Quoting: adolson

Quoting: KristianOkay but what does Unity have over UE4, Lumberyard and CryEngine V? Those seem to be relatively well documented...

A lengthy head start, I would say. What is the incentive for someone to change engines if they already have invested a bunch of time in one?

This is somewhat of a fair point, but how about those that have to decide on a blank slate on what engine to use? If you were to start a studio tommorow, why would you choose Unity over UE4, Lumberyard or CryEngine V?

Someone that wants to get a start in the industry, especially as a engine programmer, why would they choose Unity over those other engines?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Okay but what does Unity have over UE4, Lumberyard and CryEngine V? Those seem to be relatively well documented...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This isn't exactly the MIT license...but their source code license seems to be pretty liberal. It is not GPL compatible unlike the MIT license that AMD went it. It actually doesn't confirm with either the free software or open source definitions due to Nvidia's ability to revoke the license at any time for any reason. But it certainly is a start.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pecisk

Quoting: KristianSo UE4 offers source code access, Lumberyard offers source code access, CryEngine V (a name that cries out for Vulkan support) offers source code access, Godot is FLOSS licensed and yet despite all of this you have to pay big bucks for the source code to Unity? How valuable do the folks at Unity think their source code is?

Considering it being behind all major indie releases in past years, I think they have some reason to think highly about themselves.

Also consider this that majority of devs using Unity aren't that keen to improve it at source code level - usually due of lack of resources.

I would say that the Unreal Engine has quite an impressive list of releases both indie and AAA. I highly doubt Unity is more valuable than all of those engines! As to developers not wanting/needing source code access..well some might, why deprive them of that option?

Given this development...what is Unity's strongest point? It is clear that both Godot and CryEngine V beat it when it comes to licensing terms. Arguably UE4 and Lumberyard do too. CryEngine V, Lumbreyard and arguably UE4 beat it when it comes to technical prowess. Is Unity that much easier to use than all those engines(including Godot)? What is so alluring with Unity at this point?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So UE4 offers source code access, Lumberyard offers source code access, CryEngine V (a name that cries out for Vulkan support) offers source code access, Godot is FLOSS licensed and yet despite all of this you have to pay big bucks for the source code to Unity? How valuable do the folks at Unity think their source code is?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It seems Icculus got his permission but that he just needs to make sure to sift through the code so he doesn't accidentaly release 3rd party code that neither he nor Croteam have any rights to.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

CryEngine has a subscription fee, Lumberyard doesn't(even though it basically IS CryEngine). Unreal Engine 4 has royalty fees, Lumberyard doesn't. The Pro version of Unity has per seat fees, Lumberyard doesn't.

So it is not true that it has to be free to be competitive.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Probably being ported by one of the usual suspects. Aspyr or Feral if their codebase is fairly portable. Virtual Programming if not. Is this the first port of a Square Enix game?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910

Quoting: KristianIf the only advantage Vulkan has over DX12 is Linux support.

Android, Windows 7, 8, 8.1, MAC.

Good point about older Windows versions. Android will indeed be an advantage in some cases, but many games don't have mobile versions at all. As far as Mac goes, My whole point is that we don't know that Apple will support Vulkan at all. That has not been confirmed and the existence of their own API, Metal, would seem to indicate that they sadly won't.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

If the only advantage Vulkan has over DX12 is Linux support, what % of game developers will choose Vulkan over DX12? If Vulkan on the other hand also brings PS4, Mac OSX and iOS support then the situation is quite different. I mean currently OpenGL brings all those platforms(except PS4) yet most game developers still go with DX over it. If Vulkan will support fewer platforms than OpenGL then I am afraid it will have less, and not more, developer support.

Many people are hoping that Vulkan support will drive more Linux ports/versions. But surely that will only happen if developers have some incentive to add Vulkan support, right? If the reason they are adding Vulkan support is because they were going to support Linux anyway then Vulkan wasn't the factor that brought them over to Linux.

Edit2:

I agree, if Sony brings Vulkan support to the PS4 AND that becomes the prefered way to develop for it then that would be major. But if not even Apple support Vulkan what chance does it stand against DX12?

Edit3:

The good thing though is that many developers have had the decision sorta made for them by Epic, Unity and the like. It is still their decision to keep and maintain Vulkan support in those engines but it greatly increases the chance that a developer will support Vulkan if they choose an engine that already supports it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments