Unreal Engine 4 Launching With Full Source Code 149
jones_supa writes "Today Epic launched Unreal Engine 4 for game developers. Supported platforms are Windows, OS X, iOS and Android, with desktop Linux coming later. The monetization scheme is unique: anyone can get access to literally everything for a $19/month fee. Epic wants to build a business model that succeeds when UE4 developers succeed. Therefore, part of the deal is that anyone can ship a commercial product with UE4 by paying 5% of their gross revenue resulting from sales to users. This gets them the Unreal Editor in ready-to-run form, and the engine's complete C++ source code hosted on GitHub for collaborative development."
This is very exciting for indie devs (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is very exciting for indie devs (Score:4, Insightful)
UDK used to be free to play with. It's exciting until you realize there's a subscription attached and if you build a game with it 5% of the gross. That doesn't sound like much but when you stack it on top of the ~30% gross from your preferred sales channel, plus the fees from whatever other middleware you might want (Scaleform, FMOD, Bink, and Havok come to mind) and then add taxes, you're struggling to break even.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This is very exciting for indie devs (Score:4, Insightful)
then don't license everything under the sun
or buy your software upfront
or write your own engine. go start an open source game engine project that supports all the new hardware tech before it comes out and see how it works out
Re: (Score:2)
go start an open source game engine project that supports all the new hardware tech before it comes out and see how it works out
Or, better, improve an existing FOSS game engine. There's enough fragmentation here as it is.
Re: This is very exciting for indie devs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
5% of gross is a lot. 5% of net is not.
Re: This is very exciting for indie devs (Score:4, Insightful)
epic is not as dumb as the authors of popular books licensing their works to hollywood
Re: (Score:1)
You are bad with percentage calculations?
In terms of percentages gross and net is the same at your bottom line.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see what you mean. Assuming revenue of 100 and 40% expenses (taxes, sales channel), 5% of gross is 5 bucks, but 5% of net is only 3 bucks. 2 bucks difference on the bottom line may not sound like a lot, but scale it up and it starts to matter more.
Since it seems I'm misinterpreting what you said, could you please clarify?
Re: (Score:1)
100% - 5% - 10% - 15% = 100% - 15% - 5% - 10%.
Well, if you always use the percentage on the reminder it ofc matters in which order you aply the percentage, but the result for your self is the same.
However I understand if you have to remove 'some fixed' costs at various stages the amount of fixed costs varies ...
Re: (Score:2)
However I understand if you have to remove 'some fixed' costs at various stages the amount of fixed costs varies ...
Great, because that's exactly what "gross" and "net" mean. Costs are removed in stages, with one set of costs being removed from your gross, and another set of costs being removed from your net. At each stage, the amount of money you have left will obviously be lower, so it's more desirable for you to have people take their percentage cut out of the later stages, since that will mean that more of the original pie will be left for you.
For instance, pretend you grossed $1000 and that your only other expenses
Re: (Score:2)
...is the same at your bottom line.
What is that supposed to mean?
Epic wants 5% of your gross sales. Not 5% of what you get from a sale. You understand that there's a difference, right? Especially when a**hats like crApple want 30% of your gross sales already.
Re: (Score:2)
How much of a game sale do you think game developers get from a retail box on a shelf, after they've covered the cost of paying the publisher, the manufacturer, the shipper, the store, and any other middle men I'm forgetting? A damned sight less than the 70% that Apple gives you on their app store. Or Valve gives you on Steam.
30% for digital distribution seems to be relatively standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that this has anything to do with the topic, since I brought up Apple's gouging model simple to point out to the other poster that gross and net are VASTLY different things, but you're comparing the 43% makes in comparison to the developer of the actual software to the amount a storefront makes off your product when it's on the shelf?
Apple is a storefront only. No games/software store in the world has a 30% markup.
Apple does virtually nothing for their 30% cut. You seem to be trying to include publish
Re: (Score:3)
Apple does a lot which makes it for simple minded people easy to sell/distribute software (and books).
It offers you a 'store system' for free, you can upload upgrades, you have cathegories to put your software into, users can rate it, comment it, you can do in app adverticing and in app purchases, everything via a platform which is basically free. If you had to set that up your own you spent more time setting up your sales and billing infrastructure than it takes you to craft your first App.
On top of that:
Re: (Score:2)
It offers you a 'store system' for free
No it doesn't, even if you're app is free you pay $99 annually just to be able to build your product/game.
If you had to set that up your own you spent more time setting up your sales and billing infrastructure than it takes you to craft your first App.
Have you ever done this? I have, and unless you're app is "hello world" it doesn't take very long and it's mostly just waiting.
That is again a majour obstacle if you want to set it up yourself: solved for you
Maybe if you're lazy and/or a hobbyist.
The only reason that game companies and larger indie teams use the App store is because YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.
Everything else is just applies to hobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
Most game developers use Steam (which takes a similar 30% chunk of sales revenue, like Apple), even though there is nothing stopping developers from doing it themselves on that platform.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The pricing is targeted at indy devs; large developers who routinely gross 8 or 9 figures on games will not be paying for it this way, and if Epic thinks they will I suspect they're in for a surprise.
The only people who will get burned by this deal in reality are the very few low-budget indy games that hit enormous success -- think Minecraft, Braid, etc. For the vast, vast majority of indy games, 5% of gross is far less than the one-time fee for licensing a top-notch engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The old UDK licence was absolutely wonderful as long as you didn't hit the revenue threshold - then suddenly became crippling. Meanwhile, Epic earned nothing until the threshold was hit. This is a definite improvement for both Epic and for commercial licensees... although the subscription fee does add a barrier for hobbyists and freeware-authors compared to the old arrangement.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't know the indie game industry very well so I don't know what constitutes "mildly successful", but based on the numbers given, the break-even point is $5m-$10m (so that 5% is $250k-$500k)... So if your expected gross income from the game is less than $5 million, then this is a good deal, and if not, it's a bad deal.
Even if your expected gross is $10 million over the life of the game, if that's made up of $2 million a year for 5 years, this might be an attractive option given the following choi
Re: (Score:2)
Most indie games don't make anywhere near this much money. Giving up 5% of revenue and a tiny up front cost is a much better deal for the majority of indie devs than taking the risk on fronting $250,000 up front when their game might not even get that much in revenue.
Obviously, it's a decision the developer needs to make early on, but the kind of people this deal is aimed at are those that are operating on a small budget. Say for example your break even point on costs on a small team was $250,000, and $50
Re: (Score:1)
Why would it cost any more than the 20$ a month, where are you getting this "250,000" dollars from? All you need is a couple programmers, maybe 3-4 artists who enjoy this sort of thing, if you pay people 30 grand a year to make an indie game sorry, but if you think the indie games industry is full of talent people who want to work for nothing you're an idiot. Those that can produce something are going to publish themselves and enjoy the spoils, those that can't aren't worth hiring.
The kind of people who get
Re: (Score:2)
or do what they did in the 90's, code your own engine for every game you make
or pay the thousands of $$$ upfront to Unity for their engine
this is where you have to make a good game and not just a copy of the latest IAP crap in the app store or some FPS. unlike 20 years ago people are willing to license you lots of software for no upfront fee and all you have to do is make an awesome game.
they are taking most of the financial risk of losing lots of money you may have invested in your project and you're still
Re:This is very exciting for indie devs (Score:5, Informative)
https://store.unity3d.com/ [unity3d.com]
$1500 gets you the pro version, or $75 a month. That's not thousands.
Android and iOS are another chunk of cash each but are not required unless you're targeting those pro features.
Of course you can use and release free if you don't need the pro features...
And what financial risk are they taking? If I make a game and it flops badly with no sales they are still ahead by my monthly subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
$1500 per user
10 guys is $15000
then more money for the other software
you can always start up a company with a few hundreds thousand $$$ of your own money and have it fail and lose it all. Epic is giving you software to make a professional product with very little upfront cost
Re: (Score:2)
$15000 would get you a 28 person team license with unity pro.
It would also get you an infinite person team license with unity standard and $15000 in change.
Both save you the 5% royalty.
And you have yet to explain what financial risk epic games is bearing for you when you use the unreal engine.
Why are you so intent on making it look like unity is a horribly overpriced alternative?
I'm going to assume you're just an angry fanboy, because a paid shill would have better grammar.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This is very exciting for indie devs (Score:2)
A watermark? I haven't built anything with unity but all I can find is as long as you make less than $100k/year you can build and release with free with just a required splash screen.
And even if unity suddenly does become an overpriced piece of junk, there's other game engines including a good number of GPL and MIT licensed free ones.
For the hypothetical 10 man team looking to break into the market with no money to spare for a big license, there are alternatives. And if they refuse to do without the extra p
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A bit misleading (Score:1)
That is per-person involved in development. A 1-2 person team, sure, no big deal. A 300 man AAA, no thank you.
Re: (Score:3)
I really doubt a AAA with a 300 person team is going to purchase a game engine for a multi-million budget AAA title by going to a publicly accessible web store and queuing up 1 pro license + 299 team addon licenses and plunk down a credit card for that $151,000 bill.
Just guessing here, but the same sales team that processes their console licenses will probably give that AAA different licensing prices and terms for a huge order like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What I find interesting is that the slashdot sqwark of outrage over unreal charging 5% seems to ignore that the 'sales channel' of Apple, Google or Valve's stores is more like 30%, yet no-one seems to care that 5% for writing a good-quality isn't such a bad deal.
If you want to complain about costs - take umbrage with the sales channels that happily cream a fucking third of your revenue away for doing little more than hosting a download site.
Links (Score:1)
https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?53-Free-UE4-build-w-o-source-code-license
"Currently there is no planned trial or free version of Unreal Engine 4. If you would like, you can make a one-time purchase for $19 and then cancel your subscription to give it a try. You do not have to pay the subscription to use the engine, just to get the initial download, updates and additional content. There are two different builds you can download from this, one of which does not have access to source code and on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if Crytek hopped on board with the subscription model knowing that Unreal 4 was going to have it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you can not afford to pay $19 per month for a piece of software, I really don't want to know what you consider to pay your developers per hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I couldv'e sworn that Valve's got most of their titles over there...must've been my imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
They promise to release it when winter comes to Game of Thrones.
Y'know what would be awesome? (Score:5, Funny)
If Epic demonstrated the capabilities of this engine by also having a first-party game released along with it. They could make it a multiplayer first person shooter, which I know is a well-trodden field, but I really think Epic could do it - especially one that includes LAN play, which seems to be poorly represented in games these days. And then, they could bundle a few of the tools with the game so that some gamers could make their own content for it, and do something really earth-shattering - user-generated DLC, FOR FREE!
If only I could think of a name for this game....
Re:Y'know what would be awesome? (Score:5, Funny)
They could call it Quake!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Y'know what would be awesome? (Score:4, Funny)
That doesn't sound like a real thing.
Re: (Score:1)
You know Steamworks exist right?
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get your Whoosh.
EPIC's game was Unreal Tournament and EPIC haven't made Steam and Valves games would be Half-Life or Counter strike in this regard and their engine being Source so what's the whoosh really?
The whoosh would be that there already existed moddable FPS games? That doesn't make much sense either.
Stupid AC.
Re: (Score:1)
.. that UT was moddable and with current games on Steam now you have to buy DLCs?
Re: (Score:2)
It's truly unreal that they didn't do this.
I'm laughing, but also crying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Things have gotten much better in gaming as of late, but also a hell of a lot worse. A few titles have come out lately that actually have full editors and SDKs, but it's still a far cry (hurr hurr) from where it was at one point.
Well, the fact of the matter was that CoD and Battlefield proved that it's far more profitable to released a game with a dozen maps, then charge $15 a pop for a half a dozen new maps every three months, than to equip players to make their own and circulate them around the internet for free.
What bothers me the most is the complete lack of LAN play. Everything wants you to make an account and join a server and do all this matchmaking crap, when all I want to do is play against my friends, in the same room, by
If it's such a great development environment... (Score:5, Interesting)
...couldn't they use it to build UT4? Please? After 6 years, I'm getting just a little bored of UT3.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry to say, they've stopped needing UT as a selling point for their engine. They make money off of other people making games these days. They no longer need to make a market for themselves.
Their last generation in major engine improvements was demo'd with gears of war, not unreal tournament. The arena shooter is dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, and that makes it hard to be profitable for a company like Epic. They want to produce the game, then sell it. It's all these other developers that want a never ending revenue stream and that takes constant attention. Those sheep need sheering.
Re: (Score:2)
Loadout is the best FTP game I've seen.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Took a look at it based on your recommendation. Requires steam is a very long ways from "free."
How so? It's free as in 'doesn't cost anything until you start shelling out for DLC', which is pretty much the case with all FTP games.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a cool thing about Loadout. You can pay for costumes and short term double XP periods- but there are no DLC maps or weapons.
The base FTP game is very fun and it doesn't feel like you're missing anything. I tossed them $20 for some goofy outfits as a thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they charging to download Steam now?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really have hairy feet?
Re: (Score:2)
The arena shooter is dead.
How do you mean, "arena shooter?"
I presume it means something other than "multiplayer FPS game based on maps of finite size," since that would describe every single successful FPS game, er, ever.
Re:If it's such a great development environment... (Score:5, Informative)
No, arena shooters are ones where you spawn in random locations, run to grab guns and gear, move relatively quickly, and tend to have little incentive to not shoot(such as long reload times, precision weapons, stealth). With a tendency towards more explosive weaponry and "arena" styled battlefieds. It's a subgenre thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
Personally I agree - UT was fun when it came out, but the concept gets pretty boring after a tick. Then again, I've noticed a number of newer games, mostly "freemium," that seem to follow at least a modified version of the arena shooter model - Dust 514 and HAWKEN immediately spring to mind (although, to be fair, I haven't actually played HAWKEN, so I could be dead wrong about that one).
Re: (Score:1)
"I haven't actually played HAWKEN, so I could be dead wrong about that on"
You're not. It's pretty much an arena shooter with some of the addition option of some more modern FPS modes (capture the silo, etc), and exp-gathering to build upgrades (with the option to pay for them instead, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Games akin to Quake 3 Arena, presumably.
Re: (Score:2)
In the old times, FPS was not about multiplayer. I stopped playing them around the time it became like that.
That would be around 1996 when Quake was released.
Re: (Score:2)
Just go to Xonotic, download it http://www.xonotic.org/ [xonotic.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Meh, why not fire up UT2004? IMO that's the best of the series.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which, I usually end up playing the original UT while waiting for my online games to update.
With Oculus Rift.
And it still is great fun after all these years.
Release for Firefox? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, basically the cost is $19 (Score:1)
So, basically you can just pay $19 for one month and then cancel your subscription
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing?
According to the UE4 EULA: "However, cancellation of your Subscription will not affect your rights under the License with respect to any Licensed Technology you have already downloaded under the License."
https://www.unrealengine.com/e... [unrealengine.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The $19 a month is likely just for covering the costs of hosting and distributing the source code, binaires and documentation. You'd be paying for the continued convenience of accessing those anytime, the studio's clearly not intending to get rich over those subscriptions.
Seems a reasonable approach (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
5% of gross turns out to be 30-50% of net gain for most developers (unless you're Blizzard or EA). That's what's causing the controversy.
Re: (Score:2)
5% of gross turns out to be 30-50% of net gain for most developers (unless you're Blizzard or EA). That's what's causing the controversy.
The alternative, from EA's perspective, is accounting hell. Suppose you say that it's 10% of "net gain". Most would consider it reasonable to consider payroll something that would be deducted before EA's share, but suppose you're a single-op game developer, and you make a game that grosses $100,000. Suppose that after you've paid for your website, your bandwidth, your equipment, your Amazon EC2 instances, your Visual Studio licenses, refilled your Google AdWords account, and paid your electric bill, you've
A smart move for Epic (Score:2)
Epic's terms for 4 are quite affordable, that's why we made the move to 4 from three for City of Titans after our Kickstarter last year. These terms are very positive for those seeking to deal with a top end game engine which is, simply, a joy to work with.
Horrible idea (Score:2)
It's going to encourage "free" games full of mandatory in-app purchases
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
phew.
Not a bad price, but... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you're developing a fast-and-easy game in unreal, you use unrealscript. If you're a hardcore game developer doing fancy things anyways... you're going to use C/C++.
C#'s role in unity is very much like unrealscript's role in unreal. And as a c# developer, I won't hesitate to say that unrealscript actually has features oriented towards game development.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, that's pretty much it.
Re:Licensing if my game cost $0 ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will this herald a new Unreal Tournament 4 game?
It seems to be in development by the same team feverishly coding Half-Life 3.
http://www.kdramastars.com/art... [kdramastars.com]
Unfortunately, I too pine for a new Unreal Tournament release, though it seems that Epic would much rather I spend my money on Gears of War instead :/.