Comments (67)
LordMe  +   982d ago
O.o

That seems really steep for the price...
ATi_Elite  +   982d ago
$ 1.2 million
Your gonna make that back easily!

Sure a little tough for Indie studios but some of the mid and corporate level studios should have no problem paying up!

Also CryEngine 3 drastically cuts Dev time across multi-plat games so in turn more studios should use it for faster Development of games.
PSVITAlitysensor  +   982d ago
Yeah, its just 1.2 million. Not a big deal for global companies who will make billions from games running on CryEngine 3.
Grap  +   982d ago
indie studios more important than big company.. most of the big studios use engine of their own creation.
#1.1.2 (Edited 982d ago ) | Agree(17) | Disagree(6) | Report
neoandrew  +   982d ago
Grap

Indie studios will use UDK or CRYENGINE 3 SDK, they are much cheaper.
#1.1.3 (Edited 982d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(7) | Report
morganfell  +   982d ago | Well said
This is the first place where Crytek fails. Draconian uniformity.

Mark Rein is the guy you really want to talk to at Epic for licensing U3. He sets the price of the license according to the size of the game you are building, your distribution methods, expected revenue, and he even considers other software taxing your budget and cuts fees where he can.

Simply one of the best guys in the industry. You get the same license and support, regardless of your project, but the price is adapted to your studio.

The second place Crytek fails is they have the worst support...ever. You will get assistance from other developers on the dev forum before someone from Crytek finally gets around to fielding your inquiry. They have no system of tracking requests. A request on the closed dev forum, restricted to licensees, can set for two weeks until you figure it out yourself or some other developer sees it and says, "Hey, this worked for us." Atrocious customer service.

On the other hand, Epic has the greatest team for handling issues I have ever seen. When something pops up it is assigned a tracker and then placed into the hopper with a specific person tracking and handling your problem. It gets fixed.
Gaming101  +   982d ago
To know whether this is actually steep just for the license, you would have to compare it with other licensing fees ie. Frostbite 2, Unreal 3 etc.
kaveti6616  +   981d ago
"Mark Rein is the guy you really want to talk to at Epic for licensing U3. He sets the price of the license according to the size of the game you are building, your distribution methods, expected revenue, and he even considers other software taxing your budget and cuts fees where he can."

I didn't know that.

I thought it was a flat 500k rate, which I think is exceptional considering how great flexible Unreal Engine 3 is. Cryengine 3 is phenomenal as well, but no indie developer really needs it or could afford it at that price.
BattleAxe  +   981d ago
I prefer the Phire Engine.
CoD511  +   981d ago
Going back to some of the above posts, I'm fairly confident that the price is adjusted based on the studio and type of license purchased. Not sure how the Nexuiz guys would have afforded it if it was at a flat rate of $1.2m ;)

@morganfell
#1.1.8 (Edited 981d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
CoD511  +   981d ago
Going back to some of the above posts, I'm fairly confident that the price is adjusted based on the studio and type of license purchased. Not sure how the Nexuiz guys would have afforded it if it was at a flat rate of $1.2m ;)

@morganfell
dantesparda  +   981d ago
@neoandrew

Whats the difference between a UDK or SDk or the 1.2million one? I never knew it worked like that. And big ups to Morganfell for explaining the way customer service works with these companies and actually making it clear to understand. I never knew that either, thanks
Pokemon_Master  +   982d ago
Its very very expensive and should just show you how expensive next gen is going to be when only 2 devs are making games on consoles.
RustedMan  +   982d ago
that certainly is quite frightening to think about.

I have a feeling that new I.P's are going to be more and more of a risk as production values sky rocket.

Thank God for Xbox Live's indie crowd. Only costs 100 bucks to put a game on XBL using XNA. :)
#1.2.1 (Edited 982d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(3) | Report
vortis  +   982d ago
No, no, no.

Licensing fees for AAA engines are always high.

Epic uses the UDK for indie devs and there will be a UE4 version of the UDK after it releases so you can build high quality games without paying a dime.

There are also engines like Outerra and Unity which are also indie-dev friendly.

The price above is for commercial use from multi-billion dollar corporations. $1.2 for them is like penny and dime chump change.

Next-gen games SHOULD NOT have higher dev costs with all the cost-effective tools being released to cut down on both gameplay mechanics, infrastructure stability and asset management.

Pubs will no doubt use this kind of misinformation to get people to believe all game development is rising like a mofo and will charge you an arm and a leg because they can (sort of like what Capcom is doing brainwashing people into thinking disc-locked content had to be done otherwise they wouldn't make any money).
Persistantthug  +   982d ago
This is exactly why hardly anyone uses this engine.
.
wicko  +   981d ago
It won't cost that much for an indie developer. Also 1.2mil is not realy expensive for an engine for a larger studio, and is in line with most engines (unreal 3 included)
tmoss726  +   981d ago
Unreal 3 costs a little less than that.
TacoTaru  +   981d ago
$1.2 Million probably covers the cost of 7-8 good software engineers for a years time. Considering that the alternative of do-it-yourself would also cost a bunch of testing time, the engine is definitely worth it.
Blaze929  +   981d ago
well looks like another gen of Unreal Engine games >_>
Intentions  +   982d ago
Oh geeze... Wonder how much the Unreal engine cost then.
Pandamobile  +   982d ago
I think I heard somewhere around $300,000 for a commercial license.
vishant101  +   982d ago
that's why it was so prevalent this gen it was cheaper to license then other engines and still provided great graphics
Rearden  +   982d ago
Yes, it's cheaper, but you have to pay royalties to Epic if you use the UnrealEngine, you don't have to pay royalties if you use the CryEngine 3.
Pandamobile  +   982d ago
Pretty sure the royalties are for the free version of UE3. Both UE3 and CE3 have a free indie SDK that allows small companies to use the high end tools without having to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars up front.
neoandrew  +   982d ago
Just BS man, SOURCE ?

There was some time ago a news, is was about 1 mln $ to license unreal engine.
Pokemon_Master  +   982d ago
probably close
vortis  +   982d ago
Free if you use the UDK.
Kakkoii  +   981d ago
No it's not. Just because you can download UDK and work with stuff in it, doesn't make it free. You can download CE3 for free as well and develop in it without paying.

What costs money is to be allowed to PUBLISH a game that has been made with it. You have to pay a licensing fee to EPIC, to use they engine in a commercial game, same goes with CE3.
Surfaced  +   982d ago
Yikes... now I understand why it hasn't been so popular outside of Crytek.
MySwordIsHeavenly  +   982d ago
I imagine it cost Crytek multi-millions to make it.
jiushi   982d ago | Spam
BattleTorn  +   982d ago
I'm obviously not familiar with production costs, but that would appear to be a fairly steep price.

Which is too bad, cause game in CryEngine 3 always look so nice!
Pintheshadows  +   982d ago
I was about to say "woah, that's crazy", but I suppose when you consider the cost of game development these days and the profit that can be involved it isn't that bad.

In anycase developers would have to spend money if they wanted to create an in house engine to this spec anyway. Probably more than 1.2 mil as well.

As someone above stated, I bet it cost Crytek a lot more to develop it.
vortis  +   982d ago
A very sound observation there.

And you're right, it cost Guerrilla Games upward of $60 to design their engine and game from scratch (KillZone 2). Some studios do this because they have specific goals that they want the engine to accomplish.

But $1.2 million for a commercial use is a good price for an AAA title given that like BF3, ME3 or COD, these games make hundreds of millions in sales revenue.
neogeo  +   982d ago
Great idea! Just put all the so called downloadable content already on the disk and make everyone pay extra day 2 after already buying the game and shelling out $60. Then we can afford cry engine:)
CrzyFooL  +   982d ago
It all depends on the deal. Licenses can be anything from straight royalty to millions. This story is teh bullshit.
Bounkass  +   982d ago
Nobody cares. As long as it works for the gamers.
neoandrew  +   982d ago
NOTHING SPECIAL
BUT look at the possibilities.

Indie studios or small teams can use CRYENGINE 3 SDK at much lower cost.

The commercial license is for professional big studios/companies.
Persistantthug  +   982d ago
The problem is.....
is the big studios & big publishers who can easily afford this, they already have their own engines.

EA for example is forcing most of its developers who use Unreal to start using FROSTBYTE 2.0
neoandrew  +   982d ago
EA also distribute crysis 2, there is no correlation here.

But anyone can buy a license.
CanadianTurtle  +   982d ago
If Activision bought this, they would abuse it annually.
MRHARDON  +   982d ago
"If Activision bought this, they would abuse it annually."

They would abuse the engine? hmm that means they would be taking advantage of it and max it to its full power?
RevXM  +   981d ago
I think turtle meant it like its going to be touted and slapped on every Activision game cover as an sales argument.

But a good engine wont help if the dev isnt up to make the game running smooth or care to make and balance the visuals.

For instance there is a lot of UE games that looks like crap. and same can be true for a game on any other engine.

I can see 10 new Guitar heros *RUNNING OF THE CRY ENGINE 3!!!!*

Meanwhile on the interwebs
*OH YEAH UBER SICK GRAPHICS ALL ABOARD THE HYPE TRAIN! CHOO CHOO!*

Later they realize
*....Oh no wait They were to lazy to really care and put effort in it.*
Still looks like ass.
BuffMordecai  +   982d ago
Most Unreal Engine games on console look and play like ass. Only Batman and Gears have impressed me by the use of that engine. This gen, Cryengine 3 looks a whole lot better. Its a shame that the engine had to come out late in this generation of consoles and cost higher that its competitor, a lot of games could have benefited from the used of of the Cryengine. At least by the looks of it, Unreal Engine is going to bring it next gen.
#13 (Edited 982d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
tmoss726  +   981d ago
The Mass Effect series was Unreal 3.
raytraceme  +   981d ago
you are not helping yourself there. Mass effect has shitty graphics and textures. On the ps3 it can't even maintain 30 fps and on the pc the game looks like crap.

Arkham city I was most impressed by with its scale and graphics. On the pc arkham city is one of the best looking game I have played so far and it was using ue3 congrats to those developers.
STONEY4  +   981d ago
Feelings have been hurt.

http://img254.imageshack.us...
Perjoss  +   981d ago
Are you high? Mass Effect 1 (yes even on 360) still looks great, not even mentioning ME2 and 3.
Optical_Matrix  +   981d ago
Not sure why you've got disagree's because I agree. Gears 3 and Arkham City are the only really impressive UE3 games I've seen on consoles this generation. Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 on consoles impressed me far more. The lighting and physics involved, especially Frostbites ability to aid the rendering of such inctricate destruction on 6-7 year old hardware is more impressive than anything UE3 has done.

Only thing that impresses me about that engine is its ease of use across a wide variety of games/genre's because I know that in some cases, certain engines just don't go with certain genre's.

@tmss726...Mass Effect looks horrible on consoles. In fact, it's a bland looking game across the board.
Genecalypse  +   981d ago
Makes sense, how many games actually license it? Not many thats for sure
NobleRed  +   981d ago
Craptivision should aquire the Cry Engine 3. So finally the next Call Of Duty game wouldn't look like crap like always.
FinaLXiii  +   981d ago
it would play like 30 fps crap.
#15.1 (Edited 981d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
annus  +   981d ago
on consoles...
gtxgamer2  +   981d ago
So if indie developers wanted to license their game theyd have to pay 1.2 mill?
Kakkoii  +   981d ago
Unlikely. It only supposedly cost 1.2m for this specific developer. Crytek and Epic will usually do a consultation with you, and assess how much the licensing fee should be for your project. Whether it's a AAA blockbuster game, or just some small indie game that's not going to make massive profit.
tachy0n  +   981d ago
just FYI the cryengine has one of the world's most expensive water renderings out there
Awesome_Gamer  +   981d ago
Not a big deal for the big companies that want it.. they will make more profit anways
BaconBits  +   981d ago
I am surprised it is not a base fee plus profit share. Seems like that would be the best way to support it and push creativity.
#19 (Edited 981d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
TBONEJF  +   981d ago
Sound like chump change to me.
Drainage  +   981d ago
which is why every one and their dog is making safe bets FPS/TPS cover system games that are mostly garbo. Games are too expensive to be creative. Make a sequel and get rich , guaranteed money so just half ass it. Then we can say "going back to our roots for part 3"" cough gears, resistance, socom ETC..
#21 (Edited 981d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Pana  +   981d ago
How much is UE3 in Comparison?
Bakkies  +   981d ago
In the olden days, licensing the UE2 cost about $750k. These days, if it is a big budget game, then you can negotiate with epic. If would guess it would be between $500k and $1mil, but I have no evidence to back that number up.
OpiZA  +   981d ago
That doesn't seem too high, a crap load less than making your own engine I presume?
theeg  +   981d ago
I'd take a game made on cryengine 3 over unreal 3 any day of the week, so would modt people i'd guess.

that said, unreal 4 is already a reality, so we'll have to see.......
DJ  +   981d ago
The price is high but the demonstration videos are absolutely amazing. You can literally set up a level in an hour. I've used Unity, and it's an Indie studio's best bet. My programmers were able to work with it fairly easily, though Android development is a PAIN.

If I could, I'd use CryEngine. But 1.2 million is a big leap of faith. It's up to CryTek to make the engine as attractive as possible. I've looked up Frostbite 2, but the info on that engine is very obscure since EA wants to keep the engine to itself (and rightly so).
Bladesfist  +   981d ago
eww but cryengine uses lua, I prefer unitys choice of languages and so I use Unity. They are also free and just gave away free licenses for iphone and android.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember