http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/nvidia/edinburgh-nvidia-physics-only-graphics-card-117036.php
For the next GTA maybe?
Now even Rockstar has licensed Unreal Engine 3.
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/nvidia/edinburgh-nvidia-physics-only-graphics-card-117036.php
For the next GTA maybe?
Brimstone said:
Oh Jesus!! Next thing you know there will be UE3 based Minesweeper and Solitaire.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Epic seem to have got the timing of their next-gen engine technology absolutely spot on - probably because they started back when they could only get a few frames a second, knowing they hardware would catch up with them by the time they finished development. Epic will be right there with next-gen tech within months of Xbox2, PS3, R520, G70, etc.
I guess there's not many companies that would be willing to simply cut off any older users and go for a straight out, DX9 only engine.
I guess there's not many companies that would be willing to simply cut off any older users and go for a straight out, DX9 only engine.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
Well, isn't that what everyone else should do but only a few companies can afford? In the end, it's just about shifting their development cycle a couple of years into the future.
If a company can afford to spend lots of money on an engine that won't be used for a while, i would find it quite normal, not particularly clever. Epic still gets revenue from other games, the one-too-many Unreal games released every 2 months.
Console developers seem to build their engines knowing what console they need to program for each generation, so it's harder for them.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
london-boy said:
Yes, it seems obvious, so the question begs why everyone else isn't doing it? Like you say, Epic has money (and clout). They started working on this a few years back, when they were still making UT2004/5, UT Championship, etc. They've taken a risk and spent money that other companies won't - I guess that's one of the reasons why they are one of the top developers in terms of success and technology.
I actually rate Epic above ID. Carmack is a genius, but ID hangs on him as a keystone, and his tight focus on the tech is what makes the games weak. Epic makes better games, makes more of them, and as a company their business and games revolve around their engine tech, rather than one person or one game. Epic's focus and ambition just seems to be a whole lot bigger than ID's.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
More importantly, ID isn't big enough to compete with Epic anymore. The Doom 3 engine needed to be finished in 2003, not 2004 and Carmack trying to keep ID small was a big reason why this didn't happen.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
Personally i was thinking about EA. With all the money they make, you'd think they'd be in a position to focus large amounts of their profits in new engines R&D, but it seems they hang in there with consoles releases and still release very decent games, technology-wise. So i'm sure Epic are not the only ones.
They do seem to be the only ones - or one of the very few - to have created a very good engine, feature-wise and it seems operationally - and marketed to the developers as the best solution for developers who don't have enough resources to enter the next generation of games - be it PC or consoles - with their own engine, which still to this day and for a long time in the future will be a right pain in the neck.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
london-boy said:
EA is run by beancounters. They are only interested in "shifting units" of "new product". They rip off or buy out anything successful, and then keep churning out the same thing over and over again as long as it keeps raking in the cash. Making money is their only mantra.
Epic is actually run by people who also want to make great, innovative, and groundbreaking games and game engines, as well as make a living too. IMO there's a level of artistry in the work at Epic that doesn't exist from EA.
Johnny Awesome said:
Exactly. Epic grew themselves along with their business. ID did the opposite, stunting their work to keep themselves small and focussed. This also makes ID limited in scope IMO. With Epic making games like Gears Of War and Unreal 2007, as well as licensing all over the place, I can see them streching away from ID, especially if Carmack is going to lose interest in games and spend more time at Armadillo.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
Now now... I think the way EA buys off who they want instead of trying to compete with them is quite a work of art......
You have to understand that things go around in circles .
Id was late on doom3 that is true . HOwever they delivered the game last year (or what it early this year ? ) so the title is almost a year old . The first unreal 3 engine game will be released next year . Giving them almost 2 years diffrence between engines . The first unreal 3 pc game wont hit till the end of 2006 .
During this time id will be working on thier next engine . Which will once again be out before the unreal 4 engine .
Id was late on doom3 that is true . HOwever they delivered the game last year (or what it early this year ? ) so the title is almost a year old . The first unreal 3 engine game will be released next year . Giving them almost 2 years diffrence between engines . The first unreal 3 pc game wont hit till the end of 2006 .
During this time id will be working on thier next engine . Which will once again be out before the unreal 4 engine .
mckmas8808
Legend
jvd said:
Thats a well thought out statement but I want to see results before giving ID a free pass. Show me something before I think you will have something compeitive with Epic.
OMG Quake4 they should just save their money on this game and push back development. Prey on the other hand does look nice.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
jvd said:
Engine != game.
This is where ID have let themselves down. Over the last few years, Epic has done a lot more innovating in terms of the quality of the games they make with their engines than ID has.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
Don't miss JVD's point. You can say CryEngine, Source and DOOM 3 are competing engines. You can't say the same about UE3 and any of the above. It's all about timeframe. Epic chose to stay with T&L (+ a couple of SM 1.4 shaders for speed) during _this_ generation. If anything Epic avoided a direct confrontation with id, Valve and Crytek, and that CryEngine, Source and DOOM 3 have to be compared to UE2 instead.
Btw, I'm not debating whether that was a good or bad decision, I'm just pointing out, like JVD, that comparing UE3 to DOOM 3 when the first games using their engines will probably be 2 years apart is a fallacy.
Mordenkainen said:
Mmm i think both you and jvd were missing the point of what BSB and I were saying.
We were admiring Epic's choice to delay their engine, make sure they had a very good next-gen engine they could sell to lots of people, and look at them now, everyone and their granmas licensed the UE3.
There was never any doubt that the Doom3 Engine (and others) couldn't be compared, it's obvious, they're old. What we were admiring is Epic's management, their choice of focusing a lot of resources into an engine they knew they would be able to sell to developers who don't have the resources to build their own engines for next gen machines.
They saw what everyone else saw, next-gen development will be very expensive, and were one of the very few to actually do something to exploit that, attracting the attention of developers who will just have to focus their time on conent creation - more or less. While ID were busy trying to get their old engine and old game up and running on time. Same for Valve.
We weren't praising the Engine itself, which clearly can't be compared in terms of technology to 2 year old engines.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
Mordenkainen said:
JVD missed my point. It was that Epic's timing is what is impeccable. They had a lot of foresight, spent the money and started the work long before they had any kind of viable development platform. Yes ID will have a next gen engine in a couple of years, but Epic have one all but finished, and are polishing off their launch games, all within a couple of quarters of the launch of two big next-gen consoles and next-gen PC hardware.
Epic could do this because they got larger, split the company and focussed on new technology while they finished off their previous games. ID could not do this because they stayed small. While ID was finishing Doom 3 and Epic was finishing UT2004, Epic also had the extra size to work on UE3.
Previously we've always had to wait for the developers to catch up to the hardware, sometimes taking a couple of years to really get up to speed. Epic has all but nailed the timing to be there at the beginning. That's why Epic is licencing all these engines - they are ready to go as soon as the starting gun goes off, because of the several years of work they've already put in. Everyone else is going to have to spend a couple of years to catch up to that or licence another engine. The main difference is that none of the other viable engines have cut loose the albatross that is backwards compatability earlier than DX9 - Epic has set the bar very high as a starting point.
Epic's sharp timing shows a willingness to invest for the future. Very few developers have the money, clout, or foresight to do that in today's industry.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
wow, it sure is going to be cool to see the different looks all these games can oull out of the same engine.
We have Bioware using it for one of their RPG's, Mistwalker using it for Lost Odyssey, now Rockstar is using it for GTA3.
if all the games look as good as GOW I'm one happy camper!
We have Bioware using it for one of their RPG's, Mistwalker using it for Lost Odyssey, now Rockstar is using it for GTA3.
if all the games look as good as GOW I'm one happy camper!
Similar threads
