9 ms·

Very misleading article title. The licensing changes target big commercial usages outside of game development. (With revenue thresholds, similar to how it alre

Very misleading article title. The licensing changes target big commercial usages outside of game development. (With revenue thresholds, similar to how it already works right now for game development.) For example, up until now Unreal has seen use in vfx for movie and tv production. The licensing model for Unreal was primarily oriented for game development, which meant that this wasn't generating any revenue for Epic unless that company opted into the optional support plan. Unlike the crazy situation with Unity, these changes are being announced in advance without affecting usage of previous versions of Unreal. (Not saying I like or care for subscriptions for software. But context helps understand what's going on here.) I'm surprised they didn't make this change sooner.

ksec 3y ago
>I'm surprised they didn't make this change sooner. Same here, I thought they were also earning big money from TV and Hollywood. As they have been constantly improving non-gaming usage in every release.
lwhi 3y ago
Yep, it seems pretty fair.
Dylan16807 3y ago
Based on your bullet points here, I'm not sure what you find misleading? The headline doesn't specifically say outside of games, but I don't think that makes it misleading, especially because the "for all" makes it clear that it's only about some cases. And people generally know that games pay. Being announced in advance, not affecting previous versions... none of that is implied otherwise by the headline.
- aroo 3y ago
  "Unreal Engine will no longer be free for non-gaming companies" is 100x less misleading. You are right in that technically speaking it's not misleading, but to me it feels like it's skirting the line of lying by omission. Obviously now with hindsight I can see how the "for all" changes the meaning, but it wasn't obvious (at least to me).
- lholden 3y ago
  The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does. Unreal was never "free for all". For game development, there has always been revenue thresholds. The new licensing is around commercial use outside of game development, and will also be revenue threshold based. Meaning, just like with game development, if your project is making you money over X threshold, then the licensing kicks in. The title is misleading.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    > The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does. If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity. Also what I said in my previous comment is relevant here. > Unreal was never "free for all". I accept that it's bad wording, but I don't see how that misleads anyone unless you thought the engine was completely free.
    - pests 3y ago
      > If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity. Things don't happen in a vaccuum. The Unity fiasco is still fresh on everyone's mind. For any company anywhere in the gaming sphere to change their prices so soon - is going to draw comparisons to Unity. The fact multiple people are discussing this with you should prove that.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        Do they need to explicitly contrast the situation with Unity in the headline to avoid being misleading? Headlines don't have a lot of space! And as I said in a different comment, the subheading seems to address the main complaints, and in most situations you'd see the headline and the subheading together.
        3y ago
- ezekg 3y ago
  No, the headline is blatantly trying to elicit a negative response towards Unreal i.r.t. Unity's recent pricing change.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Blatantly! Please explain how this headline connects to Unity at all? Yes we can assume a lot of people reading the headline will know about it... but I don't see this blatant connection. Would they have to explicitly say it's not like Unity in the headline to escape this? They even put "non-gaming creatives" in the subheading. Maybe whoever posted should have copied that? If you post the link on most social media you'll automatically see the headline and the subheading.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - isaacremuant 3y ago
      It's very obvious clickbait. It's clearly exploiting the Unity news. Clickbait can only be analyzed in terms of the title, not the sub header or content. Because the title is what gets reposted and makes people follow a link.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Fissionary 3y ago
  The headline assumes the point. If Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all, that implies that, right now, it is free for all, like e.g. Godot. Which is just emphatically untrue. It's like saying (to use the classic example), "I will no longer beat my wife." I never did, just like Unreal was never free for all.
zlg_codes 3y ago
Rather than make excuses for more revenue, I think it's apparent that programmers cannot trust commercial engines or their business models to not up and change one day to suit Epic's revenue. In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code. Unreal doing this around the same time Unity pulls its shit isn't a coincidence. As an aspiring game dev I kinda want nothing to do with these tools that want to jerk you around on pricing and aren't absolutely crystal clear on costs. Blender is free and can do a ton.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  It isn't a coincidence. But the situation is larger than unreal nor Unity. It's the beginning of Q4/end of Q3 and this tends to be when companies make new initiatives and it's been no secret that big businesses's low interest rate borrowing has been done for months now. Same reason why we have yet another flurry of layoffs happening. >In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code. Yet many AAA studios have at least dabbled with Unity/Unreal. A few have switched entirely. Engine programmers aren't cheap to keep in house and it's much easier to have entry level workers come in with existing engine knowledge than teaching them on the job. Even if this all feels shitty, full control for a business may not necessarily be the answer. >As an aspiring game dev I kinda want nothing to do with these tools that want to jerk you around on pricing and aren't absolutely crystal clear on costs. I wish you the best of luck. That's my endgame. But I'm not at a point where I can disengage from big corporate and I have bills to pay. I'm laying the groundwork slowly but maybe in a decade. >Blender is free and can do a ton. Blender isn't a game engine. And lender's attempt at making a game engine is exactly why it can be harder to switch from big corporate than it should be. It's a lot of moving parts and is hard to maintain. Open source's biggest weakness is interest, since there is no financial incentive to keep supporting a free product. That said, look into UPBGE as a spiritual successor if you rely a lot on Blender for development.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    I am in 2D for now, so anything SDL based is enough. But, part of what's put me off of 3D is the business side. Modeling tools are difficult to use and take years to learn adequately. I'm not interested in paying for a sub while I'm learning, and terms in a license that are subject to change do nothing to inspire confidence in any particular solution. This is a social and ethical problem imo. As you pointed out, doing it correctly requires experienced developers who will stick around. I think that's a more rewarding and better cost to spend money on. At least the worker won't try to modify the terms of what you're building on. I'll check out that project sometime. 3D is still a ways out for me but any libre software that can make it easier to learn sounds great.

ksec 3y ago

>I'm surprised they didn't make this change sooner. Same here, I thought they were also earning big money from TV and Hollywood. As they have been constantly improving non-gaming usage in every release.

lwhi 3y ago

Yep, it seems pretty fair.

Dylan16807 3y ago

Based on your bullet points here, I'm not sure what you find misleading? The headline doesn't specifically say outside of games, but I don't think that makes it misleading, especially because the "for all" makes it clear that it's only about some cases. And people generally know that games pay. Being announced in advance, not affecting previous versions... none of that is implied otherwise by the headline.

aroo 3y ago
"Unreal Engine will no longer be free for non-gaming companies" is 100x less misleading. You are right in that technically speaking it's not misleading, but to me it feels like it's skirting the line of lying by omission. Obviously now with hindsight I can see how the "for all" changes the meaning, but it wasn't obvious (at least to me).
lholden 3y ago
The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does. Unreal was never "free for all". For game development, there has always been revenue thresholds. The new licensing is around commercial use outside of game development, and will also be revenue threshold based. Meaning, just like with game development, if your project is making you money over X threshold, then the licensing kicks in. The title is misleading.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does. If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity. Also what I said in my previous comment is relevant here. > Unreal was never "free for all". I accept that it's bad wording, but I don't see how that misleads anyone unless you thought the engine was completely free.
  - pests 3y ago
    > If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity. Things don't happen in a vaccuum. The Unity fiasco is still fresh on everyone's mind. For any company anywhere in the gaming sphere to change their prices so soon - is going to draw comparisons to Unity. The fact multiple people are discussing this with you should prove that.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Do they need to explicitly contrast the situation with Unity in the headline to avoid being misleading? Headlines don't have a lot of space! And as I said in a different comment, the subheading seems to address the main complaints, and in most situations you'd see the headline and the subheading together.
      - 3y ago
ezekg 3y ago
No, the headline is blatantly trying to elicit a negative response towards Unreal i.r.t. Unity's recent pricing change.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Blatantly! Please explain how this headline connects to Unity at all? Yes we can assume a lot of people reading the headline will know about it... but I don't see this blatant connection. Would they have to explicitly say it's not like Unity in the headline to escape this? They even put "non-gaming creatives" in the subheading. Maybe whoever posted should have copied that? If you post the link on most social media you'll automatically see the headline and the subheading.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - isaacremuant 3y ago
    It's very obvious clickbait. It's clearly exploiting the Unity news. Clickbait can only be analyzed in terms of the title, not the sub header or content. Because the title is what gets reposted and makes people follow a link.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Fissionary 3y ago
The headline assumes the point. If Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all, that implies that, right now, it is free for all, like e.g. Godot. Which is just emphatically untrue. It's like saying (to use the classic example), "I will no longer beat my wife." I never did, just like Unreal was never free for all.

zlg_codes 3y ago

Rather than make excuses for more revenue, I think it's apparent that programmers cannot trust commercial engines or their business models to not up and change one day to suit Epic's revenue. In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code. Unreal doing this around the same time Unity pulls its shit isn't a coincidence. As an aspiring game dev I kinda want nothing to do with these tools that want to jerk you around on pricing and aren't absolutely crystal clear on costs. Blender is free and can do a ton.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
It isn't a coincidence. But the situation is larger than unreal nor Unity. It's the beginning of Q4/end of Q3 and this tends to be when companies make new initiatives and it's been no secret that big businesses's low interest rate borrowing has been done for months now. Same reason why we have yet another flurry of layoffs happening. >In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code. Yet many AAA studios have at least dabbled with Unity/Unreal. A few have switched entirely. Engine programmers aren't cheap to keep in house and it's much easier to have entry level workers come in with existing engine knowledge than teaching them on the job. Even if this all feels shitty, full control for a business may not necessarily be the answer. >As an aspiring game dev I kinda want nothing to do with these tools that want to jerk you around on pricing and aren't absolutely crystal clear on costs. I wish you the best of luck. That's my endgame. But I'm not at a point where I can disengage from big corporate and I have bills to pay. I'm laying the groundwork slowly but maybe in a decade. >Blender is free and can do a ton. Blender isn't a game engine. And lender's attempt at making a game engine is exactly why it can be harder to switch from big corporate than it should be. It's a lot of moving parts and is hard to maintain. Open source's biggest weakness is interest, since there is no financial incentive to keep supporting a free product. That said, look into UPBGE as a spiritual successor if you rely a lot on Blender for development.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  I am in 2D for now, so anything SDL based is enough. But, part of what's put me off of 3D is the business side. Modeling tools are difficult to use and take years to learn adequately. I'm not interested in paying for a sub while I'm learning, and terms in a license that are subject to change do nothing to inspire confidence in any particular solution. This is a social and ethical problem imo. As you pointed out, doing it correctly requires experienced developers who will stick around. I think that's a more rewarding and better cost to spend money on. At least the worker won't try to modify the terms of what you're building on. I'll check out that project sometime. 3D is still a ways out for me but any libre software that can make it easier to learn sounds great.