▲ 118 points
back
59 comments
I worked with cryengine for nearly a year before giving up and moving on to UE4 where I already had source code access without being admitted to an incubator. Hopefully something good comes out of this initiative but I'm not holding my breath. When you start learning an engine or any framework the ecosystem and community are instrumental in making your life easier and getting some sort of camaraderie.
Just my 2c.
I've been working with UE4 for 2 years now and its been the 2 most exciting years of my life. The tools are great but the community is even greater. I've never felt more empowered to create.
UE4 has won this generation of game engines in my eye, I think crytek should take a step back and re-evaluate everything. Maybe they learn from UE4 and compete with UE5 in a few more years or maybe they boldly fork UE4 and add their value as a 3rd party fork/plugin.
I think the sunk costs are too large but I'd love to see Valve fork UE4 and put their engineering might next to Epic's. Would love to hear why this thought of mine is naive/misguided.
Valve is spending their resources on the Source 2 engine instead [1], which is used by their games. Also working on UE4 would be a severe lack of focus and the work on Source 2 would suffer. Only working on UE4 would mean that Valve's own games would suffer because Source 2 receives no love. Migrating all these games to UE4 doesn't seem to have a net positive effect either. It would be a gigantic amount of work and in the end they would have to start paying Epic for the licence. Also, Valve developers have intimate knowledge of the Source engine, which I doubt they have of UE4.
Every time I talked with someone working with Source (machinima/game devs), all they had to say was how backwards, ancient and dev unfriendly Source is :(
The better solution would be to acquire Epic.
Steam is a juggernaut sales and income producer for Valve, they can easily afford to buy Epic now. That would bring the engine tech, talent and community in-house, and eliminate licensing fees for Valve. There would also be a lot Valve could then do with the UE4 market in tandem with steam.
>I think the sunk costs are too large but I'd love to see Valve fork UE4 and put their engineering might next to Epic's. Would love to hear why this thought of mine is naive/misguided.
UE4 source code isn't open source (to fork), though the code is available to look at. One could reimplement it, but the engineering effort will be monstrous.
UE4 is indeed great, and I think their smartest move was creating Blueprints -- they've quietly created probably the most user-accessible programming environment I've seen.
I'm seeing a strong preference for Unity in the VR world, for what it's worth. Unity CEO claims that 90-95% of VR games/apps/experiences use Unity.
You don't need UE or Crytek to develop new in-game hats ;-)
Same here. Epic's support for the community of devs who use Unreal is excellent, and they have made sweeping changes to their business model to align it with the needs of their user base which has really helped as well.
As for the people investing in VR... https://gfycat.com/SafeWatchfulAmbushbug
Great idea! It'll really be good for universities to start developing the infrastructure for VR courses, which I would imagine could easily be prohibitively expensive without something like this. Interesting angle by Cryengine as well, it seems like the benefit for them is getting more new game devs to use their platform. I wonder what the story is behind using Bahçeşehir as their flagship school -- Turkey I can see, since there's a big push for technological literacy there right now, but I would think a school like Boğaziçi or Galatasaray would be higher up on the list.
Probably related to its founders.
Aren't they of Turkish origin?
The founders are German-born children of a Turkish family who migrated to Germany.
Ahh there we go. Still an interesting choice of university though, I would imagine some of the more high-profile schools would've been higher up on their list. Who knows what goes into those decisions though.
They're still in business?
Serious question.
I heard they went down, after the criticism about how they treat their employees.
Just wanted to know if it's still the old company or someone bought the name and tech and does his own thing now...
Current employee here. We are def in business, we had some money issues like others mentioned more than a year ago but things are looking much better now. We have a few projects announced, signed and in full development and the engine is getting a lot of love as well with some key new hires.
Is there anything you can say about Linux support ? I think you have announced several times that Linux support is active, but I have not seen any port of CryEngine games to Linux so far.
Sadly the situation at Crytek is just how things are in the games industry and the only way to avoid it is to work in another industry instead.
So no, they didn't went down for following what everyone else does.
They just had some sales problems and did fire some people, just like many studios do.
This might be a pivot idea, given thant Unreal and Unity3D are also doing it.
Or work for an indie company. I imagine that's not nearly as rife with poor treatment.
Depends what type of indie, as most follow the same patterns.
You just have to dive into Gamasutra's postmortem or similar.
I think this is a fair question to ask. There were so many rumors about them going under and it's a known fact that they couldn't pay wages last year for some months, losing some talent. After a secret investment though, they seem to be back on track. I wish they return back to their glorious days. My worry would be them not being able to recover with the additional funds and such great technology being orphaned. Cryengine is still as good as it gets from the beauty and realism perspective, IMHO.
Here is more context for those rumors: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/crytek-lays-off-staff-after....
Crytek did not pay their Austin based studio employees for several months before the studio was officially shutdown. I have worked with several people who had worked at Crytek USA for the duration of its existence and their stories left me with a very poor impression of the stability and integrity of Crytek as a business.
It would be good to see Crytek turn things around - they were at one point technology leaders in game development - but I have my doubts that VR represents the right opportunity to do that, at least in the short term.
The layoffs were unfortunate, but it seems that many of them eventually got hired by Cloud Imperium, the Star Citizen developers. They have effectively hired some of the people who made their third-party engine!
According to Wikipedia [1], there was a restructuration.
They had some money issues with free-to-play/gface failure, in addition Microsoft tried to rape them once they sensed they were weak (Rise franchise rights) but in the end they had some mysterious investment that kept them alive. Would be pity to lose them in any case.
Am I the only one getting a distinctly dystopian (/cyberpunk) vibe from the video on that page?
I don't mean the text/content – just the general vibe of the clip.
The voice might be computer generated, if it is, it's really well done.
Same here.
A strange mixture of "Man in the Highcastle" cross "Better of Ted" vibe /scnr
Is there anyone else here, who has used VR in the form of an HMD, that thinks this is all just a passing fad that will fail miserably? Can I note for a moment that this technology has been hyped since 2012 and we're only seeing the first consumer-facing products now? One of which is nothing other than Google Cardboard (GearVR) and one which is $600? The only real attempt at targeting consumers is coming from Sony, and it costs nearly as much as the console itself does. This is still decidedly a hobbyist market, and it doesn't look like that will change for another year at least.
But let's put the price of adoption aside for a moment and assume that at some point it will come down in price. Even then I can't imagine that the average household will be buying this.
For one, you wouldn't want to use an HMD in any context other than sitting alone in a room, and that's something that the nerdy hobbyist market doesn't mind, but to the average person it makes it nothing other than a novel toy. I keep hearing people on CNBC talk about how this year the Superbowl will be able to be watched via an HMD, and how this is the future of media.
Are they serious? Have they ever heard of a Superbowl party? I watch football around friends, and we enjoy good food and beers. It's a social event first, and a content event second. How does an HMD fit into that? It doesn't. And I think most media we have today (save for video games) are social events. I watched the Breaking Bad finale with friends. I watch scary movies with friends. And that's not to say that I don't sometimes watch things alone, but when content creators have to worry about accommodating both of these experiences, it's difficult to make the VR experience comparatively worthwhile. VR content is going to face the same fate as 3D movies do today.
It might be the evolution of video games. But that's a far cry from the hype that it gets.
I think that the evolution of Google Glass is what will really take off.
No I don't think it's a passing fad or will fail miserably - but I do know you're not alone.
Yeah - VR is expensive right now. Maybe the price will drop a little - but this is one of the reasons why it will be niche for quite some time.
I totally agree with you that I don't think many people will watch the superbowl in VR...but!
What I predict (take with pinch of salt) is that as the Oculus and Vive are delivered there will be the common realization of some of the limitations and problems with VR (motion sickness, people who wear glasses etc) and the popularity will go down a little - but long term this type of thing just has so much potential I can only imagine it growing in the long term.
Something I notice in your comment is that you seem to be assuming that you can't have social experiences in VR, I see social in VR as one of its greatest strengths. You could see your buddies in VR as legendary warriors fighting demons. Or maybe some of your buddies are the demons. There's a huge market for that type of thing (or there will be).
AR like Google Glass (HoloLens, Magic Leap...) is also going to take off. Eventually AR and VR may converge. Want presence and to be fully immersed? Switch to VR mode.
> people who wear glasses
Just as a sidenote, I recently purchased a GearVR headset for use with my galaxy S6 and the headset allows me to calibrate the diopter such that I don't even need to use my glasses (though it is also possible to use it with them, though I prefer without). I feel like this will be a must-have for any future HMD, as in my experience it solves the glasses problem entirely.
You are lucky you don't have astigmatism :)
Even with diopter adjustment, I still prefer to wear my glasses (oculus DK2 in my case). I should really look into corrective surgery (lasik, etc.) again...
For the comment: "You could see your buddies in VR as legendary warriors fighting demons. Or maybe some of your buddies are the demons."
How is this facilitated by VR? It seems the same experience can be had with a traditional non-VR video game?
> Can I note for a moment that this technology has been hyped since 2012 and we're only seeing the first consumer-facing products now?
Sure, but I'd like to know what the significance of that is? In 2012 it was only an idea, it was 2013 when it became a physical thing at all that people could work with. Then people had to figure out how to fix the problems that were apparent once it was a physical thing you could actually use. Then you have to get people on board to create compelling content for an unproven peripheral. All the while working on the underlying driver and SDK, which includes all the problems and slowdowns that come from immature volatile software being a moving target.
For a new physical product, in a new consumer media niche, using new technology, using new software, needing a launch lineup of software developed by third parties, all originally started by community effort to take 4 years to go from idea to shipping consumer product is damn impressive, regardless of whether or not all this effort will ultimately succeed.
I think the major problem of VR is that it makes a lot of people feel dizzy due to using pinhole camera perspective. If you think about it, we somehow learned to live with current approach to compute perspective transform based on similar triangles, but that's not how a healthy eye perceives the world. In fact, the retina and brain do a plenty of computations to make our perception smooth. Neurosurgeons would tell you they see these kinds of perspective after eye surgeries when brain is not 100% in sync with eyes.
One example is when you take a camera next to a tall chimney and make a sweep shot from bottom to the top - you can see that chimney's dimensions "dance", they just get pretty distorted in every frame by a different ratio. Your eyes don't do that. You perceive the chimney as straight regardless of which angle you look.
VR that close to eyes must compensate for it. However, even the latest Oculus VR makes people feel dizzy... I don't see a future for this gen of VR unless they fix this substantial problem.
> Can I note for a moment that this technology has been hyped since 2012 and we're only seeing the first consumer-facing products now?
That sentence makes me want to say "get off my lawn". VR technology (including HMD) has been hyped (and tried, in many forms) for decades now.
I personally believe we now have the tech to actually deliver something useful this time. We shall see.
Watching Super Bowl with friends is not yet feasible. But there are other use cases that are better suited. And don't underestimate games.
Not a passing fad. It will take off with time. Not everything is cheap or perfect at an early release.
We're trying to fool senses that have had millions of years to evolve.
My qualms with VR don't have anything to do with the technology itself. Having been blown away by the Vive, I know just how far along we are and firmly believe that a photorealistic experience can be had.
What I am saying is that most people have been assuming that the general population is interested in such an experience, and I don't think they will be.
Things the varying subsets of the general population show interest in:
- addictive phone/puzzle games
- big budget games (CoD, etc)
- movies
- travel
- porn
- immersive escapism
- customising their surroundings
My brother lives interstate. With VR, we could watch a video together as though we were in a cinema beside each other. Or play Xbox as though we were in the same room. In either case, it's not as though we need contact or photorealistic avatars - it could be a dark shape next to you.
Right now, many people watch abysmal TV nightly just to relax. I think we'll see people just hanging out in VR worlds as an alternative to the depressing reality of many real lives. I think if you had some decent approximation of the world of Avatar (as one example), there'd be millions of people who would spend hours each day existing in that neon/blacklight environment rather than switching on TV and watching any old junk.
Perhaps not the general population, but among moderate and hardcore gamers (a billion dollar industry) it will be a must-have. I'm also convinced that when talented directors start to produce blockbuster movies and television shows in stereoscopic 360 while leveraging tasteful artistic nuance to produce quality content, the general population will soon follow.
I was doubtfull about VR until I get a gearVR some weeks ago. I now spend ~1 hour a day using it to watch netflix. Some game (drift, lands end) were interesting to play but content is lacking. Bigger TV screen for cheap that follow where you look seems like to be the killer VR feature. I can see it get a wide adoption.
I don't see VR becoming popular in terms of gaming with current control schemes. Only games where the character actually sits in a chair (so basically only simulators) are somewhat viable, but I'd still prefer to see my hands and the wheel/HOTAS/whatever.
You need to watch the Fantastic Contraption Twitch streams. Social VR.
The VR labs sound great, but maybe not enough to offer a material advantage.
The next stage of the game engine wars will be fought and won over how the developers extend the designer app with VR UI, enabling creating VR (or traditional) games/experiences from within VR.
I'm sure they're all already plotting this on the roadmap, even if they're not vocal about the specifics yet.
Maybe this can help with the 2045 initiative?
"Lead the way", "define the future"
Lot of assumptions given:
"Ground floor"