DICE 2008 sees fierce debate on engine licensing |
Ó
DICE Summit 08 is up and running in Las Vegas, hosting some of the most prominent names in game development under one big roof. One of the most interesting topics discussed in the gathering was that of game engine licensing and how much sense it makes.
The house was equally divided in the debate with acclaimed personalities speaking their minds for each side. Among those who disfavor game engine licensing was Insomniac Games' engine director Mike Acton.
Acton commented that the notion of saving time and money on engine licensing is "a complete crock of sh*t and is almost never true." He then implicated the case of such game makers as Vivendi, Midway, and Silicon Knights as prime examples of companies who had trouble when they licensed Unreal Engine 3 by Epic Games (remember the Too Human debacle?).
"Yes, it costs to make your own engine. You need a strong team and smart people," Acton adds. "You need to invest into it. Â… The bottom line for me, really, is you invest internally."
Insomniac has clearly benefitted from its in-house engine policies, producing such Grade-A titles as Resistance: Fall of Man and the Ratchet & Clank series. The company is dedicated to the practice, and sees the value in making big investments on its own game engines.
For its part, Epic Games responded through its President Mike Capps, who said that engine licensing has benefits all its own. Capps argued on the lines of licensed engines being more cost efficient, battle-tested, stable, and rich in features.
"ItÂ’s a simple straightforward argument," he responds. "If you donÂ’t have your own engine, it makes sense to license an engine for cost savings."
Those who have had success with licensed engines see the value of being able to focus more on the gameplay of their projects over the technology aspect. Just ask 2K Boston and BioWare who have had phenomenal success with Unreal Engine 3, coming up with such greats as BioShock and Mass Effect respectively.
In the end, the affirmative and the negative side of this debate agreed to disagree on the subject. Post your comments below to fill us in on what you think.
Via Next-Gen
52 Jumps PSP Homebrew - PSPDisp v0.4
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments
when the largest visual flaw of a game is largely blamed on a third party engine such as unreal3, it doesn't exactly help the argument for them.
It really comes down to an individual, case-by-case basis. It depends entirely on the type of game, the engine being licensed, the amount of capital available to the company in question, how long they have to make a game before the cost vs return issue comes into play...
It's all subjective. If the company doesn't have the skills or money to create their own engine, licensing works. If, on the other hand, they don't have the training or skill to use someone else's engine, it might be better to create their own.
Add New Comment