Train sim created by just one person is being called the best ever made

Post by LollipopYakuza » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 8:16 PM UTC

n64controller wrote: post #256

esseph wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything. The story, how the game works, the art assets, voice lines, music, etc. Programming is like 10% of a game. The world building and UX is the juice. Anybody can make Lord of the Rings, but there's only one.

Absolute nonsense. There is no cookie-cutter formula for game development, despite what the idea guys think. Mario 64 was literally just Mario in a single small room until the last six months of development. They focused purely on the actual game - the mechanics, physics, movesets, items, and enemies - inside that tiny room until it felt perfect. Then, in one final push, they quickly slapped together all the levels a…

Post by CamouflagedKiwi » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 8:43 PM UTC

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #358

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and then he can afford it, because he's making over $1M/year revenue on this sim, and taking a very reasonable 5% off the top of that. So it blunts the profits a bit at that point, but it hardly seems like such a terrible thing at that point.

By that logic we should be OK with Adobe's subscription model. It makes it affordable to people who can't otherwise use it. Ultimately it means we can't own it (and just like we can't own UE, we owe Epic income reports for life). I'm not saying it's a terrible model and it's great that games are made with it but let's be honest it's not all rainbows.

Post by ShinyLeftPad » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 1:45 PM UTC

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #363

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic we should be OK with Adobe's subscription model. It makes it affordable to people who can't otherwise use it. Ultimately it means we can't own it (and just like we can't own UE, we owe Epic income reports for life). I'm not saying it's a terrible model and it's great that games are made with it but let's be honest it's not all rainbows.

I don't know anything about Adobe's model - I have (pretty happily) never bought anything from that company. But the two are not very similar, and I don't buy the argument that you're trying to make - I think you're trying to bring in dislike of Adobe's model as an argument against Epic's, despite the two being pretty fundamentally different. "it's not all rainbows" - I would also not let perfect be the enemy of the…

Post by wrsh07 » Sun, Jul 12, 2026, 5:40 PM UTC

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #366

wrsh07 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand the business model. Unreal is like venture capital or a book advance (or the equivalent in music record deal) Can you self publish? Sure, of course, have fun. But if you want the support and infrastructure of a company that understands the business of books, you take a deal and it is just like this: if a bunch of authors get book advances, that is generous to the ones who are unsuccessful, and they…

I don't think it's a good analogy. You don't have to "self publish" (go without a game engine). You can choose a game engine, just a different one that doesn't require you to report your income etc.

Post by ShinyLeftPad » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 12:36 PM UTC

wrsh07 wrote: post #367

ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a good analogy. You don't have to "self publish" (go without a game engine). You can choose a game engine, just a different one that doesn't require you to report your income etc.

Ok, then do that? The game you make will be limited by that choice. If those limitations are acceptable, then great! My contention is that people can build more ambitious games that are more likely to make their creators rich if they use Unreal, and if the creators also think that they should use Unreal and if they don't they shouldn't.