What do you all think? That is fairly detailed information to be made up IMO, kind of sad--it costs millions to license that tech and it seems Silicon Knights got screwed---true it may be bunk but I kind of doubt it---I know Silicon Knoghts did a phenominal job on Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem so I doubt the failings of Too Human's showing was totally on them.

------------------

(Anything connected with MS... well. Wouldn't trust them as far as I could launch them out of a cannon.)

------------------
Visit my portfolio (and check out my projects):
www.JestermaxStudios.com

------------------

Here's some choice quotes...

quote:

---

Epic has attempted to avoid its obligations under the Agreement by representing to Silicon Knights that the support, modifications, or enhancements to the Engine - all of which are essential to the Engine's proper function - were "game specific" and not "engine level" adaptations, and that Epic therefore need not provide them to any of its licensees, including Silicon Knights.

---

As much as I'm not a fan of Epic I can relate to the difference between "game specific" and "engine level"

quote:

---

That representation is false, as evidenced in part by the fact that Epic later provided nearly all the Gears of War code to all of its licensees, at no extra charge, in a belated effort at damage control.

---

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

quote:

---

Silicon Knights had no choice but to abandon the Engine and begin creating its own game engine ("the Silicon Knights Engine").

---

Ok so they started working on their own engine? It follows with:

quote:

---

"In fact, at this juncture the Silicon Knights Engine should, at a minimum, be described under the Agreement as an "Enhancement" of Epic's Engine, which, as defined by the Agreement, is technology developed by Silicon Knights that improves upon the Engine and is therefore the property of Silicon Knights. Moreover, as development of the Silicon Knights Engine continues, the amount of code from Epic's Engine employed by Silicon Knights continues to decrease. After the release of Silicon Knights' Too Human, all Epic code will be removed from the Silicon Knights Engine."

---

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?

quote:

---

That advantage was nowhere more evident than at E3 2006, where Gears of War was awarded "Best Game in Show" and garnered nothing but laudatory press. By contrast, Silicon Knights - one of the only other [Unreal Engine 3] developers to publicly display a playable demonstration of its game - saw Too Human roundly criticized in the videogame press for its technical problems and generally unpolished appearance.

---

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:

quote:

---

he damage to Silicon Knights caused by Epic's misconduct was manifest, because E3 attendees were able to compare Too Human with another game running ostensibly the same game engine, Gears of War, with vastly superior results.

---

Sounds far too much like whining to me, just having good tech won't ensure your game is good.

quote:

---

To the extent that Epic contends any such third party developers purportedly were able to utilize the Engine during the early development cycle (when Epic had warranted Silicon Knights would have a functional engine but failed to deliver one), upon information and belief those third party developers broke away from the unworkable code that Epic had delivered and created their own distinct engines, just as Silicon Knights was forced to do.

---

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

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.

------------------
Matthew Langley
Lead Documentation Engineer
GarageGames

Side note: does anyone know more specifics on what Too Human was criticized on? Was it stuff that could plausibly be Unreal-3 related or more general game design?

------------------

Doesn't "support, modifications, or enhancements to the Engine" classify as engine level any way you cut it? if something is "game-specific" then it would be filed with game content or gameplay code. I could be wrong with that though, since i'm not a professional with that stuff.

Also, i didn't see that quote as an indication that the SK game engine was just a layer. It looks like they're writing the game engine piece by piece from the top. If you replace the parts of a game engine until it's completely different then it's in no way the old engine. So in my opinion, if they're rewriting the engine then i don't see how it can be considered the Unreal3 engine still (all game engines do similar things but there is still more than one engine).

I dunno though, i think its a bit of conflict of interest; selling an engine license to your competition. Its sort of asking for something bad to happen. Oh well

EDIT: I agree that SK's demands are a little pointless though.
I don't see the issue with SK calling their new "engine" the SK game engine. it's not 100% the unreal engine, its a hybrid but does the name have to reflect that? I think MS would be in some serious trouble in that case. "Windows 95.1"

[This message has been edited by jestermax (edited July 20, 2007).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gump:
Some of the more outrageous demands are likely just negotiating points. After all, when negotiating you usually ask for higher/lower than the price point you really want. I got a car dealership to go from asking $10,000 down to $6500 by saying I'd only pay $5500 at max.

---

LOL was thinking the same thing and was heading over here to make that point--beat me to it hehe. Still, overall, I for the most part would side with SK on this--Epic has shown before that the kind of conduct described is par for their course--true it doesn't automatically mean it is true but it certainly leans that way since we know they wouldn't mind doing it.

------------------