Epic sued over Unreal3 engine support
by Tom Spilman · in General Discussion · 07/20/2007 (9:18 am) · 13 replies
About the author
Tom is a programmer and co-owner of Sickhead Games, LLC.
#2
Probably the standard "ask for something completely unreasonable so that the demands you really want seem like a compromise" tactic.
07/20/2007 (10:22 am)
Quote:
Quote:
Epic be required to disgorge all profits obtained on its Gears of War game as a result of the misconduct set forth above.
Really? that seems like a joke to me.
Probably the standard "ask for something completely unreasonable so that the demands you really want seem like a compromise" tactic.
#3
Very true... always aim high. It also may be an attempt to sneak some ridiculous requests through with some decent ones. I noticed quite a bit of that in this. Some very good complaints and requests about support and not meeting their agreement (of course what SK deems as "functional" and what Epic deems as "functional" is probably completely different) coupled with some ridiculous requests, like that one, as well as the claiming of their "Silicon Knights Engine" that really is just a layer on top of the Unreal engine and the dual request of it being recognized as a distinct engine, or as a an "enhancement"... again the first one being ridiculous (if it is a layer on the Unreal engine then they shouldn't get ownership to the Unreal code out of it) and the later being a decent request.
In the end it just lowers my opinion of SK. Some allegations are balanced and level headed, then others seem to be out of spite and because Epic made a better game in their own engine *shrug*.
07/20/2007 (10:46 am)
@Alex:Very true... always aim high. It also may be an attempt to sneak some ridiculous requests through with some decent ones. I noticed quite a bit of that in this. Some very good complaints and requests about support and not meeting their agreement (of course what SK deems as "functional" and what Epic deems as "functional" is probably completely different) coupled with some ridiculous requests, like that one, as well as the claiming of their "Silicon Knights Engine" that really is just a layer on top of the Unreal engine and the dual request of it being recognized as a distinct engine, or as a an "enhancement"... again the first one being ridiculous (if it is a layer on the Unreal engine then they shouldn't get ownership to the Unreal code out of it) and the later being a decent request.
In the end it just lowers my opinion of SK. Some allegations are balanced and level headed, then others seem to be out of spite and because Epic made a better game in their own engine *shrug*.
#4
07/20/2007 (10:47 am)
Btw I'm very much not a fan of Epic lol... I really wish I could support SK in sticking it to them, but I can't help but feel SK is just mad that Epic won't make their game for them and that Gears of War looked better than their game (which doesn't just come down to the engine, but good art as well).
#5
This is Maurice from Collins College.
Just wanted to what hi.
(joke) I think I should sue GG for not making my game after all I did buy TGE and TGEA. (joke)
07/20/2007 (10:53 am)
Hey Matt LangleyThis is Maurice from Collins College.
Just wanted to what hi.
(joke) I think I should sue GG for not making my game after all I did buy TGE and TGEA. (joke)
#6
With regards to my thoughts on this lawsuit...
1. I think Silicon Knights has some merit with the delays that they faced waiting for the engine to be delivered. My guess is that if they keep saying that Epic was 6 months late with the engine, that there was a specific timeline given in the contract/license that Epic failed to meet.
2. Is it just me or has Epic basicly gone and publicly admitted that what you actually get in their engine isn't worth the licensing fee that they are charging. Apparently all the cool features of EU3 are considered "game specific" so what you are left with if by thier own admission is a lackluster overpriced engine :) As a result a studio is probably better off licensing TGEA X360 than UE3 IMHO since you aren't actually getting that much with UE3 to make it worth all the extra money.
3. Silicon Knights will probably get their license fees back (for breech of contract by Epic) and will probably get whatever costs they incurred while waiting for this engine and having to develop their own paid out. This might only come down to a million or two, but honestly they should get it if the contract was broken. Why? Well they likely missed several milestones, and thus payments, waiting on UE3. This combined with having to spend resources to write your own engine ends up being a chunk of change to say the least.
4. I think this lawsuit shows a bit of a sticky situation that middleware developers are trapped in. They want to make good tools, but in order to do that the tools also need testing in a production environment, thus meaning a game should be made with them. So now you get into the issue what features become "engine" and what becomes "game". The end result is an unfortunately fuzzy grey area where legal issues love to prey. As such I think what you will see in the future from middleware developers is a formal seperation of the Engine and Game within the company. One distinct company will make the engine, and their subsidiary will make a game using it via the same license that everyone else signs. This way you stay clear of legal rumblings like this.
5. There have been some examples in the past of licenses that required the licensee to wait X many months until they can release their product. For example the latest Vampire the Masquerade game had to wait 2 months after the release of Half Life 2 before they could sell the game. Unfortunately for Troika (the developers of the Vampire game) they finished well before Half Life 2 and had to wait to sell their title. This might be the case in Silicon vs Epic, but since RoboBlitz was released well before Gears, and both are UE3 technology I would doubt this was the case here. As such Silicon probably has some valid points that it can win on.
6. When Bioware licensed Unreal technology to do Mass Effect they did a cross-licensing agreement with Epic with regards that Epic could license the RPG code that Bioware developed for their engine back. I wonder if Silicon did a similar agreement and if such, would Silicon then be in a breech of contract as well? Remember the most common thing to do when someone sues you is to counter-sue.
07/20/2007 (11:16 am)
Thing to keep in mind when you sue is that you always ask for way more then you actually expect to get out of it. Why? Well then judge decides on the punishment if you are found guilty, or if you settle out of court you get the amount that you were actually seeking.With regards to my thoughts on this lawsuit...
1. I think Silicon Knights has some merit with the delays that they faced waiting for the engine to be delivered. My guess is that if they keep saying that Epic was 6 months late with the engine, that there was a specific timeline given in the contract/license that Epic failed to meet.
2. Is it just me or has Epic basicly gone and publicly admitted that what you actually get in their engine isn't worth the licensing fee that they are charging. Apparently all the cool features of EU3 are considered "game specific" so what you are left with if by thier own admission is a lackluster overpriced engine :) As a result a studio is probably better off licensing TGEA X360 than UE3 IMHO since you aren't actually getting that much with UE3 to make it worth all the extra money.
3. Silicon Knights will probably get their license fees back (for breech of contract by Epic) and will probably get whatever costs they incurred while waiting for this engine and having to develop their own paid out. This might only come down to a million or two, but honestly they should get it if the contract was broken. Why? Well they likely missed several milestones, and thus payments, waiting on UE3. This combined with having to spend resources to write your own engine ends up being a chunk of change to say the least.
4. I think this lawsuit shows a bit of a sticky situation that middleware developers are trapped in. They want to make good tools, but in order to do that the tools also need testing in a production environment, thus meaning a game should be made with them. So now you get into the issue what features become "engine" and what becomes "game". The end result is an unfortunately fuzzy grey area where legal issues love to prey. As such I think what you will see in the future from middleware developers is a formal seperation of the Engine and Game within the company. One distinct company will make the engine, and their subsidiary will make a game using it via the same license that everyone else signs. This way you stay clear of legal rumblings like this.
5. There have been some examples in the past of licenses that required the licensee to wait X many months until they can release their product. For example the latest Vampire the Masquerade game had to wait 2 months after the release of Half Life 2 before they could sell the game. Unfortunately for Troika (the developers of the Vampire game) they finished well before Half Life 2 and had to wait to sell their title. This might be the case in Silicon vs Epic, but since RoboBlitz was released well before Gears, and both are UE3 technology I would doubt this was the case here. As such Silicon probably has some valid points that it can win on.
6. When Bioware licensed Unreal technology to do Mass Effect they did a cross-licensing agreement with Epic with regards that Epic could license the RPG code that Bioware developed for their engine back. I wonder if Silicon did a similar agreement and if such, would Silicon then be in a breech of contract as well? Remember the most common thing to do when someone sues you is to counter-sue.
#7
I agree with L Foster, license TGEA and spend your money on modifying the engine for your needs and save yourself a half million while you are at it.
07/20/2007 (12:52 pm)
This is AWESOME!!!I agree with L Foster, license TGEA and spend your money on modifying the engine for your needs and save yourself a half million while you are at it.
#8
The only TGEA don't have is an AI system, but I'm working on one for my game so I don't have do all the programming all over from the start again.
Also It can't read my mind (Shux).
One thing I like about GG engines is everything they do to help the schools, people, and developers on there website. The actual people who help create the engine actually answer the forums.
07/20/2007 (11:09 pm)
I agree; I would've bought TGEA too. Hmmm I did and look at all the money I saved Half a million. GG just keeps the technology going and going with there game engine. The only TGEA don't have is an AI system, but I'm working on one for my game so I don't have do all the programming all over from the start again.
Also It can't read my mind (Shux).
One thing I like about GG engines is everything they do to help the schools, people, and developers on there website. The actual people who help create the engine actually answer the forums.
#9
Hard to say without seeing the actual contract, but it sounds like SK might have some real points.
Interesting case for sure.
07/22/2007 (6:05 pm)
I've heard some devs say off the record that there is growing dissent about Epics management of Unreal3 contracts. It sounds like some publishers that signed on to use it for their first next-gen games won't use it for there next ones. So it might be that Too Human's bad E3 last year pushed them over the edge and they decided to do something about it.Hard to say without seeing the actual contract, but it sounds like SK might have some real points.
Interesting case for sure.
#10
07/24/2007 (8:19 am)
Who cares... They wasted $1.5mil on the engine, and they got what they paid for. They cant complain. I am loosing my respect for Epic anyways so this doesn't mean much to me ^.^
#11
They can easily claim anything whatsoever is 'game specific', but if they then put the items in question into the engine it shows they are indeed doing exactly what they are being accused of - which is giving preferential treatment to inhouse games in order to stifle competition.
11/02/2007 (3:47 pm)
Well, there is obviously a basic conflict of interest here.They can easily claim anything whatsoever is 'game specific', but if they then put the items in question into the engine it shows they are indeed doing exactly what they are being accused of - which is giving preferential treatment to inhouse games in order to stifle competition.
#12
They failed to deliver a polished presentation at E3, while Epic did.. and so now they're blaming it on Epic. Lame.
I've seen some responses - here and elsewhere - colored by a general like or dislike of Epic or of SK. Also, alot based on hearsay. None of which should factor into it, I don't think. Unless one was involved in the negotiations, read over the contract, understands the legalese and knows exactly what was agreed on, you really can't say who's right or wrong.
On that note, I don't think it's necessary to qualify a like or dislike for either party to provide an opinion. Just looking at the data is enough. As Matthew said... a good game engine does not guarantee a good game.
Also, you could look at it from this perspective.
Epic created the tech, have worked directly with it since its first iteration and, certainly, have had direct input on its evolution. SK have licensed the tech and, presumably, have far, far less hands-on experience, and don't know it nearly as intimately as Tim Sweeney and co. at Epic do. Should there be any surprise that Epic might be able to coax a superior looking and/or performing game out of it? It's analogous to the developer of a console being able to coax better looking/performing games out of it than 3rd party devs. They know the tech intimately and how to maximize on it.
Look at BioShock... uses the Unreal 3 Engine and looks and plays (in my experience) beautifully. Difference? Perhaps a more polished product created by more competent developers.
And, yeah, SK's whole thing about modifying the code and calling it their own engine, *as well as* demanding kick-back from GoW sales is absurd. I'd be extremely surprised if that happens.
I have a feeling this is going to backfire on them big-time.
11/12/2007 (8:37 am)
Heh. I read about this sometime ago and, yeah, sounds like definite sour grapes/whining on SK's part to me, too.They failed to deliver a polished presentation at E3, while Epic did.. and so now they're blaming it on Epic. Lame.
I've seen some responses - here and elsewhere - colored by a general like or dislike of Epic or of SK. Also, alot based on hearsay. None of which should factor into it, I don't think. Unless one was involved in the negotiations, read over the contract, understands the legalese and knows exactly what was agreed on, you really can't say who's right or wrong.
On that note, I don't think it's necessary to qualify a like or dislike for either party to provide an opinion. Just looking at the data is enough. As Matthew said... a good game engine does not guarantee a good game.
Also, you could look at it from this perspective.
Epic created the tech, have worked directly with it since its first iteration and, certainly, have had direct input on its evolution. SK have licensed the tech and, presumably, have far, far less hands-on experience, and don't know it nearly as intimately as Tim Sweeney and co. at Epic do. Should there be any surprise that Epic might be able to coax a superior looking and/or performing game out of it? It's analogous to the developer of a console being able to coax better looking/performing games out of it than 3rd party devs. They know the tech intimately and how to maximize on it.
Look at BioShock... uses the Unreal 3 Engine and looks and plays (in my experience) beautifully. Difference? Perhaps a more polished product created by more competent developers.
And, yeah, SK's whole thing about modifying the code and calling it their own engine, *as well as* demanding kick-back from GoW sales is absurd. I'd be extremely surprised if that happens.
I have a feeling this is going to backfire on them big-time.
#13
So Epic had to make a couple adjustments to the engine (game level adjustments supposedly), does that mean they haft to share those changes with SK, Bioware and all their other licensee's? What if SK makes adjustments to the engine to fit their game, I'm sure they won't want to share their new code with other companies, why should Epic? Engine updates should be passed onto licensee's only if it's a major component of the engine, say DX11 support or something. Adding 'flash' support or better collision detection would not constitute an engine level change in my opinion. Epic made a game, they modified the source. SK is making a game, let them modify the source.
The problem is SK doesn't know how to modify the source to get a quality game such as Gears of Wars. They sound like a bunch of baby developers that don't know what they are looking at. Yes, I understand that the engine was delivered late, and I would have to think that their claim they received a different version of the engine than Epic used for Gears of Wars might be true. If Epic shipped a copy of the engine to SK, it should have been the same copy they where currently using. Changes made to the engine once they shipped it to SK, should be able to stay in house and not need be re-distributed.
As for "layering" their engine, that's a crazy thought. If they can do that, then I can "layer" an engine over Torque and call it my own. That's not going to happen, GG would probably file suite over a breach of contract. Same thing should apply here. yes each engine contract is different, but i'm sure Epic's not stupid when it comes to contracting their engine. How many Licenses have they sold so far? They are not new to this.
Bottom line, I agree that Epic should pay out the cost in development time lost, but to forfeit their Gears of wars profits is insane and will not happen. Should they provide the source to Gears of War? No, but they did. Maybe it was to do damage control, but at least they released it.
I'm not a fan of Epic games either, I loved Unreal, and they took and destroyed the series, but I think that they are in the right on this one.
My .02
11/12/2007 (6:28 pm)
Licensing the engine should be exactly that, you license the engine and it's source. Not the scripts that control the AI, not the scripts that control how the game acts and plays. Those are Game Specific details. When I purchase TGE, what am I really purchasing? I am purchasing the SDK, not the included TorqueScripts. GG includes those for examples, but they don't really need to, as that is not what I am purchasing. Ditto with Epic, you are licensing the engine SDK, not the scripts that control how the game plays and manages the environment.So Epic had to make a couple adjustments to the engine (game level adjustments supposedly), does that mean they haft to share those changes with SK, Bioware and all their other licensee's? What if SK makes adjustments to the engine to fit their game, I'm sure they won't want to share their new code with other companies, why should Epic? Engine updates should be passed onto licensee's only if it's a major component of the engine, say DX11 support or something. Adding 'flash' support or better collision detection would not constitute an engine level change in my opinion. Epic made a game, they modified the source. SK is making a game, let them modify the source.
The problem is SK doesn't know how to modify the source to get a quality game such as Gears of Wars. They sound like a bunch of baby developers that don't know what they are looking at. Yes, I understand that the engine was delivered late, and I would have to think that their claim they received a different version of the engine than Epic used for Gears of Wars might be true. If Epic shipped a copy of the engine to SK, it should have been the same copy they where currently using. Changes made to the engine once they shipped it to SK, should be able to stay in house and not need be re-distributed.
As for "layering" their engine, that's a crazy thought. If they can do that, then I can "layer" an engine over Torque and call it my own. That's not going to happen, GG would probably file suite over a breach of contract. Same thing should apply here. yes each engine contract is different, but i'm sure Epic's not stupid when it comes to contracting their engine. How many Licenses have they sold so far? They are not new to this.
Bottom line, I agree that Epic should pay out the cost in development time lost, but to forfeit their Gears of wars profits is insane and will not happen. Should they provide the source to Gears of War? No, but they did. Maybe it was to do damage control, but at least they released it.
I'm not a fan of Epic games either, I loved Unreal, and they took and destroyed the series, but I think that they are in the right on this one.
My .02
Torque 3D Owner Matthew Langley
Torque
Here's some choice quotes...
As much as I'm not a fan of Epic I can relate to the difference between "game specific" and "engine level"
Sounds like a fair move by Epic, wait until after they released (or soon to be release) Gears of War before giving everyone code to it. Fair enough.
This is where it gets real sketchy... they state
Ok so they started working on their own engine? It follows with:
So the "Silicon Knights Engine" really is a layer on top of Unreal's engine, hardly a game engine to itself. Also the claim that all of "Epic code will be removed from the Silicon Knights Engine" after release sounds very fishy to me. So basically they are going to re-write the Unreal code with slight modifications to claim it as there own?
Sounds 'almost' like a legitimate complain though sounds too much like whining. Gears of War was a great game and well received and no one liked Too Human (their game) so they are complaining. Plus they aren't the only Unreal 3 developers at E3 and I don't recall the same complaints from them (correct me if I'm wrong).
I think they summarize it well here:
Sounds far too much like whining to me, just having good tech won't ensure your game is good.
I still find the concept of making engine modifications and adding game layers on to a game engine being called "their own distinct engines" as hilarious.
The list of demands also seem to switch from valid requests to outrageous ones... I like this part
Really? that seems like a joke to me.