Breaking: Silicon Knights Files Lawsuit Against Epic

Wait is SK suing from NC??? Are they located in NC? If not, then how are they pulling that off?

 

No, but Epic is. Suing Epic in Ontario Canada probably wouldn't have the desired effect...

 

Well, Id must be happy about this news, as now they have an "opening" with Id Tech 5 perhaps. Or a reason for UE3 to be considered to have problems.

BTW, from some of Dyack's comments it sounds like they really just want to work out a settlement (be cut free from UE3?). I suspect that will happen.

 

I don't know what to think. Of course anything is possible, but it seems like SK is looking to blame someone else for their own failings. Of course I'm not an insider , but eh, I don't have a lot of faith in Dennis after all the hyping and CG movies and etc, before they showcased that flaming pile of kaka that was the first too human unveiling. And it wasn't only technical (performance) issues. It was everything. On top of that, the latest Too Human demonstration isn't so great either. I think that they sunk a ton of money into Too Human, are seeing very tepid responses, and want to sue somebody for something so that they have money to recoup costs. But then again thats all speculation

 

This makes it sorta sound like "oh we reverse engineered their borked engine and gave it our own cool name".......

Dunno what to think.

 

Under license agreement. Epic is suppose to present all parties with any updates they make to thier engine. Epic hasn't been doing that for some reason. And it seems only Epic has the latest sufficient version of the UE3.0 engine.

 

Actually see the general picture here. Most of those companies you mentioned have either had problems committing a sufficient release date for thier games. Or had trouble optimizing the game with UE3.0. Hell Feel Plus+ is currently having problems with the engine and is "trying" to finish Lost Odyssey this year. But havn't committed to the timeframe just yet. Almost all big games using this engine has had a few setbacks.

There is a REAL issue here with the engine.

 

Looks like more devs will come out and back SK's claim.

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/ga...719152327860026&releaseId=2006062316152843086

 

I wonder if this will affect adoption on the PC...

 

Perhaps it has already? This would explain why Vegas(?) was released on the 360 using UE2 rather then 3 since they wanted a multi-platform release, some people here falsely listed it as a UE3 game, saw it someplace but too lazy to find it.

edit-not too lazy after all, and it was infact posted here, no surprise, top of page 2 RS:Vegas is UE2.5 but if im not mistaken they had purchased licensing rights to UE3 quite some time ago. Odd.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?page=2&t=36824

 

It's certainly odd, and I'm not entirely sure how Epic can defend against a lot of this. If SK had no code whatsoever in March 2006, then they had no code and there's not a lot Epic can say to defend themselves from the breach of contract allegation. I'm interested to see what other devs say in the upcoming weeks...

 

Very interesting, so it appears the only retail shipped true UE3 based game is gears of war and lots of other developers are struggling to get it running well. I remember the recent blacksite demo which is UE3 ran quite poor. So looks like there are real issues for licensees trying to deliver gears like results.

 

No doubt SK has been disappointed by the UE3 performance and from the few quotes I have read it appears as Epic might have not been too willing to give the support, which I guess they should and that they have not given them updates and so on of the engine as they should.

On the other hand, this whole E32006 thing to me does not hold too much water, as the problems with the TH sowing there were at least not only engine related, but more, gameplay, animations and stuff like that.

To me it seems mostly that SK wants out of the UE3 deal, maybe get their money back or something and that the improvments they have been making not to be categorized as an update of UE3 but rather is a new engine all together and do not have to pay licenses to Epic because of that...

 

Well if it's true that Epic didn't give out Gears of War code, then they may be in trouble. I know that id Software for example gives access to all of the code from their game using the engine, even beta and unused code.

 

Bioshock finally got a release date of next month at E3 so thats going to be the first large title i know of using it for either PC or 360 other then Gears. It is using UE3 100% right?

 

I remember BioShock originally being announced as using the Tribes: Vengeance modified UE2 engine...

 

I would imagine the license extends past just simply giving the company the engine, and instead support, updates to the engine, and help in use with the engine is included, or as it appear is suppose to be included.

For several years now I've been wondering if Epic wanted more to be a company that designed and supported an engine or a game developer. I've been curious how the support aspect of their engine worked, and how many people were there solely to provide support to companies that likely put a lot of time and money into working with Epic's engines.

Depending on the meaning of 100% I know that's not right, for example the water work is almost completely inhouse at the Bioshock developer and I think a lot more could be as well.

 

Skimming through the pdf, there are quite several mentions of "game-specific" and "engine-specific" code with Epic not handing over code that SK wanted because they've deemed it "game-specific". And yet, SK is trying to say that there was "engine-specific" code that Epic wouldn't hand over.

It might be a bit of an uphill battle to distinguish that for the court... maybe

 

Well as I mentioned id Software has all of their code available, so Epic is the one that is going to have an upward battle here. Especially after they said early on that GoW was driving UE3 development.

 

Well, from what I gather, it seems that Epic is not obligated to share "game specific" enhancements, and so they don't follow what id Software does with their license agreements. Both sides will have to argue about the definitions, I think. As for who will have the tougher battle... I do not know.

("this" = "thus" I think )