backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 22 comment(s) - last by BladeVenom.. on Jul 25 at 3:23 AM

Developers say that Epic under-delivered, but didn't misrepresent

Canadian game developer Silicon Knights last week filed a lawsuit that alleged that Epic Games misrepresented its Unreal Engine 3 technology, which caused losses in revenue and delays in game development.

The lawsuit further alleged that Epic never intended to deliver Unreal Engine 3 as a fully functional game engine as promised. Instead, Epic collected licensing fees from Silicon Knights and others in order to fund the development of its own video game, Gears of War.

Silicon Knights isn’t the only developer using Epic’s Unreal Engine 3 technology. Many other developers have had to face the same challenges that Silicon Knights described. Shacknews spoke to some of the developers who have had experience with the Unreal Engine 3, with some corroborating Silicon Knights’ complaints, while others having nothing but positive things to say.

Josh Jeffcoat, a former Gearbox Software level designer who worked with Unreal Engine 3, said that the technology did have limitations, but did not believe that Epic intentionally mislead any of its licensees. "UE3 isn't perfect by any means, but I don't feel Epic misrepresented it in any way when we licensed it," said Jeffcoat. "It's not that UE3 is the best at any one thing it does, because it's not. It's just better at more of them than anything else, and the ten-plus years of maturity it's been through has yielded a better-than-average art and design pipeline.

"I am unable to account for the engine's current status, but as I left, I was aware of several of UE3's limitations--the lighting model is dog slow for anything dynamic, the streaming support has issues; I believe SK mentioned these--but most of these were apparent from the day we first got the code, and we designed accordingly," added Jeffcoat.

Another developer, who wished to be anonymous, said, "It is true that Epic was very late in delivering key features to UE3 during the development of Gears of War. They had promised one of the most important feature of UE3, the multi-threaded renderer, many many months before it was finally delivered. Since the key to having fast performances on the Xbox 360 is multi-threading, it made the engine somewhat subpar if you wanted to run your game with good graphics on a console."

In defence of the late delivery of certain engine features, he said, "I can understand why some features were delivered late to the UE3 licensees. Some of them were very complex while others would cause a ton of headaches to licencees if they were unstable or unfinished. This was also the reason why GoW had some UE3 features implemented and tested first before they were introduced to the official codebase. There is no better way to know if your stuff works. The Epic programmers were always upfront about the situation and never hid themselves or stopped answering questions to licensees."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I hope it's not another case of "not me"
By webdawg77 on 7/24/2007 8:49:06 AM , Rating: 2
Although not everything has come out yet, it seems that Epic might be telling the truth. If it is true, it looks like another case of someone trying to place the blame on someone else instead of looking in the mirror.

Why, in this day and time, do we never assume that maybe, possibly, could be, that it's "my" fault before someone else's fault?




RE: I hope it's not another case of "not me"
By Panurge on 7/24/2007 9:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
At the very least, this is partly Epic's fault. They did not fulfill the contract to have the engine for Xbox360 and PS3 ready by the given dates.

The rest of the dispute is a much more subjective matter. It's clear, however, that SK has at least one point to try to void the contract, which I figure is the primary goal of this litigation.


By xsilver on 7/24/2007 9:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
what wasnt clear in the old article and this one is if these "targets" are usually met.
I mean if 9 out of 10 developers fail to meet deadlines then it would be a little unfair for epic to meet this one just to satisfy a particularly picky customer.


RE: I hope it's not another case of "not me"
By LTG on 7/24/2007 9:44:31 AM , Rating: 2
If Epic missed dates that were written into a contract, they have a problem.

But practically speaking you've got to be crazy to put all your bets on the fact a piece of software is going to be on time and fully stable.

Especially something soooo complex and difficult - a cross-platform multi-threaded state of the art gaming engine - sure, what could be hard about that?

Sounds like the SK business people didn't have a lot of experience with software.


RE: I hope it's not another case of "not me"
By BladeVenom on 7/24/2007 9:55:26 AM , Rating: 3
And there were most likely provisions in the contract for late delivery. I don't think this is the first time that a software company has been late with its product.

It would be interesting to see the full contract.


RE: I hope it's not another case of "not me"
By omnicronx on 7/24/2007 10:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless of how hard the engine was too code, if they knew it was so difficult they should not have promised it so early.
Sounds like bad project management to me, nothing more. If you were to make a multi threaded cross platform engine on a new system, would you not allow more time than you thought was actually needed in the first place?


RE: I hope it's not another case of "not me"
By bhieb on 7/24/2007 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, no matter how hard something is if they missed a date in the contract they are liable. It sounds like there is a general understanding in this industry that the delay was expected, but that does not make it legal.

My guess is that in general a developer is not going to complain much, after all Epic is a big name engine. You would not want to piss them off so much that they refuse to license to you again. I think SK is so far over budget they realize it is sink or swim time, either they recoup something or go under. So they sue Epic, afterall if the other option is going under, you won't need them in the future anyway. If that is the case then kudos to them for having the balls to stand up to Epic, someone should hold them accountable for the delays.


By Regs on 7/24/2007 10:23:10 PM , Rating: 3
Pissing off customers or business partners is never good for business. It should be the other way around. Who would ever sign with Epic? Epic can stump their feet all they want but if they decide to cut off one of their main resources of revenue, then their stock holders will rise as one and linch them.


By Keeir on 7/24/2007 12:16:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And there were most likely provisions in the contract for late delivery. I don't think this is the first time that a software company has been late with its product.


Epic should hope they have a proper Exclusion clause to limit thier liability.

Thats something people should keep in mind in this case...

When one party (1) of the contract commits a basic breach of the commiment (such as not delivering a product on time rather than delivering a product with a few defects), that party (1) can be held liable for the costs incurred by the other party (2) due to actions taken by the other party (2)that were reasonable if the contract had been performed correctly.

IE, unless Epic has specifically stated otherwise, they can be held accountable for things such as SK's poor 2006 E3 showing and penalities incurred from delay of game launch (that can be tied directly to the U3 delay) since there were reasonable things for SK to count on with a properly delivered U3 engine.


By augiem on 7/24/2007 12:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But practically speaking you've got to be crazy to put all your bets on the fact a piece of software is going to be on time and fully stable.


Uhh... Being a game developer myself, I have to totally disagree.

When developing cutting-edge software, this is almost ALWAYS the case. With development cycles of 3+ years these days and people expecting phenominal technology and art, you HAVE to start your project years before the engines are "fully stable". Even when developing your own engine, you're betting your company's future on the capabilities of your programmers. Will they be able to deliver on time and up to quality and stability standards? We'll see...

There is no other way unless you want to be left in the dust by all your competitors who are willing to take a bigger risk.


Innocent until proven guilty.
By therealnickdanger on 7/24/2007 8:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
There's typically a lot of love in the development community, so I can't imagine that SK is going out of their way to be arseholes or that they would file frivolously. I'm sure they wouldn't sue unless they had something in writing that Epic failed to deliver on. Epic has been around for a long time and they've been making engines just as long, I can't see them intentionally leading anyone astray to make a profit - they already make bajillions. I'm interested to see how this pans out, but I hope it ends in smiles and awesome games.




RE: Innocent until proven guilty.
By OrSin on 7/24/2007 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 1
Actually they don't have the cash flow of old. Epic really need the money from the engine to stay keep development going. Epic delivered a sup par product, but really SK knew it was from the start. At the say time if they want a modern engine it was the best one out. Really in my experience if you license an engine if should be good enough to greatly lower production time or its just not worth it. I think that SK beef. The engine wasn't developed as well as it should and casue them huge delays.

Its like buying a car kit and find out it would have been easier to build it from scrat.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty.
By blaster5k on 7/24/2007 9:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
They don't have the cash flow of old? All of their games have sold plenty of units and they've got some pretty big cash reserves. Last I heard (which was a few years back), Tim Sweeney had three cars -- a Lamborghini, a Ferrari, and a Porsche. For the longest time, engine money was just icing on the cake. It paid for bonuses. Now, they may very well need the engine money, but only since they expanded and have a dedicated engine team and spend lots of time polishing their tools to make them easy to use. They've still got plenty of cash flow even from GoW and Unreal titles.

UE3 is a pretty sophisticated engine and I wouldn't be surprised if they had some difficulty completing everything on time. It's ahead of everything else out there -- especially in terms of the content pipeline. I highly doubt that they had any intention of screwing their licensees though.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty.
By fic2 on 7/24/2007 11:47:47 AM , Rating: 2
Tim Sweeney's cars/houses/boats has nothing to do with Epic's financial picture. Does your company count your cars and other things among it's assets?

Cash reserves and cash flow are two different things. Cash reserves are savings. They probably don't want to use savings for day to day expenses - most companies don't. Cash reserves are for emergencies and acquisitions. Cash flow is like your paycheck. If your paycheck isn't enough to meet your monthly budget you either use part of your savings or cut your budget. It sounds like Epic cut their budget by not having enough people on the engine.


RE: Innocent until proven guilty.
By blaster5k on 7/24/2007 2:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously that has nothing directly to do with Epic's financial picture, but it gives an idea how much profit they've been generating over the years. When the principle owner of a company has lots of cash, I think it tells you something about that company's success.

I highly doubt that they cut their budget, because they've been expanding. They built a fancy new office to give them some extra room and facilities, which they moved into last year -- not that their previous office was that shabby. They were hiring like crazy now that they've got two franchises going in addition to the added demands on the engine team from increased license sales. I don't think cash is a problem here.

They have some bright people on the engine team, but they still can only work so quickly. I wouldn't hold it against them if they had the engine team focusing on engine bugs and problems that were faced with GoW as it was nearing release, but those issues would undoubtedly dog licensees too.


By encryptkeeper on 7/24/2007 1:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure they wouldn't sue unless they had something in writing that Epic failed to deliver on.

Epic apparently missed specific dates that were on the contract. I wonder how often this happens with other games and other developers?

SK has to prove that Epic consciously put their contractual obligations with SK on the back burner to work on G.o.W. The only way I see that is if SK has proof of schedules for worktimes on the code that was to be delivered, and that they were shortened or scrapped altogether and those developers were told to work on code for Gears. Doesn't sound like it'll be a fun case to prosecute, and I wonder how jury selection will go if it goes to trial.


No UE3 games in the market!!!
By knitecrow on 7/24/2007 3:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
What is really damming is that with the exception Gears of War there are no true UE3 games in the market.

The major UE3 titles have been delayed or out right canceld. And some of the titles that people think are UE3, are actually UE2.5 with UE3 toolset (eg. Vegas, Bioshock)

BIA: Hell's Highway - delayed
Bioshock - delayed
Elveon - delayed/cancelled
Fatal inertia - delayed
Huxley- delayed
Lost Odyssey - delayed ?
Mass effect - delayed
MOH - delayed
Stranglehold - delayed
Rainbow vegas - ps3 version delayed
Too human - delayed
Turok - delayed
Frame City Killer - cancelled
Endless Saga - cancelled




By TheCurve314 on 7/24/2007 10:38:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure Vegas was released on PS3 in NA on June 26.


By BladeVenom on 7/25/2007 3:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
Roboblitz uses the Unreal 3 engine and it came out in November 2006 for the PC, and December 2006 for the 360.


The main thing is....
By FITCamaro on 7/24/2007 12:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
Other developers aren't complaining. Yes, others have stated that the UE3 engine is a bit behind. But you don't see them suing. They've stated that Epic has never mislead them and has remained in touch with developers all along the way.

Until you have multiple companies coming forward saying the Epic is not meeting its obligations, to me the situation is just that you have one company who isn't up to the task and is blaming their own shortcomings on someone else.

That being said, I hope SK is able to just go back to making games and finish Too Human. It looks like it'll be a good game. But them getting involved in a lawsuit is just going to slow down progress on the game even more.




RE: The main thing is....
By encryptkeeper on 7/24/2007 2:26:23 PM , Rating: 1
Check my post above. I wonder if this is just the first time a developer has gotten up in arms due to certain aspects of an engine they're licensing hasn't been delivered on time. Someone MUST have gotten behind on these deadlines before. Shit happens, and I'm not defending Epic or SK, but if I were a lawyer for the defense, I'd definitely find cases where code promised at one date was delivered at a later date to the agreement of both the licenser and licensee.


Good Bye, Too Human
By bkm32 on 7/24/2007 2:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
I posted on the older article. IMHO, this suit is frivalous and just another excuse for missing the mark with Dyack's personal obsession.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8117&...

If his game is going to be so great, then he should just ask MS for some cash. I'm sure they'll benefit from a successful Too Human. It could be a Faustian deal, but at least we get a great game that is way past due. This assumes Dyack has a soul to begin with.




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki