Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Next Unreal Tournament: Totally Free, Developed By Public

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the cool-model dept.

Open Source 122

Nerval's Lobster (2598977) writes "Epic Games is rebooting Unreal Tournament, but not in a typical way. A small team of veteran developers will begin work on the next edition of the popular, multi-player shooter, in collaboration with pretty much anyone who wants to participate. "From the very first line of code, the very first art created and design decision made, development will happen in the open, as a collaboration between Epic, UT fans and UE4 developers. We'll be using forums for discussion, and Twitch streams for regular updates," reads a note on the company's blog. All code and content will appear on GitHub, and development will focus on Mac, Linux, and Windows. What's the catch? According to Epic, it'll take months to forge a playable game. "When the game is playable, it will be free. Not free to play, just free," the blog adds. "We'll eventually create a marketplace where developers, modders, artists and gamers can give away, buy and sell mods and content. Earnings from the marketplace will be split between the mod/content developer, and Epic. That's how we plan to pay for the game.""

cancel ×

122 comments

so (3, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 3 months ago | (#46953363)

If it's free, as in free to download, compile and use, why would anyone want to use a market place to buy and sell skins/artwork?

Re:so (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | about 3 months ago | (#46953417)

Ease of use? Installing mods in previous games (UT99, UT2004 and UT3), while not particularly difficult for the tech-savvy, isn't exactly user-friendly, and when you mess up there's little information on how to fix it.

As for "why would you sell it on Epic's marketplace instead of on your own?", that's almost definitely going to be what most gamers will be using, so that's where all the customers are. I certainly wouldn't mind selling maps for a dollar a pop.

Re:so (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954393)

The Umod package format was designed for ease, but since most people play pirated copies that never installed it properly (umod extension setup happens at install time) there was often complaints about that (and less about not being able to use umods on Linux or Mac platforms which is a valid issue, but definitely the minority.)...

Re:so (0)

Khyber (864651) | about 3 months ago | (#46956003)

"Ease of use? Installing mods in previous games (UT99, UT2004 and UT3), while not particularly difficult for the tech-savvy, isn't exactly user-friendly, "

What the fuck crack are you smoking? You either copy the mod to the game directory or run the self-extracting and installation-detecting executable.

Speaking as I have all UTs instaled on my system and still play and mod them regularly.

Re:so (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953435)

Because the stuff they develop for use in the market place is not included in the original free game. Moron.

Re:so (0)

Khyber (864651) | about 3 months ago | (#46956009)

As if someone else can't make the same or equivalent thing and simply not charge for it.

Moron.

Re:so (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#46956273)

As if someone else can't make the same or equivalent thing and simply not charge for it.

Ok, I'm sure you will then volunteer to do all that extremely hard work for not a single penny.

eh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46956923)

What's wrong with that? A hobby of mine is recreating popular Photoshop styles then uploading them for people to download free of charge. Actually there is a reason and that would be I got tired of seeing people freeload off of remaking movie styles, naming them something similar, and then selling them.

Re:eh (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 3 months ago | (#46957595)

All right, I'm cool with that, but around Slashdot it's often the opposite: people see making a buck somehow wrong, when it comes to software and entertainment.

Re:so (5, Interesting)

stewsters (1406737) | about 3 months ago | (#46953439)

Some people want to make a profit, some don't. It gives the people who want to make a few dollars of their model get paid, and lets those who just want to make something offer theirs free. See https://www.assetstore.unity3d... [unity3d.com] for an example of this now. If you don't have all the skills to make a game, you can still make money off of selling assets.

I have no idea how this will go, but it will be interesting.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953921)

If you don't have all the skills to make a game, you can still make money off of selling assets.

And if you have the coding chops but not the time nor the artistic bent to make textures, models, etc., you can still make something that looks good.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955959)

The question wasn't who wants to make money, it's who would pay if the game is absolutely free. You download and play a fully functional game... why would you pay to have a customized texture or model on your character? That's a pretty tiny market we're talking about here... if there is even a market to speak of.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46956271)

There's a market, at least for the innovative.

I once sold an open pit mine design by importing it into UT and walking the client down the ramp, showing all the orebody layouts as I went.

I probably could have broken some rock for them with a rocket launcher while I was there, but it wasn't necessary for the sale...

Re: so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46957023)

I would just like to point out Path Of Exile. A Diablo-like where the only thing you pay for is purely cosmetic and they seem to do well enough.

Re: so (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 3 months ago | (#46957247)

More inventory space is hardly cosmetic.

Re:so (3, Insightful)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 3 months ago | (#46953451)

I assume they'll not be making this extra content Open Source, and perhaps have official servers which any old compiler will not be able to connect to.

The greater benefit here is that there will be a very public log of what it takes to make an AAA title. A super in-depth tutorial for all those devs who might want to license it.

Re: so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953457)

It'll probable be free but not DRM-free. Forcing to use only market content in the process.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953461)

because you would have to be always logged in to the market place to actually play the game. nobody said free to compile and use.

Re:so (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 3 months ago | (#46953501)

"All code and content will appear on GitHub"

Re: so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953579)

That is just for the main program, and it will most certainly be non-DRM-free, to avoid mods/content being installed from sources other than the market.

Re: so (2)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 3 months ago | (#46954029)

"All code" doesn't mean a subset of the code. It means "all code". Anyhow, if one has the game code and the art assets, then there's nothing to stop you from replacing the assets in the game. If there's some DRM-encumbered binary blob for talking to the store, there'd be nothing stopping someone from coding their own replacement that points to another store.

Personally, from the tone of the announcement, I'd expect something like Google's app market. The official market would be the default, but there's nothing stopping you from connecting to an alternate market, or from installing modpacks you grab off some modder's website. Of course, if Epic doesn't make any money on the game, it'd be counted as a failed experiment, and we wouldn't see something similar from them anytime soon.

Re: so (2)

DrMcCoy (941651) | about 3 months ago | (#46954067)

RTFA. It doesn't say anything about it being under the terms of a FLOSS license; or a liberal license. It will probably be the standard UE4 license, possibly even forbidding changing the store code.

Re: so (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 3 months ago | (#46954581)

I can't get to Polygon from here, so I read the entry on the Unreal Engine blog/wiki prior to my previous post. The game code doesn't look like it'll be under some kind of copyleft, but it *does* look like access to the data will be cheap ($19/seat/month and 5% of income from games based on the engine). In the EULA [unrealengine.com] (which appears to govern licensee actions with the engine and UT Project game assets), I don't see anything stopping a developer from making a modified version of the main game executable and distributing it for free (presumably, the developer would be on the hook for hosting charges, since 5% of gross income from the game would go to Epic).

You can't distribute licensed source, licensed tools, or enough to allow users to create a "standalone product". You might be able to give them enough leeway to freely create content that relies on the product that you built (and are giving away for free). I'd imagine that someone will take at least that twisted of a view of their developer license, at some point.

Re: so (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 months ago | (#46955477)

Fuck those app stores.. just give me a download for the zip file..

Re:so (2)

DrMcCoy (941651) | about 3 months ago | (#46954037)

Source says this:
"All code and content will be available live to UE4 developers on GitHub"

I.e. you can view the code if you are an UE4-licensee. Just like how the UE4 code is on GitHub, available to UE4-licensees.
It will not be "free software" for free as in freedom/libre. I will only be "open source" for a very weird, non-OSI-approved definition of the term.

Re:so (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about 3 months ago | (#46957161)

the code availability has exactly zero to do with how it's licensed

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953563)

I don't think "free to compile" means the entire UT4 engine is open sourced or anything. Sounds like this is more like what Valve has been doing with Team Fortress 2 on Steam w/ open/public/visible development. Which sounds potentially fun, though there's probably all kinds of thorny licensing well-then-who-owns-what stuff to figure out.

Re:so (1)

DrMcCoy (941651) | about 3 months ago | (#46954131)

I'm going to repeat what the other Anonymous Coward above said: "nobody said free to compile and use". TFA says that the code is available to UE4 devs. I.e. people who pay the subscription money for an UE4 license.

Re:so (1)

Himmy32 (650060) | about 3 months ago | (#46953613)

People like to pay for convenience.

Re:so (1)

rholtzjr (928771) | about 3 months ago | (#46953619)

I am no longer interested in this cheat infested type FPS's. I totally lost interest in deluging a person with a rocket launcher only to be killed by him with a knife.
Best of luck folks.

Re:so (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 3 months ago | (#46954203)

I am no longer interested in this cheat infested type FPS's. I totally lost interest in deluging a person with a rocket launcher only to be killed by him with a knife.
Best of luck folks.

So you're saying his skill won out over your cheats?

Re:so (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 3 months ago | (#46954385)

- I'm sick of cheaters!

* Brings rocket launcher to knife fight *

Re:so (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 3 months ago | (#46955655)

take it up with careserv newb!

Re:so (2)

Threni (635302) | about 3 months ago | (#46957877)

Don't you report them, and then they get watched/videod and if there's evidence they're cheating they're kicked/banned?

Xonotic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953679)

Xonotic and it's various mods like chaosesque anthology are similar to the original unreal tourny

Re:Xonotic (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 3 months ago | (#46958069)

But Quake 3 clones like that tend to be less fun, less optimized versions of the real thing. May look too dark or something, sound effects worse, maps worse, runs slow on old PC, inequal quality, unfinished game, lack of players and even sometimes the little issue that people installing the game from distro's package manager will have an older version.

I'll have to try Xonotic 0.7, expecting it to barely run on open source driver, I expect to have to set the keyboard to qwerty before launching it so I can access console and weapons. Would be nice if it reaches version 1.0 some day - Quake 3 did in 1999.

Re:so (2)

MrTester (860336) | about 3 months ago | (#46953683)

When I first heard this earlier today what came to mind is Minecraft.
If they can create a good stable base product with good enough <Insert developer jargon for "information people need to develop mods" here> support then there very well may be a market for good mod packs.
I know I would have been more than happy to pay $20 or $30 for Feed The Beast for MineCraft.

If they can turn that into a market where they skim some money off the top from the mod pack sellers to pay for a free base product (the opposite of the charge for Minecraft with free mods model of Mahjong) more power too them.

Re:so (1)

MrTester (860336) | about 3 months ago | (#46953709)

oh.... and we are talking about a LOT more than just art and skins here. IF they are going the Minecraft route.

Re:so (1)

dubbayu_d_40 (622643) | about 3 months ago | (#46953729)

Skins, for example.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953745)

Are you that stupid or are you trolling?

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953791)

See Android, open source, free to download, modifiy and develop for. Third party developers develop and sell in the google market place despite the fact that google takes a cut because it gives them visibility, and drastically increases sales.

It doesn't matter that users can bypass it, developers who want money don't want to bypass it, and they allow their apps to be sold in the store where some company takes a cut, it works, look at android, the Mac App store, etc. Nobody really gives a crap about the free programs/mods out there, it makes nobody money either way.

Re:so (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 3 months ago | (#46954297)

Think of it this way... Sure you *can* use the Amazon App Store on your Android Phone, and even get some Android Apps cheaper than you would on Google Play, however you would need to seek it out and install it yourself versus just using the one that is pre-loaded on your phone.

As such, using the Unreal Store will create immediate visibility to all users, as well as put the onus of distributing and more importantly tracking patch levels and updating the content on Epic instead of the user.

Still, the tech-savvy can just do it themselves and save a few bucks.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954429)

why would anyone want to use a market place to buy and sell skins/artwork?

If it's an Apple-like market, ruled with an iron fist with content reviewed and validated, sign me the hell up.

If it's Android-like (or, every-goddamned-Bethesda-game-mod-site-ever)... Yeah, I'll pass. I have enough of my time wasted fishing out a few gems from a sea of HURR LUERK PIXEL BOOBEHZ KWADRUPLE Z LOLOLOL without paying for the privilege.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954545)

Hopefully some kind of value-add checksumming, virii-scanning and ease-of-use testing would go a long way towards making the standard a VIABLE one. =$

Re:so (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#46954803)

For the user the game will be free as in beer, not "freemium" with in-game micro transactions. The code will neither be free as in beer nor free as in speech, but if you are already a UE4 subscriber ($19/month) you can use and extend the code for no extra charge, presumably under the same license and terms as mods to the engine itself so basically it's a reference implementation FPS. If you sell anything you owe them 5% of the gross revenue, if you give it away you owe them nothing. Which makes their pricing make sense, any subscriber can basically compile UT4 as-is and release it as freeware so instead they do it "officially". If you implement your own skin/artwork store they'll still take 5%, if you want to sell through the UT store they might charge more. Either way if you make money off it, they'll make money off it.

Re:so (1)

Z80a (971949) | about 3 months ago | (#46955485)

The "evil" is most likely simply creating a gigantic programmer and user base of the unreal engine, so they can shift a lot of the indie and big games to use their engine instead of lets say crytech.

Re:so (1)

complete loony (663508) | about 3 months ago | (#46955713)

More importantly, since they want a royalty payment on sales, why are they charging developers per month up-front? Wouldn't this reduce the number of developers willing to experiment with their engine?

Re:so (1)

rwven (663186) | about 3 months ago | (#46957299)

I take it you're not the kind of person to donate to OSS projects, then?

This sounds great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953409)

As someone who played endless hours of UT2004, UT3 was such a disappointment in so many ways... And I could play UT2004 it in Linux, like 8 years ago. When UT3 for linux was abandoned, my heart broke. It took a long time for me to finally play it and realize it kinda sucked anyway.

Epic's decision to build the game in public isn't the only change that reflects the passage of time. Unreal Tournament will be free -- but not free-to-play, according to the developer.

"Free means free -- no microtransactions," he said. "Just free."

How does that square with the $19/mo that's mentioned earlier?

Re: This sounds great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953503)

That's for the Engine, for developers... (?)

Re: This sounds great... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955457)

The $20/month is the fee for continuing updates to the Unreal Engine 4, that cost won't impact UT4 in any way except that I believe modders would nee to licence the Unreal Engine 4 to create mods for UT4

Re:This sounds great... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 3 months ago | (#46953851)

Your heart was broken because they didn't support your OS of choice? I'd prefer to play my games on Linux too (and I do with those I can) but really? Isn't that a bit of hyperbole?

Re:This sounds great... (1)

Maltheus (248271) | about 3 months ago | (#46954141)

Right there with you. That was the last regular FPS I played. Quick, fast, brutal action. One of my favorite games of all time. And having it on Linux meant I actually played it, rather than just have it sit on a shelf. All they needed to do was slightly improve on the UT2K4 concept.

I hope this works out, I'm very much looking forward to this.

RealCTF (5, Interesting)

mfh (56) | about 3 months ago | (#46953513)

Former RealCTF level designer here.

This is a really good idea, and I welcome this as great news! :-)

If anyone needs some level design, hit me up!!

Re:RealCTF (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953581)

That UID.

Re:RealCTF (1)

stewsters (1406737) | about 3 months ago | (#46953677)

Woah. Woah.

Re:RealCTF (0)

sexconker (1179573) | about 3 months ago | (#46954461)

He bought / stole the account, and he's been spouting a lot of bullshit lately.
For example: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Re:RealCTF (3, Interesting)

mfh (56) | about 3 months ago | (#46956509)

He bought / stole the account, and he's been spouting a lot of bullshit lately.

And you're spouting a little right now! ;-)

Suggesting this acct was stolen is just a patent falsehood. The original owner of this acct sold it for $100 in a very well publicized Ebay auction. I happened to win the auction and I felt at the time that a piece of Slashdot history (a beta account -- 2digit already) was well worth the money out of sheer novelty. A 3digit acct later sold for around $700 and another for $200-300, from what I could tell.

Love or hate the low-uid, you have to admire any piece of Slashdot history. CmdrTaco is probably the only person posting with a lower UID than me and he's not posted here in a long time (2011). I donated quite a bit of time to helping CmdrTaco on a revamp of the moderation system over several emails back and forth, and he was appreciative of my feedback. I'm a programmer and system designer so he didn't just outright reject what was said. There was a small think-tank of us working on it. But shortly after that Slashdot was sold and the changes were never implemented.

Come on man. I enjoy Slashdot. I've posted my wacky opinion here for quite a long time. My other acct was 6 digit. The one before that was a 4-digit low to mid 2000s uid. I've since lost access to both of those. A good friend was very involved with this site early on and tried to get us all into it back on the TWCTF mailing list back in the day.

So you're not wrong... [imgur.com] except you are wrong about the stealing thing.

Re:RealCTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46958229)

Why are you still standing? On your knees in front of the elders!

SLightly offtopic, but... (3, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 3 months ago | (#46953603)

Holy hell, I don't think I've ever seen a 2-digit ID post before.

Re:SLightly offtopic, but... (1)

CODiNE (27417) | about 3 months ago | (#46953635)

Uh oh. Now you've done it. Watch a 1-digit roll over in it's grave, and post to top that.

Re:SLightly offtopic, but... (1)

mfh (56) | about 3 months ago | (#46956513)

The only one who would is CmdrTaco but he hasn't since 2011. I haven't seen anyone post lower than 56.

Re:SLightly offtopic, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953667)

Nor did the current account owner; He bought his 2-digit ID for a few hundred dollars...

Re:RealCTF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953733)

If they aren't included, you could make a lot of money releasing the classic maps from Unreal and UT99. Hell, there are still active Face-only servers for UT99.

Re:RealCTF (1)

mfh (56) | about 3 months ago | (#46956525)

I was thinking I'll do the Quake1 maps but now that I think about it, Spill the Blood [youtube.com] would be awesome to update for the new UT, with TWCTF.

Interesting.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953515)

I will tell you this if our government was shaped up like these open market games, we would have far fewer problems to DE with. It's like bartering in a way.. I'll give you something in return for your services. It's presented in a fair way..

UWindows (2)

damicatz (711271) | about 3 months ago | (#46953539)

I hope they bring back UWindows. That, IMHO, was the pinnacle of interfaces for games and the consolized interfaces of the later versions are crap by comparison.

Re:UWindows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954225)

I hope they bring back UWindows. That, IMHO, was the pinnacle of interfaces for games and the consolized interfaces of the later versions are crap by comparison.

Oh hey I didn't know that interface had a name.

Yeah, definitely a cut above the rest in terms of combining user friendliness and in-depth settings. Would be cool to see it brought back.

Re:UWindows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954299)

Clearly the best UI of any game. Looking at it now is akin to what admiring the Colosseum was to people of the middle ages.

This should be amusing (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 3 months ago | (#46953587)

As anyone who's watched the most famous recent use of Twitch [twitch.tv] will realize, this should result in epic loltrolling and griefing of the development process.

That or else the development process will be sufficiently insulated from the rabble that this announcement boils down to just marketing.

Conflicting statements (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953621)

"Free means free — no microtransactions," he said. "Just free."

When asked how Epic will earn income with a free game, Polge said that Unreal Tournament will "eventually" have a marketplace where modders can post and give away or sell their maps, mods and other content.

How is a marketplace not microtransactions?

Re:Conflicting statements (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 months ago | (#46953877)

If all the content is third party, it's not really their game being charged for.

Unreal Tournament Forever (1)

mrbluejello (189775) | about 3 months ago | (#46953737)

I don't see this launching soon.

open = being able to have your own build bypass (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 3 months ago | (#46953787)

open = being able to have your own build that bypass the DRM.

Re:open = being able to have your own build bypass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954135)

If it's open it's not going to have any damn DRM, that's half the point of it being open source.

Re:open = being able to have your own build bypass (1)

DrMcCoy (941651) | about 3 months ago | (#46954271)

Really, you too: Read the actual article. It says nothing about it being open source or free software. It only says the UE4 developers will have access to the source on GitHub.

Re:open = being able to have your own build bypass (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | about 3 months ago | (#46956321)

Github requires that you pick an open source license for public repositories. Their saying it's "Not free to play, just free" also makes me think it'll be free software.

Re:open = being able to have your own build bypass (1)

DrMcCoy (941651) | about 3 months ago | (#46956595)

Yes, exactly, and this is not a public repository! No one said this will be a public repository!

Hell, they already do that for the Unreal Engine 4! Look at that, here, ffs: https://www.unrealengine.com/ue4-on-github

Re:open = being able to have your own build bypass (1)

DrMcCoy (941651) | about 3 months ago | (#46956639)

Also, GitHub /doesn't/ require you to pick an open source license for public repositories. You can choose whatever the hell damn license you want.

The only thing you do by accepting the GitHub terms of service is grant some rights, namely that everyone can see and fork your repository (which might qualify as "open source" in your book, but I view as a cop-out). Of course, this still doesn't give anyone the rights to actually do anything with the code besides looking at it.

Which is one of the reasons many free software proponents have been dismayed by the amount of license-less GitHub repository. To answer that, GitHub added the license picker for newly created repositories, but that thing still is completely optional.

Re:open = being able to have your own build bypass (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | about 3 months ago | (#46954641)

If it's open it's not going to have any damn DRM, that's half the point of it being open source.

It can be open source, but still have licensed technology. For instance Shake's source code was available for I believe $100,000. But you couldn't distribute the code nor use any of the patented technology contained within.

If you license the Unreal 4 engine you get the source code. But you still have to pay to distribute your game based on that source code.

Re: open = being able to have your own build bypas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955475)

You only pay if you receive money from releasing a game, if your game is free you don't pay anything.

Longlived game development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46953841)

Open for 3rd party development is an interesting decision and sadly not seen often enough. The ability to gain new ingame content for years to come will make paying players interested for years.

One of the best examples I can think of is Civilization 4. Released in 2005 + 2006 expansions and the colonization standalone in 2008. Looking at how other games from that time became history, civ4 should have been a thing of the past too. However the ability to mod more or less anything in the game (even C++ core features) mean that mods are still being improved and even here in 2014 new mods show up. Looking at the steam forum, people talk about which mods to use meaning presumably new buyers buy because the game core is modder friendly.

Had civilization 4 been released like the next UT, then I don't think it would have been much different. In fact the only thing which comes to my mind as possible additions would be better portability and 64 bit support. Any other addition that I can think of is possible with due to having access to modify the DLL file. My experience tells me that getting C/C++ coders, who will work for free on open source projects is a lot easier if linux is natively supported.

Time will tell how well it will go with attracting external development people for UT as well as how long lived the game will be. The setup looks promising and the fact that it will be supported natively on linux will likely make it a bit easier to attract coders.

Interesting... (2)

Dega704 (1454673) | about 3 months ago | (#46953893)

They seem to have taken a leaf from Valve's book with Team Fortress 2, but are taking it a step further by opening the development itself. If this works out well, it could have a lot of ramifications for the future of game development. I'll be happy enough as long as the lightning gun comes back. That thing made headshots so much more fun.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955653)

TF2 succeeded as an F2P because it had excellent gameplay that Valve continued to build upon after release.

UT4 or whatever they want to call it, is a complete unknown. One hopes that they learned their lesson from the UT3 debacle but, even if Epic manages to recapture the goodness of UT2004, will they commit to sustaining the game with new gameplay and features?

Costs $19 Per Month! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954013)

As per the following two links, it actually costs $19 per month for a subscription to the UI engine and it's source code. Good luck trying to develop the game without it. I really hate false and misleading advertising. When I first heard about this I was really excited. I'm a CS grad student studying AIs. Now my view on Epic Games is really poor and while I'll still probably play the game when it comes out, I'll be sure to not spend any money on it. I really hope charging your workers doesn't become the next fad.

https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?4624-Programmer-here-Interested-in-UT-development [unrealengine.com]
https://www.unrealengine.com/ [unrealengine.com]

Re:Costs $19 Per Month! (1)

Renozuken (3499899) | about 3 months ago | (#46954979)

You don't seem to get it, you're already paying the subscription to use the engine, subscribers just get access to the source code of the game where they can make changes and whatnot. Totally different.

GIANT BATHROOM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46954047)

Bring back the GIANT MAPS. I'm jonesin' to play in the giant bathroom again.

Re:GIANT BATHROOM! (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 3 months ago | (#46954295)

Man, I saw that in action just last weekend. A buddy had a retro-game LAN party in place of a bachelor party. Good times.

If they were going to bring it back, I'd suggest adding the family pet as a dynamic object that generally tears the shit out of you. Or the occupants of the house going about their business. "I'm sniping behind timmy's left ear" "Lookout, Dad is coming into the kitchen and he's full of rocket whores!" "Player 3 chewed like a cheap plastic toy"

Re:GIANT BATHROOM! (1)

WheezyJoe (1168567) | about 3 months ago | (#46955285)

Yes. Yes. and Yes.

Re:GIANT BATHROOM! (1)

WheezyJoe (1168567) | about 3 months ago | (#46955275)

Bring back the GIANT MAPS. I'm jonesin' to play in the giant bathroom again.

Yes! These maps were great! I used to hide out in a drain in the sink (there was a redeemer hidden in there) or take a sniper position on top a piece of crown molding. 2 inches high in a kitchen with a super shock rifle? and the TV actually worked!

Avid UT player here... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 3 months ago | (#46954223)

Avid UT player here (the original "UT99") and it was almost *entirely* because of the 3rd-party content (particularly the "Land of the Giants" maps) that I played the game as much as I did...

Re:Avid UT player here... (1)

WheezyJoe (1168567) | about 3 months ago | (#46955197)

This. It's ancient, but there's something about UT 99 and it's great maps and mods that's un-matched for quick, dirty, mad crazy carnage.

I would love nothing more than re-creating the feel of that game with a few modern updates (maybe modern, smoother graphics for better eye-candy, destructible map elements (leave a crater where a redeemer went off, drop a wall on an enemy), rockets that actually fly fast like real rockets, blast waves, simulated vertigo/shock on impact, more useable gadgets in maps). It'd also be great to skin yourself as anything you want. Deathmatch with Bart Simpson, Teletubbies, Ronald MacDonald comin' at ya with a flak cannon. Game so good you quit your job and leave your wife. Mayhem!

Re:Avid UT player here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955297)

Still love UT99. So much so that when it wouldn't play on my new Mac, I bought Parallels, Windows XP and the Windows version of UT.

just modernize UT2k4 (3, Interesting)

Lehk228 (705449) | about 3 months ago | (#46955149)

just upgrade UT2k4 with the things that have become standard in the last 10 years.....

actually fuck that, FPS has only gotten worse over the last decade, re-release with only the most minor tweaks to take advantage of modern hardware and improve the map and mod cache a bit (really just upgrade so hash collisions can't happen and add a browser function to delete only specific cached data when the cache grows to over 9000)

Re:just modernize UT2k4 (0)

Pubstar (2525396) | about 3 months ago | (#46955291)

Just about your Sig, its Chelsy Manning now or some crap like that.

Re:just modernize UT2k4 (1)

DirePickle (796986) | about 3 months ago | (#46956175)

UT2k4 would be acceptable, but U2:XMP was the epitome of multiplayer Unreal games for me. It was the saddest Internet day when the master servers went down and scattered the player base. :(

Re:just modernize UT2k4 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46957239)

And make custom maps permanent downloads instead of that shit temporary files mess they implemented.

WOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46955811)

Imagine all games are made like this! Holy shit! Now imagine how great BF3/4 would have been... or Assassins Creed... or Spore (sigh in sadness)... or... you get the picture.

This is to sell the engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#46957057)

Epic is really pushing UE4. Looks like they've finally got some good people in charge.

What they're doing with this is getting people to pay them to enhance the UE4 engine.

The content they'll have people sell on the market? Drop-in resources companies developing with UE4 can purchase to build their game up faster.

After all, a chair is a chair.

Its all about marketing the engine (1)

Aphadon (3402087) | about 3 months ago | (#46957481)

Even though the UT series were great games in their own right, in reality their purpose have always been to serve as tech demos for the latest iteration of the Unreal Engine. The full UT3 source code is also available to UE3 subscribers as an example of how to implement a game using the engine.

However there hasn't really been any significant changes to UE3 in the last couple of years while they were ramping up development on UE4, so there wasn't much need for another UT game. Now that UE4 is ready to go though, it makes perfect sense to push out another UT. This model has served them incredibly well in the past, and in fact Unreal is still one of the most popular engines in the world today (in contrast to its original competitor Quake/Id Tech) in large part due to the popularity of the UT games.

So although they claim they'll be offsetting the development cost from marketplace sales, really that will be pittance compared to the revenue they will gain from engine licenses. That's what it's all about.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...