Live data from Hacker News

Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

creativebloq.com

51–60 of 123 posts

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#51

Why should VFX people not have to pay when gamedevs did? There's no winning with people - ads bad, paying bad.

I'm guessing because engines like Unreal have game developers in the bag. VFX, on the other hand, has been a long term pursuit of Unreal and can have a large payoff for them. Based on some second hand insider knowledge I have, the VFX and animation industries are all over the place in terms of tooling, and a lot of pipelines are more or less bass-ackwards, especially when it comes to the pre-visualization stage of production. Even big studios are relying on tools that would appear "legacy" to many software engineers and are inferior to game engines in a lot of ways. The status quo often remains because these studios are already making enough money and have little incentive to address their internal bureaucracy that prevents them from making legitimate improvements to their pipelines. There are plenty of technical directors and artists out there pushing to use things like Unreal Engine, but these efforts often go nowhere for a variety of reasons. I know of at least one major animation studio that pondered over utilizing Unreal for over a decade, and there's another major studio I'm aware of where they're trying to use Unreal but the organizational support just isn't there.

Another problem I see in adoption of Unreal in animation is that the entertainment industry historically hasn't valued its engineers in the same way that Silicon Valley does. Unless you're working directly for a company like Unreal or Autodesk, why would a software engineer go work on some shitty duct-taped pipeline for a studio that will inevitably pay them less and make them work more hours, unless said engineer is particularly enamored with movies or shows? Based on what I know, I believe that the entertainment industry struggles to find and hold on to engineering talent, and not in the cliche way we hear from every company out there.

However, if Unreal reaches the same level of ubiquity and vendor lock-in within VFX that Autodesk has, for instance, then it would be a humongous cash cow for them. They want to keep their engine free to that industry for that reason, and it's a big incentive considering the exorbitant costs typical to VFX software.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#52

> Speaking at Unreal Fest 2023, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said Unreal Engine would become “a licensable piece of software like Maya or Photoshop” with a subscription-based pricing model. SAAS is rent-seeking at its worst. It’s predatory, anti-consumer and downright annoying. I hope this backfires on Epic.

SAAS pays for continued development and support. One upfront license fee returns us to the Microsoft Office 13, 15, 20 etc. world. Marginal differences, little to no support, and new releases for the sake of new revenue. SAAS is far better aligned to customer and business interests.

In other words, the developer has to produce a worthwhile feature to charge me for it? I don't have to pay for Office 20 when it's the same as Office 13 which I already own?

Sign me up.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#54
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In contrary I like PhpStorm (and other Jetbrains software) which has a nice SAAS license. You always own the old versions or you keep subscribed and pay for upgrades. With evolving software (aka never finished) someone has to pay for the upgrades. In the best case its the existing user base. But true, most SAAS is just cash cow milking.

I'd say that PhpStorm doesn't really qualify as SaaS. Not all software subscriptions are SaaS. See, e.g., here: https://www.dataversity.net/saas-and-subscription-complement... SaaS means someone else runs the software and your access to it is mediated by their service (usually a networked service). Some SaaS tests: If you can keep running it when your subscription runs out, it's not SaaS. If it runs on your own hardw…

Makes sense, thank you for clarifying.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#55
post #26

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…

Yep, it seems pretty fair.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#56
post #26

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…

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.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#58
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not obvious at all how this is enshittification. UE5 was previously provided for free in non-video game contexts, as they clearly were trying to expand their presence in say film production. Now they've succeeded, they are charging for it, what is so unfair about it? Are they expected to provide the engine for free? UE5 is also constantly trying intensive innovation. So the product quality is going up, not going…

> UE5 was previously provided for free in non-video game contexts, as they clearly were trying to expand their presence in say film production. Now they've succeeded, they are charging for it, what is so unfair about it? The problem here is that "providing for free" to gain adoption and then suddenly charging is a bit of a rug-pull. The same argument was made for Unity, it's not the customer's job to make your busine…

Unity was different because the pricing was insane for F2P titles. Some successful titles only manage $0.50/install, going from 0 to 40% revenue share was insane.

Way more importantly making it retroactive was unheard of. Unity even had promised to support "pick your license" for released titles in perpetuity but then during this change said "we never said the runtime was free in perpetuity".

Charging more for your product isn't great but it always happens.

Also on that topic Unity got started as the "no revenue sharing" option and was paid for by very expensive per seat costs. So there was a bit of "you are double dipping" feeling too.

In this case Unreal is charging for a new market is the goal which makes sense.

Certainly the bait and switch of free now not is a bit sour but how sour depends on the cost.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#60
post #26

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…

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.

"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).
Post reply on HN