4 ms·

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

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.
iyasu 3y ago
>In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code. Proprietary engines suffer from plenty which you haven't stated - can be a mess to read or understand; many hacks done to accomplish a certain feature because it helped ship X feature - tons of tribal knowledge. If you've worked with a proprietary engine before, you already know documentation will be lackluster and to little fault of the engineers - there's so much to know about the engine that developers don't have the time to chart out what everything does in the engine while pushing out fixes and features.Often, you need to poke the principal programmer who's been with the studio since its inception to understand how a certain long-existing feature works. That's a major point of weakness for the studio! - Engine limitations! Ask the bethesda devs on their experience building multiplayer for Fallout 76[0]. Imagine building multiplayer in an engine that has never needed to support it. That's a huge refactor and a ton of time spent doing that when it's already handled by Unreal Engine. Developers will need to maintain that engine in the future so the pain doesn't stop after the game gets shipped! Your post sounds like someone who hasn't worked in game development before. I advise listening to GDC talks, noclip documentaries, and more if you want to get a better understanding of what game development actually looks like. It's a lot more complicated than "your change in price policy makes me mad" (by the way, most AAA studios already have contracts/price agreements with these engines given the amount of revenue they generate for Unity/Unreal). [0]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi8PTAJ2Hjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi8PTAJ2Hjs
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Game development is not exclusive to business, but you are correct I have not worked for a firm to make a game. Nothing about that arrangement attracts me, especially given the abusive nature of the industry and the frequency that they go through crunch, lack any real worker protections, no unions, etc. The way AAA studios make games and do business puts me off as well, so pointing to them as an example doesn't really change my outlook. I already don't buy their games and disapprove of their business models. If I was interested in being exploited for my passion I would consider entering that industry, but as it stands I will be going solo dev. No game dev company out there seems to treat its staff well during a game's development, so even if I wanted to work on a game as part of a team, I'd be looking at a poor work/life balance and a stressful work environment. I'm too old for that kind of BS. If I can't build and release the game myself, then it simply isn't good enough to release. I cannot trust collaborators to not take control of my projects, nor would I entrust creative ideas to a for-profit entity without my cut. Long story short, I might work in the industry if it was a healthy one. Because it's not, and I still want to make a game, it falls to me and only me to make it happen. That's kind of comforting, knowing your failure or success ride on your own action instead of someone else's. Nothing is more disappointing in a group project than failing because of someone else's fuck up.
elteto 3y ago
I mean, why would you expect them not to charge you money for something they clearly spend tons of money in developing? They are a business. The bait and switch is real, but after N of them we have to start asking ourselves whose fault is it if we fall for the N+1th one.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  In my case I haven't fallen for anything, but this community seems to have a problem with pointing out it's mostly businesses doing this behavior. If you stay away from commercial software, this crap disappears. It shouldn't be normal to expect to be exploited imo.
  - elteto 3y ago
    It was a rhetorical "you" ;) Businesses will do business things, I don't think we should really be surprised when they decide to not subsidize everyone anymore. In other words, a company giving you a "free" product like Unreal should be assumed to be a loan that you will have to pay in the future.
  - ksec 3y ago
    > but this community seems to have a problem with pointing out it's mostly businesses doing this behavior. Wow. I was typing "It is fairly recent behavior, at least it wasn't like this before 2014." Then I realise that was nearly 10 years ago......

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.

iyasu 3y ago

>In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code. Proprietary engines suffer from plenty which you haven't stated - can be a mess to read or understand; many hacks done to accomplish a certain feature because it helped ship X feature - tons of tribal knowledge. If you've worked with a proprietary engine before, you already know documentation will be lackluster and to little fault of the engineers - there's so much to know about the engine that developers don't have the time to chart out what everything does in the engine while pushing out fixes and features.Often, you need to poke the principal programmer who's been with the studio since its inception to understand how a certain long-existing feature works. That's a major point of weakness for the studio! - Engine limitations! Ask the bethesda devs on their experience building multiplayer for Fallout 76[0]. Imagine building multiplayer in an engine that has never needed to support it. That's a huge refactor and a ton of time spent doing that when it's already handled by Unreal Engine. Developers will need to maintain that engine in the future so the pain doesn't stop after the game gets shipped! Your post sounds like someone who hasn't worked in game development before. I advise listening to GDC talks, noclip documentaries, and more if you want to get a better understanding of what game development actually looks like. It's a lot more complicated than "your change in price policy makes me mad" (by the way, most AAA studios already have contracts/price agreements with these engines given the amount of revenue they generate for Unity/Unreal). [0]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi8PTAJ2Hjs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi8PTAJ2Hjs

zlg_codes 3y ago
Game development is not exclusive to business, but you are correct I have not worked for a firm to make a game. Nothing about that arrangement attracts me, especially given the abusive nature of the industry and the frequency that they go through crunch, lack any real worker protections, no unions, etc. The way AAA studios make games and do business puts me off as well, so pointing to them as an example doesn't really change my outlook. I already don't buy their games and disapprove of their business models. If I was interested in being exploited for my passion I would consider entering that industry, but as it stands I will be going solo dev. No game dev company out there seems to treat its staff well during a game's development, so even if I wanted to work on a game as part of a team, I'd be looking at a poor work/life balance and a stressful work environment. I'm too old for that kind of BS. If I can't build and release the game myself, then it simply isn't good enough to release. I cannot trust collaborators to not take control of my projects, nor would I entrust creative ideas to a for-profit entity without my cut. Long story short, I might work in the industry if it was a healthy one. Because it's not, and I still want to make a game, it falls to me and only me to make it happen. That's kind of comforting, knowing your failure or success ride on your own action instead of someone else's. Nothing is more disappointing in a group project than failing because of someone else's fuck up.

elteto 3y ago

I mean, why would you expect them not to charge you money for something they clearly spend tons of money in developing? They are a business. The bait and switch is real, but after N of them we have to start asking ourselves whose fault is it if we fall for the N+1th one.

zlg_codes 3y ago
In my case I haven't fallen for anything, but this community seems to have a problem with pointing out it's mostly businesses doing this behavior. If you stay away from commercial software, this crap disappears. It shouldn't be normal to expect to be exploited imo.
- elteto 3y ago
  It was a rhetorical "you" ;) Businesses will do business things, I don't think we should really be surprised when they decide to not subsidize everyone anymore. In other words, a company giving you a "free" product like Unreal should be assumed to be a loan that you will have to pay in the future.
- ksec 3y ago
  > but this community seems to have a problem with pointing out it's mostly businesses doing this behavior. Wow. I was typing "It is fairly recent behavior, at least it wasn't like this before 2014." Then I realise that was nearly 10 years ago......