Unreal Engine 3 er blevet gratis

[jonaz.dk]

Unreal Engine 3 er blevet gratis til ikke-kommerciel og undervisningsbrug. Og kan nu downloads som standalone applikation.
http://www.udk.com

Historie på
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61138
Dokumentation
http://udn.epicgames.com/
Licensing
http://www.udk.com/licensing

Den kommercielle udgave kommer til at koste $2,500 per seat (i første omgang)

[freedomwriter]

...og sådan tager man luften ud af andre udvikler-platforme, der forsøger det samme for at vinde markedsandele.
Epic har altid været forhandlings-villige mht developer-friendly deals i en kommerciel aftale om licensiering - og brugervenlighed, dokumentation og support samt community er tiptop. For ikke at tale om PR værdien af at arbejde med UE3.

Når man tænker på hvor mange spil og hvor mange teams rundt om i verden, der arbejder med denne teknologi, vil det osse af karriere-mæssige årsager være en fornuftig løsning, især når hele det højt besungne toolset følger gratis med.

Og som Epics topdog Mark Rein tidligere har afsløret i en email: "... and commercial licenses for this forthcoming release are also possible, with limited Epic support, and "...will [cost] considerably less than the US$350,000+ we charge for [an Unreal engine license]."

Genial måde at gøde jorden for den kommende, nye standard - Unreal Engine 4....

[Anders Højsted]

Og når man så har udviklet noget fantastisk succesfuldt (som med Counterstrike), som sælger Unreal Enginen som en gal, hvad så?

A team creates a game with UDK that they intend to sell. After six months of development, they release the game through digital distribution and they earn €15,000 in the first calendar quarter after release. Their use of UDK during development requires no fee. After earning €15,000, they would be required to pay Epic €2,500 (€0 on the first €5,000 in revenue, and €2,500 on the next €10,000 in revenue). On subsequent revenue, they are required to pay the 25% royalty.

Så skal Epic have 25% af alt indtægt efter de første US$5.000. Det er godt nok en stor bid af kagen.

A.

[freedomwriter]

Everything is negotiable - in business you never get what you deserve, only what you negotiate....

Der kan sagtens sættes et loft over den royalty - enten beløbsbegrænset eller tidsbegrænset. Epic har altid forekommet mig meget fleksible, osse på det punkt.

[TomBombadil]

hvad koster en Unreal Tournament den er vel nede på en 100kr.... har den ikke altid haft editoren?
(Sidder og downloader den pt. hehehe)

[jonaz.dk]

@Tombombadil
jo skam. men det er nu lidt mere interessant at kunne udgive sine produktioner (mod et mindre beløb og licensing deal for den nye kommercielle udgave). hvor du før var begrænset til modding only eller MEGET dyre licenser.

[TomBombadil]

klart klart..

[Jaycee]

Det her er vel også en klar udmelding om af de nu ser Unity som en farlig konkurrent og at Epic er blevet nervøse over om engines som Unity er ved at overtage for stor en del af markedet.

Et smart move fra Epic, men måske de har sovet lidt i timen og dette move kommer en anelse for sent. Konkurrencen indenfor engines er blevet hårdere...

Next move -> Crytek....

[Peter]

Hvis jeg var Unity ville jeg ikke være alt for bekymret. Unreal Engine 3 er hvist ikke specielt rettet imod web eller iPhone games. Så jeg mener egentligt at Unity sider med den lange ende på de fronter, og at dette move fra Epic istedet er at gøre nørder som mig bedre til Unreal, så vi vil slå på tromme for at bruge Unreal 4 i vores næste AAA projekt...

- Peter

[freedomwriter]

Epic er da helt klar over at Unity eksisterer - og at de har godt fat i Mac & iPhone udvikling, samt en webplayer. Men det er nok at tilskrive det netop annoncerede "gratis-tilbud" fra Epic (non-commercial) som ligefrem desperation over konkurrencen. Dels ligger dette taktiske træk nok som en del af en mere langsigtet strategi om at fastholde dominansen blandt high-end PC/Xbox spil og vinde markedsandele blandt casual developers - og som en forløber til launch af Unreal 4 enginen, der er lige på trapperne (der er efter sigende hektisk aktivitet mlm Microsoft og Epic pt - der skal jo helst være nogle spil parate til den næste Xbox, og den bliver sikkert launchet som et lyn fra en klar himmel, for at undgå at hele spilbranchen oplever det samme enorme fald i omsætning som sidste generations-overgang medførte. Og for at tage røven på Sony igen...).
Og dels blev gratis-udgaven af UE3 jo annonceret allerede i september i en email fra Mark Rein...før Unity's annoncerede gratis-version.

Men hvorom alting er (som man jo siger uden at sige noget...) - så ku' det jo være Unity skulle genoverveje egen strategi: Vil man virkelig fortsætte ambitionen med at udvide Unity's kompatibilitet til at dække flere platforme, når nu konkurrencen er så hård i forvejen? Jeg tror det er en tilsætning med den Xbox port, selvom der sikkert er mange XBLA udviklere der vil overveje Unity - og den ligger jo selvfølgelig lige til højrebenet, når nu der er en PC port.
Men jeg tror at Unity ville stå stærkere, hvis man fokuserede benhårdt på en platform til at udvikle spil til Mac/browser/smartphones, og endda havde en klar strategi til 4G udgaverne af sidstnævnte. Suppleret med Unity's webplayer, der så osse er en særegen feature. Og droppede planerne om yderligere extensions, og lod ambitionerne om near-photorealism forblive hos Epic/Crytek etc, der allerede har solidt tag i det marked.

[Jaycee]

freedomwriter -> Det kan godt være at jeg tilskriver Unity en for stor indflydelse på Epics beslutning. Men jeg ville personligt være på vagt overfor en konkurrent som Unity hvis jeg var Epic. Det virker som om at Unity har godt tag i mange mindre udviklere, en tendens som forhåbenligt vil fortsætte og det kunne jo tænkes at hvis/når de bliver større, så vil de fortsætte med Unity og ikke skifte til Unreal, for når først en udvikler har besluttet sig for at bruge en engine, så kræver det jo en del at skifte til en anden engine. Jeg tror godt at Epic er klar over dette og derfor den "gratis" udgave, så deres engine kan blive mere udbredt blandt mindre udviklere. De prøver nu at lukke den plads der har været til engines som Unity.

Så er spm om Unity skal konkurrere direkte med Unreal på highend kvalitet eller kun koncentrere sig om "lowend" markedet. Som det også gælder for mange spil, så tror jeg iht den visuelle kvalitet har meget af sige for salg af en engine. Jeg tror personligt at Unity bliver nød til at focusere en del ressourcer på blandt andet deres rendering kvalitet, hvilket jeg også tror de er begyndt på, så de kan vise at man faktisk også kan lave highend AAA grafik på Unity

[Zacker]

... Dels ligger dette taktiske træk nok som en del af en mere langsigtet strategi om at fastholde dominansen blandt high-end PC/Xbox spil og vinde markedsandele blandt casual developers - og som en forløber til launch af Unreal 4 enginen, der er lige på trapperne (der er efter sigende hektisk aktivitet mlm Microsoft og Epic pt - der skal jo helst være nogle spil parate til den næste Xbox, og den bliver sikkert launchet som et lyn fra en klar himmel, for at undgå at hele spilbranchen oplever det samme enorme fald i omsætning som sidste generations-overgang medførte. Og for at tage røven på Sony igen...).

Jeg kunne godt tænke mig at vide mere om, hvor du har informationer om at UE4 og XB720 skulle være lige på trapperne? Det er interessant postulat, men jeg vil tillade mig at betvivle det. UE3 har været under heftig udvikling over det seneste års tid og er det stadigt, så jeg kan ikke se at Epic hverken har et behov for eller kræfter til at launche en UE4 lige foreløbig.
Den heftige aktivitet mellem Epic og MS skyldes så vidt vides blot førstnævntes kraftige involvering i Natal. Og ikke en helt ny konsol.

[freedomwriter]

Jaycee: Næh - men det faktum at den gratis lancering af UE3 allerede var annonceret i september, taler imod at det er en panik-reaktion - det taler snarere for, at Unity har skyndt sig at lancere deres gratis initiativ, for at imødegå Epics, hvis endelig man skal lede efter bevidst sammenfald...
Nu kender jeg ikke progressions-raten for udviklere der går fra fx casual iPhone spil til AAA, men mon ikke de kan tælles på en maskinsnedkers hånd...?
Grunden til at Epic fx købte Artificial Studios' Reality Engine for en 4 års tid siden var jo at der var features og tools Epic direkte kunne bruge - ikke at det var en helt anden kundekreds der brugte Reality enginen, men netop den samme som Epics.
De holder bestemt øje med hvad der sker på engine-markedet - men når man kender topledelsens holdning i Epic til fast & funny gimmick-games contra immersive realism, så tror jeg ikke der er nogen søvnløse nætter i Raleigh mht Unity. Der er jo flere hundrede kommercielle game engines på markedet, i alle mulige nicher der laver alle mulige krumspring fra tid til anden - that's the name of the game...

Når vi nu alligevel er i Rygter's Bureau, og bare leger med tanke-eksperimenter, and maybe cranked it up a notch - så kunne jeg forestille mig at Square Enix måske havde rationaliserings-planer mht til alle de game studios de erhvervede fornylig via SCi opkøbet. Når man kender omegnen af maintenance costs på Glacier, sammenholdt med at flere af de oprindelige kodere er smuttet over til Reto-Moto....og læser på Gamasutra at Epics engine folk og Square Enix har udvidet samarbejdet på det seneste.....well, hvis jeg sad i den biks, skulle den ikke have mange ture på kuglerammen førend rentabiliteten af en UE3 company license til alle deres in-house studier gav god mening, istedet for en Glacier her og en Crystal Dynamics der...

Og så ud af en anden tangent - gad vide hvad Zeropoint gør nu, hvor deres "immersive AAA photo-realism" ambitioner er temmelig hæmmet af Unity's performance, ovenpå nyheden om lettere tilgang til UE3 tech, osse til kommercielt brug...? Mon de laver en ny desperat håndbremsevending tilbage til UE3, eller satser 100% på Unity...? Damned if they do, and damned if they don't....

Stay tuned...


Edit: Zacker - just guessing....

[lissajous]

I completely agree that UDK was not at all a reactionary measure to Unity going free. It's not something you roll out overnight. If anything it would be a response to the increase in casual games available on Steam, and a pre-emptive strike against the Starcraft 2 Marketplace. Epic needs to retain and expand on the core modding community that has served it so well over the years - this is one way that they can do that.

But similarly there's no way that Unity going free is a reactionary measure to UDK. If for no other reason, do you really believe that a company that would be that prone to a kneejerk reaction such as you're suggesting here would be in a position to secure $5.5M from one of the most respected VC outfits in the world?

No - each company has their own, well thought out business models, and there's room enough in the market for both. They *are* targeting fairly different demographics both from the player and the developer perspectives. Unity is very solidly placed in the high-end web-based and iPhone casual space, and Epic is still the extremely safe choice for the AAA developer. It *does* admittedly get interesting where the lines start to blur - XBLA and "AAA-Indie" being the most obvious place where they're close to each other, but there are still clear product differentiators that make the decision a fairly easy one to make. They each have competitors far more significant and closer to their core businesses for them to worry about.

But in the end neither is completely free - at least not when you're in the serious end of the business (financially speaking). And that's where both are looking to monetize. It's the big ticket sales from the major studios that drives revenue for engine developers, not the low ticket indie licenses.

So when we look at things from the perspective of the larger studios, a major consideration is how familiar current and prospective employees are with technology, plus what the troops themselves think of the tech as a fit for requirements. If the engine developers give away non- (or minimal-) commercial use to the community at large, then we as geeks will have a natural tendency to play with the latest toys in our spare time...be it because we harbour (not-so) secret desires to start out on our own, or just for the love of what we do. This then translates into evangelists for the platforms within the companies themselves, plus a net saving of training resources for the employers. An example of the evangelical effect was heard in Phil Harrison's keynote at last year's Unite conference.

So what's my point? Well - I don't think either company is on the bread line. I think that Unity's expansion to other platforms can only strengthen their position, especially when you consider the "casualization" of the digital download segment of the console market. When, as a casual developer, you release a game on a new platform it drives sales across *all* platforms. I also think that Epic are merely rationalizing, and indeed productizing, that segment of their dev community that stemmed from UT3 modding. It's not a major giveaway (certainly not at 25% royalty split), and may well just be the opening salvo in a bigger AAA engine war. It's also going to enable some startups formed from existing UE3-based developers, and for that they should be applauded.

Finally, will ZPS switch back from Unity to Unreal? Well - ultimately that's going to be dependent on what they see as their main USPs. From my perspective, they're doing something that no-one else is doing - getting before their community as soon as possible with as much as is practical. And this (in my book) means web-based. Which therefore means Unity. The big unanswered questions are - can they maintain the velocity needed to keep the interest of their audience and prove their strategy, plus is the perceived quality differential substantial enough to warrant switching back? Only time will tell, on both counts.

Of course, with this post comes my usual disclaimer. Either Google Translate misrepresented you, or I don't know what I'm talking about. Either is possible

- Dave

[asbjoern.com]

Epic er da helt klar over at Unity eksisterer - og at de har godt fat i Mac & iPhone udvikling, samt en webplayer. Men det er nok at tilskrive det netop annoncerede "gratis-tilbud" fra Epic (non-commercial) som ligefrem desperation over konkurrencen. Dels ligger dette taktiske træk nok som en del af en mere langsigtet strategi om at fastholde dominansen blandt high-end PC/Xbox spil og vinde markedsandele blandt casual developers - og som en forløber til launch af Unreal 4 enginen.

Det tror jeg er rigtigt - hvis Flash blev gratis ville det nok heller ikke få Epics bukser til at ryste. Jeg tror også at Epic har set at tiden er inde til at udviklingsbudgetterne på XBLA og PSN vil accellerere i de kommenden år. Unreal har jo et glimrende udgangspunkt for at fange ambitiøse indie udviklere der satser stort på denne forrentnings model. Det rigtigt interessante er hvordan Crytek vælger at positionere sig - I like more free stuff - det kan kun gøre situationen for indie udviklere bedre .

Men hvorom alting er (som man jo siger uden at sige noget...) - så ku' det jo være Unity skulle genoverveje egen strategi: Vil man virkelig fortsætte ambitionen med at udvide Unity's kompatibilitet til at dække flere platforme, når nu konkurrencen er så hård i forvejen? Jeg tror det er en tilsætning med den Xbox port, selvom der sikkert er mange XBLA udviklere der vil overveje Unity - og den ligger jo selvfølgelig lige til højrebenet, når nu der er en PC port.

Sådan som jeg har forstået pressemeddelelserne fra David, så er de "excited about consoles but even more excited about web and smartphones" eller noget i den stil. Hvilket jo tydeligt understreger at dette er deres strategi. Jeg tror der er "bang for the buck" i at konvertere Unity til Xbox - men det er derimod mere tvivlsomt når det kommer til PS3 - men det bliver spændende at se hvad der sker på denne front. Selvom det ikke er noget der konkret ligger i udviklingsplanerne for en udvikler af et iPhone spil at lave et Xbox spil - så er bare muligheden (selvom den aldrig bliver brugt) en forretningsmæssig helgardering - som jeg er sikker på at mange investorer vil se positivt på.

[freedomwriter]

Actually, Dave - you're spot on on almost every count. If Goggle translate did the trick, I'm impressed. Only nuance that got lost somehow was my snarky remark that given the fact that Epic announced the UDK initiative well before Unity did, and I felt the converse notion that Epic somehow whipped out the initiative overnight in desperation after Unity's announcement needed to be effectively defused, as speculation continued.
After having dealt with VCs in the game business for years, I also think you give them way too much credit as to their actual and prescient insights and evaluations of business opportunities in the game industry. I think they very much like to be perceived as crystal ballsy, media savvy financial gurus - the due dilligence they all perform is in no way superficial, but what tips the scale are rarely facts, but rather a gut feeling/hearsay combo.
Now I'm just speculating again - I think, maybe, that Sequioa got infatuated with the notion of entering in the early stages of Unity's business phase, as it strives to become a multiplatform development tool, and are even pushing for its proliferation on more platforms. Again, pure speculation on my part - but I think this is where they risk losing fokus as well as the strong community bond and standing Unity has amongst casual and iPhone game developers. It would make great sense, if experience or evidence would show that lots of game companies develop succesfull IP's on smaller platforms with certain tools, then grow and themselves port these IP's on different platforms with higher entry barrier...using the same tech and tool set.
In my view, the strong business case for Unity would be to solidify their current position and not branch out - what with webplayer and all, that would make them an interesting business partner for such entities as Epic, which would not be a bad exit strategy. If they spread out, dilute their USPs to cater to as many as possible, they will end up pimping a souped-up full service engine that is no different from the hundreds of others. Apple has announced a major launch in both China and Russia - latch on to those campaigns, and Unity would be in a unique position with little competition.
As for Zeropoint - from a community standpoint, they need to re-adapt UE3, as they are still focused on getting the immersive, non-compromising wet dream of a hyper-realistic FPS, and the fanbois are all raving about the virtues and cool factors associated with UE3. From a theoretical business standpoint ( I don't believe they have an actual one....), they would do better with Unity, and reach a potentially bigger audience much cheaper - but they'd lose the edge, if they ever had one.

As far as Zeropoint doing something no-one else is doing - I honestly fail to see in what aspects that claim is true (maybe apart from coming up with the self-contradictory phrase AAA-Indie...). Neither concept nor business model is unique or cutting edge, and just claiming so doesn't make it so - http://www.naturalselection2.com/ - please notice that footage is actual ingame.....

[lissajous]

I'm not really giving the VCs more credit than they deserve. I'll agree with you that their decisions are based on gut feeling, mainly because ultimately all decisions about the future come down to gut feeling...risk management is simply giving your gut more to feel with . VC is mostly about finding the right people, and part of that is the ability to place your trust in them (on both sides). Again, if they were going to have a knee-jerk reaction to UDK, they probably wouldn't be the type of ppl to be entrusted with Sequoia's money...believe me -they have very good gut feelings. Plus in this case, I'd attribute David Gardner with a little more than average knowledge of what makes a software house tick, especially in our domain.

WRT the multiplatform issues being both a recent and a wrong turn, driven by this round of funding...well having played some small part myself in their initial decisions to target consoles, I can certainly put paid to the thinking that it was recent. As to it being a wrong turn - I don't see how it really can be a dilution of their USPs. The casual market is definitely strong on the Wii, and is on the upturn on other platforms; you just have to compare XNE with the original dashboard for proof of that. The ability to multitarget to an increasing range of casual platforms will surely strengthen their position, rather than weaken it, no?

Regarding ZP doing something else that no-one else is doing...the high production values, coupled with community driven development, with the instant access of web deployment is something you don't see every day in the indie space. Unique - maybe I was overstretching the point, or maybe not. An original concept? Well, I certainly never claimed that . I really don't believe that they'll benefit from heading back to UE3. OK - so now they're freed from the non-disclosure that oh-so-nearly sank them, but if thy head back then they're back to the land of big bandwidth downloads for incremental releases, and IMO they'll get lost in the midst of all the other Starship Trooper-esque FPS games out there.. Currently they have a real opportunity to make the most of the realignment, and deliver a new twist on "freemium" gaming. Whether their fanboi's (as you so nicely put it) will follow along for the ride is something that remains to be seen; gamers are such a fickle bunch!