DeadlyNinja
Veteran
Does this mean another delay for Too Human? I wonder why everyone's making fun of poor Duke Nukem Forever when Too Human's far worst.
Breaking: Silicon Knights Files Lawsuit Against Epic
- Thread starter scooby_dooby
- Start date
I didn't realize Too Human was announced 15 years ago.
I dont get it. Unreal 3 was made by Epic. It is more natural to expect that they will know how to utilize it more and if they need to, create features and improvements if they find it necessary. Isnt it what developers do with their Engines?
If I got it straight, SK got the engine but couldnt get the same results as Epic? And now they complain believing that Epic gave them a stripped down version of the Engine on purpose?
That could be only a result of Epic's knowledge and experience with their OWN Engine and their ability to work on it directly. This is not Epic's effort to trick others and remain many steps above anyone else who use their engine. Just like every other developer, if they find something limiting they will try to eliminate it. Which is probably what they did with Unreal Engine 3, which probably isnt the ultimate and most efficient engine for any game/genre you want to make.
Its their engine and they will utilize it just like every developer with their own engines. Just because they are licensing it to others that doesnt mean they have no right to work on their engine.
SK indirectly claims that Epic should not exploit their knowledge and experience with their Engine and improve or alter some things according to their development needs to produce better games so SK wont look "worse".
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
Both games were announced almost 10 years ago. Duke Nukem sure as heck wasn't announced 15 years ago. Too Human stared out as a PS1 game and has had 3 console switches.
No, but it was announced in 1997, well before the 1999 e3 showing of Too Human.
Off-topic, but... they've got a new blog update at IGN today 
http://blogs.ign.com/silicon-knights
Nothing related to the lawsuit though.
There is a difference in that SK has been working on other projects, shoving aside Too Human.
http://blogs.ign.com/silicon-knights
Nothing related to the lawsuit though.
There is a difference in that SK has been working on other projects, shoving aside Too Human.
DeadlyNinja
Veteran
That's true. Good point.
I heard they're no longer using the UE3 engine and have built their own.
Honestly, it has previously puzzled me (I think it was even discussed here, but if so the thread eludes me) how a company like 'Epic the game developer' can also be 'Epic the engine licensor'. The potential for a conflict of interest seems just too obvious.
Adopting a model where the IP company is a separate corporate entity licensing the tech back to the parent (IIRC, Monolith/Litthech did this ages ago) seems like more the orderly way of doing things. This is overwhelmingly the most common model on the hardware side of things, where either 'brand operations' are established as separate companies or companies that are the brand have had to split off their manufacturing divisions to attract third party business.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
If you read the full article with the details of the lawsuit, it's quite a lot more than that.
Epic have always used their games to promote their engine licensing - having a first class looking / performing title on the engine that your are licensing is only going to be good advertising for the capabilities of the engine. id employ more or less exactly the same model.
One thing that was different with UE3.0 was that they were talking about the engine long before any of their games that would actually use it (although perhaps that was because Gears was the lead title for the use of the engine by Epic itself and they couldn't openly talk about it as MS had nabbed it for 360 - many of the early engine demos did appear to be Gears like content).
Well, it worked OK for id and Criterion. Heck, the Unreal 2 engine had very long legs. And really, if this were from any developer other than Dennis "1 Game per Generation" Dyack, I'd take it more seriously.
Well, the association would still be there, no?
I'm thinking more along the corporate line of things. I.e. where Epic Games (maker of games) would have to operate under the same license as Silicon Knights, both being customers of Epic Tech (maker of game engines). With that division it would be much more transparent for the licensees whether others got preferential treatment outside of the terms of the licensing agreement. What is alleged in the suit is exactly what such arrangements set out to avoid. But obviously, if Epic has perceived them self as the 'stronger' party it would probably be preferential for them to be able to divert cash from licensees internally as needed.
Ike Turner
Veteran
SK are going to get their asses handed back to them in court.IMO..Isn't it strange that one of the only (or si it the only?) Xbox360 game developer that's having some major developement problems (delays,redesign,engine change...) is suddenly sueing Epic? Something ain't right....
*looks @ Mass Effect, Strangle Hold, Bioshock, RB:Vegas, Monster House...*****
*looks @ Mass Effect, Strangle Hold, Bioshock, RB:Vegas, Monster House...*****
Regardless when you pay the money for the license of an engine, and certainly a high profile one, you're paying for support of all types as well (both coding and updates to the tools/engine itself). Thats the entire point why companies license engines in the first place. You rarely see a game thats made by a competent developer under a licensed engine flop performance/visually. Most recently look at whats come under the Doom 3 engine which have all been obvious improvements and performed fine compared to Doom 3 itself so your saying that Gears is the best the UE3 engine can look because they know what they're doing doesnt really fly with me. That and Epic is of decent size and usually has multiple projects going and not everyone that worked on Gears had a hand in the actual creation of the engine as well. Theres really no good reason why Silicon Knights (who have been around for 15 years which i think gives them a little bit of respect through seniority) should be producing something lackluster.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
Maybe a bit early for such a statement. You and I don't actually have all the facts do we?
We don't know there wasn't/isn't problems for other developers as well.
All we know is nobody else has sued Epic..yet anyway.
Peace.
DeathKnight
Regular
Seems you might be simplifying it a bit too much here. From what was said in the Gamasutra article Epic breached the license agreement and then later tried a bit of damage control. It was already too late and SK was forced to create their own game engine.
If it's all true then SK certainly has a case.
Suit pdf:
http://ve3dmovies.ign.com/ve3d/document/article/806/806612/Silicon%20Knights%20vs%20Epic.pdf
Your browser might be confused about the spaces in the file name. Just download and add the .pdf at the end.
http://ve3dmovies.ign.com/ve3d/document/article/806/806612/Silicon%20Knights%20vs%20Epic.pdf
Your browser might be confused about the spaces in the file name. Just download and add the .pdf at the end.
Similar threads
