- Joined
- Apr 2, 2011
- Messages
- 2,660 (0.56/day)
Sources articles: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Cryengine-3-Unreal-Engine-4-CryTek-Epic-Games-Cevat-Yerli,16012.html
http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/14/crytek-says-cryengine-3-already-does-awesome-graphics-as-good-as-unreal-engine-4/
Yeah, me think that Crytek doth protest too much.
The gist of both of these articles is that Crytek has had unique features, that UE4 is only now getting, for years. They put it as:
Perhaps I'm remembering wrong, but:
1) Cryengine 3's first actual game release was with Crysis 2.
2) Crysis 2 was released Tuesday 22 March 2011.
3) Crytek announced Cryengine 3 October 14, 2009.
I'm not a fan of Epic or Crytek, but I have to call shenanigans here. Crysis 2 debuted with tesselation, that brought performance down because even underground water was being tesselated. The claimed DX11 support was broken on day 1, and took month to fix. Finally, GPU rendering of what? Rendering is a function of the graphics card. Perhaps he meant GPU accelerated physics calculation rendering?
Beyond this, there is exactly one game that uses Cryengine 3, three years after it was "officially announced." There are a few titles slated for 2012 release, and even one for 2013. The dozen or so other games have been announced, but have no date. Why do I take so much issue with this? Check out this quote from the same article:
Crytek is trying to make their announced shift to the free to play model seem like a good decision retroactively. They already have so many licensees [sic] you see. Crytek's trying to say one thing, and retroactively justify their actions with a completely crap reasoning. They have less experience selling their engine than Epic, saw almost no action on the first two iterations, and have basically started out by saying Epic can't compete with Crytek.
Putting aside all personal feelings, it seems like Crytek is taking the same route as Epic. Both companies started out making great games on good engines, but have been unable to produce decent games in the recent past despite making successfully licensable engines. Hopefully the competition will spur growth, though I fail to see how another pissing contest between two companies will improve media coverage...
http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/14/crytek-says-cryengine-3-already-does-awesome-graphics-as-good-as-unreal-engine-4/
Yeah, me think that Crytek doth protest too much.
The gist of both of these articles is that Crytek has had unique features, that UE4 is only now getting, for years. They put it as:
"If I look at what people call next-gen technology now, it’s what we were seeing three years ago," Yerli added. "We already had massive particle systems, we already had GPU rendering, all these things. Deferred shading. We had tessellation already since we shipped Crysis 2. We already had DX11. We didn’t just talk it up as tech demos, we have games that are shipped and are doing it."
Perhaps I'm remembering wrong, but:
1) Cryengine 3's first actual game release was with Crysis 2.
2) Crysis 2 was released Tuesday 22 March 2011.
3) Crytek announced Cryengine 3 October 14, 2009.
I'm not a fan of Epic or Crytek, but I have to call shenanigans here. Crysis 2 debuted with tesselation, that brought performance down because even underground water was being tesselated. The claimed DX11 support was broken on day 1, and took month to fix. Finally, GPU rendering of what? Rendering is a function of the graphics card. Perhaps he meant GPU accelerated physics calculation rendering?
Beyond this, there is exactly one game that uses Cryengine 3, three years after it was "officially announced." There are a few titles slated for 2012 release, and even one for 2013. The dozen or so other games have been announced, but have no date. Why do I take so much issue with this? Check out this quote from the same article:
"I also think that we are dedicated to online games," he added. "When you look at our number of licensees in that space, we have more licensees than any other engine in the online space. In the console space it’s a different story. In the console space we’re definitely not leading. But I think the next time around, it’s going to be a very different picture."
Crytek is trying to make their announced shift to the free to play model seem like a good decision retroactively. They already have so many licensees [sic] you see. Crytek's trying to say one thing, and retroactively justify their actions with a completely crap reasoning. They have less experience selling their engine than Epic, saw almost no action on the first two iterations, and have basically started out by saying Epic can't compete with Crytek.
Putting aside all personal feelings, it seems like Crytek is taking the same route as Epic. Both companies started out making great games on good engines, but have been unable to produce decent games in the recent past despite making successfully licensable engines. Hopefully the competition will spur growth, though I fail to see how another pissing contest between two companies will improve media coverage...