Humm for now, no plans. These engines currently do not offer a proper store for us to sell assets, so I’m sticking with Unity for now. But if this grows big I’ll absolutely consider the possibility
I didn’t know that about Unity, however, Source is Valve’s engine for pretty much anything, and mods do get significant publicity on Steam if they’re polished enough. This could then turn into a full fledged game as well, though most people say Source is showing it’s age.
How does Unity compare to other major engines these days?
Believe it or not, currently Unity is the biggest =) It covers every platform, has an enormous asset store and its pretty much free. Take a look inside their asset store. You will know what I’m talking about.
Here, found this article:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2031153
(googled best selling game engine/best game engine to work with)
The reason for its success is that its market is much bigger then mainstream media. Almost every mobile game nowadays is switching to it as well.
What benefit is there to using Cryengine Free or UDK over Unity? Does the Cryengine work on linux now?
Here, took a screenshot of the platforms you can compile using unity:
Its undoubtly the best plaf
The question is a bit to broad to give you a simple answer, as “performance” has more to do with the development of a game than its engine. I recommend you do some research about it, maybe see what suits you best. As far as I’m concern, from my experiences with UDK and 10 years of Flash, there is nothing like Unity. Its far beyond anything I ever seen.
I’m so glad this new gen of consoles is all x86. Should make porting and compiling nearly native to what we build on PC’s.
In your opinion, how is the performance stacking up to other engines like Frostbite, Unreal, and CryEngine?
I think the real question should be, which engine is best for a fighting game? EF-12 is already made for 3D fighters, and I’m assuming it can be used for 2.5D as well. UE3 is currently being used for a several fighters, including Injustice and the upcoming GG Xrd. I don’t know if they are the best engine for the job, but they seem to be working well.
Another thing to address, is what about networking? Online play shouldn’t be an afterthought anymore, and one engine might be the ideal choice for an online fighting game. GGPO is obviously out of the question, unless they release a 3D capable version(which has already been made for KI, but I don’t know if MS owns it).
3d doesn’t matter for a roll back net code. And GGPO has been used in a 3d game already.
What 3D game uses GGPO? That’s news to me. If it works fine with 3D, then that should be the target for the netcode.
What does “behave wrong” mean in this case?
I’m not aware of this, either. SFxT was the closest thing, it used roll back netcode, and most people generally hated it. I can’t say much nice about it since every time I’ve tried the game online, everything jittered all over the place.
Happened quite awhile ago, but it was Dragon Ball Zenkai Battle Royal.
Hitstun will be wrong character movement.
The thing about mugen no matter what you do it’s still the mugen.
I play quite a bit on 360 and never had too bad of an experience.
Well that’s interesting. I remember reading something from one of the Tekken(or maybe it was SC) Devs saying GGPO couldn’t handle the addition 3D data being transferred. I’m still inclined to believe this though, since the KI devs had to develop a new rollback code with the guy that made GGPO. But maybe it has more to do with the poly count, idk.
Pretty awesome then. I looked into Unity for a little bit, but without a solid toolkit, it looked like it was a lot more work than I was qualified for just to see if I could throw something reasonable together for fun.
Now, I’m really interested in trying this out.
@Evolution169, IIRC (And I haven’t seen much footage of the DBZ game in question) Tekken put a lot more on the screen in the background than DBZ did. Now this in itself, from my viewpoint, wouldn’t matter much. If the backgrounds desync, then no big deal?
I think the problem with Tekken more or less stemmed from having destructable elements in the game. Tekken 6 had destructable floors, TTT2 has that plus destructable walls. That’s just an off the wall theory.
In a game like SF4 or Marvel where the stage in no way plays any part of the gameplay, then I don’t see why desyncing the backgrounds would matter, but if it causes problems, then they have no choice.
Of course, if a project based off of this took off and wanted to commercialize, if we’re talking GGPO netcode then we’re also talking the possibility of getting Ponder to work on the netcode for the developers as well, as you could always put that in as a base goal for a Kickstarter.
No, the same cannot be said of the GPL. You can make any amount of money and never be the target of a lawsuit for a violation of terms. I assume what moonchilde is talking about is that you can use the system for free unless you’re making money off of it. The GPL does not have this restriction, and forces all four freedoms outlined by stallman.
I can’t say from a business perspective which situations work better for GPL, but any changes made to something under GPL remain licensed under GPL. So you’re essentially just selling your artistic content if you use a free engine, unless you use some GPL licensed content as well, in which case, you’re selling game that is essentially free. I suppose that could work in some situations, but sounds kinda risky to me.
But you’re right, I was wrong about GPL not being free to use. But it’s not without it’s risks. I could literally take a game that used an OS engine, add new models, textures, and sound to it, and distribute it on Desura and no one can do anything about it(except of course, the operators of Desura, who can probably pick and choose content that they want).
No, what it means is that the software is free as is. Ok, lets use id Tech 4 (Doom 3 engine) as an example. Lets say I use it to build a game, but I find that the streaming of textures isn’t as optimal as it should be. So, I make a note within the source and code up a new texture streaming system. I then have to contribute that new code to the source project because a) any and all modifications must be documented in the event your code kills a system, the blame will not be on the original project but on the author of the code and b) the new code contributes to the project’s growth so that others may benefit from it.
So no big deal, if you think about it. Why should anyone care about that? All it ensures is that someone takes responsibility for their contributions to the project and that the project grows if other people use it, and then whatever work you put in can be expanded on by other developers and then their work can be expanded on. The only possible reason anyone would care about that would be if they were in an engine licensing scheme, which is fine as that’s how some software houses make money.
Art assets, music assets, game story, anything you use the engine to create, is NOT open source. Those are copyright and even trademarked by the creator. The underlying software is only a tool to get that stuff on your screen, art assets and the like are not source code nor is using the engine to stream assets changing the oss that does the work. Basically, I can use id Tech 4 to create a brand new game, use the software exactly as is with no changes, and make potentially hundreds to millions off it without giving back because I have not added to the software in any shape or form. Again, if I did add something to the software, like a new lighting engine for my game, then the new lighting code must be released to the source project, however, the rest of my game assets are all mine.
On the other hand, IF I was to make a set of sprites for a fighting game and released them as open source under the GNU GPL, then indeed, someone could use those art assets to make money off them. However, any changes to them must be contributed to the project, so if someone edited the character to have longer hair or something, it must go into the source, with a note on the edit vs the original, and then other people could use them.
Art assets vs software code are both different things. Some game developers decide to release a whole project (the few open source games you’ve seen) as open source which entails the software and art assets as a whole, where as some decide to simply release the software only (id Software with id Tech 4, but not the art assets from Doom 3)