[tongue_of_colicab]

I've just read the big Wii thread and read nintendo will be releasing its own middleware. For some time i've been wondering why ms/sony/nintendo dont include free engines with their SDK ( as far as I know they dont do that, if they do than im sorry for making this topic ). It doesnt have to be the best engine in the world but it would certainly be very helpfull? It could help to devs build better looking games right from the start because they have a decent engine available and it could help smaller companies wich dont have a enough budget to build a good engine themselves or license one. ms/sony/ninty should be able to have a decent engine available even ''long'' before the console is launched and the costs couldnt be the problem. Even if it would cost a couple of millions thats not very much compared to what it will gain them. Besides, they need engines for their first party games anyway so its going to be of some help anyway.

[Shifty Geezer]

Whole game engines generally need to be tailored to the game. Things like UE3.0 are hacked about to get them to do exactly what you want them to. And UE3.0 is valued as much for it's tool chain as anything.

If you provide good development tools, it's easy enough for devs to build their own custom engine tailored to their needs. MS provide XNA. Sony are providing various tools and engines like PSSG. Nintendo supposedly have a very straight-forward API from GC for developing Wii games.

Using a terribly vulgar analogy, if you want engineers to build you sports cars for your racing teams, to cover racers of all sorts like Rallying, F1, American-driving-around-in-circles racing, etc., are you better off : a) giving them one basic car for them to modify to fit; or b) providing them with the tools and parts for them to build their own cars?

[tongue_of_colicab]

Ofcourse B would be the better option. But that would cost more time, more knowledge and cost more money. That was the point I tried to make. Devs might not have the time, skill or money to create a engine tailored to their needs. Take the Wii for example. Lots of games look like bad ps2 ports. If it would really be that easy to build a engine than why did they go for the ps2 ported engine? Couldnt nintendo avoid ''problems'' like that by providing a decent engine with decent tools? I dont know anything about programming so I might look at it to black and white but to me it seems providing a engine could solve some problems especially in the first few months of a console.

[infinity4]

i have no knowledge about technology, but isn't this because... it is hard (time consuming as well as costs) to make an engine to fit all sorts of genres??? meaning less optimisation for each genre whereas if devs make their own engine it becomes more optimised for their own genres???

[MrWibble]

Originally Posted by tongue_of_colicab

I've just read the big Wii thread and read nintendo will be releasing its own middleware. For some time i've been wondering why ms/sony/nintendo dont include free engines with their SDK ( as far as I know they dont do that, if they do than im sorry for making this topic ).

Sony do: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=35010

I was at GDC last week and Sony had their engine thing on the stand more or less next to Unreal - Unreal looked a lot prettier, but the Sony effort was keeping a much healthier framerate. It's not going to have the tools or overall "complete game engine" feel as Unreal, but it's probably technically competent.

Not sure who uses it though. I think us developers are often a bit reluctant to use other people's technology and especially wary of stuff that's free (plus, as I said, it's less complete). There's been a huge shift towards middleware over the last few years though so perhaps this new effort will have more success, especially with smaller developers doing downloadable games and the like.

[archangelmorph]

Then you have the problems of developer support for when the engine breaks or when devs don't know what they are doing with it..

In the end you'll find that sometimes learning the intricacies of a thrid party solution and adapting it to suit your needs could sometimes be even more costly than developing your own solution..

And the fact that most devs with the financial ability actually began work on their own technology solutions as soon as the specs for the target platform hardware were nailed down, some even before, shows that it probably isn't the most appropriate investment, developing and maintaining a complete set of engines and tools for thrid parties, the majority of which wouldn't be interested in using..

Finally some people need to get out of the idea that you can have a "one-size-fits-all" engine which can be easily adapted to suit NE kind of game because in real life this just isn't the case..

[DJ12]

Originally Posted by MrWibble

Sony do: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=35010

I was at GDC last week and Sony had their engine thing on the stand more or less next to Unreal - Unreal looked a lot prettier, but the Sony effort was keeping a much healthier framerate. It's not going to have the tools or overall "complete game engine" feel as Unreal, but it's probably technically competent.

Not sure who uses it though. I think us developers are often a bit reluctant to use other people's technology and especially wary of stuff that's free (plus, as I said, it's less complete). There's been a huge shift towards middleware over the last few years though so perhaps this new effort will have more success, especially with smaller developers doing downloadable games and the like.

Sony have only recently announce "edge" though so I doubt it is a mature product, certainly not on the level of the unreal engine which has already spawned a game or two.

I thought I read the Killzone tech demo was actually made with it, so when that comes into the public domain we will see what "edge" is really like.

[Bobbler]

Originally Posted by DJ12

Sony have only recently announce "edge" though so I doubt it is a mature product, certainly not on the level of the unreal engine which has already spawned a game or two.

I thought I read the Killzone tech demo was actually made with it, so when that comes into the public domain we will see what "edge" is really like.

PSSG != Edge.

PSSG is for any dev and free?

Edge seems like it's a SCEWW thing.

[Carl B]

Seriously. DJ12 at least click on the link to find out what you're responding to before you respond.

[DJ12]

Originally Posted by Carl B

Seriously. DJ12 at least click on the link to find out what you're responding to before you respond.

You rumbled me.

Bobbler, I thought "edge" was going to be for everyone. Created by key figures in the Sony dev houses, not specifically for Sony in house games.

[Bobbler]

Originally Posted by DJ12

You rumbled me.

Bobbler, I thought "edge" was going to be for everyone. Created by key figures in the Sony dev houses, not specifically for Sony in house games.

Edge might be for everyone, but PSSG and Edge are definitely different, as far as all the information we've received goes.

PSSG has been available for a while, iirc. Edge is still being worked on and the only glimpse of it seen by the public has been the preGDC Killzone tech demo showing.

[DJ12]

Yeah, I got the two mixed up.

There is one package that has been used by Codemasters for Colin McRae Dirt which I think is PSSG. I don't know if it's free, but it's certainly available to everyone (If I haven't got muddled up again)

http://linuxps3.net/articles/technol...g-project.html seems I am "OK" this time

[Fafalada]

I don't know if it's free, but it's certainly available to everyone

It's free for any licensed PS3 devs at least - and it's been available since very early PS3 SDKs.

At any rate, I believe primary reasons to use large-scale middleware(I'm not talking about inserting little libs here and there) are tools and support, and both of these (especially the second) are something I would question when it comes to free products.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Well but for nintendo/sony/ms free doesnt have to mean bad. It would only be a advantage for them if devs had good tools right?

[Shifty Geezer]

It's still going to cost, and it's not going to attract devs to the platform, which means very little obvious net gain. PS2 was bad in lots of ways, but was the platform of choice because of the market, not the tools. Offering nice tools isn't going to win you much market share, especially when the cross-platform products are hampered by the other platform (if they are). The place that will really benefit are exclusives, which are mostly first-party, who are the people that would be creating engines. They can create them for their own use, rather than support other companies producing cross-platform titles that people can still buy on the rival platform(s).

[tongue_of_colicab]

I agree that it wont help attracting big(ger) devs but wouldnt it be a great help to smaller devs or independent devs? or maybe even students. Sure it probably wont make you a bigger profit or get you extra AAA games but some things cant be expressed in money, getting some goodwill from the people who might end up making AAA games isnt a bad thing and helping small devs might give you some good press. And like I said, sony/ms/ninty make their own engines and tools anyway, I guess it wouldnt be a big problem do give away a scaled down version of that do devs. I might not help, but it wont hurt either.