While it might be a bit premature before the EULA's, etc., are released... this is great news! I look forward to seeing what projects come of it.

Fuck yeaaaargh! Need this for my secret project.

Yeah, this is a great engine and I'd love to see it as an Unreal engine competitor... so sick of that UE3 look by now.

If the JC2 engine was multiplayer, that would rock even harder.

Hmm...
While I'm all for the industry opening itself up to this sort of biz model, it behooves us to think upon the existing technologies and ask, why is it so important for companies to make such an announcement of the effort?
I understand the importance of marketing, but my question is, why not sooner?
Why now?
Why not six years ago when they were all first making their appearances?

The CryEngine had had its first go arounds, the Unreal engine had been around for a dogs age and had a strong modding community, and Source, it's predecessors and so many other engines have been in the mix for so long that I ask, why now?

The natural answer is ofcourse, why not, but I want more. I want to know why CryTek is keen on releasing this. Why isn't id Software more focused on releasing iterations of their Tech5? Why isn't Second Life a more open source opportunity?

Don't get me wrong, I don't give a flying fuck about Second Life, but the question is to all development houses. Why would some choose this as a viable marketing strategy, and others do not?
I personally fail to understand.

Whatevs... good to see more and more in the mix

"free version" does not mean "Cryengine is free".

The recently-freed UE3 comes with its own caveat:

According to the current EULA, game makers can sell their games by paying Epic a lump-sum of $99 at the outset, and 25% of all revenue above $5000

This is great freaking news for the MWLL team!

Great news, though I still have to be convinced CE3 will be better than CE2 and won't be an engine limited by the capabilities of the consoles.

I want to know why CryTek is keen on releasing this

So that people have the full toolkit to learn on. That way, when hired by a company, they already know how CryEngine in and out, lowering the cost of adopting it relative to other engines. Trojan horse.

Why isn't id Software more focused on releasing iterations of their Tech5

Because id has essentially exited the engine licensing market. From what I've been told ZeniMax has determined it a lost cause.

Beamer wrote on Apr 12, 2010, 23:49:
Because id has essentially exited the engine licensing market. From what I've been told ZeniMax has determined it a lost cause.

Can you provide any proof of this? What will id be working on?

Can you provide any proof of this? What will id be working on?

Nope, it's solely hearsay, even to me.
Look at it this way, though - id has fallen way behind. id tech 4 was used for only two non-id projects, one of which is by Splash Damage, who had a ton of experience with the engine from Quake Wars and Wolfenstein, so it hardly counts.
id hasn't put major effort into developing easy-to-use tools, and it's a monumentally uphill battle these days. An entire engine cottage industry has popped up of engines as powerful as their own (at least on consoles) with easier to use tools that have enormous amounts of tutorials out there. They always created their tools more for their own use than for others to easily learn on.

id may have damn near created the engine licensing subset, but they never focused on it. As a result they've kind of been edged out of it. Whether they're interested in reversing that or not is not something I can answer with authority, but I've been told ZeniMax recognizes the problem and realizes the solution is too costly.

In that case, what is the future of id Software?

BobBob wrote on Apr 13, 2010, 00:37:
In that case, what is the future of id Software?

Probably making Facebook games that rely on micro-transactions and repetitive, meaningless gameplay devices.

Hey, if Richard Garriott can do it....

The future of id is on consoles, with all the other developers.
id's recent engines no doubt failed to pan out because they didn't develop for the 360. Let's not forget the biggest shooter in the world, Call of Duty, is still based on id tech. Maybe once Rage gets out (and if it's successful) we'll see some demand and usage of Tech 5 for the end of the 360's lifespan. Same with Crysis 2.

Still creating engines for their own games, just not licensing them to anyone else...

The MW2 engine is based on id tech like Source is, although more directly.

CryEngine 3 will be licensed because CryTek puts an enormous amount of resources into their tools. A huge chunk of their budget is spent making sure their tools are easy to learn, as well as making sure people learn them.

id never spent money there. Never had the interest. Until they do they'll never do much licensing of their tech, regardless of how advanced it is. My guess is that they've written off id tech 5, too far into development to make it user-friendly, but will make that push for id tech 6.

The bigger surprise to me is the shunning of the Source engine. Valve bought Worldcraft/Hammer so that level design was easy, but it didn't pay off for licensing. They have pretty solid resources and likely the most active modbase. Just never went anywhere.

Actually I'd have to disagree with what you're saying about id tech 5.

From all the interviews/videos Carmack and friends have been putting more effort into making the tools user friendly. I remember him saying something along the lines of "when it was a small group of us it didn't matter if the tools were easier to use because it was just us. But now with Zenimax we have a bigger teams and our tools have to be simpler to use for them".

If you wish I'll find where he said that, or excaty what he said. However, they are now making the effort into it and from what I've seen it was just as impressive as Unreal Dev Kit (I am currently using this).

I look forward to more competition in this area as it leads to stronger engines for us who don't want to run under a publisher or outlay a sweet 800k on a engine license. 25% of profits given to them after the distributer takes their cut won't affect that greatly until you're talking about making $3million or so, and by that stage you have enough cash to pay for the proper license.

Bring it on I say, personally I'm glad UDK came out as it saved me from using Unity which I didn't like so much but matched my requirements, but UDK does what I want and to get started hasn't cost me a cent. When it comes to release I'll pay them their $99 and get my accountant to deal with the 25% issues.

Welcome to a newer business model, and it isn't a bad thing at all.

PHJF wrote on Apr 12, 2010, 22:05:
"free version" does not mean "Cryengine is free".

The recently-freed UE3 comes with its own caveat:

According to the current EULA, game makers can sell their games by paying Epic a lump-sum of $99 at the outset, and 25% of all revenue above $5000

A full Unreal engine licence will set you back a quarter million dollars. Yes, I know UDK does not give you access to the source code. But still $99.00 is a bargain considering. And if you pay them the 5 grand up front, you can keep your royalties. Here's hoping Crytek does something similar. But it's clearly a step in the right direction for them to grow thier buisness and user base.

I am even sicker of the *feel* of the Unreal Engine altogether - everything feels so weirdly floaty and non-solid. Explosions feels like have no weight/force. Weapons are all weirdly in-accurate or the recoil is weird. If you ever played BFBC2, GRAW or Crysis Warhead i think you will know what i mean, there it feels great to just pull the trigger and feel the force of the effects/sounds and recoil/behavior of the gun. Something i never felt when playing any Unreal game to be honest.

The worst example is imo UT3, if you ever used the assault rifle, it almost felt as if the weapon you see and the weapon the game sees are not the same thing. Like theres a disconnect/lag between viewport and in-game..

Huh.. that sounds so weird, it must be me after all.

/FÂ\ SLI Actually it's 25% of profit after your first $5,000. So if you make $100,000 (as a developer, not including publisher/distro cuts ie. 30% for steam) you give them 25% of $95,000. It's still cheaper for the lower end.

eRe4s3r that comes from the way the physics engine is used. Some of the examples coming from the guys who now are using udk are amazing. Unluckily most devs don't see a need in playing with the movement code enough in my opinion to set themselves apart and just use the UT3 base code.

I agree guns should feel like an explosion in your hands (or at least appear like that). Some guys do pull it off, but I think the idea that you can cop a rocket to the face generally shows you're stronger than the avg. guy.

TBH, if they come out with this and it is as appealing you'll find just as many on the bandwagon. UDK is just the first to do it. Personally I wish there was such a license for the older id tech with similar tools as the higher quality UT level of graphics compared to Q3A require quite hardcore systems.

Then again there is also unity, but it's network code is somewhat of an issue for a lot of people.