Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

creativebloq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#81

Post by acomjean »

nullptr_deref wrote: post #2

This would probably drive all the hobbyist to learn something open source like Godot, wouldn't it? This would mean Godot would be the thing worth investing for.

I think this doesn't change the equation for hobbyist/ game developers.

Unreal is starting to get traction as a 3d model tool (free unlike the pricey: Cinema4d or Maya). It was used on set for "virutual rooms" used in productions like the madolorian. This use of Unreal wasn't being charged for.. But now it is.

But Godot seems to have a lot of traction for game dev anyway. It seems to be a lot of places.

Unreal is a big giant tool, with tons of leavers. They have a robust marketplace of assets and such that makes life easier for companies and such.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#82

Post by londons_explore »

Arelius wrote: post #67
londons_explore wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine UE5 charging moviemakers by number of viewers Actors commonly demand a percentage of revenue. The main software package used for all the special effects demanding the same doesn't seem unreasonable.

Except UE5 is far from the main software package used for all the special effects.

They'll just have to price appropriately...

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#83

Post by pests »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #77
pests wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the mere fact this is an engine license change happening so close to the Unity fiasco that yes, it is impossible to talk about this without automatically invoking thoughts of what Unity did. Some news and blogs will take advantage of this association and use it for clicks.

Are you suggesting it's impossible to avoid being misleading, or do you have a solution in mind? Since you didn't really answer my question. If it's the former then I think that absolves the author.

I just read through this chain of comments and I do think there is a lot of talking past each other.

I do not think the author was purposefully being misleading. I do not think they need absolution for anything. I think it may be interperted as misleading by some (as it did for the original commentor) based on the reader's recent experiences with Unity and the latest drama; which is not a property of the article, the headline, or the author - but the reader.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#84

Post by Fissionary »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #56
lholden wrote: 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.

The headline assumes the point. If Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all, that implies that, right now, it is free for all, like e.g. Godot. Which is just emphatically untrue.

It's like saying (to use the classic example), "I will no longer beat my wife." I never did, just like Unreal was never free for all.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#85

Post by zlg_codes »

lholden wrote: 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…

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.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#86

Post by 3seashells »

raytopia wrote: post #8

Honestly it makes sense. I was always a little confused that non-gamedevs had to pay 0. Of course that could've also just been the plan to get VFX and other industries onto Unreal Engine so Epic Games could start charging them later. I'm also confused how Epic Games has become unprofitable suddenly. I think I read somewhere it was in the last 10 weeks but I could be wrong about that.

They now have to pay by include tictacto to the credit page.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#87

Post by zlg_codes »

dragonwriter wrote: post #18
nullptr_deref wrote: post #2

This would probably drive all the hobbyist to learn something open source like Godot, wouldn't it? This would mean Godot would be the thing worth investing for.

No, it doesn't affect game developer hobbyists (actually, if anything, it makes them more secure, since Unreal would have a broader pool of paying clients and less beed to squeeze low-revenie games before they can afford it.) Unless you mean, e.g., movie-making hobbyists where they go from never having to pay to having some (probably, as currently exists for games, based on a revenue threshold) some condition where t…

What incentives are there to learn Unreal if the money you make with it will be dipped into? That percentage is subject to change, too.

I don't want the success of my game to ride on paying my game's protection/engine licensing fee. It's hard enough to make money with a game and Unreal makes it harder.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#88

Post by diggan »

lamontcg wrote: post #63
diggan wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure you could argue that Unreal Engine hasn't provide any actual value, it basically helped spawn a whole new area in film production via the whole "Virtual Production Sets" that you can build with Unreal Engine.

I'm saying this pricing change doesn't add any value. I would be literally impossible to argue that UE doesn't add any value, which is why I'm not making that argument.

I'd say they already added the value but never charged for it, until now. Seems fair to me.

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#89

Post by zlg_codes »

nonethewiser wrote: post #24
AequitasOmnibus wrote: post #7

> 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.

Which interests are those, and how is a subscription better than a one-time purchase?

I smell dishonesty. SaaS is aligned solely to the business's interest. They control the code, they control whether you even access it after paying, etc. The customer gets no rights or considerations, so it's a one-sided transaction.

Just like Netflix and friends. I only do one subscription service and it's to play online with my niece and nephew. The rest of the subscription world can suck it, they want rent for Internet-bound software that spies and tells on you so they can sell data on top of your subscription.

Business cannot get software sales correct. Game makers did back in the 80s, 90s, and 00s before DLC became a thing.

One purchase, one perpetual license, no phoning home. Too hard to do for the modern commercial developer, it seems.

So, which interests of mine would a SaaS satisfy?

Re: Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all

#90

Post by johnnyanmac »

zlg_codes wrote: post #85
lholden wrote: 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…

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…

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.

Post reply on HN