Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34

Thread: Unreal Engine 4 Released, Source Code For $19 + Linux Support

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _SXX_ View Post
    For same reason why companies contribute to Linux kernel: because it's expensive to support own branch of engine and it's easier to push some features into mainline so it's Epic will support this code in future.

    Also keep in mind that % of budget spend on programming is pretty small in game development. Most of money going into assets creation so for studious/publishers that's don't have middleware licensing business it's not critical to return some changes to Epic.
    I don't think you can compare it with linux kernel (which has an open source license that encourages contribution). I also would think that games would stick with a certain engine version, due to time and budget constraints, so that possible patch maintenance should be trivial. Some guesswork on my side here of course...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackout23 View Post
    I wonder if supporting Mac OS X actually makes sense if you keep in mind that the latest version is being limited to OpenGL 4.1 which is 4 years old.

    Compute Shaders etc. only work with 4.3 and higher as far as I know.
    Furthermore, os x performance sux compared to Linux.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    I also would think that games would stick with a certain engine version, due to time and budget constraints, so that possible patch maintenance should be trivial.
    Many development studious and publishers use Unreal Engine not for one particular title, but for multiple and in same time they want to use latest version of engine because it's benefit performance that extremely important on consoles.

    They don't really care about sharing their code because they can't sell it anyway and code don't actually give any advantage to competitors because code it's not that important for games. Game development industry is pretty open related to sharing of knowledge, you can check SIGGRAPH as example.
    Last edited by _SXX_; 03-19-2014 at 07:35 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _SXX_ View Post
    Many development studious and publishers use Unreal Engine not for one particular title, but for multiple and in same time they want to use latest version of engine because it's benefit performance that extremely important on consoles.

    They don't really care about sharing their code because they can't sell it anyway and code don't actually give any advantage to competitors because code it's not that important for games. Game development industry is pretty open related to sharing of knowledge, you can check SIGGRAPH as example.
    Still they don't share the code or collaborate openly. And again, given the low budget for programming and time constraints, why should anyone even care to contribute back to the engine (and then have to pay to be able to ship that code, which even more funny). That is pretty much the only thing I am questioning here, I don't see how this open development is supposed to work.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    Still they don't share the code or collaborate openly.
    Algorithms is everything while code is useless outside of project. Game development companies have no real interest in open sourcing whole code while some bits of in-home proprietary engines are useless. Before all AAA engines like EU had extremely strict agreement that nothing can be shared and now with Epic initiative it's become basically possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    That is pretty much the only thing I am questioning here, I don't see how this open development is supposed to work.
    It's not open development at all. It's just ability to push some features or bug fixes into mainline.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    Still they don't share the code or collaborate openly. And again, given the low budget for programming and time constraints, why should anyone even care to contribute back to the engine (and then have to pay to be able to ship that code, which even more funny). That is pretty much the only thing I am questioning here, I don't see how this open development is supposed to work.
    Yeah, you're missing the point.

    The point is that major companies can push their changes back upstream, which reduces their work. That way they don't have to port all their patches to each new version that comes out.

    I don't think anyone is expecting much real development to come out of this, in terms of moving the engine forward. It's just a convenience thing for their customers.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by _SXX_ View Post
    Also keep in mind that % of budget spend on programming is pretty small in game development.
    Maybe for some games, like an adventure game using a pre-built engine, but definitely not true for others. In my experience itís more like 30%-50% programmers in the dev team, sometimes more.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Yeah, you're missing the point.

    The point is that major companies can push their changes back upstream, which reduces their work. That way they don't have to port all their patches to each new version that comes out.

    I don't think anyone is expecting much real development to come out of this, in terms of moving the engine forward. It's just a convenience thing for their customers.
    That, plus once changes are accepted into mainstream Epic is pretty much obligated to support those changes, since they have accepted them in first place.

    It might not be big, but it is a way to offset maintenance const to tech provider.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    I don't think you can compare it with linux kernel (which has an open source license that encourages contribution). I also would think that games would stick with a certain engine version, due to time and budget constraints, so that possible patch maintenance should be trivial. Some guesswork on my side here of course...
    Compare it to Qt or LLVM then. Or just trying to upstream kernel developments vs keeping downstream patches. In the end, it is what pushes corporations contributions in open source projects: reducing the burden of maintenance. That's what they get out of it, they don't do it "for free".

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Question: If one company create a game written in HLSL, there will be enforced by the engine a compatibility layer like GLSL bytecode or source extensions, that will allow the D3D renderer to be seen by an OpenGL driver, or not? There will be dead cases between a D3D renderer and an OpenGL one? It will allow MS friends to play with as adding overhead, or it will stop unnecessary shader compilations and will move Api calls inside shaders to offload Cpu work into the Gpu? Will it be a previous century "MS slave" garbage, or something new? Any game engine that allows for a closed source game to be compiled non JIT (for a specific Cpu architecture) is an "Intel slave" garbage anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •