Unreal Engine 4 exclusively targeting consoles.

[Queasy]

Link

Epic?s in development Unreal Engine 4 will specifically be targeted at the next generation of consoles and not PCs.

Epic boss Tim Sweeney told Tgdaily that the Unreal Engine "is really tied to a console cycle.? While he said that the company will continue to improve Unreal Engine 3 and ?add significant new features through the end of this console cycle,? he said that Epic was doing ?parallel development for multiple generations concurrently,? and that PC was not at the forefront of its thinking for Unreal Engine 4.

?Version 4 will exclusively target the next console generation, Microsoft's successor for the Xbox 360, Sony's successor for the PlayStation 3 - and if Nintendo ships a machine with similar hardware specs, then that also. PCs will follow after that.

?We have a small Research & Development effort dedicated to the Unreal Engine 4. Basically, it is just me, but that team will be ramping up to three to four engineers by the end of this year - and even more one year after that.?

This is interesting news considering how ubiquitous the Unreal Engine is becoming. Seems like you can't throw a rock without hitting a game using the Unreal Engine in some form this console generation. They obviously know where their cash cow is at.

 

[R Nilla]

oops...

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Link

Epic?s in development Unreal Engine 4 will specifically be targeted at the next generation of consoles and not PCs.

Epic boss Tim Sweeney told Tgdaily that the Unreal Engine "is really tied to a console cycle.? While he said that the company will continue to improve Unreal Engine 3 and ?add significant new features through the end of this console cycle,? he said that Epic was doing ?parallel development for multiple generations concurrently,? and that PC was not at the forefront of its thinking for Unreal Engine 4.

?Version 4 will exclusively target the next console generation, Microsoft's successor for the Xbox 360, Sony's successor for the PlayStation 3 - and if Nintendo ships a machine with similar hardware specs, then that also. PCs will follow after that.

?We have a small Research & Development effort dedicated to the Unreal Engine 4. Basically, it is just me, but that team will be ramping up to three to four engineers by the end of this year - and even more one year after that.?

This is interesting news considering how ubiquitous the Unreal Engine is becoming. Seems like you can't throw a rock without hitting a game using the Unreal Engine in some form this console generation. They obviously know where their cash cow is at.

It seems like just about every non-racing game I own uses the Unreal engine. I'm not sure what to think about that... I'd like to say it would be nice to see developers come up with their own engine, but it takes time and could end up sucking horribly. Then again, using the Unreal Engine doesn't necessarily guarantee you'll have a good game on your hands.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: R Nilla
It seems like just about every non-racing game I own uses the Unreal engine. I'm not sure what to think about that... I'd like to say it would be nice to see developers come up with their own engine, but it takes time and could end up sucking horribly. Then again, using the Unreal Engine doesn't necessarily guarantee you'll have a good game on your hands.

It makes it more likely since it substantially reduces development time and cost, leaving room for the important stuff. I've only dabbled in game programming, but I'd venture a guess that the graphics engine and/or physics engine is also the most difficult part to develop.

 

[DaveSimmons]

iD, gamebryo and probably others will all be fighting for console engine licenses so it will be interesting to see how well they can compete with unreal 4.

Unreal 3 is widely used but Silicon Knights isn't the only one who complained about Epic's support of it, and it might be successful more from being the only third-party choice than from being a choice companies are happy with.

Also, if they stop offering good PC engines that could just mean more business for other companies that do.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

The Unreal engine is pretty versatile. It also makes sense for them to market it to consoles, there's more money there.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

As I said in the PC Gaming thread:

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Canai
UT3 engine is fail anyway.

Good riddance, I say.

QFT. Everything based on it has been mediocre or shit, with Epic spectacularly managing to make the worst of the bunch.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
As I said in the PC Gaming thread:

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Canai
UT3 engine is fail anyway.

Good riddance, I say.

QFT. Everything based on it has been mediocre or shit, with Epic spectacularly managing to make the worst of the bunch.

PC gaming fans needed to rationalize this somehow. Glad to see they took the "better off without it" route.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
As I said in the PC Gaming thread:

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Canai
UT3 engine is fail anyway.

Good riddance, I say.

QFT. Everything based on it has been mediocre or shit, with Epic spectacularly managing to make the worst of the bunch.

I don't know, I've enjoyed Gears of War, Mass Effect, Rainbow Six Vegas, Stranglehold... BioShock is pretty highly regarded as well.

Ironically, I have never cared for the Unreal Tournament series.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
As I said in the PC Gaming thread:

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Canai
UT3 engine is fail anyway.

Good riddance, I say.

QFT. Everything based on it has been mediocre or shit, with Epic spectacularly managing to make the worst of the bunch.

Gears of War, BioShock, Rainbow 6 Vegas, and Mass Effect - all junk?

I love me some junk.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: ducci
PC gaming fans needed to rationalize this somehow. Glad to see they took the "better off without it" route.

Looking at the thread so far, no-one is really mourning the loss. Engine 3 now seems like a stepping stone to this announcement, it was always more geared towards the needs of PS3/XBOX and didn't display any real scalability on the PC. I don't think Epic have the tenacity or innovation/skill to deal with the much shorter (and unpredictable) life cycle of PC hardware. Valve got it right, Epic didn't.

I'm sure Engine 3 will be around for a while though to be used by PC developers that don't give a toss about making their own lives easier or making their game the best it can be.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: CKDragon
Gears of War, BioShock, Rainbow 6 Vegas, and Mass Effect - all junk?

I love me some junk.

GOW was pretty uninspiring on the PC. I'll probably get it for the 360 given it's pretty cheap now and the controls will probably make a lot more sense.

Bioshock suffered from severe hype and failed to deliver, I'm not alone in thinking that. Interesting art direction but that only takes you so far.

R6V was more accessible than GRAW but I'm not really into the planning etc, and I only played SP. That doesn't make it a bad game, but the discussion at the time revolved around it not being developed on a full-blown version of Engine 3 (at least for the PC) so it's inclusion is moot.

I've yet to play Mass Effect but have heard very good things. I will be playing that for sure.

 

[Modeps]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: CKDragon
Gears of War, BioShock, Rainbow 6 Vegas, and Mass Effect - all junk?

I love me some junk.

GOW was pretty uninspiring on the PC. I'll probably get it for the 360 given it's pretty cheap now and the controls will probably make a lot more sense.

Bioshock suffered from severe hype and failed to deliver, I'm not alone in thinking that. Interesting art direction but that only takes you so far.

R6V was more accessible than GRAW but I'm not really into the planning etc, and I only played SP. That doesn't make it a bad game, but the discussion at the time revolved around it not being developed on a full-blown version of Engine 3 (at least for the PC) so it's inclusion is moot.

I've yet to play Mass Effect but have heard very good things. I will be playing that for sure.

Here's a bigger list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...gine#Unreal_Engine_3_2

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Modeps
Here's a bigger list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...gine#Unreal_Engine_3_2

I know they've sold a lot of licences, I didn't realise the Gearbox Aliens game was using it though. That game needs to be awesome, the screenshots look like they're making a good start.

Looking at that list, it's not surprised they're packing up shop and targetting consoles with the engine. It'll save them a shit-load of money, be a lot simpler and it's where they're getting the majority of their revenue from anyway. They've certainly done all they could recently to alienate the PC market, UT3 being the icing on the cake. I hope the console version isn't as dire as the PC received cos I've seen a lot of console owners looking forward to it recently, especially on the XBOX forums.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: ducci
PC gaming fans needed to rationalize this somehow. Glad to see they took the "better off without it" route.

Looking at the thread so far, no-one is really mourning the loss. Engine 3 now seems like a stepping stone to this announcement, it was always more geared towards the needs of PS3/XBOX and didn't display any real scalability on the PC. I don't think Epic have the tenacity or innovation/skill to deal with the much shorter (and unpredictable) life cycle of PC hardware. Valve got it right, Epic didn't.

I'm sure Engine 3 will be around for a while though to be used by PC developers that don't give a toss about making their own lives easier or making their game the best it can be.

Your argument doesn't really make a lot of sense. Its not the engine's fault if no company using it has come up with good content. The engine itself is sound (not sure where you're getting that Valve got it right, since Source isn't exactly knocking people's socks off, its the game elements which are independent of the engine that are what people are raving about on Valve's games). As for the statement about having tenacity and innovation, that too makes no sense. There's more competition on consoles, which means you have to innovate more to stand out. The only thing Valve really got right is STEAM, which is a major part of why they're doing well. They are a big fish in a shrinking pond, and regardless of you liking it or not, the PC market is evolving into basically MMORPGs and simple mainstream games that get ported all over the place. Besides, what is Valve going to do once EA turns their eye on them?

The fact is, Epic is going where the money is. Its making less and less sense for them to even put the resources towards the PC, as they would get more cost effectiveness by utilizing them on consoles. So, tell me, which makes more sense for a business, getting more money or less money for the same resources? You even make a valid point, although in a bad way, and that is that PCs have a shorter and more unpredictable lifecycle, which common sense will tell you is not good for business. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Epic is necessarily in the right, but you're trying to label what they're doing as good or bad, when its neither. As time goes by, the more it seems like Valve is like Apple and Epic like Microsoft.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Argh, I wrote a lengthy reply to darkswordsman17 and lost it with a mis-click :|

Synopsis:

An engine and the associated tools are supposed to make it easier for developers and creative people to make engaging content.
If Epic couldn't turn UT3 into a decent game with their own engine, what does that say about them as a company?
Valve make great games, concentrating on gameplay, emotion and personality. Source is scalable and includes all gamers, regardless of hardware. Valve react to gamers and hardware manufacturers.
Epic's only significant competition will be iD. They won't have a superior solution but they'll be cheaper as a result. If it ticks the boxes, developers will buy it.
Economics and business cases aside, I don't believe Epic are technically capable of reacting to PC hardware life cycles, unlike Valve or iD.
The PC market is definitely headed nowhere fast. I recently bought an X360 so I have something decent to play on a regular basis, along with the occasional gem on the PC.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Argh, I wrote a lengthy reply to darkswordsman17 and lost it with a mis-click :|

Synopsis:

An engine and the associated tools are supposed to make it easier for developers and creative people to make engaging content.
If Epic couldn't turn UT3 into a decent game with their own engine, what does that say about them as a company?
Valve make great games, concentrating on gameplay, emotion and personality. Source is scalable and includes all gamers, regardless of hardware. Valve react to gamers and hardware manufacturers.
Epic's only significant competition will be iD. They won't have a superior solution but they'll be cheaper as a result. If it ticks the boxes, developers will buy it.
Economics and business cases aside, I don't believe Epic are technically capable of reacting to PC hardware life cycles, unlike Valve or iD.
The PC market is definitely headed nowhere fast. I recently bought an X360 so I have something decent to play on a regular basis, along with the occasional gem on the PC.

Well, I think it is interesting that you bring up iD in this discussion. Remember how iD is the same as Epic - they make game engines and games. When was the last time iD made a good game? <crickets>

Epic is getting in the same boat. They spend so much time making engines that they don't necessarily put out good games much anymore. Gears of War came out good but the quality of the Unreal Tournament games have been declining over the years even before UE3.

Valve has gotten it right but I think that just shows how difficult it is to make great games and great commercial game engines. Valve is the Pixar to Epic's Dreamworks Animation and iD's Sony Animation studios. What is more, Valve does more than just game engines and games....they've also built a successful distribution platform with Steam.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Argh, I wrote a lengthy reply to darkswordsman17 and lost it with a mis-click :|

Synopsis:

An engine and the associated tools are supposed to make it easier for developers and creative people to make engaging content.
If Epic couldn't turn UT3 into a decent game with their own engine, what does that say about them as a company?
Valve make great games, concentrating on gameplay, emotion and personality. Source is scalable and includes all gamers, regardless of hardware. Valve react to gamers and hardware manufacturers.
Epic's only significant competition will be iD. They won't have a superior solution but they'll be cheaper as a result. If it ticks the boxes, developers will buy it.
Economics and business cases aside, I don't believe Epic are technically capable of reacting to PC hardware life cycles, unlike Valve or iD.
The PC market is definitely headed nowhere fast. I recently bought an X360 so I have something decent to play on a regular basis, along with the occasional gem on the PC.

I understand your point (and new it before you even had to reply). I do agree to an extent, but Epic is talented technically, and they don't have the creative talent. Some companies have both (Nintendo first party titles often do, and there's plenty of others), but like Queasy said, Epic is following in iD's footsteps, where they've reached a point where their technical abilities are vastly better than their creative ones, and now their games are really starting to show it. Gears of War had some very good ideas in it still, but it also showed their very lacking creative talents at parts (barely any story for instance). I will say again that it is not the game engine's fault though. There are instances where a "bad" game engine actually had a very good game, and where good game engines had a bad one. To say that Epic then is worse than Valve just doesn't really make all that much sense to me, as they focus on different things. Besides, what big game has Valve done in the last 3 years? Two expansions to HL2 which I've seen a ton of people say they aren't really even interested much in them, then TF2, which again has gotten a fairly lukewarm response from what I've seen (people admit its a pretty decent game but don't really feel like playing it because it doesn't seem like anything new), and lastly Portal, which while a great game, does not show 3 years worth of work based solely on how short it is. During that time Epic released Gears of War and UT3, all the while getting UE3 out the door to developers, and also porting it to consoles.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
As I said in the PC Gaming thread:

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: Canai
UT3 engine is fail anyway.

Good riddance, I say.

QFT. Everything based on it has been mediocre or shit, with Epic spectacularly managing to make the worst of the bunch.

PC gaming fans needed to rationalize this somehow. Glad to see they took the "better off without it" route.

Pretty sure most PC gamers were voicing disappointment in UT3 long before this announcement was made, this doesn't change anything. If Epic's future on the PC includes rehasing UT99 every couple of years, then yes, we're better off without them. If they want to take some time to introduce something new an innovative on the PC, PC gamers will sit up and pay attention. Valve has shown that to be true.

 

[jonks]

UE4 will be on PCs. It's exclusive to future consoles, meaning it won't be on current gen consoles i.e. ps3/x360. They say "after that" they'll do the PC but I think that's a matter of 6-9 months at most.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
UE4 will be on PCs. It's exclusive to future consoles, meaning it won't be on current gen consoles i.e. ps3/x360. They say "after that" they'll do the PC but I think that's a matter of 6-9 months at most.

yeah, I thought that was pretty clear in the article I linked in the OP.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Epic Games VP Mark Rein clears up earlier statement by Tim Sweeney

When Tim says the next engine "will exclusively target the next console generation" what he means is that it won't be an engine suitable for this console generation which comprises Xbox 360, PS3 and the kind of gaming PCs people are using today. It does not mean it will be exclusive to consoles or that we?re focusing exclusively on consoles.

Looks like a false alarm about Epic exclusively targeting gaming consoles with UE4.