• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Epic Talks About Unreal Engine 4, Wanting Steam Like Flexibility On Consoles, & Vita

For context, this is the second half of the conversation Develop had with Mike Capps in this thread about Bulletstorm/Shadow Complex/iOS/Middle Tier Games.

Unreal Engine 4/Next-Gen:

Develop said:
Develop: Do you want to engage with the console manufacturers before their new systems come out? Do you want to influence them on hardware specifications?

Epic: That’s absolutely our plan. I can’t say much more than that. Okay, let’s say, a year ago that was our plan, and I can’t tell you whether we’ve done it or not yet.

Our Samaritan concept, if you look at PC hardware in two or four years’ time, is something that the next consoles can achieve.
It was just that no one knew what a next-generation game would look like – so that was our idea, to show people what we can achieve.

I mean, The Samaritan is a real-time demo that looks like an animated movie from about five years ago – the tech is getting that sophisticated. So our goal was to show off some of the technologies we would like to see on the next-gen platforms, and also to have The Samaritan as the benchmark. We believe what we’ve demonstrated is achievable at a reasonable development cost, so it’s what gamers should be demanding for next generation.

We’ve shown that demonstration to about sixteen hardware manufacturers. Not just the console guys, but companies like Nvidia who give us feedback about how to deliver the tech more efficiently.
I mean, that’s the idea, a demonstration to start pushing everything forward.


Develop: Unreal Engine 3 has won three Develop Awards for Best Engine. That’s peer-voted. The industry decides who wins it.

Epic: And I can’t tell you how much it means to us to get that level of recognition.


Develop: Is there anything you want to do differently for Unreal Engine 4?

Epic: Well, the thing is, what we’re doing with Unreal Engine now is a lot different to what we were doing about seven years ago when we first started using the tech. There was no Unreal Development Kit even four years ago, and I think it’s been real successful in getting people used to our technology.

Should we have done that from day one with UE3? Yeah, maybe.

I’m not sure if we’re going to do it straight away with Unreal Engine 4, but if you look at what we do now with UE3 – y’know, push a button and your game is built for mobiles – we could have done that before and we didn’t spend much time on it. How much that will figure into Unreal Engine 4 is up to us.

I would like to have a vertical solution – for our tech to be useful for mobile projects and triple-A projects. In the past few years I think we’ve learned a lot about our technology and how it works for indie studios. How our tech works for iPhone games, for high-end triple-A studios and for a couple of guys who make a cool UDK game over the summer.

We’re going to apply all these lessons we’ve learned with Unreal Engine 4, and I think you’re going to see a lot of difference with UE3 within the first six months from launch.

And the other thing I’ll call out; I want Unreal Engine 4 to be ready far earlier than UE3 was; not a year after the consoles are released. I think a year from a console’s launch is perfectly fine for releasing a game, but not for releasing new tech. We need to be there day one or very early. That’s my primary focus.

For us as a game-maker, we aren’t keen on shipping games day one because there’s not much of an install-base, or at least not one as big as it’s going to be. But with engines, that’s a different story. We want to deliver our tech as early as possible even though our first big marquee game might not be on there for twelve or even twenty-four months from a console’s launch.
Microtransactions/Steam Like Flexibility On Consoles:

Develop said:
Develop: What do you want from the next generation of systems?

Epic: I think it’s very important that a gamer sees an Xbox Next or PlayStation Next and can clearly see the tech is not possible on current consoles. Otherwise they won’t be a success. And that’s a very tall order. I mean, PS3 is still very bad-ass – Heavy Rain looks great. To blow that away we need the hardware to do it.

I think another thing that’s changed is the way people are willing to spend their money. Consoles need to adapt to this. Game revenue has moved to the service model and the microtransactions model. Consoles need to start being comfortable with that. They need to be able to do something where small virtual items can be sold and bought for 20¢ without a long certification process and a price approval process.

Right now we’re not even allowed to change the prices of virtual content. We’re not even allowed to set the prices. I just don’t think this protectionist approach is going to be successful in a world where the price of virtual items changes on a day-today basis.

Double-A games will never come back unless we get rid of this notion of a game being $60 or not released. The console manufacturers need to let this happen. The best way of driving developers to PC is telling them they have no freedom in what prices they can set for virtual items. It would be great to have the level of freedom that, say, Steam gives you.
Vita:

Develop said:
Develop: Unreal Engine is supporting PS Vita, but what about Epic as a game-maker?

Epic: I guess the best thing to say is “we haven’t announced anything yet”. I think in the industry there’s a lot of scepticism about PS Vita; y’know, it’s not a smartphone, and PSP didn’t do as well in the States as it did in Asia. But it’s a really cool platform. And obviously they’re making another one so I don’t think the PSP exactly went wrong.

I hope Vita takes off and I hope Sony has massive success from it. But I think we were all a little surprised by the 3DS’s slow start – and right now I’m not sure if you can draw a conclusion from that, because there’s so much going on. I genuinely don’t know if Nintendo’s slow start with its high-priced, high-end, premium handheld is a good or bad thing for Sony.
Source: http://www.develop-online.net/features/1462/Epic-Games-next-gen-manifesto
 

op_ivy

Fallen Xbot (cannot continue gaining levels in this class)
Jun 7, 2004
25,433
0
1,520
still loving my 360 but i am sooo excited to see whats coming down the pipes. i love the buzz of a new generation
 

specialguy

Banned
Feb 17, 2011
4,527
0
540
I think it's fair to say Epic's 512MB advice singlehandedly saved 360 this gen. With only 256 360 would have been in real danger of being ostracized and frozen out against PS3. It's often said that cost MS 1 billion, but imo it probably saved them who knows how much more by ensuring the 360 a long, competitive life here in year 6.

So yeah, advise away Epic.

Kind of odd how the interview keeps referring to the interviewee as "Epic". I mean I figured it was Capps, but odd.
 

MarshMellow96

Member
Sep 1, 2009
6,218
0
0
Some interesting talk about the microtransaction model. It will be interesting to see if those words ring true at the start of next gen.
 

Blizzard

Banned
Jan 23, 2008
36,028
0
0
Perhaps I'm just brain-washed, but I feel like interview answers like this are refreshingly open. I know some people may hate Epic or UE3 for whatever reason, but I really feel like they're at least not sitting on their hands, and that they're trying to position themselves at a good spot to be successful whatever the future holds.

As long as they have good, honest developer relations (no more controversy like Too Human, whoever's fault that was), and as long as they continue to provide UDK-style free game development tools, I wish them luck.
 

Mael

Member
Oct 23, 2009
23,428
0
0
France
Epic said:
Double-A games will never come back unless we get rid of this notion of a game being $60 or not released.
The funny thing is that this gen most of the market didn't have access to 60 bucks AA game anyway. Unless you pay your handheld/Wii game way more than I did....then again in the € zone 50bucks is pretty much 60$....
 

Totobeni

An blind dancing ho
Nov 3, 2007
18,732
0
0
Develop: Unreal Engine 3 has won three Develop Awards for Best Engine. That’s peer-voted. The industry decides who wins it.

Epic: And I can’t tell you how much it means to us to get that level of recognition.
I think UE3 engine has proved it's benefits for devs and that it's a really great engine , sure we started with ugly muddy looking games, no hair and bad ports on PS3 but UE3 beat all the flaws and ended with amazing looking games Like (Mirror's Edge) almost identical performance on PS3 and 360, we got 60fps on console in Mortal Kombat and even the best hair ever(Madness Returns) for a multiplat engine I think it's the best engine of this gen and nothing even close to it.
 

hiryu

Member
Jun 8, 2004
3,401
0
0
Next Gen consoles must absolutely support the free to play model and microtransactions. If they don't go a steam or apps store route they are screwed.
 

goodfella

Member
Apr 17, 2011
2,054
0
0
specialguy said:
I think it's fair to say Epic's 512MB advice singlehandedly saved 360 this gen. With only 256 360 would have been in real danger of being ostracized and frozen out against PS3. It's often said that cost MS 1 billion, but imo it probably saved them who knows how much more by ensuring the 360 a long, competitive life here in year 6.

So yeah, advise away Epic.

Kind of odd how the interview keeps referring to the interviewee as "Epic". I mean I figured it was Capps, but odd.
My God.

You forget how much money is in the console making business.

Unreal Engine is great, and it has the potential to really drive down the costs off development so long as UE4 is successful.
 

SPEA

Member
Sep 24, 2006
3,829
0
1,040
Epic: Well, the thing is, what we’re doing with Unreal Engine now is a lot different to what we were doing about seven years ago when we first started using the tech. There was no Unreal Development Kit even four years ago, and I think it’s been real successful in getting people used to our technology.

Should we have done that from day one with UE3? Yeah, maybe.
 

Seth Balmore

Member
Mar 15, 2011
1,740
0
0
Seems like Capps is putting some pressure on Microsoft's current partnership with Epic with that "microtransactions are a must" talk. It's no wonder, the Xbox Live/Microsoft points model is frankly terrible (for the consumer).
 

Felix Lighter

Member
Oct 2, 2007
20,750
1
0
I have little faith that the current platform holders will loosen their grip on their services. There is too much on the line and the companies are too enormous to be agile enough to handle things in a Valve like way.
 

TheExodu5

Banned
Nov 27, 2007
38,097
1
0
Ottawa, Canada
I agree entirely with his views on the microtransaction model and pricing flexiblity. XBLA/PSN need this...in their current form, they simply cannot support long term sales of a given game. The Steam environment, on the other hand, is much more supportive of long term sales, as things like Weekend/Midweek/Daily deals and themed sales help the game resurface every now and again, offering free marketting in the process. On consoles, games tend to surface up and die, with only a handful of titles occupying the top seller lists for years at a time, effectively hindering the success of new titles.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,803
6
1,030
Western Australia
TheExodu5 said:
I agree entirely with his views on the microtransaction model and pricing flexiblity. XBLA/PSN need this...in their current form, they simply cannot support long term sales of a given game. The Steam environment, on the other hand, is much more supportive of long term sales, as things like Weekend/Midweek/Daily deals and themed sales help the game resurface every now and again, offering free marketting in the process. On consoles, games tend to surface up and die, with only a handful of titles occupying the top seller lists for years at a time, effectively hindering the success of new titles.
As somebody mentioned in another thread, Titan Quest is a prime example of this. Nobody cares for the franchise at full price, but every time the games go on sale* they manage to egress from nothingness into the Top Sellers list - a list that is based on revenue rather than units sold. Considering Iron Lore closed its doors years ago, Titan Quest discounts print "free money" for THQ.

* Excluding holiday sales. The competition is too great. :p
 
Apr 16, 2007
1,561
0
0
I don't blame Epic for wanting to play wait and see with Vita, but they are one of the few developers that could really help make it a success. Put a Gears title on Vita, show off what UE3 can really do on the machine, etc. -- push console sales, encourage others to join in and all that.

If everyone plays wait and see it's bound to fail.
 

Galvanise_

Banned
Jan 2, 2009
11,303
0
0
Britania rules the waves.
Epic: We are waiting for other people to take risks with the Vita before we take a risk. Even though we are billionaires and people look to us to lead and take these risks. . .

. . .na. Fuck them. Keep buying licenses to our engine please. I love being rich. I am well aware of the vicious circle that will take place if nobody takes a risk with Vita, but like I said. .fuck them.

*Vita becomes a success*

Interviewer: Vita is now a success. Will we see an Epic game on the system now?

Epic: Nope

Interviewer: Why not?

CliffyB: I hate the. . . .controller? Yeah, that worked last time. I hate the controller.

Interviewer: But the whole thing is a. . .

Capps: Please buy licenses to our engine.

CliffyB: Now would be a great time to ring Yerli and tell him to suck our dicks. Lets do that.
 

op_ivy

Fallen Xbot (cannot continue gaining levels in this class)
Jun 7, 2004
25,433
0
1,520
really sounds like their ue4 tech demo is going to be more than feasible and that makes me happy
 

Mabase

Member
Apr 24, 2009
360
0
620
hiryu said:
Next Gen consoles must absolutely support the free to play model and microtransactions. If they don't go a steam or apps store route they are screwed.
Applying the Free to Play Model on Consoles is a very interesting idea, though I don't know for sure if it would work out as intended (cannibalising effects on other games?)

But I agree that the big three need to offer more flexible distribution models on their future platforms, if they don't want the lose the big casual/semicasual/not-right-Triple AAA business to Appstores, Facebook etc.
 

BobsRevenge

I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Oct 14, 2007
12,906
0
0
The DLC transaction model on the PS3 at least has been a major hassle for my enormous Rock Band DLC appetite. They really ought to modernize and offer effective tools to get developers a useful platform to market the content they release. Microsoft and Sony have fallen way behind what has been growing with the likes of Steam (paid content) and Desura (user-made content).

Some games pull it off better than others, but I sense that there are a ton of roadblocks to creating an effective and easily navigable micro-transaction store.
 

Reallink

Member
Jan 7, 2008
5,773
90
895
Our Samaritan concept, if you look at PC hardware in two or four years’ time, is something that the next consoles can achieve.
This seems to suggest the next gen consoles either aren't coming until 2015+, or they're once again going to be big loss leaders running "ahead of its time" proprietary hardware (at least in some capacity).
 

FoneBone

Member
Jun 7, 2004
15,207
1
0
Philadelphia, PA
Galvanise_ said:
Epic: We are waiting for other people to take risks with the Vita before we take a risk. Even though we are billionaires and people look to us to lead and take these risks. . .

. . .na. Fuck them. Keep buying licenses to our engine please. I love being rich. I am well aware of the vicious circle that will take place if nobody takes a risk with Vita, but like I said. .fuck them.

*Vita becomes a success*

Interviewer: Vita is now a success. Will we see an Epic game on the system now?

Epic: Nope

Interviewer: Why not?

CliffyB: I hate the. . . .controller? Yeah, that worked last time. I hate the controller.

Interviewer: But the whole thing is a. . .

Capps: Please buy licenses to our engine.

CliffyB: Now would be a great time to ring Yerli and tell him to suck our dicks. Lets do that.
Wow, just like the Nintendo fanboys of yore. And still nonsense.
 

dragonelite

Member
Mar 9, 2010
12,132
0
0
How about mandatory dedicated servers maybe then i will jump back on consoles.
Who am i kidding i can't life on without a good injection of halo into my blood stream every 2~3 years.
 

Dennis

Banned
Jul 7, 2009
46,557
1
0
Next gen can't come soon enough.


Our Samaritan concept, if you look at PC hardware in two or four years’ time, is something that the next consoles can achieve.
O RLY
 
Aug 14, 2006
11,638
0
0
Epic: I think it’s very important that a gamer sees an Xbox Next or PlayStation Next and can clearly see the tech is not possible on current consoles. Otherwise they won’t be a success. And that’s a very tall order. I mean, PS3 is still very bad-ass – Heavy Rain looks great. To blow that away we need the hardware to do it.
Well I think it's safe to disregard any hope for official UE3/4 support on Wii U (You'll see 3rd Party devs porting it over, like how you had some porting over UE2.5 over to Wii without Epic's support, but that's it)
 
Nuclear Muffin said:
Well I think it's safe to disregard any hope for official UE3/4 support on Wii U (You'll see 3rd Party devs porting it over, like how you had some porting over UE2.5 over to Wii without Epic's support, but that's it)
I'm going to agree with you, but only half way.

I suspect that Unreal Engine 4 will officially run on the platform (given that they ported over Unreal Engine 3 already), but it will run with a limited feature set akin to how Unreal Engine 3 on iOS doesn't support all of the same features as Unreal Engine 3 on consoles.

It's in their interest for the engine to run on the platform so that any of their partners who want to make a game on it can do so, even if Epic themselves have no intention to release a game on it, kind of like how Unreal Engine 3 supports Vita even though Epic has no intention of making a game for it.

Of course, what kind of quality a limited, less supported feature set will allow is debatable, but I fully expect it to "be a bullet point on the box" so to say.
 

Kintaro

Worships the porcelain goddess
Jun 10, 2004
27,928
0
0
You know, if you like Steam so much, why not develop more games for the PC? Ah, who the fuck am I kidding? =/
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Mar 31, 2005
11,820
0
1,310
35
Arlington, VA
Nuclear Muffin said:
Well I think it's safe to disregard any hope for official UE3/4 support on Wii U (You'll see 3rd Party devs porting it over, like how you had some porting over UE2.5 over to Wii without Epic's support, but that's it)
If the WiiU is up to spec Epic will support it, there is no logical reason for them not to. I think they've just become accustomed to ignoring Nintendo because of the technical shortcomings of the Wii.
 

CamHostage

Member
Sep 30, 2004
5,360
29
1,450
specialguy said:
I think it's fair to say Epic's 512MB advice singlehandedly saved 360 this gen. With only 256 360 would have been in real danger of being ostracized and frozen out against PS3. It's often said that cost MS 1 billion, but imo it probably saved them who knows how much more by ensuring the 360 a long, competitive life here in year 6.
Wow, I'm not sure I ever saw that story that 360 was originally planned to carry just 256MB RAM. It makes sense, and I'm SO glad it happened, because that little bump has made the difference between modestly trying to fight back PS3 and earnestly beating its younger competition many times out. My biggest gripe when PS3 released (I'm a Sony guy) was that it didn't have 1GB RAM and so wasn't able to be the PS3 Death Star we all thought it'd be circa E3 2005, but looking back at it now (knowing how much Rambus RAM would have cost Sony for a gig and now how much Microsoft suffered to deliver just 256MB of its allotment,) it's quite impressive what was pulled off with Xbox 360. And Epic made the difference, that's cool to know.
 

Erethian

Member
Jan 20, 2010
3,253
0
0
Reallink said:
This seems to suggest the next gen consoles either aren't coming until 2015+, or they're once again going to be big loss leaders running "ahead of its time" proprietary hardware (at least in some capacity).
Well it's fair to say that Epic isn't concerned with the financial viability of the consoles so much as what they deliver. The same goes for third-parties in general, actually. They want a next-generation console to have the best tech and the cheapest price possible.
 

Cartman86

Banned
May 31, 2006
8,581
0
0
Seattle, WA
www.twitter.com
Develop: What do you want from the next generation of systems?

Epic: I think it’s very important that a gamer sees an Xbox Next or PlayStation Next and can clearly see the tech is not possible on current consoles. Otherwise they won’t be a success. And that’s a very tall order. I mean, PS3 is still very bad-ass – Heavy Rain looks great. To blow that away we need the hardware to do it.

I think another thing that’s changed is the way people are willing to spend their money. Consoles need to adapt to this. Game revenue has moved to the service model and the microtransactions model. Consoles need to start being comfortable with that. They need to be able to do something where small virtual items can be sold and bought for 20¢ without a long certification process and a price approval process.

Right now we’re not even allowed to change the prices of virtual content. We’re not even allowed to set the prices. I just don’t think this protectionist approach is going to be successful in a world where the price of virtual items changes on a day-today basis.

Double-A games will never come back unless we get rid of this notion of a game being $60 or not released. The console manufacturers need to let this happen. The best way of driving developers to PC is telling them they have no freedom in what prices they can set for virtual items. It would be great to have the level of freedom that, say, Steam gives you.
THISx1000

I know it's hyperbole, but the death of consoles could very easily come about of this issue is not addressed.
 

Tron 2.0

Member
Jun 19, 2007
3,329
0
0
I could have sworn Epic said not too long ago that they're not working on Unreal Engine 4 per-say, but were looking to continually evolve UE3.

I guess it could all be the same thing in practical terms, though.
 

Father_Brain

Banned
Jun 7, 2004
22,707
0
0
33
New York, NY
The Nature Roy said:
I don't blame Epic for wanting to play wait and see with Vita, but they are one of the few developers that could really help make it a success. Put a Gears title on Vita, show off what UE3 can really do on the machine, etc. -- push console sales, encourage others to join in and all that.

If everyone plays wait and see it's bound to fail.
Mark my words, no existing Western console IP is going to (or could) do that much to push Vita hardware in the West.
 

bgassassin

Member
Sep 8, 2006
8,190
0
0
Our Samaritan concept, if you look at PC hardware in two or four years’ time, is something that the next consoles can achieve. It was just that no one knew what a next-generation game would look like – so that was our idea, to show people what we can achieve.

I mean, The Samaritan is a real-time demo that looks like an animated movie from about five years ago – the tech is getting that sophisticated. So our goal was to show off some of the technologies we would like to see on the next-gen platforms, and also to have The Samaritan as the benchmark. We believe what we’ve demonstrated is achievable at a reasonable development cost, so it’s what gamers should be demanding for next generation.
I've felt for awhile that Epic has been trying to talk up MS and probably Sony from whatever specs they currently are targeting and I think this comment reiterates that. Especially when you have someone from DICE talking about looking at current PCs to guess what the next consoles will have.

And the other thing I’ll call out; I want Unreal Engine 4 to be ready far earlier than UE3 was; not a year after the consoles are released. I think a year from a console’s launch is perfectly fine for releasing a game, but not for releasing new tech. We need to be there day one or very early. That’s my primary focus.
That's interesting because Sweeney said 2014.

http://au.games.ign.com/articles/119/1196638p1.html

How much time do you spend working on Unreal Engine 4?

I spend about 60 percent of my time every day doing research work that's aimed at our next generation engine and the next generation of consoles. This is technology that won't see the light of day until probably around 2014, but focusing on that horizon enables me to do some really cool things that just aren't practical today, but soon will be. Some of our most productive work in the industry was on the first Unreal engine back in 1996, when I wrote a software vendor with a bunch of new features that hadn't been seen before. I feel like that's what I'm doing now on Unreal Engine 4 in exploring areas of the technology nobody else is really yet contemplating because they're still a few years away from practicality. But I see a huge amount of potential there and so it's very, very fun work.
Capps and Sweeney seem to have different targets.
 
bgassassin said:
That's interesting because Sweeney said 2014.

http://au.games.ign.com/articles/119/1196638p1.html



Capps and Sweeney seem to have different targets.
"Around 2014" and "At Launch" can be the same thing if you're talking about an end of 2013 launch.

"See the light of day" also means that a game can be shipped on the engine, not that a game can start work on the engine.

Frostbite 2 wasn't shippable until October for example, but DICE had been making a game on it for years.

Of course, this means you have a lot of bugs all the way until launch, but it is still a common practice, especially early in a generation.
 

-PXG-

Banned
May 20, 2008
25,509
0
0
NJ
I haaaaate how gaming (and pretty much everything these days) are moving away from being products and moving towards being services. Hate it, hate, hate it.
 

Forsaken82

Member
Oct 9, 2010
6,250
1
585
Chicago, IL
Nirolak said:
"Around 2014" and "At Launch" can be the same thing if you're talking about an end of 2013 launch.

"See the light of day" also means that a game can be shipped on the engine, not that a game can start work on the engine.
Could have nothing to do with launch window either. Could just mean that their engine won't be in playable form till a year later (likely system release in 2013, and a UE4 game release 2014) on new consoles, just like Gears 1 was not released till a year after the 360.
 

jman2050

Member
May 18, 2005
31,847
0
0
Respawn said:
Pretty sure his point was "Does the 3DS sputtering at $250 open the door for Sony or is it just a precursor to similar performance from the Vita?"
 

Raide

Member
Oct 29, 2007
24,342
1
0
If Epic want it, MS should be bending backwards to give it to them. Epic forced them with the RAM issue and it worked out pretty well for them. Rest Gears now and start working on Samaritan goodness for Next-Gen.
 
Aug 29, 2009
4,438
0
0
Cartman86 said:
THISx1000

I know it's hyperbole, but the death of consoles could very easily come about of this issue is not addressed.
No, it's one of the reasons people buy consoles is so they don't have to deal with 30 patches a week, 27 of which will brick their game, or worse their system. The price approval I understand, especially when people are buying into a service to help deal with costs, but they need to keep the certification process.

I'm already gaming less in general because I'm having to install, update, patch on day one. When I buy a game for a console I avoid most games that require me to do this. I want to unwrap, shove the disc in and press start.
 

bgassassin

Member
Sep 8, 2006
8,190
0
0
Nirolak said:
"Around 2014" and "At Launch" can be the same thing if you're talking about an end of 2013 launch.

"See the light of day" also means that a game can be shipped on the engine, not that a game can start work on the engine.

Frostbite 2 wasn't shippable until October for example, but DICE had been making a game on it for years.

Of course, this means you have a lot of bugs all the way until launch, but it is still a common practice, especially early in a generation.
Sweeney's comment didn't give me much confidence that 2014 was set in stone though. "See the light of day" is really subjective IMO because we don't know how he defines that comment. Capps on the other hand seemed to be pretty specific about the engine being available as close to launch as possible even before games since he said it was ok for them to be released later.

Forsaken82 said:
Could have nothing to do with launch window either. Could just mean that their engine won't be in playable form till a year later (likely system release in 2013, and a UE4 game release 2014) on new consoles, just like Gears 1 was not released till a year after the 360.
That would definitely seem to go against what Capps said as mentioned above.
 

kodecraft

Member
Feb 16, 2010
4,849
0
0
Austin, TX
Galvanise_ said:
Epic: We are waiting for other people to take risks with the Vita before we take a risk. Even though we are billionaires and people look to us to lead and take these risks. . .

. . .na. Fuck them. Keep buying licenses to our engine please. I love being rich. I am well aware of the vicious circle that will take place if nobody takes a risk with Vita, but like I said. .fuck them.

*Vita becomes a success*

Interviewer: Vita is now a success. Will we see an Epic game on the system now?

Epic: Nope

Interviewer: Why not?

CliffyB: I hate the. . . .controller? Yeah, that worked last time. I hate the controller.

Interviewer: But the whole thing is a. . .

Capps: Please buy licenses to our engine.

CliffyB: Now would be a great time to ring Yerli and tell him to suck our dicks. Lets do that.

I can't follow this...maybe you thought it out more effectively than how it was actually typed.
 
Aug 29, 2010
2,011
0
0
Our Samaritan concept, if you look at PC hardware in two or four years’ time, is something that the next consoles can achieve. It was just that no one knew what a next-generation game would look like – so that was our idea, to show people what we can achieve.
This is what ive been saying.You cant look at current pc games and say this what next gen will look like.
 
May 13, 2008
40,337
0
0
Markham, Toronto
I was happy with what I saw in the Samaritan video. I would like to see a day time scene. Thankfully they reworked their ass lighting system, the texture streaming, and the shitty DOF they use to have.

Because prior to the latest UE3 update with lightmass...the engine honestly pumped out ass looking games in my opinion. Lights and shadows were all kinds of fucked.