Engines for Multi-platform development !

[RenegadeRocks]

I was having a discussion with someone and we were listing down engines that could be licensed for Multiplatform development for making a game on 360,PS3 and PC. We had listed down a lot of engines like:

• Frostbite,
• MT Framework,
• Cryengine3,
• ID Tech 5,
• Unreal Engine 3,
• Ubisofts Dunia

and were narrowing down the choice by discussing which engine would suit his game's mechanics best ! After th whole discussion, to our dismay, we realised that out of all the engines listed above only 3 could be licensed:

• UE3,
• CE3,
• Id Tech 5

Even out if that Tech 5 is still doubtfull. Their website has removed the licensing page and some press releases mentioned they have decided against licensing Tech 5 !

“It’s going to be used within ZeniMax, so we’re not going to license it to external parties. It’s like, look, this is a competitive advantage and we want to keep it within games we publish – not necessarily exclusively to id or id titles, but if you’re going to make a game with id Tech 5 then it needs to be published by Bethesda, which I think is a fair thing.”[4]

All the other studios are using their engines for only their games and not licensing them out. Even DICE has said that for Frostbite2, that it will never be licensed.

Considering all that, we had to come down to just :

• Unreal Engine 3
• Cryengine 3

Out of the two CryEngine 3 became the obvious choice for us for all the advancements it obviously has over UE3 ! But I wasn't really comfortable as CE3 hasn't really shown stellar IQ in the recent MP demo on X360.

But thats weird , cos that means Cry Engine 3 has no competition to speak of ! I thought that now that Frostbite 2.0 has upped the features, it'll provide some competition, but they have decided against licensing it to other studios. I was keen on Frostbite, considering all the beautiful work on BF:BC series and the recent environments in NFS:Hot Pursuit running so well on the consoles.

Are there no other engines out there which devs can license for their games? Does that mean that any other studio without their own tech has to choose between just UE3 and CE3 ?

 

[Arwin]

id Tech 5 was removed from the market after purchase by Bethesda, right?

There are several other engines out there that are lesser known though. I came across one the other day that I had never heard of. I'm sure we'll be able to get a list up here with some effort.

 

[N_B]

There's always Source.

And Gamebryo

Both still get a fair bit of of use. I got the impression from the Digital Foundry article that the 4A engine for Metro 2033 was meant to be up for licensing, but there doesn't seem to be any interest.

edit: forgot Source doesn't support PS3 yet. Likely to change with Portal 2.

 

[Rangers]

id Tech 5 was removed from the market after purchase by Bethesda, right?

Yes. Carmack said Zenimax decided the engine was a "competitive advantage' not too be shared.

 

[Rangers]

I used to, until recently, dislike "engines". While they are a graphical floor, they are also a ceiling. Sure UE3 looked great in 2006, but in 2007, 8, 9, it more elicits groans.

But recently I realized, they're an efficiency. There's no need to make a new engine for every game. It's inefficient. So in that light, I realize UE3's success wasnt really surprising.

I also dont think an engine needs to mean poor graphics. I think UE3 has done a good job keeping it updated. The new lighting system still makes games like Bulletstorm and Gears 3 among the best looking 5 years into the generation.

 

[Prophecy2k]

There's the game engine from the "Call of Juarez" guys that i believe is still licenseable?

Alternatively if your friend is looking to make a PS360 game (excl. Wii, but incl. NGP - as per recent updates) then there's also Phyre Engine from Sony. From what i hear from my boy's who've evaluated it, as of it's most recent incarnation (dunno about the post NGP update), it runs swell on PS3 and Xbox 360 but is a bit barebones. It's pretty much just your bare basics and renderer and isn't anywhere near comparable to CE3 or UE3 in terms of it's toolset. But if you're a small dev who wants to develop alot of your own code Phyreengine gives you a great start as most of the core systems are there and you can pretty easily build on that as your foundation. Plus it's completely free with the PS3 devkit ;-)

I know there are some more engines out there optimised for multiplat dev but i can't think of many others right now. Might get back to you ;-)

Also, in terms of UE3 vs CE3, CE3 is super good for enhancing your development process but the folks I know who evaluated it decided against it because of their concerns for it's performance on consoles. I think alot of potential licensees are just waiting for Crytek to ship a game on it before commiting to making use of it in such an early incarnation. Epic have the advantage in that they've seen pretty much an entire generation's worth of games shipped using their engine and thus their tech is much more mature at this stage for console development ;-)

In the end though it comes down to what your friend's development requirements are for the game he/she wants to make. If CE3 can provide that, factoring that Crysis 2 will be out soon, you'll be able to see how well it runs on consoles then... just wait till the inevitable post-Crysis 2 update to the engine before licensing it (i would expect Crytek to make some big performance enhancing changes to it then) ;-) Otherwise if UE3 can provide what he/she is looking for, then it's a solid engine with a solid pedigree, excellent dev support by Epic and can produce some amazing visuals and gameplay flexibility ;-)

 

[RenegadeRocks]

There's the game engine from the "Call of Juarez" guys that i believe is still licenseable?

Alternatively if your friend is looking to make a PS360 game (excl. Wii, but incl. NGP - as per recent updates) then there's also Phyre Engine from Sony. From what i hear from my boy's who've evaluated it, as of it's most recent incarnation (dunno about the post NGP update), it runs swell on PS3 and Xbox 360 but is a bit barebones. It's pretty much just your bare basics and renderer and isn't anywhere near comparable to CE3 or UE3 in terms of it's toolset. But if you're a small dev who wants to develop alot of your own code Phyreengine gives you a great start as most of the core systems are there and you can pretty easily build on that as your foundation. Plus it's completely free with the PS3 devkit ;-)

I know there are some more engines out there optimised for multiplat dev but i can't think of many others right now. Might get back to you ;-)

Also, in terms of UE3 vs CE3, CE3 is super good for enhancing your development process but the folks I know who evaluated it decided against it because of their concerns for it's performance on consoles. I think alot of potential licensees are just waiting for Crytek to ship a game on it before commiting to making use of it in such an early incarnation. Epic have the advantage in that they've seen pretty much an entire generation's worth of games shipped using their engine and thus their tech is much more mature at this stage for console development ;-)

In the end though it comes down to what your friend's development requirements are for the game he/she wants to make. If CE3 can provide that, factoring that Crysis 2 will be out soon, you'll be able to see how well it runs on consoles then... just wait till the inevitable post-Crysis 2 update to the engine before licensing it (i would expect Crytek to make some big performance enhancing changes to it then) ;-) Otherwise if UE3 can provide what he/she is looking for, then it's a solid engine with a solid pedigree, excellent dev support by Epic and can produce some amazing visuals and gameplay flexibility ;-)

Exactly the point why I was uncomfortable with recommending CE3. Frostbite offers a much cleaner IQ, no pop-ups and has proved more versatile what with NFS:HP environments ! But that ain't up for grabs.

As for UE3, though with new lighting and god rays, the bulletstorm demo still looks very "Static" like GeoW. It looks old now. Wouldn't fare well for a game that starts development this year. It'll look like a relic by the time it is done.

I had forgotten about Source, but anyways, Orange Box didn't really run on the PS3, it turned out to be a poor port.

I haven't checked out GameBryo ! Is it a robust engine? its website lists Oblivion and Fallout 3 as using GameBryo ! Are those running on vanilla Gamebryo or didn't Bethesda use its own engine?

I had forgotten about Chrome Engine ! Thats the one used in Call of Juarez !

 

[Prophecy2k]

Exactly the point why I was uncomfortable with recommending CE3. Frostbite offers a much cleaner IQ, no pop-ups and has proved more versatile what with NFS:HP environments ! But that ain't up for grabs.

As for UE3, though with new lighting and god rays, the bulletstorm demo still looks very "Static" like GeoW. It looks old now. Wouldn't fare well for a game that starts development this year. It'll look like a relic by the time it is done.

I had forgotten about Source, but anyways, Orange Box didn't really run on the PS3, it turned out to be a poor port.

I haven't checked out GameBryo ! Is it a robust engine? its website lists Oblivion and Fallout 3 as using GameBryo ! Are those running on vanilla Gamebryo or didn't Bethesda use its own engine?

I had forgotten about Chrome Engine ! Thats the one used in Call of Juarez !

Admittedly i haven't seen the Bulletstorm demo or played it yet, i've just been looking at the stills & vids for it and GeOW3 and i think they look really nice. Static though, hmmn yeah but then Mass Effect is also UE3 and those games have amazing visuals ;-) Again it really just depends on the game you wanna make. Plus if it's for PS360, even if you start developement now i can't see games looking "significantly" better than the best games due out this year, even if you ship in three years time. I think we're very close to the graphical ceiling now on the current consoles. Also, don't forget that your game's art design plays a large, if not even bigger part in the visual appeal of your game than the engine. GeOW and Bulletstorm share a very a similar "Epic/Unreal" art-style. With what UE3 can do in it's current form, it's really down to your artists to create a unique and compelling "look" for your game... see stuff like Mirror's Edge and the aforementioned ME series ;-)... (Note: i'm not an Epic marketing man in disguise, lol. I've just heard alot from devs about the engine and many do really sing it's praises, despite the stick it gets from the gaming media/fans).

Yeah the "Chrome Engine" that's the one i was talking about, from the "Call of Juarez" guys ("Kaos Studios" i think). COJ looked and ran pretty awesome on consoles, dunno why the game was practically ignored though

As for Gamebryo, yeah that's the very same one used for Oblivion, FallOut3 & FO:NV... Notorious for being full of bugs. I dunno much about it beyond what flys about in the media. I think from the recent comments from Obsidian who used it for FO: New Vegas i'd think it may be best to avoid it like the plague. Even they themselves have built their new Onyx engine they're using for Dungeon Seige 3, and it sounds like they really wanna distance themselves from Gamebryo as much as possible.

Even Bethesda with all their talk of the "Creation Engine" they're using for Skyrim, seem like they really want people to know that they've moved away from the Gamebryo build they previously used (even though their "new engine" is basically built on top of Gamebryo... or so i've heard ).

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Admittedly i haven't seen the Bulletstorm demo or played it yet, i've just been looking at the stills & vids for it and GeOW3 and i think they look really nice. Static though, hmmn yeah but then Mass Effect is also UE3 and those games have amazing visuals ;-) Again it really just depends on the game you wanna make. Plus if it's for PS360, even if you start developement now i can't see games looking "significantly" better than the best games due out this year, even if you ship in three years time. I think we're very close to the graphical ceiling now on the current consoles. Also, don't forget that your game's art design plays a large, if not even bigger part in the visual appeal of your game than the engine. GeOW and Bulletstorm share a very a similar "Epic/Unreal" art-style. With what UE3 can do in it's current form, it's really down to your artists to create a unique and compelling "look" for your game... see stuff like Mirror's Edge and the aforementioned ME series ;-)... (Note: i'm not an Epic marketing man in disguise, lol. I've just heard alot from devs about the engine and many do really sing it's praises, despite the stick it gets from the gaming media/fans).

Yeah the "Chrome Engine" that's the one i was talking about, from the "Call of Juarez" guys ("Kaos Studios" i think). COJ looked and ran pretty awesome on consoles, dunno why the game was practically ignored though

As for Gamebryo, yeah that's the very same one used for Oblivion, FallOut3 & FO:NV... Notorious for being full of bugs. I dunno much about it beyond what flys about in the media. I think from the recent comments from Obsidian who used it for FO: New Vegas i'd think it may be best to avoid it like the plague. Even they themselves have built their new Onyx engine they're using for Dungeon Seige 3, and it sounds like they really wanna distance themselves from Gamebryo as much as possible.

Even Bethesda with all their talk of the "Creation Engine" they're using for Skyrim, seem like they really want people to know that they've moved away from the Gamebryo build they previously used (even though their "new engine" is basically built on top of Gamebryo... or so i've heard ).

Hmmm...I can understand your point about UE3. ME was the finest example of a good use of Unreal Engine. But, the position I am in, I cannot influence art design as of now, but only suggest an engine which helps their development, makes it easier and stays robust while delivering on the three platforms. I need to suggest something that works well, art and other stuff is not something I can influence, nor can I suggest. Actually, I am pretty much in dark about what the whole thing is about. Which makes giving a suggestion very difficult as a lot also depends on their gameplay mechanics, speed of traversal(notorious pop-ups of CE3), whether they want Day/night cycles or huge or small levels.

I am conveying these points to them along with some suggestions on what might work best. I am unsure about UE3 as I think it might "limit" them later if they want realtime day/night cycles or HDR later on. Its more a matter of options.


I think it comes down to UE3 having lesser options but proven and steady and CE3 being full of opportunities but untested and new ! I think I will just put it this way to them !

As for CHrome, I think Nail'd uses that engine, but I don't think anybody else paid any interest to that engine, though it looked great and performed well on consoles too.

and thanks for warning me about Gamebryo !
Also, I am guessing, it might be easier for them to make their game look "good" with CE3, as I have myself tinkered with the TOD editor in Crysis.

 

[Commenter]

I used to, until recently, dislike "engines". While they are a graphical floor, they are also a ceiling. Sure UE3 looked great in 2006, but in 2007, 8, 9, it more elicits groans.

Don't Epic continually update and improve UE3? I mean the new consoles are a way off it seems, so it's not like they can release an UE4 yet.

I'm also sure some later UE3 based games look better than first-generation ones.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Well, it does bring us back to the same point that its just CE3 and UE3 out there ! And if we start comparing features, obviously CE3 wins.

CE3 seems to have no competition as of now to speak of in the console space. Nobody esle is competing for the multiplat licensing space with them !

 

[Afrikan]

I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned, but how about the Avalanche Engine 2.0 by Avalanche Studios.

Just Cause 2 was one of the most beautiful games I've ever played. I don't know how they did it with the colors and lighting, but flying up high and watching the sun set/rise...just looked eerie realistic.

Not sure if it can be licensed or not though.

edit- unless I'm reading this wrong...it seems it can be licensed.

http://www.avalanchestudios.se/Company.aspx

Our technology; the acclaimed Avalanche Engine™, is considered one of the most innovative in its field. The Avalanche Engine™ is a uniquely solid foundation upon which our Creative Team can build new original IP and it also a formidable tool for license-holders who crave unique gameplay for their franchises.

 

[archangelmorph]

Trinigy...
Unity...
Big World Tech...
PhyreEngine...
Ready at Dawn's Tech...
etc etc..

 

[kagemaru]

Don't Epic continually update and improve UE3? I mean the new consoles are a way off it seems, so it's not like they can release an UE4 yet.

I'm also sure some later UE3 based games look better than first-generation ones.

Plans change all the time, but I believe Epic said that they plan to launch UE4 2012 regardless if new consoles are out or not.

IMO even then may be too late for anyone looking for an upgrade in tech, which is where CE3 may gain marketshare. Current gen consoles, and how much developers have invested in UE3 already, are probably the biggest factors to delay this process.

 

[Neb]

Plans change all the time, but I believe Epic said that they plan to launch UE4 2012 regardless if new consoles are out or not.

Epic to!? Crytek said the same thing, 2012 with or without new consoles.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Makes sense, basically target where you think PCs will be at the time, then when they get specs for next gen consoles (assuming they aren't influencing next gen console developement which they certainly are, especially where MS is concerned) just tailor/port the engine and set default console variables for developer reference.

Consoles will most likely never again be more powerful than PC's so that would be a safe bet.

Regards,
SB

 

[kagemaru]

Epic to!? Crytek said the same thing, 2012 with or without new consoles.

Oops, maybe it's Crytek I'm thinking about as that does sound familiar.

Still I think it would be in Epic's best interest to release UE4 when it's ready and not wait for the next gen of consoles.

 

[ERP]

Very few of these decisions ae made for purely technical reasons.
The single biggest items on my check list would be tools quality, and has it shipped.

My experience with these 3rd party engines, is in the end they save you little if anything in the way of dev time, but they let you start building assets and itterating on design earlier. That's all about the tools rather than the core tech.

 

[liolio]

By the way I'm rwilling to see where the "in house" revamped version of UE 3 developped for Bioshock 3 will land in regard to the competition.

By the way any new media has been released lately?

 

[Commenter]

Very few of these decisions ae made for purely technical reasons.
The single biggest items on my check list would be tools quality, and has it shipped.

My experience with these 3rd party engines, is in the end they save you little if anything in the way of dev time, but they let you start building assets and itterating on design earlier. That's all about the tools rather than the core tech.

I remember a quote from Charlie Wiederhold (was a level designer at 3drealms) that in terms of the overall package, including development tools and tech support (Epic has their own dedicated engine tech support team) that compared to Id's Tech 5 UE3 would win hands down. Not sure about how Crytek's engine fares there though.

Tracked down the post.

What are you talking about? What makes you think that? Unreal has absolutely NO competition in the gaming industry when it comes to technical support or easy to learn tools and adaptability. It has its problems, but when compared to pretty much every engine out there, if I had to pick an engine to make a game with and I didn't have a team capable of writing their own, I'd go with Unreal. It wouldn't even be a hesitation. This is after working with quite a few of the engines out there.

You said in another post that "Carmack flies out to teach you" etc... but no... actually when you license an id engine you are pretty much on your own and are *lucky* to get any help from id. It's been that way since at least 1997, though I know they are hoping to improve that with the new tech but they haven't gotten to that point. I was originally going to respond to your other post but decided it wasn't worth it and just assumed you meant to say Unreal. Unreal has UDN and an entire team dedicated to supporting the engine on a technical and feedback standpoint, as well as all their game devs participating in the UDN communication and on hand to answer questions when they can. Then you also have the massive dev community who also participates in providing help and feedback. I've known *Epic* to fly out to devs to help them learn, but not id except in very rare circumstances.

When it comes to an engine that is Capable + Morphable + Reasonably User Friendly Tools + Has Customer Support... Unreal wins hands down. The only thing id's engines have going for them is Capable.