Breaking: Silicon Knights Files Lawsuit Against Epic

[Scott_Arm]

It's going to come down to what SK definition of "functional" is. Epic will claim that their engine was "functional".

Epic did have a functional version of the Engine in March. We know this because this was the month Microsoft themselves would start using the UE3 engine. You might remember this quote from Shame Kim "We only work with the best partners and utilize the best technologies, and Epic and the Unreal Engine 3 hit the mark on both those fronts" said Shane Kim, General Manager, Microsoft Game Studios.

SK is just arguing that because the version of the engine they finally revealed with the Gears of War source code was "more functional" than what they had access to prior, the UE3 engine was not "truly" functional until that date.

Epic had no obligation to release the Gears source code. They only did so because they are magnanimous company that has the best of the whole industry in mind. SK would probably have no grounds for litigation at all today if Epic had not had been so generous to them. This is akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth... and then firing a couple rounds off at the guy who gave it to you.

I think as an outsider looking in, you're probably not in a position to be claiming who is in the right or wrong. For all you know, the tools Epic provided to SK were mostly broken and unusable and parts of the code wouldn't compile or run on the 360. That's what the courts are for.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Epic did have a functional version of the Engine in March. We know this because this was the month Microsoft themselves would start using the UE3 engine. You might remember this quote from Shame Kim "We only work with the best partners and utilize the best technologies, and Epic and the Unreal Engine 3 hit the mark on both those fronts" said Shane Kim, General Manager, Microsoft Game Studios.

A PR quote means very little in this day and age.

Which MS games used UE3 in March 2006?

As I recall, Lost Odyssey was in trouble, and MS had to fly over a team of programmers to help them out, since then the project is back on track.

This is possibly further evidence of UE3's failure to deliver.

I have a feeling that, if developers start coming out of the woodwork, SK may have a very strong case. The list of UE3 games that were either cancelled, delayed, or had to switch engines (which seems to be the case with R6??) is fairly long.

On the other hand, there's a huge difference between operable, and optimized.

 

[psorcerer]

It's going to come down to what SK definition of "functional" is. Epic will claim that their engine was "functional".

Epic did have a functional version of the Engine in March. We know this because this was the month Microsoft themselves would start using the UE3 engine. You might remember this quote from Shame Kim "We only work with the best partners and utilize the best technologies, and Epic and the Unreal Engine 3 hit the mark on both those fronts" said Shane Kim, General Manager, Microsoft Game Studios.

SK is just arguing that because the version of the engine they finally revealed with the Gears of War source code was "more functional" than what they had access to prior, the UE3 engine was not "truly" functional until that date.

Epic had no obligation to release the Gears source code. They only did so because they are magnanimous company that has the best of the whole industry in mind. SK would probably have no grounds for litigation at all today if Epic had not had been so generous to them. This is akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth... and then firing a couple rounds off at the guy who gave it to you.

Made my day!
It's so funny how easily people can be fooled by good PR managers.

 

[inefficient]

I think as an outsider looking in, you're probably not in a position to be claiming who is in the right or wrong. For all you know, the tools Epic provided to SK were mostly broken and unusable and parts of the code wouldn't compile or run on the 360. That's what the courts are for.

I would be more willing to give SK the benefit of the doubt if they were the only company who licensed the UE3 engine from Epic.

But they are not. They are only 1 of a hundred other parties who have evaluated and licensed the technology because they thought it was a worthwhile investment. Some of them have actually already shipped games using the engine.

And now a lone company SK is going to say that all those hundreds of other engineers were just wrong? And Epic managed to pull the wool over everyones eyes and trick them into using shoddy technology? They released the source code for the #1 game on the 360 platform and they still think there is something malicious about their intentions behind the scenes?

In this case I rather give the engineers at the 100+ other dev teams that licensed the technology the benefit of the doubt, than give SK any benifit of the doubt.

 

[psorcerer]

Some of them have actually already shipped games using the engine.

Can you name them? The shipped ones.

 

[dobwal]

It's going to come down to what SK definition of "functional" is. Epic will claim that their engine was "functional".

Epic did have a functional version of the Engine in March. We know this because this was the month Microsoft themselves would start using the UE3 engine. You might remember this quote from Shame Kim "We only work with the best partners and utilize the best technologies, and Epic and the Unreal Engine 3 hit the mark on both those fronts" said Shane Kim, General Manager, Microsoft Game Studios.

Yet you do know that Too Human is being published by Microsoft Game Studios. Hard to qualify that statement as true when one of its own partners are making statements contrary to Kim's statement. A partner that is are so adamant on their assertions that they are willing to go through litigation to resolve their dispute.

SK is just arguing that because the version of the engine they finally revealed with the Gears of War source code was "more functional" than what they had access to prior, the UE3 engine was not "truly" functional until that date

SK claims that a fully functional engine wasn't made available until Nov 2006, so if epic themselves documented that version to be the first "fully operational" version or if other developers using UE3 are called as witnesses and give an opinion that Epic failed to make a fully functional version available at the date stated by their contract then Epic is probably going to lose on this point.

Epic had no obligation to release the Gears source code. They only did so because they are magnanimous company that has the best of the whole industry in mind. SK would probably have no grounds for litigation at all today if Epic had not had been so generous to them. This is akin to looking a gift horse in the mouth... and then firing a couple rounds off at the guy who gave it to you.

You honestly believe that statment. You honestly believe that the first and foremost priority of the Epic is not Epic themselves and that Epic actions are not a reflection for whats best for their bottom line but of the industry as a whole.

 

[dobwal]

Can you name them? The shipped ones.

R6 Vegas is supposely built on Unreal Engine 3.0 Build 4604 maybe someone could look up the description of this build if the link contains any info.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Unreal_Engine_Versions/3

websense won't let me look.

Has Roboblitz shipped yet.

 

[DeathKnight]

I would be more willing to give SK the benefit of the doubt if they were the only company who licensed the UE3 engine from Epic.

But they are not. They are only 1 of a hundred other parties who have evaluated and licensed the technology because they thought it was a worthwhile investment. Some of them have actually already shipped games using the engine.

And now a lone company SK is going to say that all those hundreds of other engineers were just wrong? And Epic managed to pull the wool over everyones eyes and trick them into using shoddy technology? They released the source code for the #1 game on the 360 platform and they still think there is something malicious about their intentions behind the scenes?

In this case I rather give the engineers at the 100+ other dev teams that licensed the technology the benefit of the doubt, than give SK any benifit of the doubt.

Just because SK is the only dev studio who has spoken up/taken a stand doesn't necessarily mean they're the only ones who have had issues or are having issues with Epic and UE3.0.

It's not like this lawsuit appears to be grossly unjustified. You should keep an open mind.

 

[inefficient]

You honestly believe that statment. You honestly believe that the first and foremost priority of the Epic is not Epic themselves and that Epic actions are not a reflection for whats best for their bottom line but of the industry as a whole.

As someone who has been buying Epic's products since even before the original Unreal: yes. Yes, I do believe quite strongly that their core philosophy has been do what is best for the gamer, and they will reward you back.

What SK is claiming Epic is trying to do runs totally contrary to prior corporate behavior and actions taken by Epic. And thats why I am more than willing to take Epics side on this one.

Over many years they have proven themselves to me that they really understand that their bottom line is directly proportional to how they treat gamers and therefore how the industry grows as a whole. And I respect them for that.

 

[Rainbow Man]

R6 Vegas is supposely built on Unreal Engine 3.0 Build 4604 maybe someone could look up the description of this build if the link contains any info.

The game is mentioned in the list of projects using UE3, if that's what you mean..
Other than that the rest of the page is mostly an overview of what UE3 supports when you buy it.

Peace.

 

[inefficient]

Just because SK is the only dev studio who has spoken up/taken a stand doesn't necessarily mean they're the only ones who have had issues or are having issues with Epic and UE3.0.

It's not like this lawsuit appears to be grossly unjustified. You should keep an open mind.

On the subject of keeping an open mind. I'll remind everyone that we have only heard from SK the plaintiff's side so far because thats is the only information so far that is public.

We have not heard Epics side of the story at all. They have the misfortune of legally not being able to say anything about the case right now. But I am sure they are dying to start telling their side as well.

 

[<nu>faust]

Has Roboblitz shipped yet.

it was released on xbla on December 6, 2006.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Looks like MS was fairly pissed:

As a direct result of Epic’s actions and misrepresentations, Silicon Knights has
been forced to rework its contractual obligations with its business partners and accept less favorable financial and other contractual terms in those relationships in order to obtain the financing necessary to see Too Human through to completion and publication. None of those delays, financial losses, and contractual harms would have occurred but for Epic’s illegal and wrongful conduct.
...

Likewise, Epic’s actions were intended to and did cause one or more of Silicon Knights’ business partners to rescind their contracts with Silicon Knights and replace them with contracts whose terms were substantially less favorable to Silicon Knights, but which Silicon Knights had to accept as a result of Epic’s malfeasance.
​

​

​

And SK is asking the courts to take all profit from GOW sales from Epic:
​

O. Epic be required to disgorge all profits obtained on its Gears of War game as a result
of the misconduct set forth above.

This is some good entertainment ​

​

 

[Scott_Arm]

On the subject of keeping an open mind. I'll remind everyone that we have only heard from SK the plaintiff's side so far because thats is the only information so far that is public.

We have not heard Epics side of the story at all. They have the misfortune of legally not being able to say anything about the case right now. But I am sure they are dying to start telling their side as well.

I don't think many, if any, people here are saying Epic is guilty. They're just discussing the accusation and whether it might hold merit in court.

People shouldn't buy into the goodwill of the corporate citizen so much. Epic is a business. Maybe they have a good track record, but that doesn't mean they aren't capable of screwing up, even if they have good intentions. I think it sounds like SK has a case, if what they said is true. Of course, that's up to the courts to decide, and we'll here the details trickle out during or after the proceedings.

I think it's possible that Epic wasn't able to provide the support and goods they were contractually obliged to. I have no idea if they definitely did or didn't, but it's possible they didn't.

 

[dobwal]

As someone who has been buying Epic's products since even before the original Unreal: yes. Yes, I do believe quite strongly that their core philosophy has been do what is best for the gamer, and they will reward you back.

U3E customers are the developers in which as a developer itself, Epic creates an opportunity for conflict of interest when selling their engine, a conflict that isn't a possibility when it sales a game to you. If they were so interested in providing you with happiness they would have easily provided all the source code for Gears (instead of calling it game specific) to thier licensees.

Epic's core philosophy is make gamers believe that doing whats best for the gamers as to maximize their profits. You don't get any of their games for free as their survival as well as their profitability trumphs your needs as a gamer. No company solely exist to provide you happiness.

What SK is claiming Epic is trying to do runs totally contrary to prior corporate behavior and actions taken by Epic. And thats why I am more than willing to take Epics side on this one.

Over many years they have proven themselves to me that they really understand that their bottom line is directly proportional to how they treat gamers and therefore how the industry grows as a whole. And I respect them for that.

You honestly don't know how Epic operates it engine licensing business and your experience with buying their games is not evidence enough as how they operate as a whole.

How many PS3 games are being currently developed using the U3 engine and why has Sony just paid Epic to provide a optimized U3 engine for the PS3 something its already agreed to do with those PS3 developers as SK has stated a fully function U3 engine for the PS3 was promised but has yet to be provided?

 

[scooby_dooby]

R6 Vegas is supposely built on Unreal Engine 3.0 Build 4604 maybe someone could look up the description of this build if the link contains any info.

http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/wiki/Unreal_Engine_Versions/3

websense won't let me look.

Has Roboblitz shipped yet.

Even if R6 is UE3, (which seems to be up in the air, as it doesn't have the UE3 logo on the box apparently), it doesn't do alot to disprove SK's claims.

1. R6 was released in Nov 2006, long after the deadling for UE3 to be delivered.

2. R6 is a FPS. SK is contending that UE3 did not work well with other genres as they were promised. Specifically, outdoor rendering.

 

[dobwal]

Even if R6 is UE3, (which seems to be up in the air, as it doesn't have the UE3 logo on the box apparently), it doesn't do alot to disprove SK's claims.

1. R6 was released in Nov 2006, long after the deadling for UE3 to be delivered.

2. R6 is a FPS. SK is contending that UE3 did not work well with other genres as they were promised. Specifically, outdoor rendering.

I was more interested in the fact that besides R6, no full fledged nex gen console game has been released using the U3 engine and whether one could consider the U3E build used by R6 as fully functional.

Ive heard other describe it as UE 2.5 with some UE3 features tacked on.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I wouldn't be surprised if Epic bit off more than they could chew. In the last few years they've been working on GoW and UT3, both two massive triple-A titles for three different platforms. They've been working on UE3 engine technology for themselves for three different platforms. They've been selling that engine tech to many different companies, again for three different platforms. That's a massive amount of work for a relatively small development company, and I wouldn't be surprised if they just drowned under the workload.

 

[dobwal]

On the subject of keeping an open mind. I'll remind everyone that we have only heard from SK the plaintiff's side so far because thats is the only information so far that is public.

We have not heard Epics side of the story at all. They have the misfortune of legally not being able to say anything about the case right now. But I am sure they are dying to start telling their side as well.

Epic is not legally bound to keep from saying anything (unless Im mistaken). What they are doing is being smart as anything said in public can not positively effect them in court but statments made in public can have negative effects especially when you are the defendant.

 

[inefficient]

Well there is functional and then there is optimized.

There was a functional and playable version of Too Human at E3 2006. People said it had some performance issues and the control mechanic was bad, but still they had an actual game running on actual hardware. link

Same with PS3 UE3 games. Just because they are going to spend more time optimizing it does not mean it was never functional.

Just like you cannot say the engine used for Halo1 was not fully functional because you could do significantly less with it than what became possible in Halo2.