Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    CryEngine 3

    Concept »

    CryEngine 3 is a game engine developed by Crytek for the PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.

    CryEngine 3 to go free?

    Avatar image for dystonym
    dystonym

    769

    Forum Posts

    3688

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #1  Edited By dystonym

    Hello there. I'm not sure if you are all as interested as I am in indie games and mods, but I'm pretty sure you've all heard about the Unreal UDK. If you haven't, it's basically a free version of the Unreal Engine 3 that Epic released a few months back that allows indie developers to develop indie games without the huge costs of licensing the engine. Epic takes a cut if the game goes commercial, but other wise it's free. Shortly after Epic did this, Unity did the same by making their engine free to indie developers too. 
     
    And then someone at Crytek said this when someone asked if Cryengine 3 will be available for modders: 
     
    "Yes, but – to be frank – not as a mod. So far that’s what we’ve been offering for free, and it’s easy entry into the production environment. [But] we do want to make a standalone free platform that people can run independent of CryEngine that will also be up to speed with the latest engine. "   
     
    Thoughts? I think that CryEngine 3 blows the Unity engine out of the water, and is a bit better than Unreal Engine 3, but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would be easy to use so I'm not sure how high quality the games that come out of it will be. I still can't wait to see what people do with it though.

    Avatar image for hypoxenophobia
    HypoXenophobia

    1069

    Forum Posts

    41

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #2  Edited By HypoXenophobia

    a) the Unity engine is for browser based games as far as I know. b)UE3 is mostly on its way out.c) As far as I know,  very few mainstream projects use CryEngine, secondly the part I'm concerned with is "standalone free platform"...and "independent of CryEngine".

    Avatar image for dystonym
    dystonym

    769

    Forum Posts

    3688

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #3  Edited By dystonym
    @HypoXenophobia said:
    " a) the Unity engine is for browser based games as far as I know. b)UE3 is mostly on its way out.c) As far as I know,  very few mainstream projects use CryEngine, secondly the part I'm concerned with is "standalone free platform"...and "independent of CryEngine". "
     
    A. Unity Engine CAN be used for browser based games, but it also supports normal games aswell. 
    B. I highly doubt that Unreal Engine is on it's way out, it seems like the industry standard engine and I think it will remain the industry standard engine until Unreal Engine 4 comes out. And even when that happens some games will still use Unreal Engine 3 as some games still use Unreal Engine 2. See this, this and this. 
    C. I think by independent of the CryEngine, they mean you don't need to own Crysis 2 or another CryEngine 3 game to run it.
    Avatar image for jimbo
    Jimbo

    10472

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #4  Edited By Jimbo

    I don't see why they wouldn't.  It's not like you can release a game without being properly licensed so that isn't much of an issue.  The more people/students out there learning how to use your engine the better I guess, because companies will be more inclined to use that engine in future if their workforce is already familiar with it.
     
    Unity (the free version at least) probably isn't that great compared to something like UDK - no 'Shadows' in the free version of Unity, etc. - but it remains free regardless of how you use it.  UDK is free to use but they take a 25% cut of any income over $5k iirc.  So not really free at all, but useful nonetheless.  
     
    I think regardless of whether somebody uses Unity, UDK or (hypothetical) CryEngine, the game quality is going to be limited by what a small team can realistically achieve, rather than what the engines themselves are capable of.  It will be interesting to see if any major success stories come out of these small teams / individuals using the 'free' engines - I hope so.

    Avatar image for dystonym
    dystonym

    769

    Forum Posts

    3688

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #5  Edited By dystonym
    @Jimbo: The UDK is sort of "free" as imagine paying a $1,000,000 licensing cost, and then fucking up your game and having to give up or running into either financial issues and going bankrupt. The 25% cut is far better than the $1,000,000-or-so licensing cost in my opinion.  
     
    It's been said before, not in this thread but elsewhere, but Unity and UDK have different purposes. If you're creating a small minigame for a website, or a casual game, or just a smaller game, then the Unity engine is probably far better. But if you're creating a huge, epic first-person shooter or something, then the UDK is probably better. The engine of choice is completely dependent on the developers needs.
    Avatar image for hypoxenophobia
    HypoXenophobia

    1069

    Forum Posts

    41

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #6  Edited By HypoXenophobia

    A) that reminds me of Battlefield Heroes, B) UE4 has been in the works for a while now. Equally, I can't really think of any game that benefited from UE3 that wasn't attached to Epic in some sense. Army of Two being one of the few exceptions but still had other problems. I imagine once Gears 3 is out, they'll start talking about UE4 publicly which equally I think might be the beginning of the next console cycle. C) That would be great for anyone. Hopefully it integrates the feature that UE3 had where you could port levels to the PS3.

    Avatar image for dystonym
    dystonym

    769

    Forum Posts

    3688

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #7  Edited By dystonym
    Avatar image for jimbo
    Jimbo

    10472

    Forum Posts

    2

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 3

    #8  Edited By Jimbo

    I don't think we're going to see a 'huge, epic FPS' coming out of the UDK 25% programme any time soon, at least not one that's any good.  It's just too much work for small teams / hobbyists / students to compete nowadays.  That and you can only make PC games with this option.  Something could succeed out of this, but I think it will be something closer to Torchlight, Plants vs. Zombies or Braid or something - not a game that requires the power of the Unreal Engine, and probably something that could have been made just as easily using Unity.
     
    I don't think Epic particularly care about making a lot of money out of this, they just want to secure their position as the industry standard by having as many people as possible using their language, their engines etc. - the same reason everybody else makes student versions available for a fraction of the price.

    Avatar image for hypoxenophobia
    HypoXenophobia

    1069

    Forum Posts

    41

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 1

    #9  Edited By HypoXenophobia
    @Murdouken: 
    Out of the 95+ games on that list, I can only count 15 games that people have actually enjoyed(one being if you thought Endwar was a good strategy game). The idea of licensing an engine is so that you can focus on making the game instead of caring about the details. Games like Turok,  Blacksite, Legendary : The Box, were fundamentally broken games that really weren't aided by the UE3 engine. Equally, the UE3 engine really bit companies hard like Midway. Stranglehold, Blitz the League 2, and another one I forget all showcased limitations of it one way or another. A proprietary engine while costly is better for games in my opinion. But equally, I understand money is tight so an engine helps out.  But a good company works within the strengths of the engine. Problem was that it was sold as an "every game engine" and you get crap like Super  Acrobatic ...... Cars.
    Avatar image for dystonym
    dystonym

    769

    Forum Posts

    3688

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 0

    User Lists: 0

    #10  Edited By dystonym
    @Jimbo: I see what you mean, but I was talking about on a whole. I still think that any first person shooter is better on the Unreal Engine though, or at least projects with high graphical demands. Unity seems good for smaller projects that don't require graphical superiority.

    This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.