What if... we could somehow take all this collective effort on these game foundations that is spent on new game engines and add it to the benefits of others - so they just have a ready engine to work with, instead of spending money on redoing engines all the time?
Why isnt Nvidia providing game engines that have all the necessary tools for example to make a game like SC?
How much money and time would SC/CiG save if such an option existed?
Supposedly they were using CryEngine before, and now are using Amazon's engine.
To me the only reason why they would opt for these engines is due to royalty agreements, and how CiG benefits more in profits from release date, but comprising development time/development resources and final product to customer.
How can these engines compete with Unreal engine?
Lumberyard IS cryengine, or at least started that way. SC originally started development on Cryengine 3.7 and Lumberyard is a fork of 3.8. when SC switched engines they had already rewritten about 80% of the the engine anyways so they mostly only needed to convert the networking part of the engine to use AWS servers instead of Google.
SC actually started with the same fork of CryEngine that Amazon "bought" for Lumberyard. So when SC went from: CryEngine + own code To Lumberyard + own code That was: CryEngine + Amazon extra stuff + own code. The conversion took "a couple of people a couple of days".
As an aside I believe SC opted for CryEngine because a large pool of CryEngine developers became available to hire. When they were laid off. Recovering the money spent on engine development is expensive - as Unity's CEO put it: gamers don't want to pay, so indie devs don't want to pay. So whilst the costs are noT "super high" they are significantly high that recouping those costs is an issue. And so there are very few "big" game engines available.
I'm sure most people know how it's meant to play. What people are interested in is how does it play? 2019 version, not 2017 version.
The gameplay mechanics of SC are shared with SQ42, we are not to expect entirely different FPS play, or dogfighting play.
We can see by SC how far along mechanics as AI, FPS, Dogfighting are. Ofc SQ42 would play more smooth than what happens on SC because of that linear mission design without stuff like servers in the way, but still.
Well they certainly made sure it was in their wheelhouse. A bunch of 2-5 second clips all spliced together to try and showcase what they can do in that movie studio they have built. What does it actually show beyond a few of the ships they have actually been able to take from jpeg to 'in game assets'?
Also if you werent told it was an SQ 42 'trailer/teaser' how would you know? What actually identifies it as SQ 42?
The Vanduul might be a teeny-weeny hint ;-)
Have fun
Are the Vanduul not a threat in Star Citizen?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Well they certainly made sure it was in their wheelhouse. A bunch of 2-5 second clips all spliced together to try and showcase what they can do in that movie studio they have built. What does it actually show beyond a few of the ships they have actually been able to take from jpeg to 'in game assets'?
Also if you werent told it was an SQ 42 'trailer/teaser' how would you know? What actually identifies it as SQ 42?
The Vanduul might be a teeny-weeny hint ;-)
Have fun
Are the Vanduul not a threat in Star Citizen?
Yeah they are, there are Vanduul ships, but the actual Vanduul NPCs are only present on SQ42 for now, don't think they want to add them before sq42 is around
But besides that several of the main Vanduul ships are SQ42 locked, especially the capitals
gervaise1 said: As an aside I believe SC opted for CryEngine because a large pool of CryEngine developers became available to hire. When they were laid off. Recovering the money spent on engine development is expensive - as Unity's CEO put it: gamers don't want to pay, so indie devs don't want to pay. So whilst the costs are now "super high" they are significantly high that recouping those costs is an issue. And so there are very few "big" game engines available.
This is false. Proof? Most games use inhouse engines.
Where you are wrong is that game engine is expensive to make. It is not, it is just time consuming - which is why even big studios use 3rd party engines to save 2-3 years just making the engine. Market changes quickly these days.
The reason why SC went with CryEngine is mostly because they needed to produce high fidelity assets fast so they could fuel their crowdfunding efforts and last but least also likely due licencing.
The caveat of middleware though is modifications - once you want from your platform to do something it wasn't built for, things can get very ugly.
gervaise1 said: As an aside I believe SC opted for CryEngine because a large pool of CryEngine developers became available to hire. When they were laid off. Recovering the money spent on engine development is expensive - as Unity's CEO put it: gamers don't want to pay, so indie devs don't want to pay. So whilst the costs are now "super high" they are significantly high that recouping those costs is an issue. And so there are very few "big" game engines available.
This is false. Proof? Most games use inhouse engines.
Where you are wrong is that game engine is expensive to make. It is not, it is just time consuming - which is why even big studios use 3rd party engines to save 2-3 years just making the engine. Market changes quickly these days.
The reason why SC went with CryEngine is mostly because they needed to produce high fidelity assets fast so they could fuel their crowdfunding efforts and last but least also likely due licencing.
The caveat of middleware though is modifications - once you want from your platform to do something it wasn't built for, things can get very ugly.
Typo on my part - should have been NOT super high rather NOW super high. And with the correction my comment about cost recovery makes sense!
Your comment about the modifications part is why the likes of EA and UbiSoft use their own engines. There are other advantages as well. Making changes is were it gets messy.
As to why SC went with CryEngine? Yes they needed something to get things rolling; doesn't mean they had to go with CryEngine though - there were and have been since discussions about whether they should have gone with UnReal etc. etc., that CryEngine was a poor choice etc. Pros and cons and multiple factors. And - imo - being able to hire people was a factor. Pick any engine you want but if you have nobody to write code using it it makes no difference.
gervaise1 said: As an aside I believe SC opted for CryEngine because a large pool of CryEngine developers became available to hire. When they were laid off. Recovering the money spent on engine development is expensive - as Unity's CEO put it: gamers don't want to pay, so indie devs don't want to pay. So whilst the costs are now "super high" they are significantly high that recouping those costs is an issue. And so there are very few "big" game engines available.
This is false. Proof? Most games use inhouse engines.
Your proof is wrong. Most in-house engines are used for multiple games. Even the devs who have all the expertise and personnel required to make a new game engine rarely want to make one. If anything that is an argument for gervaise1's claim, not a proof against it.
That is such a tired debate, no matter the choice they would have to have refactored any engine they have gone with, even today any of the current engines would need refactoring engine tech just to do what they are doing right now.
The option to go with a self-made engine from the start would be the best, but again they didn't have any resources for that to be a realistic option back then, I think this was said as well they would have went with the in-doors engine if they knew how successful the crowdfunding campaign was.
But even with that would be complicated, it took years of hiring to get the engineering positions filled and offices open. It would take a long time to hire, then many years to start the engine from scratch and then start building the game upon it. The option to take the shelf engine and refactor it over time as resources to do so got hired, and the scope increased, ended up being the path.
That is such a tired debate, no matter the choice they would have to have refactored any engine they have gone with, even today any of the current engines would need refactoring engine tech just to do what they are doing right now.
The option to go with a self-made engine from the start would be the best, but again they didn't have any resources for that to be a realistic option back then, I think this was said as well they would have went with the in-doors engine if they knew how successful the crowdfunding campaign was.
But even with that would be complicated, it took years of hiring to get the engineering positions filled and offices open. It would take a long time to hire, then many years to start the engine from scratch and then start building the game upon it. The option to take the shelf engine and refactor it over time as resources to do so got hired, and the scope increased, ended up being the path.
And it still would have been smarter for them to develop an in house engine once all the money started rolling in. But as we were shown from the ongoing Crytek lawsuit they had obligations after CryTek made all their kickstarter videos that Chris passed off as work he and a small team did.
What if... we could somehow take all this collective effort on these game foundations that is spent on new game engines and add it to the benefits of others - so they just have a ready engine to work with, instead of spending money on redoing engines all the time?
Why isnt Nvidia providing game engines that have all the necessary tools for example to make a game like SC?
How much money and time would SC/CiG save if such an option existed?
Supposedly they were using CryEngine before, and now are using Amazon's engine.
To me the only reason why they would opt for these engines is due to royalty agreements, and how CiG benefits more in profits from release date, but comprising development time/development resources and final product to customer.
How can these engines compete with Unreal engine?
Lumberyard IS cryengine, or at least started that way. SC originally started development on Cryengine 3.7 and Lumberyard is a fork of 3.8. when SC switched engines they had already rewritten about 80% of the the engine anyways so they mostly only needed to convert the networking part of the engine to use AWS servers instead of Google.
SC actually started with the same fork of CryEngine that Amazon "bought" for Lumberyard. So when SC went from: CryEngine + own code To Lumberyard + own code That was: CryEngine + Amazon extra stuff + own code. The conversion took "a couple of people a couple of days".
As an aside I believe SC opted for CryEngine because a large pool of CryEngine developers became available to hire. When they were laid off. Recovering the money spent on engine development is expensive - as Unity's CEO put it: gamers don't want to pay, so indie devs don't want to pay. So whilst the costs are noT "super high" they are significantly high that recouping those costs is an issue. And so there are very few "big" game engines available.
Roberts chose CryEngine because he was going to make a reasonably sized Wing Commander game. Then he got more money and vainglorious feature creep became the watchword of the day. And then he just kept the original Engine because...reasons.
Probably the real reason for CryEngine originally was that it made good trailers....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
And it still would have been smarter for them to develop an in house engine once all the money started rolling in. But as we were shown from the ongoing Crytek lawsuit they had obligations after CryTek made all their kickstarter videos that Chris passed off as work he and a small team did.
It didn't matter at all, you can't commit to create one in-house engine first because you don't know how much money you will gather, and second because you don't have resources to do so, just a few hired people with no office will not suddenly turn into one UE, CryEngine, etc... that took many many years to create on large well-established studios.
The option was obvious, and back then the scope of the game was far smaller, especially with SQ42, so the default engine could work with what once was smaller map levels with more simple graphics and details and not a fully seamless open world.
Wait, they didn't check every other locker there for hoarding/loot purposes?!
Gut Out!
There is no looting of that sort "interact with box & RNG loot tables kick in". Loot on the game is physically what you see be that a box or a coffee mug, but there is no magical inventory.
And it still would have been smarter for them to develop an in house engine once all the money started rolling in. But as we were shown from the ongoing Crytek lawsuit they had obligations after CryTek made all their kickstarter videos that Chris passed off as work he and a small team did.
so the default engine could work with what once was smaller map levels with more simple graphics and details and not a fully seamless open world.
Umm maybe you are new to this game and you’ve been arguing for something else these past few years but simple graphics was never its selling point
And it still would have been smarter for them to develop an in house engine once all the money started rolling in. But as we were shown from the ongoing Crytek lawsuit they had obligations after CryTek made all their kickstarter videos that Chris passed off as work he and a small team did.
so the default engine could work with what once was smaller map levels with more simple graphics and details and not a fully seamless open world.
Umm maybe you are new to this game and you’ve been arguing for something else these past few years but simple graphics was never its selling point
It was always going to look good, just not as good as it is currently. The default engine itself, Cryengine, had to be refactored with new tech over the years to improve the visuals, and still is in some areas, meeting visuals to scale alone requiring a bunch graphics refactors.
And it still would have been smarter for them to develop an in house engine once all the money started rolling in. But as we were shown from the ongoing Crytek lawsuit they had obligations after CryTek made all their kickstarter videos that Chris passed off as work he and a small team did.
so the default engine could work with what once was smaller map levels with more simple graphics and details and not a fully seamless open world.
Umm maybe you are new to this game and you’ve been arguing for something else these past few years but simple graphics was never its selling point
It was always going to look good, just not as good as it is currently. The default engine itself, Cryengine, had to be refactored with new tech over the years to improve the visuals, and still is in some areas, meeting visuals to scale alone requiring a bunch graphics refactors.
Do you ever stop and read what you wrote before you hit post cause sometimes I wonder.
And it still would have been smarter for them to develop an in house engine once all the money started rolling in. But as we were shown from the ongoing Crytek lawsuit they had obligations after CryTek made all their kickstarter videos that Chris passed off as work he and a small team did.
so the default engine could work with what once was smaller map levels with more simple graphics and details and not a fully seamless open world.
Umm maybe you are new to this game and you’ve been arguing for something else these past few years but simple graphics was never its selling point
It was always going to look good, just not as good as it is currently. The default engine itself, Cryengine, had to be refactored with new tech over the years to improve the visuals, and still is in some areas, meeting visuals to scale alone requiring a bunch graphics refactors.
Do you ever stop and read what you wrote before you hit post cause sometimes I wonder.
gervaise1 said: And with the correction my comment about cost recovery makes sense!
...how?!
gervaise1 said:
Your comment about the modifications part is why the likes of EA and UbiSoft use their own engines.
No. EA or Ubi use their own engines due costs/time cuts.
On the contary, it shows how uneasy it is to make engine do something else than it is supposed to - an engine that can support wide array type of games is a pipe dream.
gervaise1 said:
Pick any engine you want but if you have nobody to write code using it it makes no difference.
Unless you are doing specifically what engine is supposed to do, ie. you use engine created to make FPS game and you are to make FPS game, or your project is very simple, you will always be tinkering with an engine.
MMOs are massive projects that fairly ensures lots of engine rework no matter what engine you pick.
Besides, didn't CryTek run into issue after the engine was picked up already?
I still think it is due licencing terms - CGI found CryTek better deal than paying royalties to Epic.
The SQ42 Gameplay was shown before in 1h mission loop:
It gives the idea of how SQ42 missions are meant to play, it's ofc as we know and can see on SC stuff like AI and so still has ways to go and that is the core of SQ42's gameplay.
Thank you for sharing this. I enjoyed it enough to actually give a response on mmorpg.com.
gervaise1 said: And with the correction my comment about cost recovery makes sense!
...how?!
gervaise1 said:
Your comment about the modifications part is why the likes of EA and UbiSoft use their own engines.
No. EA or Ubi use their own engines due costs/time cuts.
On the contary, it shows how uneasy it is to make engine do something else than it is supposed to - an engine that can support wide array type of games is a pipe dream.
gervaise1 said:
Pick any engine you want but if you have nobody to write code using it it makes no difference.
Unless you are doing specifically what engine is supposed to do, ie. you use engine created to make FPS game and you are to make FPS game, or your project is very simple, you will always be tinkering with an engine.
MMOs are massive projects that fairly ensures lots of engine rework no matter what engine you pick.
Besides, didn't CryTek run into issue after the engine was picked up already?
I still think it is due licencing terms - CGI found CryTek better deal than paying royalties to Epic.
Unreal engine is an example of an engine that can be used to make all kinds of games. You just disproved your own point. Some engines are better at certain types of games yes but depending on the way they are built they can be used for all types of games. Even games built with UE will still need some refactoring to do things specific to the game.
CIG chose cryengine or specific reasons. The rendering capabilities, the fact that they could get a source license and that crytek claimed at the time that they would work with CIG to add features they needed to the engine to do things they needed. At the time their other options were UE3 and Unity which were not ideal for their purposes.
Comments
SC actually started with the same fork of CryEngine that Amazon "bought" for Lumberyard.
So when SC went from: CryEngine + own code
To Lumberyard + own code
That was: CryEngine + Amazon extra stuff + own code.
The conversion took "a couple of people a couple of days".
As an aside I believe SC opted for CryEngine because a large pool of CryEngine developers became available to hire. When they were laid off. Recovering the money spent on engine development is expensive - as Unity's CEO put it: gamers don't want to pay, so indie devs don't want to pay. So whilst the costs are noT "super high" they are significantly high that recouping those costs is an issue. And so there are very few "big" game engines available.
We can see by SC how far along mechanics as AI, FPS, Dogfighting are. Ofc SQ42 would play more smooth than what happens on SC because of that linear mission design without stuff like servers in the way, but still.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
But besides that several of the main Vanduul ships are SQ42 locked, especially the capitals
cool single player game, surely a fun multiplayer part but... not even close to the single player content. let's hope he won't repeat that.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Where you are wrong is that game engine is expensive to make. It is not, it is just time consuming - which is why even big studios use 3rd party engines to save 2-3 years just making the engine. Market changes quickly these days.
The reason why SC went with CryEngine is mostly because they needed to produce high fidelity assets fast so they could fuel their crowdfunding efforts and last but least also likely due licencing.
The caveat of middleware though is modifications - once you want from your platform to do something it wasn't built for, things can get very ugly.
Your comment about the modifications part is why the likes of EA and UbiSoft use their own engines. There are other advantages as well. Making changes is were it gets messy.
As to why SC went with CryEngine?
Yes they needed something to get things rolling; doesn't mean they had to go with CryEngine though - there were and have been since discussions about whether they should have gone with UnReal etc. etc., that CryEngine was a poor choice etc. Pros and cons and multiple factors. And - imo - being able to hire people was a factor. Pick any engine you want but if you have nobody to write code using it it makes no difference.
The option to go with a self-made engine from the start would be the best, but again they didn't have any resources for that to be a realistic option back then, I think this was said as well they would have went with the in-doors engine if they knew how successful the crowdfunding campaign was.
But even with that would be complicated, it took years of hiring to get the engineering positions filled and offices open. It would take a long time to hire, then many years to start the engine from scratch and then start building the game upon it. The option to take the shelf engine and refactor it over time as resources to do so got hired, and the scope increased, ended up being the path.
Probably the real reason for CryEngine originally was that it made good trailers....
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It didn't matter at all, you can't commit to create one in-house engine first because you don't know how much money you will gather, and second because you don't have resources to do so, just a few hired people with no office will not suddenly turn into one UE, CryEngine, etc... that took many many years to create on large well-established studios.
The option was obvious, and back then the scope of the game was far smaller, especially with SQ42, so the default engine could work with what once was smaller map levels with more simple graphics and details and not a fully seamless open world.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
On the contary, it shows how uneasy it is to make engine do something else than it is supposed to - an engine that can support wide array type of games is a pipe dream. Unless you are doing specifically what engine is supposed to do, ie. you use engine created to make FPS game and you are to make FPS game, or your project is very simple, you will always be tinkering with an engine.
MMOs are massive projects that fairly ensures lots of engine rework no matter what engine you pick.
Besides, didn't CryTek run into issue after the engine was picked up already?
I still think it is due licencing terms - CGI found CryTek better deal than paying royalties to Epic.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Kudos to you.
CIG chose cryengine or specific reasons. The rendering capabilities, the fact that they could get a source license and that crytek claimed at the time that they would work with CIG to add features they needed to the engine to do things they needed. At the time their other options were UE3 and Unity which were not ideal for their purposes.