Beta
×

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!

CryTek For Free: CryEngine 3 SDK and Editor

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the cryin'-non-shame dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 121

Samfer writes with this excerpt from Operation Reality Gaming: "[...] sometime this summer, likely around August, we will see the appearance online of both a Crysis 2 editor and a CryEngine 3 SDK (software development kit). This not only means that people will be able to make full blown new levels for Crysis 2 but that the CryEngine 3 will also be made publicly available for the development of non-commercial projects to the community at large. To quote, 'This will be a complete version of our engine, including C++ code access, our content exporters (including our LiveCreate real-time pipeline), shader code, game sample code from Crysis 2, script samples, new improved Flowgraph and a whole host of great asset examples, which will allow teams to build complete games from scratch for PC.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Bravo (4, Insightful)

Nihn (1863500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35950860)

Giving the engine for free is a massive swing to what I believe is the future of gaming. Gamers are too far gone now to be "enchanted" by games and want to know how it all works, and how they can change it to suit them better. Fallout 3 is the first game I came across that was fully supported by the community with mods, skins, and improved game play with patches to fix bugs. Having 12 people working on a game and patches is weak compared to having hundreds of intelligent and willing contributors all working for a common goal. Let the players have the keys to the car, you will be amazed at the way we can drive.

Re:Bravo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35950886)

Keep in mind though that this is purely a business decision. They are trying to compete with UDK.

Re:Bravo (2)

Nihn (1863500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35950964)

i know its business but compared to the attitude sony has twords customers its nice to see a company who knows what people want, they are are going to profit from it by giving customers control of their own entertainment.

Re:Bravo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35950894)

I suspect it's more than that, it makes commercial sense. Getting tools to developers at low or no cost is likely to get them using your tools, which later may become a commercial product. If you are a developer you can pick their engine to use for development, only when you've a semi-complete project do you have to worry about licensing for commercial access. This has been happening in the non-game world for quite some time e.g. developer access to Oracle database products which are expensive to license, as a small developer though your barrier to using it has been reduced to zero and the potential for oracle to have end user sales increased.

Bravo-Content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35950992)

Giving the engine for free is a massive swing to what I believe is the future of gaming.

The "future" of gaming is content, not the engine. The content can be locked up even if the engine is open. Also considering the miss to hit ratio of community mods game publishers have little to worry.

Re:Bravo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951514)

So were you asleep during the 90s, or did you just not own a computer?

Re:Bravo (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951566)

UnrealTournament was the first game with official MOD support. But people where modding quake long before that, and doom before that, and I don't know what before that but I can assure you, if the first game you encounter with MODs is Fallout 3, then you where missing out on a lot!

Re:Bravo (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951690)

I'm not sure how you define "official mod support", but as I define it, Quake and Unreal both had official mod support. Tools and sources were released by the developer for the express purpose of letting people create mods, and the games had hooks or commands that directly facilitated modding and running mods (and really would have served no other purpose, otherwise).

I would say Doom and Wolf3D did not have official mod support because of the workarounds and nature of the tools required to run mods for those games.

Duke3D is kind of in between.

Re:Bravo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951748)

Marathon 2 had "official mod support" before Quake or UT. It actually came with a very well put together toolkit that let you edit levels, graphics, physics, etc. But yea, OP is fucking retarded if he thinks this is some sort of new phenomenon. And from a business standpoint, it's still kind of questionable. The fact is, only a small fraction of gamers will ever install a mod, so justifying spending any sort of development time on mod support is difficult.

Re:Bravo (1)

filthpickle (1199927) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952128)

when he said "Fallout 3 was the first..." I thought to myself, 'oh this guy is gonna get ripped' before I even scrolled down.

Re:Bravo (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35953904)

I wasn't necessarily trying to claim Quake was first, just that by no means was UT first (Unreal being the most obvious example to me, considering it was made by the same developer and had extremely similar mod support, i.e. I'm almost certain the original Unreal also supported "mutators").

Re:Bravo (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951864)

Doom was officially supported, Carmack made sure it was easy to modify after all the work he saw going into tools to reverse engineer Wolfenstenin. He designed Doom to have WAD support so anyone could modify the game easily.

Bungie put out offical tools before UT (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952038)

I say this as an Epic fanboi (Except for cliffyB.. he's a smacktard because he says dumb things)..
Myth (by Bungie before they turned evil^H^H^H^Hinto a M$/console tool) came out with their map/tag tools, I know it shipped with Myth 2 (1998), but I was pretty sure it was available for Myth 1 as well at some point, and there ended up being some pretty sweet mods for Myth 1 & 2.
Actually, going back and poking some more, Marathon even had an official toolset released and map contest.. [bungie.org] (circa 96)...

I really did love Bungie before they put out Halo... sigh... anyway

You are correct though, there a ton of people modding even Wolf3d before Doom or Quake was on the scene.. .

Does 'Adventure Construction Set' [wikipedia.org] count as an officially-supported-mod-platform? And heck that's just my personal game-modding experience.. I know for a fact some of hte older/more-crusty types did a ton of stuff before me..

Re:Bungie put out offical tools before UT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35953992)

Halo still pisses me off. Myth/Myth2 were *my* games and I couldn't wait for Halo when it was announced (waaaay early). Enter MS and Bungie becomes just another lame team w/a hit :(

Re:Bravo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952580)

Doom's Chicken launching bazoooka was the best.

Re:Bravo (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951774)

Are you a kid or did you not have a computer for the past 20 years?

CounterStrike started as a mod, the whole game.

Re:Bravo (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952704)

Not to mention Team Fortress. A lot of people bought Quake to play mods like TF. It was later ported to Half Life (although the balance always seemed a bit wrong there) and finally became its own game.

Re:Bravo (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951776)

This is not official Mod support. There is no way to get Crysis 2 servers to run code written with the SDK (server exe's aren't available and all Crysis 2 files are encrypted).They will release a map editor for Crysis 2, but that in itself is not enough to create mods.

As it stands Crysis 2 will have no real modding.

Re:Bravo (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952132)

Fallout 3? Seriously? Did you start playing games in 2010?

Re:Bravo (1)

McKing (1017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952292)

Did you actually read his post? He said *IF* the first mod you ever ran across was for Fallout 3, *THEN* you missed out on a lot, UT, Quake, Doom, etc...

Re:Bravo (1)

Matheus (586080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952836)

No... *YOU* missed the original post... the quote you are including is the first *REPLY* to that post slamming *THE* original poster for his lack *OF* experience.

Get off my lawn... I was modding Pong in the 70s!

Re:Bravo (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35953500)

Slashdot. The only place where "I've played video games more than you!" is bragging, not a cry for help.

Well, Slashdot and nearly every other forum on the Internet.

Re:Bravo (1)

BCGlorfindel (256775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952968)

Fallout 3 is the first game I came across that was fully supported by the community with mods, skins, and improved game play with patches to fix bugs.

You must be young.

  I remember mods for Wolf3D and Doom. I remember rarely playing vanilla Quake because there were so very many great mods for it. So many in fact that Quake's gamer/developer community spawned a host of new game companies, most notably Valve.

Our company have zero-tolerance policy on modders (2)

Dainsanefh (2009638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35953126)

All modders are nothing but modify/hack the game to gain unfair advantage. We banned these people on sight. We scan YouTube regularly so that all modders account who post their latest creation will be immediately perma-banned.

Yes, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35950932)

Can it run Crysis?

Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (-1, Troll)

slashdoour (2079100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35950954)

So, what the fuzz about? So they give you the engine to hook you into paying for commercial version later Its nice, but where are the news? Its not like ID tech 5 going open source at launch... [tinyurl.com]

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35950984)

A link that redirects to a page containing goatse? How clever of you! By the way, I think your bandwidth is exceeded, the image fails to load.

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (0)

slashdoour (2079100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35950996)

Switched mirror, thanks for info!

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951050)

When I'm promised goatse, I demand to see goatse.

Half the fun of clicking blindly on Slashdot links is knowing that goatse could pop up at any time. When all I get is a broken image, it's like the sacred oath between troll and victim has been broken.

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (1)

slashwindow (2079174) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951434)

goatse.ru hosting provider decided to put them offline of a while.
Sorry for inconvience, not my fault.
As soon as outage were reported to me, I switched to another goatse mirror.
BTW, goatse.ru is up and running again.

My deep apologies, and here is a goatse link for you [goatse.ru]

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951722)

So is getting goatse.cx'd an example of being 'dickholled'? :-D

port? (-1, Troll)

jejones (115979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35950982)

So, can the engine be ported to Linux? If not, I don't have any particular reason to care.

Re:port? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951004)

Anything can be ported to Linux. Instead of writing a semi-trolling remark why don't you consider whether they SHOULD port it to Linux before asking. No they shouldn't, is the answer.

Re:port? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951138)

Why?

Re:port? (0)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951008)

Let me warm up my beowulf cluster.
 
...Right after I finish getting these grits out of Natalie Portman's maternity pants.

Re:port? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951014)

p.s. Get Off My Lawn, I've been playing Crysis 2 on my Regan-era iPaq since last year in glorious 16-shade greyscale LCD.
 
Call me when they port over Quake 3 to the Apple Newton like John Carmack promised at Quakecon 2001. He must be too busy porting Rage to the iPhone still.

Re:port? (1)

rekrowyalp (797421) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951172)

They're not giving away the source code, just the SDK...

Re:port? (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951726)

The first time I read it it seemed like they were giving away the engine source, due to the line "including C++ code access", the emphasis on "complete version of our engine", and the fact that they mention the "sample game code" as a separate bullet point, but the more I read it and think about it the less likely that seems.

I'm starting to think the emphasis was given due to the fact that you can download and use this SDK and engine without purchasing a Crysis 2 license (which is actually very uncommon and a good step on its own), and that's why it only contains "sample Crysis 2 game code". i.e. until the source code was released, you couldn't release a standalone Q3 mod even if you replaced all the assets. The people playing your game also had to have a license to run the quake3.exe binary at that time.

Re:port? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951280)

So, can the engine be ported to Linux? If not, I don't have any particular reason to care.

Gaming on Linux is retarded, so hopefully it does not get ported over to Linux.

Enjoy your Tux Racer, because that's the best you'll ever get on your crap platform.

Re:port? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951480)

Enjoy Norton Antivirus because that's the best you'll ever get on your crap platform.

Linux gamer here, playing Portal 2, Wesnoth, Trine, Minecraft, Spiral Knights.... don't mind me, just chilling with my penguin.

Re:port? (1)

Cunk (643486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951420)

I bet he feels dumb for posting this article now, eh?

Re:port? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951536)

Love that linux fag attitude. Is your nose way up in the air while you type?

Right For DUKEEEEEE!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35950988)

Right on time so slightly updated Duke Nukem Forever can be released next year!

Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (-1, Troll)

slashwindow (2079174) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951006)

So, what the fuzz about? So they give you the engine to hook you into paying for commercial version later Its nice, but where are the news? Its not like ID tech 5 going open source at launch [tinyurl.com] ...

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (1)

umberleigh (793964) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951020)

Congrats. It's been a long time since I saw goatse.

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951904)

Maybe you should consider how you come up with your throw away accounts? I've noticed than anyone posting a link with slash in the name is posting goatse

Re:Its not opensource nor will it run Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35952288)

Mod parent up. John Carmack shows us how "open source" should be done.

build complete games from scratch for the PC. (0, Troll)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951042)

Allow teams to build complete games from scratch for the PC. complete games from scratch for the PC. from scratch scratch MFW: :| If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -Carl Sagan

Yeah yeah right... (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951052)

...but under what license will the sourcecode be released?

Re:Yeah yeah right... (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951128)

They are giving away source code for the SDK samples, headers and such, not the engine itself... right?

Re:Yeah yeah right... (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951156)

This will be a complete version of our engine, including C++ code access, our content exporters (including our LiveCreate real-time pipeline), shader code, game sample code from Crysis 2, script samples, new improved Flowgraph and a whole host of great asset examples...

To me this smells like access to underlaying engine code, I could be wrong, though.

Re:Yeah yeah right... (2)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951674)

No, the engine is shipped as a DLL, and you are free to call its methods. Still, you can go a looong way with just that. Only stuff like adding new data types to flownodes or adding new editors to Sandbox won't be possible.

Re:Yeah yeah right... (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951818)

What that means is you can use C++ code yourself.

Take a look at things like the Unreal UDK. It's a really nice package for the Unreal Engine 3 which you can use to make games, but you can't write your games with native code or call native functions in libraries you may posses.

What they're saying here is that you have this sort of access.

Re:Yeah yeah right... (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951602)

free if you make games and don't sell them. if you start to make money they want their cut which is fine.

it's ridiculous the places i see the unreal engine. iOS is the latest one but MS Kinect Adventures, Gears of War and Mass Effect all use the Unreal Engine

woeful wednesday: hymenology's darker side (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951058)

as real history races up to help us correct our dismal looking 'future', we can expect more edits to the one we're dogmatically doomed to play out, unless we demand that our history, & our future, are truth based, & match what's really happened, so far, just today, would be good for starters, before, during & after the big disarmament, which will give us time to let things get back on course for all of us equal natives of the as of yet proven to be unowned universe. disarm. talk. thanks

sadham&gonorrhea, or the guys at fake.science. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951126)

you call this one. the fog of war seems to have enveloped the entire planet today, as it was written.. check your doors for red paint, as there's rumors that our biblical from god calendar may also be 'off' by a reality or two. definitely no question as to the wrathical part, but who's been chosen to lambaste everybody this way, if the highly feared mean streak deities are not involved/never existed/fictional?

'security forces' tantamount to angels of death (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951262)

that's historically correct, as referenced in many works in which the motives proffered for horrific terroristic behaviors were/are now proven to be fictional as well, leaving the real motives for the horrific terroristic holycostal biblically 'correct' behaviors looking less than wholesome, else why the cover of dark angels etc..?

Still does not come close to licensing UT3-engine (4, Interesting)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951064)

I've seen this described as Crytek taking on the likes of the UT3-engine, though I find there's one very important difference:
The UT3 engine can currently also be used to sell commercial games: Up to the first 50k of sales, it's completely free for developers. After that, Epic will take 25% of the earnings.
The cool things is that this 50k only works for the share that people get -after- the app stores get their cut. Have a look at their site [udk.com] to see their licensing agreement.

Not related to Epic in any way; Just a happy 'customer', and hopefully a published indie developer in the near future.

Re:Still does not come close to licensing UT3-engi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951444)

Thats nice and everything but I dont play UDK based games simply because Epic wimped out of porting (for commercial reasons) UDK to Linux.

If you want to make it big as an indie developer you need to support as many platforms as you can.

Re:Still does not come close to licensing UT3-engi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951446)

"If you want to use it to make a game to launch commercially, we'd like to help you with that. If you want to take your product down a traditional commercial route, we will offer an innovative low cost licensing model if you want to release your game digitally"
If you read the letter on crymod you'll see Crytek will go the same way.

Re:Still does not come close to licensing UT3-engi (1)

daid303 (843777) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951620)

Epic didn't start out with that, the 'free' unreal 2 engine had a very explicit "You shall NOT create games!" in the license. The basic commercial engine license was 150k back then.

No hate for the unreal engine, I love it, I learned a lot from it. But just wanted to point that out.

Re:Still does not come close to licensing UT3-engi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951766)

Yes, but adding more of the big players to the "freebies" mix is good. Other engine vendors will eventually be forced to make competitive licenses.

Anyway, I'm sure if you use the CryEngine to make a nice game, you will be able to reach an agreement with CryTec to sell it.

Pointless (1)

mustPushCart (1871520) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951080)

This is kind of pointless. You can release everything but if you don't have a license to release a commercial games for independent developers no indie developer is going to take the trouble of using your engine. To be a great engine you need to have widespread acceptance, for that you need studios to use your engine. For studios to use your engine you need to have the people walking in for interviews use it. For those to use it your forums and community need to be abuzz with help and praise for your engine (because lets face it, community is run by indies and a few studio mods). And Indies will not touch an engine which does not have a commercial license available. The best you get will be some hobbyist or student trying it out a bit but for widespread adoption, get a nice cheap commercial indie license.

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951844)

You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Re:Pointless (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951982)

Pointless? This is far from pointless. It lets the masses at large familiarize themselves with the engine which is very good for both them and for Crytek. It allows companies to try before they buy.

This is massive exposure. Just because you can't use this version to profit doesn't mean a whole lot.

Re:Pointless (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35953554)

This is far better done through official modding support for Crysis 2 (this is not the same as releasing a development SDK, game code needs to be clearly separated and released with full source, the encryption of shaders/etc has to be opened up, it needs to have an infrastructure to check/upload/load custom code/content for mods etc. etc.). Modding lets people get up and running with content fast.

Really their current setup is the worst of all worlds ... an SDK which is hard to use for amateurs compared to a traditional modding SDK and without a boiler plate license to make it an option for semi-professionals like their biggest competitor.

Re:Pointless (1)

mustPushCart (1871520) | more than 3 years ago | (#35953628)

I wouldn't use it as an indie developer. And understanding a whole new engine, architecture, language, workflow is a huge investment that i would like to have the possibility of getting back in $$. Its a huge exposure yes, source level access to a big name engine is quite something but if you want people to use it you need to dangle the carrot in front of them to get them to become active members of the community. Less work for studios trying to work on the engine to train their staff if they have done indie work on it and with a bigger community.

THANK YOU CryTek! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951100)

I'll add support in my map generator for your engine... :)

and i gnore the stupid comments here... some people here suck because they are paid by companies that suck to write comment that suck on websites that suck (slashdot)...

Re:THANK YOU CryTek! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35954204)

ps I like the word suck

non-commercial (0)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951152)

So not GPL nor APL nor BSD. Not interested.

Re:non-commercial (4, Funny)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951574)

So not GPL nor APL nor BSD. Not interested.

The gaming world at large is devastated by this news.

Re:non-commercial (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951916)

> The gaming world at large is devastated by this news.

And a good thing also.

But seriously, releasing things under non-Free licences seems to be very 90ies and while it's nice that they are making an effort, it's mis-guided, imo.

Re:non-commercial (1)

LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952750)

But seriously, releasing things under non-Free licences seems to be very 90ies and while it's nice that they are making an effort, it's mis-guided, imo.

Equally seriously, what world are you living on? That sentence doesn't even slightly describe reality. If you hadn't mentioned APL and BSD in your previous post I'd assume your were Richard Stallman.

Re:non-commercial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35953282)

You're an idiot. So they spent years developing new algorithms for their system, and you want them to now just give it for free? I guess the company can just fire the engineers that worked on this system, paying salaries is so 90ies...

Re:non-commercial (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35953584)

So not GPL nor APL nor BSD. Not interested.

The gaming world at large is devastated by this news.

Actually, fuck you pal. This is akin to Microsoft releasing a level editor for "Hover!". No real use to the community, especially not in the sense that Carmack releasing the Q3 and other engines was. You're not going to see Tremulous, OpenArena, or Nexuiz come out of this proprietary crapware. As such this article ends up being essentially a slashvertisement.

Engine market gone? (0)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951182)

Looks like market for selling engines off-the-shelf is generally badly hit over the last few years. You can get a quality engine (and SDK!) for free, and you only buy extras. Engines and SDKs that I know of and that are free, or require payment for commercial development or upon release: Unity3D, Unreal, now CryEngine. Not to mention Ogre3D and other open-source engines (without editors, though).

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951206)

Ogre is not an engine, just a renderer. You still need input handling, audio, artifical intelligence (if you want bots) and more.

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951604)

That's what I meant -- rendering engine. In Ogre3D, input handling is practically bundled (OIS). AI is not and can not be universal; that piece of the puzzle is definitely game code, not engine code. Audio is easily integrated.

It may not be a complete solution, but for rendering (which is one of the hardest pieces of the puzzle) it's surely good.

Re:Engine market gone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951872)

Ai can be very universal to some level, goal / target selection (criteria matching), pathfinding (node, nav mesh, grid etc) etc.

There is also no networking modules which can also be pretty universal.

Engine is more than presentation.

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952452)

So, nitpickers are making me say "Ogre3D + additional libraries typically used with it"? :-)

Sure, those few generic classes for AI can be taken off the shelf. Is that among the things that CryEngine offers?

Re:Engine market gone? (3, Interesting)

SuperDre (982372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951318)

I'm sorry but Ogre3D or any opensource engine doesn't come even CLOSE to UnrealEngine3 or Cryengine... But it also all depends on the license the freeversion of CryEngine will ship with, if it's just as interesting as the UDK it might be VERY interesting, only CryEngine doesn't run on Mobiles, whereas UDK does...

Re:Engine market gone? (2)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951632)

I'm sorry but Ogre3D or any opensource engine doesn't come even CLOSE to UnrealEngine3 or Cryengine

Crappy stuff can be made with any of those. So can good stuff. I'm talking about erosion of market because major stuff is available in all engines for free. Open source engines are mostly missing fancy editors, since they work primarily with rendering.

Since you are obviously knowledgeable with all three systems, when you work with them, what major thing is missing from Ogre3D? What major thing do you think Unreal Engine 3 and CryEngine include that cannot easily be done with Ogre3D? Feel free to be subjective, if you need to be.

Can you also say a few words on flexibility of UE3 and CE when developing a new idea?

But it also all depends on the license the freeversion of CryEngine will ship with, if it's just as interesting as the UDK it might be VERY interesting, only CryEngine doesn't run on Mobiles, whereas UDK does...

For most stuff on mobile, you don't need a 3D engine. In fact, 3D games I have played on mobile are all far less compelling than 2D, but fancy, stuff I have seen. What game do you find compelling that uses 3D on mobile, and that its design depends on 3D and could not be done with 2D?

Re:Engine market gone? (2)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951752)

Open source engines are mostly missing fancy editors, since they work primarily with rendering.

No, Ogre3D is a rendering engine, while CryEngine is a game engine that happens to have an industry-leading rendering engine implemented. You can easily add a fancy game engine with very much the same capabities of CryEngine3 (except for the rendering stuff) on top of Ogre3D. In fact, there's a rather good business opportunity there.

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35953246)

Rendering engine means nothing without good artists. Otherwise, insightful -- here's a cookie :-)

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35953388)

Yes, but the artist can't do much when the technology doesn't support it. For example, I was pretty much blown away when I read what a wrinkle map does [crymod.com] . Ogre3D is nowhere near to supporting that detail in animations.

Thanks for the cookie ;)

Re:Engine market gone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951770)

Ogre3D is not a game engine, it is a rendering engine (a dated one at that). It has no networking, physics, audio, or AI.

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952476)

There are numerous libraries typically combined with Ogre3D to provide it physics and audio. AI can be written relatively easily, and reusability is limited. Networking can be difficult to reuse.

Re:Engine market gone? (3, Informative)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951734)

You need very good artists (3D modelling, animation) to get anything out of CryEngine, except stomach ulcer for the programmers due to the complete undocumentedness of the code.

Regular characters in Crysis2 have 20+ animations running at the same time (breathing, walking, look IK, foot IK, etc), all blended with each other. That's not going to fly for an amateur project where the artist is happy to get a half-assed walk cycle going. For those, Ogre3D is much better with its full source available and very nice documentation, and much easier access due to not having every trick in the book and then some implemented.

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951956)

What a silly comment. You don't need any of that to use CryEngine. Sure you might not be making the most out of it but who cares really? You can still get a lot of handy features out of it.

I'm not understanding why people are constantly comparing Ogre3D with CryEngine. They're not the same thing. One is simply a Rendering Engine (Ogre3D) and one is a complete package that encompasses all aspects of gaming (CryEngine).

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952110)

What a silly comment. You don't need any of that to use CryEngine. Sure you might not be making the most out of it but who cares really?

If you're not using 90% of the features of the engine, why use it at all? I'd prefer using something that's easier to understand.

You can still get a lot of handy features out of it.

Yes, your development will still suffer, because the engine is so complicated as soon as you step one millimeter out of the Sandbox editor (I know what I'm talking about, I've been using CryEngine3 for a while now).

I'm not understanding why people are constantly comparing Ogre3D with CryEngine. They're not the same thing. One is simply a Rendering Engine (Ogre3D) and one is a complete package that encompasses all aspects of gaming (CryEngine).

Yes, I've made that distinction in another reply to this thread. Ogre3D comes with several aspects of a game engine, though, like animation/particles and user input (via an external library though). Further, some integrations exist that would belong into a game engine, like physics.

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952502)

What a silly comment. You don't need any of that to use CryEngine. Sure you might not be making the most out of it but who cares really?

If you're not using 90% of the features of the engine, why use it at all? I'd prefer using something that's easier to understand.

That's right!

You can still get a lot of handy features out of it.

Yes, your development will still suffer, because the engine is so complicated as soon as you step one millimeter out of the Sandbox editor (I know what I'm talking about, I've been using CryEngine3 for a while now).

Nice to hear from someone that actually used the engine to confirm my suspicions :-)

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952082)

Also, you're forgetting by doing this, they are increasing the pool of persons that are familar with working on the engine.. in theory increasing the number of smaller startups..

Successful small companies become bigger companies.. == more games == more sales == more commission/shares for the Engine company.

It's a business move, and one I can agree with.

Re:Engine market gone? (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952514)

Business move is smart, indeed. How useful to other developers - this remains to be seen.

Oh my God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951188)

You guys are taking so many things out of context it's making me laugh hysterically... if it has anything near the accessibility of UDK.. I, for one would be excited.

Even free isn't good enough for some people (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951202)

"Here's our engine, for free, no worries."

Ungreatful commenters -- > "Not good enough, do more work for us then we'll talk."

Worst Engine Ever (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35951608)

Fantastic! Now everyone will learn how woeful this engine is to work with :)

Death of Tinkering (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35951832)

I think it's sad how companies are engaging in every manner possible to prevent people from tinkering around with their purchases. This is yet another example of this exact trend....

Re:Death of Tinkering (1)

RobDollar (1137885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952386)

I must have missed something, could you elaborate?

Re:Death of Tinkering (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35952742)

Sorry, there was a post yesterday about all the locked down devices and the death of tinkering, which was "clearly caused by abusive corporations". And hackerspace NYC to the rescue.

Re:Death of Tinkering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35953044)

Pardon? This might show how much OTHERs are preventing such a thing, but these guys have released their engines code to non-commercial purposes, that sounds like encouraging tinkering to me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?