this is true , I agree , I guess for a big company the Unreal 3 engine is the way to go , as it is a very impressive engine , but still , all these engines prices do sound a but insane , but you make some good points.

As long as people pay $750 000, they will keep selling it at $750 000. Supply and demand.

Hiya.

I think a BIG part of the problem is that the bean counters of the 'big publishers' wouldn't know a good game if it swam up their urethra. (Kinda like how Hollywood is now).

A potential game designer says "This is our game! Cool, huh?" and the publishers hear "Blaa blaa blaa". The game designer says "Look at all the stuff you can do in this game! Awesome, no?", and the publishers hear "Blaa blaa blaa". The game disigner says "Here's all the new twists we are putting into the story! They'll love it!", and the publishers hear "Blaa blaa blaa". ..at this point, the game designer realises that the publisher has no clue about what he's trying to get accross.. So, the game designer says "It's kinda like Halo, but we use this new 'next-gen' engine that costs $750,000", and the publishers hear "Halo, Next gen, $750k" and think "Wow! That *must* be good! Deal!".

You see, while a more advanced game engine is always nice (I'd LOVE to be able to use UnrealEngine v3!), it isn't usually neccissary if you have a good, solid game idea and execution. There are a LOT of free games out there on the net (all kinds, from MMO-style like Runescape, to RPG-card mixes like PuzzlePirates, to...well, just everything out there). Most of these games are/were made "on the cheap", and have a LOT of folks playing them. The current video game industry is suffering because of it's own success. A handful of hit games (DOOM, Unreal, Halo, Elder Scrolls, World of Warcraft, etc.) made MILLIONS...so now, every publisher and his goldfish expects to make millions. But, they are dealing with millions in development costs now because there is a misconception that "more expensive game engine = more successful game"; the writers of said game engines take/took advantage of that and said "Well, if they are getting millions, *I* want millions too!" and priced their 'next-gen' (by the GAWDS I'm really starting to hate that term!) game enigine with that price range in mind. As time has gone on, more and more developers and publishers just are not willing to risk $10-20 million on a new game style/concept/type when they don't know if it will suck. So, like Hollywood, they rely on "Well, has this been done before, recently, and did it succeed in makeing millions?" If the answer is "Nope, this is all new", then it's a no go. Oh, sure, it *could* be the next World Of Warcraft...or it could just outright flop. When the developer/pulbisher has put millions and millions into the development they just aren't willing or able to take that risk.

My theory is this: If a couple of genius programmers were to create a game engine as good or better than Offset, Unreal 3, CryEngine 2, etc., and then offer it for sale for 'dirt cheap' (say, "$1200), I guarantee we'd see more innovative games being released. I see a lot of indie level developers out there who have really cool ideas, interesting stories, intreging settings and characters, etc...but are hampered by the engine they use. So, these games may get made, but don't make any big waves because the developer/artist was forced to "dumb down" his ideas because the engine couldn't handle it.

Sorry, but $750k for a game engine is, IMHO, a *serious* problem for every potential game developer out there. That's why Project Offset pissed me off so much when they sold out.

I've seen the Unreal 3 development tools in use. I also know a fair bit on how the engine works (not just graphics, but the object management system, components, physics, sound, AI, etc.) by talking with the developers.

IMHO: Unreal 3 is well worth the $750k price tag.

Yes, given enough time, talent, and effort you could create roughly the same games using 3DGameStudio as you could with Unreal 3. You could also create the same games using Microsoft's DirectX SDK and Bloodshed C++ (both free). The tools just make it *much* easier.

Quote:

---

..I see a lot of indie level developers out there who have really cool ideas, interesting stories, intreging settings and characters, etc...but are hampered by the engine they use.

---

I see a lot of people with great ideas but no easy way to create them. But it isn't the lack of 3D engines that stand in their way.

Even if you could buy all the AAA tools to create a game (3DMax, Maya, Unreal3, Offset, CryEngine, Blink, Havok, Endorphin, etc.) for $5, you wouldn't be any closer to creating an innovative game then I would be to creating a master work of art with all the paints I own. Tools don't make games, you make games with the tools.

Hehe well we are sort of in agreement then

Doug is right in that the tools do not make the game, but they can certainly help reduce effort, cost etc.

This is a bit of what I was trying to say really --- tools are just tools. Average tools are just average, but they do not prevent you from making an excellant game. You can build a palace with a simple hammer.

The good ones are worth a reasonable amount. They will not automatically make an excellant game, or even any game. But the good tools certainly do help alleviate some of the hassles and annoyances of development.

Now a " reasonable amount " is pretty relative.

But one thing to note. " Next gen " costs are not due to the cost of an engine, SpeedTree, Maya, animation middleware and whatever software you purchase. These costs are relatively fixed and can be spread over a number of projects and time. Unreal 3, for example, will remain ( with enhancements )competitive circa 2012. Or at least Epic believes so

The Quake Engine was never 5 thousand USD. Likewise with NetImmerse / Gamebryo , Serious Engine and most other game engines. Yet that did not prevent game innovation or inflate development budgets to painful limits.

Rising costs are mostly the cost of labor. Of assembling a team of artists, writers, programmers, and the top-heavy management practices of today ( i.e. expensive rent like Konami ). Oh and marketing, cost rivals that of development itself.

And that brings us back to the idea of " good tools ". Good tools are important and well worth the cost simply because they save other costs of development.

As for whether 750 thousand USD is tooo high. Well it certainly is for me. But nothing prevents me from assembling my very own toolset to rival Unreal 3 or any other engine.

Maybe that's what the 3DGS community should do ?

@Cipher: Thats what we've been doing

You see these countless contributions made in the comunity. What bothers me is that nobody ever puts them together...

building a sculpture with a hammer huh? that will be an ugly statue i spend the extra 750,000 for the chisel as well

but as for the idea of integrating things together, the biggest issue is making it all set in a well streamlined artwork pipline that still allows flexebility for programmers

I'll just stick to last-gen for my games , lol.

@Frank,

You make a very good point. I'm thinking in the same way and though all these plugins are great and I apprecaite everyones' efforts, I feel like they are all (with the exception of IntenseX) really filling in things that should real be in the core enegine. I'm hoping the A7 we get by the end of the year will take a big step towards removing the need for most of these plugins and then by mid 2008 we get an update that gives us the full integrated toolset we all want.

What does everyone think - is that too optimistic a roadmap or very possible?