What is Digg?94 Comments
- blaaguuu, on 10/10/2007, -6/+42Well yeah... Epic makes middleware which they sell to other companies. If someone came to them and said "I will pay you 3 million dollars to use your engine for a Barbie game", why in the world would they say no? Ofcourse they want to sell their tech to as many companies as possible... The more games made with it, the better the chance of there being some real gems that get them more recognition - and more engine sales. Why would you limit your licenses to AAA games if people are willing to pay for it to make smaller games?
- chaskell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25The original Half-Life used the Quake engine. That is what the article is referring to.
- DustinR, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20So ID is like the high class hooker or something?
- krenzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19I'm happy with the fact that they said they've hired separate programmers to work on the tools rather than let Carmack do the tools and the engine. In the past, it resulted in the tools suffering.
- AwesomeMonster, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Because not everybody is in it for the money, also If they do this, there will be a lot less different engines on the market. By a business standpoint it makes plenty of sense, by a the standpoint of someone who enjoys playing good and different games, it sucks.
- Bfettmaul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19id vs Epic.
This takes me back... - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Which engine is DNF using this week.
- iota, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15*phew* i'm glad they didn't list Daikatana... john romero would have probably made them his bitch.
- charityjustice, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17id didn't used to behave this way. They went about their business and rarely commented on other companies, and when they did it was usually much more cordial than the petty sniping we see in this article. They didnt *need* to do this because they made the best games. I guess they look at things like Gears of War and wonder why they didn't make it.
- slaystench, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17UT does not suck.
- SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14wtf, did you follow a link here from youtube or something? This is probably one of the most amazingly retarded comments I've ever seen on Digg. Are you missing some fingers or something, or do you just always type like that? Do you SPEAK like that? If so, then you are obviously a very poor reflection of the US education system. You should go to Washington and demand to be made the poster child for education reform in this country.
PS: Die in a fire. - geoken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13You're selling an engine. How does this entail an investment? Is it customary for these guys to give the engine away for free and claim a portion of the profits?
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11all of them
- sp0rk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7There's also the reputation of the engine/company. If most or all of the games that use a particular engine are a success, that obviously makes the engine look better. I see where you're coming from with the point that licensing an engine to as many game devlopers as possible will give it more exposure and a higher chance of being part of a big hit, but it also has a higher chance of giving the company a bad reputation for being associated with horrible games.
- Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The original Half Life used a modified Quake engine.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"I know of what I speak."
....in other words:
"I'm full of hot air." - Salgat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8I see it this way, idSoftware wants to have an engine that can be coveted and have a reputation of having only the best games for it. Works for me.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Who cares, you still wear a condom!
- Guspaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6To be fair, people made Quake 3 run under Quake 2, not Doom 3. Although there were several projects that added Doom 3-like capabilities to prior engines, such as Tenebrae (based on the Quake 1 engine).
I'm not sure I understand your point. You say that combining realtime dynamic lighting done on the GPU (or in the drivers) with pre-compiled lighting falls short. But your solution is a well balanced mix? Isn't a well balanced mix still a combination?
I do believe that the Doom 3 engine did the dynamic lighting component in software. The NV30 series, IIRC, had hardware acceleration for shadow stencil volumes, but failing that they were done in software.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if lightmaps went the way of the dodo and all lighting was done dynamically... But the performance impact is huge. You can't do good looking shadows with stencil shadows (what Doom 3 used) because they're hard-edged, and fail to represent even remotely realistic shadows. The only way to sensibly do soft shadowing seems to be with texture-based shadow rendering, but in order to make it look good it needs to be quite high resolution. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5This is a consistent message id has been trumpeting since back in the Quake2 licensing days. They've always been known for working more closely with their licensees, being more selective with who the license to, and charging more for the licenses because of it. It's not a new thing. It just so happens that another company is in hot water for not adhering to a guiding core principle of id's history as a company.
- SomaSynth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It seems to me they're saying this to draw attention away from reality. Their engines have taken a licensing tumble since Q3 due to excellent competition from Epic, surely not out of their own choosing. "They're not buying because we're not selling"... right. It's just a coincidence then your engines have failed to meet developer expectations right around the same time.
- pegisys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6well Mark Rein(Epic) has spouted off at the mouth about how mega texture doesn't really do anything for games and how ids next engine will not be as good as UE3. Probably just mentioned that to stab back a little
anyway I don't think his comment was really about id vs epic, but the fact that if 100 studios lisence the engine they have to give support to 100 studios for 100 different games, and that having few studios to support and helping them make top notch games. - Tarl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Did you even play the original UT when it was first released? Was your gaming session longer than 30 minutes? Or did you get wtfowned and decided not to play anymore?
Seriously, it was a better game than Q3 and the rehashed Q3: Team Arena. Now am I saying the Q3 games were no good? Not at all. But UT was better in many peoples eyes. Shock rifle combos, sniper rifle, redeemer, six pack rocket launcher, translocator....
Good god, man. Does a really good game have to slap you before you notice it? - metroidchief, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The original Half-life was built on the Quake 2 engine
- OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I still play UT2004 over Q3A/Q4.
Why? It's more fun. - AwesomeMonster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Carmack does what he does because he enjoys it. The man probably couldn't give two ***** whether or not he makes that much money. He makes cell phone games as a hobby for hells sake.
- joe90210, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5lol this is nothing but nonsense PR. anyone with money will get the tech5 engine. I remember when the xbox first came out and MS said that anyone who wanted to release for it would have to have their game tested by MS to make sure it's good or else they won't release it
- matriculated, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5iD is barely the company it used to be. The only original member is Carmack - although Kevin Cloud was there pretty early on. Everyone else was "forced to leave".
- martian67, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Because im sure you develop so many high profile games
- Megatog615, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Source is based off of GoldSource, which is a modified Quake.
- sirbeta, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9I hate the elitist attitude that id is displaying with the "We would rather have Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, and Half-Life as our licensees than thirty games nobody remembers" comment. It's logic like this that makes me as a game developer not to even want to use their tech in the first place, as I'd rather use one more friendly to developers who haven't already established some sort of well known game. I'd rather use Epic's engine, anyway.
- jrbrewin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3the guy has made money. however, he isn't driven by money or the need to make billion and billions of dollars. having money allows him to do the things he enjoys, like tinkering with rockets. That's not what i'd call a negative trait. And i would hardly criticise him for not winning the x-prize either.. he's a lot cleverer than you'll ever be, my friend.
- TremorX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6So is there ever a time when you *do* know what you're talking about?
- nihility, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6The only thing I remember Medal of Honor as is another rehashed WW2 game offering nothing new and 10 sequels with the same exact game. Call of Duty is traveling down the same path right now as much as I love the game...Half-Life is a nice name to drop for your side though.
- shadowspawn, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11i love to say it; after working with supercomputers, dynamic vs lightmap... lightmap data is underrated. ydnar had some really cool ideas. it just took a supercomputer (8x dual core xeons) to realize how realtime dynamic lighting algorithms resident in GPU drivers/hardware really fall short when it combines to pre-compiled lighting.
The solution? A well balanced mix. id doesn't have the experience with this; they sorta dropped the ball the second q2 source was released (and people made d3 run on it)
Most will never see it, it's the old-school "spaghetti programming" that db admins bitched about starting to rear its ugly head, but now with graphics.
I know of what I speak. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Even though the UT engine didn't look as pretty, I had a whole heap more fun playing UT than I ever did with any of the Quake series.
- v1rt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, because Prey (based on a "modified" version of the Doom 3 engine) will be remembered as one of the greats.
And FYI, I didn't think the game was bad-- but it's no Half Life or Call of Duty, either... - Eywanadi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3All id is saying is that they will not sell more licences than they can support.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Translation: Epic is pwning us at our own game.
- pegisys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3missed the timer it was Tim Sweeney that talked down on megatexture
- Narishma, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Fun is subjective.
- battletrax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2my guess is ID comes back.
sure i love epic. But did they start the fps franchise off ? no - TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I think "gear of wars" and "final fantasy" is enough to offset 30 other lame title. If ID had the chance, I am sure they want that 30 C titles
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I know it seems like petty sniping, but this is a consistent message id has been trumpeting since back in the Quake2 licensing days. They've always been known for working more closely with their licensees, being more selective with who the license to, and charging more for the licenses because of it. It's not news. It just so happens that another company is in hot water for not adhering to a guiding core principle of id's history as a company.
- KriLL3.2™, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Both ID and Epic are businesses, making less money makes no sense at all.
- Randinn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Depends on what is it you're doing.....
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's why the charge more for it the license (traditionally about 2-3x as much as the cost of an unreal license)... Companies that can't promise a AAA title won't have the cash, and therefore can't license the engine.
- ZippyV, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Like Aliens vs. Predictor
- battletrax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Breaking news, squarenix uses id tech 5 for upcoming final fantasy's."
The war hasn't started until they license this fall. - gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you think these guys are doing this for free? Of course its an investment, like any business is.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is