6 ms·

> Being able to use the Unreal Engine for free to develop this is awesome ... and paying Epic 5% of all lifetime profit is a blessing too (if he makes money ap

> Being able to use the Unreal Engine for free to develop this is awesome ... and paying Epic 5% of all lifetime profit is a blessing too (if he makes money appropriate for "the best train sim ever made")

klntsky 3mo ago
That is fair for something that makes the game possible in the first place.
mouse-5346 3mo ago
I mean, if he makes a boatload of money then it's fine if a fraction of it goes to the engine. When his immediate needs are met, he can choose to either stay with unreal or move to an alternative later on without cost pressures.
pjmlp 3mo ago
Unreal devs have bills to pay as well. We already know what happens in Nebraska.
- jraby3 3mo ago
  What happens in Nebraska?!?
  - pjmlp 3mo ago
    xkcd has the answer.
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  I doubt Epic struggles for money. By the way what happens in Nebraska?
  - pjmlp 3mo ago
    It is also not a charity, it is a business. xkcd has the answer.
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      Well then exactly what I was saying. This is a business & it's a commercial product, not a freebie. This is why I see many people look at UE but go with Godot. It's nice when you don't have to notify a megacorp about every game you release & then follow up with yearly revenue reports.
- tomodachi94 3mo ago
  To those asking about the reference to Nebraska, I'm pretty sure it's a reference to XKCD 2347 "Dependency": https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
  - pjmlp 3mo ago
    Yep, and then we always get those regular posts "project XYZ is no longer", yeah people not paying. Unreal is free to the extent it contributes to bringing even more people into the ecosystem, eventually becoming paying customers, Epic doesn't make it available out of their kindness, rather also taking into account there are other competing alternatives.
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      It's important to keep development going but commercial projects is not the only way. Godot Foundation exists and there are plenty of others in open-source space. A nonprofit means actual reports about how money is used, and it's not as if commercial projects are somehow better because they don't fold or get sold or canceled. And even between commercial ways, charging royalties is one of the worst. It doesn't cost Epic extra if my game starts making more money. Just make the engine a one-time purchase (per version, so you get to keep sales going) and everyone will be much happier. Sell additional services which actually do cost you money to keep up (multiplayer hosting).
      - streetfighter64 3mo ago
        Nothing against Godot, it's a great project, but looking at the wikipedia list of notable games using the engine, there's a single one I have heard of. Meanwhile about 28% of the market share of all video games is using Unreal. So I don't really see the need to make "everyone much happier" honestly. > Sell additional services which actually do cost you money to keep up After a game has been released a solo dev often has very little work to do, since they've already invested all of the development time ahead of release. So, by this logic they shouldn't really be allowed to charge anything for the game, except to cover potential work on updates. Perhaps game projects don't need to operate like nonprofits, but then why do game engine projects?
Barbing 3mo ago
Can’t tell if you mean it (that it’s fair) or you would’ve preferred a different pricing structure?
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  It was sarcasm to remind this is a commercial product.
somenameforme 3mo ago
Unreal is completely free for up to $1 million in revenue. And at that point, the 5% royalty is very much a happy problem.
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
  Lifetime royalty fee on any related worldwide gross revenue is a happy problem?
  - _bernd 3mo ago
    To be able to use this tech in the first place? I have no glue about business problems but this sounds far better then the 30% rip off by apple and Google app stores....
    - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
      > 30% rip off by apple and Google app stores Sounds like a happy problem to me;) By the way you don't only have to file a report for Epic whenever you release a game using UE, you also have to report them your yearly sales and calculate what income is "directly attributable to UE" for that game. For an ordinary small person, for whom you imply lifetime 5% off gross worldwide revenue is a "happy problem", this is way more involved (and prone to legal liability) compared to app stores. You will probably have to hire people well before the million mark to make sure numbers are OK and you don't accidentally owe Epic $$$$$. I know which model I would choose. Probably the one where I raise prices by 30% and don't have to deal with anything else.
      - interactivecode 3mo ago
        At the point where you have 1 million in revenue you for sure have an accountant even just to do your yearly business taxes. So reporting to Epic just becomes an extra hour of work to make the report.
        3mo ago

klntsky 3mo ago

That is fair for something that makes the game possible in the first place.

mouse-5346 3mo ago

I mean, if he makes a boatload of money then it's fine if a fraction of it goes to the engine. When his immediate needs are met, he can choose to either stay with unreal or move to an alternative later on without cost pressures.

pjmlp 3mo ago

Unreal devs have bills to pay as well. We already know what happens in Nebraska.

jraby3 3mo ago
What happens in Nebraska?!?
- pjmlp 3mo ago
  xkcd has the answer.
ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
I doubt Epic struggles for money. By the way what happens in Nebraska?
- pjmlp 3mo ago
  It is also not a charity, it is a business. xkcd has the answer.
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    Well then exactly what I was saying. This is a business & it's a commercial product, not a freebie. This is why I see many people look at UE but go with Godot. It's nice when you don't have to notify a megacorp about every game you release & then follow up with yearly revenue reports.
tomodachi94 3mo ago
To those asking about the reference to Nebraska, I'm pretty sure it's a reference to XKCD 2347 "Dependency": https://xkcd.com/2347/ https://xkcd.com/2347/
- pjmlp 3mo ago
  Yep, and then we always get those regular posts "project XYZ is no longer", yeah people not paying. Unreal is free to the extent it contributes to bringing even more people into the ecosystem, eventually becoming paying customers, Epic doesn't make it available out of their kindness, rather also taking into account there are other competing alternatives.
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    It's important to keep development going but commercial projects is not the only way. Godot Foundation exists and there are plenty of others in open-source space. A nonprofit means actual reports about how money is used, and it's not as if commercial projects are somehow better because they don't fold or get sold or canceled. And even between commercial ways, charging royalties is one of the worst. It doesn't cost Epic extra if my game starts making more money. Just make the engine a one-time purchase (per version, so you get to keep sales going) and everyone will be much happier. Sell additional services which actually do cost you money to keep up (multiplayer hosting).
    - streetfighter64 3mo ago
      Nothing against Godot, it's a great project, but looking at the wikipedia list of notable games using the engine, there's a single one I have heard of. Meanwhile about 28% of the market share of all video games is using Unreal. So I don't really see the need to make "everyone much happier" honestly. > Sell additional services which actually do cost you money to keep up After a game has been released a solo dev often has very little work to do, since they've already invested all of the development time ahead of release. So, by this logic they shouldn't really be allowed to charge anything for the game, except to cover potential work on updates. Perhaps game projects don't need to operate like nonprofits, but then why do game engine projects?

Barbing 3mo ago

Can’t tell if you mean it (that it’s fair) or you would’ve preferred a different pricing structure?

ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
It was sarcasm to remind this is a commercial product.

somenameforme 3mo ago

Unreal is completely free for up to $1 million in revenue. And at that point, the 5% royalty is very much a happy problem.

ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
Lifetime royalty fee on any related worldwide gross revenue is a happy problem?
- _bernd 3mo ago
  To be able to use this tech in the first place? I have no glue about business problems but this sounds far better then the 30% rip off by apple and Google app stores....
  - ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago
    > 30% rip off by apple and Google app stores Sounds like a happy problem to me;) By the way you don't only have to file a report for Epic whenever you release a game using UE, you also have to report them your yearly sales and calculate what income is "directly attributable to UE" for that game. For an ordinary small person, for whom you imply lifetime 5% off gross worldwide revenue is a "happy problem", this is way more involved (and prone to legal liability) compared to app stores. You will probably have to hire people well before the million mark to make sure numbers are OK and you don't accidentally owe Epic $$$$$. I know which model I would choose. Probably the one where I raise prices by 30% and don't have to deal with anything else.
    - interactivecode 3mo ago
      At the point where you have 1 million in revenue you for sure have an accountant even just to do your yearly business taxes. So reporting to Epic just becomes an extra hour of work to make the report.
      - 3mo ago