Just to clarify on a previous comment:
This isn't going to bring developers any money.
At all.
This is going to make publishers money.
Developers have absolutely no input things like this at the moment, we're at the mercy of publishers. We have no input on how much a games goes for, a lot of devs don't get royalty shares. Most even. The 'industry' is arranged to screw the talent and make money men rich.'

Developers will see none of this cash, we'll just be forced to implement it.
Now, if we were in charge, and got the resulting revenues, I can see it going well. IE a city scene with a starbucks on a corner, or coke machines, or a main character wears nikes, or what have you. Keep it subtle, keep it relevent.
It won't be that way, but hey, I can dream.

Yeah, you can shoot limbs off with most of the guns. Blowing off the legs is cool, they drag themselves towards you with their hands.

Yeash. These threads get flamish fast. Honestly, it's not my cup of tea. Personally, I think a complex, and deep game can still have simple interface and control and a good learning curve.

Aside from those differences guys, he's been consistantly published, and weather or not people like his games or he continues to get published really don't have any effect on your lives.
My first game was a real stinker. PS1, and it was real crap.
Seriously.

Sorry to ramble, but we're all adults, and tossing around accusations and flames every time news of another release from him comes up really accomplishes nothing but push a few of us older geeks bloodpressure up and put us that much closer to a heart attack.

Sure, he's got another game on the market. He didn't make it for you: Honestly, he made it for his fans.

It's the name of the scyscraper from the movie.

Paul Steed was doing Ngage, I think...

Reminds me of 4th coming and all those ones out of Quebec a while ago.
Anyone remember those?

I wonder how long it'll take before this thread turns into a WoW vs EQ2 argument...

There's been some question as to their numbers, actually. Trying to find the article, but I seem to remember something about subscibers overall, ever, rather than active ones.
IE everyone who downloaded it, created an account and didn't play beyond a few days.

Getting a machine to think like a person is no walk in the park, graphics and gameplay are easy by comparison. Of course there's also the extra resources that your AI would consume at the expense of physics and other systems.

God, the shear amount of LD setup to make some damned pawn look smart. I don't program AI, but I've had to setup levels with it. WAs the most stressful job I've ever had to do.

From what I understand, more studios are licensing, not less.

Recent examples... Bioware, Silicon Knights... EA uses renderware for just about everything it can <It owns critereon>

On the contrary, licensing an engine is far more cost effective than making one. To make an engine, a good, workable one, you need a larger team of programmers. 10 programmers, plus benefits, ect, already cost more than licensing Unreal. Two to three programmers and a team of 4 to 6 artists can make a game with a licensed engine. Been there and done it.
Any engine worth the price will offer support, be it forums, phone, email lists... Unreal does pretty much all of the above - unprog and undev to name two of them. And not all engine are 500k, most are far cheaper. If I remember the numbers right, I may be wrnog, but I think renderware is the most commonly used engine.

So basically, it's more cost effective to buy your tech and make a game with it than to make your own from scratch. That's why the majority of game companies do it. Every place I've worked has.

So yeah. Creston's right.


This comment was edited on May 11, 15:40.

He's right, the principles at DE developed the origional Unreal, UT, ect.
Epic's only done 2k4 and uc2 fully in house.