as GPL, not the current or even last-generation engines. Unreal Engine 3 is not comparable to the Quake 3 engine, it's more like the id Tech 5 engine, which certainly isn't available for free licensing let alone GPL distribution.

Re:Still behind id (1)

fmoliveira (979051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996988)

if you want to develop a commercial game the gpl engine won't help you. don't know what license unreal engine is anyway

Re:Still behind id (1)

Faceless Void (1260956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29997390)

GPL is a terrible license for a game engine if you plan to have a multi-player mode, because releasing the code to your game makes it really easy to make cheats. LGPL isn't adequate either, because anybody can replace the engine library with a cheating version.

Umm... Unreal has been free for a long time (0, Offtopic)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995478)

You can get the source Here [unrealircd.com]

Re:Umm... Unreal has been free for a long time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996950)

Ahahahahahahahahahah! U R Funny Man!!!

Fucktard.

The game that invented the headshot... (1, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995492)

UE3 is the FPS that invented the sniper head shot, now considered de rigueur for all shooters.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29995550)

Actually GoldenEye (N64) invented hit locations, including head shots.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (0, Offtopic)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995640)

Actually GoldenEye (N64) invented hit locations, including head shots.

Unless you used the golden gun.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (2, Interesting)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995830)

I thought we had those in quake (team fortress)...

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996060)

We have a winner. Earliest FPS with location detection I can remember.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996106)

I thought we had those in quake (team fortress)...

Indeed... Team Fortress or even Thunderwalker CTF. Possibly ThreeWave but I never played it.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (1)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995908)

AC, I think you might be right. I remember SiN and Soldier of Fortune both having location-based damage modifiers, but SoF was released in 2000 and SiN was 1998.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996238)

True, but UT did introduce *blam* "HEADSHOT!!" sound effect which seems to be on every FPS server I play on these days.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (5, Insightful)

footnmouth (665025) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995764)

Slashdot needs +1 Headshot as a moderation option

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (5, Funny)

thijsh (910751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996032)

+1 Footshot

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996642)

+1 Moneyshot. Oh wait, wrong forum.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995816)

Unreal Tournament may not have invented the head shot, but it did invent the neck shot. Sadly the ripper was dropped after the first game in the series. An unwieldy weapon that was just fun to use.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996214)

An unwieldy weapon that was just fun to use.

Actually it was just a less cool version of the Razorjack.

Re:The game that invented the headshot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996556)

System Shock invented location based damage.

The Razorjack was dropped after the second game in the series. It existed in Unreal and again in Unreal Tournament where they renamed it to Ripper.

Windows only.. (0, Troll)

Madsy (1049678) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995518)

boooring!

Re:Windows only.. (0, Troll)

alteveer (979070) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995602)

Seriously -- where is the OSX version?!121!: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzE5NQ [phoronix.com]

Re:Windows only.. (1, Insightful)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995846)

Or the Linux version.

It was ported to Linux 2 years ago(right after the windows release) but it was never released.

Re:Windows only.. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29995950)

Wont be a Linux version, both Linux users are busy debating the root escalation flaw

Re:Windows only.. (2, Interesting)

slart42 (694765) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995938)

The Unity engine also mentioned in the caption (which is now also free, and even lets you make money with it) has always had a mac version (it actually used to be mac-only for content generation until earlier this year).

You know what I want to see now? (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995586)

A multi-platform client that allows you to load Google Sketchup files. It would be nice to walk around the models, buildings, etc.

After that, make that multi-platform client compatible with Google Earth. Yes a lot of stuff is still flat but at least they do have terrain data so it would still be nice.

And last, just for kicks, add an option for playing in that map MMOFPS style!

Re:You know what I want to see now? (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996258)

Well I don't know about multi-platform but you can export Sketchup files to Valve's VMF format. Not that I've ever managed to do it successfully...

Need to GPL3 it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29995766)

They should GPL3 the engine, this ensures that if any commercial entity wishes to use it, they truly must license it off of Epic. GPL3 basically ensures no commercial exploitation anyways. What'd even be better if they provided some content that was sharealike.

Re:Need to GPL3 it (1)

Bragador (1036480) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996900)

No, you are not seeing it like they do. First, you authorize people to use it for non commercial use. Then, if someone wants to make money out of it because they made a game, they come to you and pay you. With GPL3, Epic wouldn't be able to still make money out of it.

3...2...1.... Virtual Porn! (1)

olsmeister (1488789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995870)

Of course, it couldn't be commercial...it'd have to be homebrew. ;)

Re:3...2...1.... Virtual Porn! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996634)

Only if you think a cinder-block sculpture in the shape of a humanoid is hot. No amount of subd is going to smooth a chunky UT-sized player mesh by that much...

Re:3...2...1.... Virtual Porn! (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 4 years ago | (#29997130)

Actually there already is such software.
With a Japanese tentacle rape version even! My god, where are we?

Man's gotta eat (1)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995892)

UE3 is a current, highly popular game engine. Why would they give out the secret sauce? Even id doesn't do that; they give away the source to engines that are no longer being licensed to 3rd parties and are not bringing in cash flows to id.

How would licensees of UE3 feel if the engine they paid highly for got open-sourced at the height of its use?

Seeing the UE2 engine go GPL, on the other hand, would be impressive.

Re:Man's gotta eat (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995920)

They're not giving it away. They're giving a free license for non-commercial use. If you create a game with it and want to sell it, then you will have to get a commercial license. Basically, they want people doing game design courses to practice on their engine and not something free.

Re:Man's gotta eat (4, Insightful)

archangel9 (1499897) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996200)

Sounds like they're training programmers for free. Would you want someone working for you that had never touched your engine and would cost $50K to train, or someone who had spent many caffeine-filled nights writing exceptional code on their own time, for fun?

Re:Man's gotta eat (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996710)

I wonder how that applies to "serious gaming" or gaming for training purposes. You aren't directly profiting by creating the training, but in training your employees you improve the overall bottom line. I didn't see any point in the licenses that mention it. (I admit, I did just skim through it though...)

Re:Man's gotta eat (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#29995996)

Well the licensees would still have one important thing the UDK doesn't give you... the ability to sell your created game for profit.

Re:Man's gotta eat (1)

tecker (793737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996016)

Well maybe they removed some nice features, or there is no support (highly likely).

My guess would be they are about to announce UE4 and trying to get people onboard with the UE3 would be the best way to get them to upgrade in the future.

Re:Man's gotta eat (1)

SebaSOFT (859957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996034)

I'm sure they're releasing a chopped (community) version and not the full featured engine, Or at least that's the impression I got from the news poster.

Re:Man's gotta eat (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996102)

I'm doubting there is much engine source included with this release.

Some UnrealScript/Kismet stuff sure, but no engine source.

Re:Man's gotta eat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996240)

Non-commercial. Anybody who wants to make a game and sell it has to go with a commercial license. This only affects indie devs. The people licensing the engine are completely unaffected because their licenses lets them collect money.

This type of setup could lead to a TF2 type situation where Epic is able to pickup a very hot mod project.

They better got rid of the DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996010)

At least the old version of this thing was infested with one of the worst (to the user) DRM schemes in history.

Re:They better got rid of the DRM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996396)

At least the old version of this thing was infested with one of the worst (to the user) DRM schemes in history.

WTH?

Care to elaborate on that? I recall it being a simple cd check that was removed rather quickly with a patch.

Not a source release... (5, Interesting)

Shaterri (253660) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996076)

While it's unsurprising given that the current Unreal Engine is still in active development and a ton of commercial games are still being developed and shipped using it, it's worth pointing out that this isn't a source code release; instead, it's something much closer to an elaborate mod engine, with generous swaths of behavioral scripting but no real ability to get 'under the hood' as it were. Still, kudos to Epic for this; it'll be interesting to see who picks up the ball and runs with this.

Re:Not a source release... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996340)

Well of course it's not a source release. They aren't going to give away the sources for free when they are still licensing out the engine to make money. That would be monumentally stupid.

Re:Not a source release... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996410)

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of that, I haven't had much time to read into this (at work and all). I was actually pretty excited, I like the Unreal Engine for its shaders more than anything else. I like to get my hands on the real gooey stuff, to take what bits and pieces I like and leave the rest. I'd rather develop my own game with my own patchwork engine rather then make an Epic Mod for Unreal (Pun fully intended).

The Catch? (0)

cigawoot (1242378) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996218)

There has to be a catch... probably have to distribute the game for free. If you choose to go commercial, you've gotta license out the full engine.

Re:The Catch? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996294)

Epic said game developers, students, hobbyists, researchers, creators of 3D visualizations and simulations plus digital filmmakers can all take advantage of the UDK for non-commercial use

Gold star for reading the summary!

Re:The Catch? (1)

Disgruntled Goats (1635745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996374)

How can it be a "catch" when they clearly state the terms of use of this? From here [udk.com] :

Use of the UDK for noncommercial purposes is free of charge. If you are going to use the UDK for any commercial purpose or in any way that is not specifically authorized in the end-user license agreement (EULA), you must agree to appropriate commercial terms. You can read more about these options below.

Re:The Catch? (1, Informative)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996414)

It's Windows-only and still closed-source, so that's enough of a catch, really. This is a free dev kit, not an id-style open source release of the engine (title was kind of misleading).

Re:The Catch? (1)

Disgruntled Goats (1635745) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996472)

This is a free dev kit, not an id-style open source release of the engine (title was kind of misleading).

Where did the title or summary say this was a source release? It's a free release of a dev kit for non commercial use. Which is what the summary and the links say. That you assumed it meant something other than what was explicitly stated is your own poor reading comprehension skills at work.

Why I like Unreal (5, Interesting)

Hythlodaeus (411441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996226)

Having modded for a few different games, I really appreciate the Unreal engine for one specific reason: it assumes that all the space you haven't touched is filled rather than empty. That way, creating the basic flow of a level is just a matter of drawing out a cuboid per room and subtracting it from the filled space. By contrast, the id style starting with empty space requires you to create a cuboid for each wall, ceiling, and floor. There's a three page tutorial on how to make all the seams line up properly - and heaven help you if your room isn't a simple rectangle.

Re:Why I like Unreal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996480)

It actually gives you the option. UnrealEd asks you everytime you create a new level if you want to use additive or subtractive geometry. But that's only used for BSP really, and many games now ship without BSP geo at all, using static meshes all the way.

Re:Why I like Unreal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996494)

I remember many a night spent building levels for the pure fun of it in UT level editor. I can't wait to see how this UDK plays out. I might even be inspired to start working with the system again and waste my time more and more. :)

Re:Why I like Unreal (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996798)

I haven't done any modding or level creation recently, but wasn't Quake 1 subtractive as well? I remember building levels using subtraction a lot and I loved the method.

Re:Why I like Unreal (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996990)

Nope. Quake 1's .bsp files were empty space with blocks added. You probably created one large block and then used a map editor's hollow feature to achieve the same thing (functionally).

Re:Why I like Unreal (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996980)

The problem usually solved in other engines by putting a couple 0-depth 1 sided inverted boxes (There's totally a name for it other than "Shell" but I can't remember it) outside the realm of play and using that to cut off rendering, like a hullbox or whatever, then using one giant Brush inside of that and carving your map out of that. But it is annoying to make sure your brushes are snapping together properly and you can get some ugly leaks if you're not careful. For MOST people's map design, or essentially anything indoors - Subtractive is the way to go.

I only use Additive when I'm importing a landscape made in 3dsmax or Maya, Where essentially a 1 sided Terrain inside a skybox is all that needs to be rendered. Subtractive has had a few issues when trying to do this (in my experience).

Re:Why I like Unreal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996994)

How about starting an id map by drawing a huge brush from -MINX,-MINY,-MINZ to MAXX,MAXY,MAXZ and then subtracting stuff from it?

Re:Why I like Unreal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29997322)

No... They need the level editor to prompt them with an option for "subtractive editing" and put the 1 big brush in the editing space for them.

Alot of people don't appreciate this (5, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996348)

But each release of the Unreal Engine actually changes the Game development scene for alot of game development, not just modding community pertaining to Unreal games. Given Unreal 3 is staarrting to get old, this is probably too late to boost the game back into the light of gamers but Unreal has always had this precedence in the scene of developing.

For example, I myself usually develop with the source Engine. I find it easy to use, and probably more importantly, I find Hammer easier to create maps with instead of the Unreal Editor. In one particular scenario I wanted to have a marsh with really cool fog and properly dripping water and fireflies and all this jazz. Now Source while a great PHYSICS engine isn't as fine tuned towards the details as other engines tend to be. I've found that Valve will only update the Shaders to really meet their own needs, and other little things like that - but I mean you can't complain when they are giving it out for free, right? Anyways, Unreal has been pretty good with those kinds of effects - just look at ANY screenshot of their maps, or any video of the gameplay. I was able to look into Unreal and use their structure as a basis for my own particle effects, after all, I don't want it to look EXACTLY like an UT2K3 Map. Worked like a charm. Now, before you jut in, yes, I know Steam has their own FX for this kind of stuff. But its actually pretty taxing on the system, they still haven't quite seemed to nail fog down as it lags quite a bit (See CS:S When multiple smoke nades go off)

So, the next time you think "Unreal, who cares?" - remember that while they seem to be declining a bit in their sales of games, their rendering technology is still amongst the best free stuff out there. And every bit they give to their community is another bit to every community.

Re:Alot of people don't appreciate this (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29996456)

I used to be like that back in the UT2004 days but seeing as how Epic has totally failed to release a Linux version of the Unreal3 engine I have totally stopped all development for it and will not even be looking at this SDK.

Nice one editors. (3, Insightful)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996466)

Wow, I got to say I'm impressed with the /. editors. After hastily submitting this story at work, I only had links to the Unity3D- and UDK- sites in there. Whereas the text is still the same as I submitted it, the editors done a great job in actually providing some extra informative links in there.
Well done!

On topic: I think this is a very smart move by Epic. It's great to be able to tinker with a top quality engine without having to buy any of their games first. This can definitely come in use for the scientific community, where you would like other people to download your, for example, simulations, and not be constrained by them having to own a game on which it runs.
Also, as some people above mentioned, this is great for some indie developers, who can now build a complete game, see if it's feasible, and if the end-product is to their liking, they can decide to license the engine and sell it.

Of course I'd prefer them to release the whole source, but that can't really be expected of an engine that is still commercially available.

Overall, great move Epic!

Re:Nice one editors. (2, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996742)

Wow, I got to say I'm impressed with the /. editors. After hastily submitting this story at work, I only had links to the Unity3D- and UDK- sites in there. Whereas the text is still the same as I submitted it, the editors done a great job in actually providing some extra informative links in there.
Well done!

After that statement, I had to check my URLs and DNS cache to make sure I wasn't on some Bizarro Slashdot.

Just kidding, editors. I actually appreciate what you guys do for us here.

Re:Nice one editors. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996794)

Ditto. I actually really like their business model. It encourages community development alot, which means when I pay 60 bucks for a game, I get more than whats just in the case. And even better, if you've EVER been interested in starting your own game, Unreal is a good place to start (Though probably the first Unreal Engine if you have little to no experience). You can go down to your local bookstore (Chapters or Indigo) and grab a book on game development and They usually bundle a CD with either the Doom or Quake or Unreal Engines.

It's kind of got a "Hey, we like you. Here. Naw its cool" kind of mentality while at the same time being all like "Hey man, cool stuff, but at least half of that was our work. So here's a flat rate"

Perfectly square and fair with an air of awesomeness.

fail - windows only (2, Insightful)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996740)

"Anyone can try out the Unreal Development Kit powered by Unreal Engine 3" ...as long as your on windows

That's a pretty steep roalty agreement. Isn't it? (1)

mfactor (879355) | more than 4 years ago | (#29996860)

25% of revenue after the first $5000. I understand that there's a TON of code there, but they don't come up with the idea, or market and sell the results. 1/4 of revenues seems like a pretty big chunk to take. Or am I wrong? Is this really a good deal for an indie game developer?

Re:That's a pretty steep roalty agreement. Isn't i (2, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29997330)

The engine is without a doubt -THE- hardest part of development. I myself have only ever hacked together Frankenstein Engines using bits from everywhere, and never really added my own component (why write your own when someone else already has). With the engine out of the way, a feature Length Game can be done in as little as 6 months*, tested, released, and on the shelf in about a year.

*This is assuming you've got one guy with the ideas who fleshes out a story, 1 guy who does the artwork (both concept and in game), and 1 guy who does the Coding/maping/debugging.

How long do games usually take to make from scratch? Lets See, Half Life 2, about a decade, Unreal 3 from Unreal 2K4 was 3 years, Duke Nukem Forever, ha ha - but do you see my point?

Summary: The Engine is more than half of a games development. (IMHO)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...