[lholden]

Very misleading article title.

The licensing changes target big commercial usages outside of game development. (With revenue thresholds, similar to how it already works right now for game development.)

For example, up until now Unreal has seen use in vfx for movie and tv production. The licensing model for Unreal was primarily oriented for game development, which meant that this wasn't generating any revenue for Epic unless that company opted into the optional support plan.

Unlike the crazy situation with Unity, these changes are being announced in advance without affecting usage of previous versions of Unreal.

(Not saying I like or care for subscriptions for software. But context helps understand what's going on here.)

I'm surprised they didn't make this change sooner.

[Dylan16807]

Based on your bullet points here, I'm not sure what you find misleading?

The headline doesn't specifically say outside of games, but I don't think that makes it misleading, especially because the "for all" makes it clear that it's only about some cases. And people generally know that games pay.

Being announced in advance, not affecting previous versions... none of that is implied otherwise by the headline.

[lholden]

The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does.

Unreal was never "free for all". For game development, there has always been revenue thresholds.

The new licensing is around commercial use outside of game development, and will also be revenue threshold based. Meaning, just like with game development, if your project is making you money over X threshold, then the licensing kicks in.

The title is misleading.

[Dylan16807]

> The title, especially in light of the stuff that went on with Unity, makes one think that this will affect a much wider group of people than it actually does.

If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity.

Also what I said in my previous comment is relevant here.

> Unreal was never "free for all".

I accept that it's bad wording, but I don't see how that misleads anyone unless you thought the engine was completely free.

[lholden]

"no longer free for all" implies that it was "free for all" and the change is making it no longer "free for all". In other words, the title is presenting information to the reader that is literally not true.

For your personal reference, here is how the dictionary defines the word "misleading". (Cambridge and Merriam Webster, respectively)

> causing someone to believe something that is not true

> to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

> to lead astray : give a wrong impression

I would say that the title manages to hit on all 3 of these definitions, with a possible note that perhaps the author "misspoke" rather than intentionally creating a deliberate deceit.

[Dylan16807]

I think the sense in which the title is being criticized for being misleading is not the interpretation where the engine was completely and entirely free. I'm sure a few people thought that by accident but it's not what people are talking about when they bring up comparisons to Unity. That particular wording issue is not something that gets a top comment callout. There isn't any motive to cause that particular confusion on purpose.

[pests]

> If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity.

Things don't happen in a vaccuum. The Unity fiasco is still fresh on everyone's mind. For any company anywhere in the gaming sphere to change their prices so soon - is going to draw comparisons to Unity. The fact multiple people are discussing this with you should prove that.

[Dylan16807]

Do they need to explicitly contrast the situation with Unity in the headline to avoid being misleading?

Headlines don't have a lot of space!

And as I said in a different comment, the subheading seems to address the main complaints, and in most situations you'd see the headline and the subheading together.

[pests]

I think the mere fact this is an engine license change happening so close to the Unity fiasco that yes, it is impossible to talk about this without automatically invoking thoughts of what Unity did. Some news and blogs will take advantage of this association and use it for clicks.

[johnnyanmac]

>Headlines don't have a lot of space!

"Unreal Engine starts charging for non-game development".

It's not about space, and we know it's all too easy to bury the lede and leave the internet to lash out as it is oft to do. But I don't blame the author. I know in larger sites editorial will make the title without context of the writing independent of the contents in order to maximize traffic.

[starttoaster]

> If you look at the title and think of a different company, that's not the headline's fault. It doesn't even try to reference Unity.

Being aware of current events and how they may shape how people come to conclusions is a skill that not everybody possesses I suppose.

The headline is most definitely misleading and poorly worded. A better headline would be "Unreal licensing change targets tv production use cases" or something like that.

As the other user pointed out, Unreal Engine was never free for all. So wording it like this misleads the reader into thinking about the most commonly talked about use-case, video game development. And when they read "no longer be free for all" it leads them to believe that people that currently don't pay for Unreal Engine may now have to. Hence the title being "misleading." But hey, journalism is a skill that you work on over time. The editor should have caught this.

[taway1237]

> I don't see how that misleads anyone unless you thought the engine was completely free.

That's how i understood it, was surprised, clicked the thread to find out more.

Sample size of 1, but I was (maybe accidentally) misled.

[johnnyanmac]

It was very much intentional, don't blame yourself. Or I don't know, blame yourself for not reading the article? Either way, this is why an accurate non-click sit headline is necessary, there are many many more people like you and some like to shout and spread misinformation on social media.

[aroo]

"Unreal Engine will no longer be free for non-gaming companies" is 100x less misleading. You are right in that technically speaking it's not misleading, but to me it feels like it's skirting the line of lying by omission. Obviously now with hindsight I can see how the "for all" changes the meaning, but it wasn't obvious (at least to me).

[ezekg]

No, the headline is blatantly trying to elicit a negative response towards Unreal i.r.t. Unity's recent pricing change.

[Dylan16807]

Blatantly!

Please explain how this headline connects to Unity at all?

Yes we can assume a lot of people reading the headline will know about it... but I don't see this blatant connection. Would they have to explicitly say it's not like Unity in the headline to escape this?

They even put "non-gaming creatives" in the subheading. Maybe whoever posted should have copied that? If you post the link on most social media you'll automatically see the headline and the subheading.

[isaacremuant]

It's very obvious clickbait. It's clearly exploiting the Unity news.

Clickbait can only be analyzed in terms of the title, not the sub header or content. Because the title is what gets reposted and makes people follow a link.

[Fissionary]

The headline assumes the point. If Unreal Engine will no longer be free for all, that implies that, right now, it is free for all, like e.g. Godot. Which is just emphatically untrue.

It's like saying (to use the classic example), "I will no longer beat my wife." I never did, just like Unreal was never free for all.

[lwhi]

Yep, it seems pretty fair.

[ksec]

>I'm surprised they didn't make this change sooner.

Same here, I thought they were also earning big money from TV and Hollywood. As they have been constantly improving non-gaming usage in every release.

[zlg_codes]

Rather than make excuses for more revenue, I think it's apparent that programmers cannot trust commercial engines or their business models to not up and change one day to suit Epic's revenue.

In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code.

Unreal doing this around the same time Unity pulls its shit isn't a coincidence.

As an aspiring game dev I kinda want nothing to do with these tools that want to jerk you around on pricing and aren't absolutely crystal clear on costs.

Blender is free and can do a ton.

[iyasu]

>In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code.

Proprietary engines suffer from plenty which you haven't stated - can be a mess to read or understand; many hacks done to accomplish a certain feature because it helped ship X feature

- tons of tribal knowledge. If you've worked with a proprietary engine before, you already know documentation will be lackluster and to little fault of the engineers - there's so much to know about the engine that developers don't have the time to chart out what everything does in the engine while pushing out fixes and features.Often, you need to poke the principal programmer who's been with the studio since its inception to understand how a certain long-existing feature works. That's a major point of weakness for the studio!

- Engine limitations! Ask the bethesda devs on their experience building multiplayer for Fallout 76[0]. Imagine building multiplayer in an engine that has never needed to support it. That's a huge refactor and a ton of time spent doing that when it's already handled by Unreal Engine. Developers will need to maintain that engine in the future so the pain doesn't stop after the game gets shipped!

Your post sounds like someone who hasn't worked in game development before. I advise listening to GDC talks, noclip documentaries, and more if you want to get a better understanding of what game development actually looks like. It's a lot more complicated than "your change in price policy makes me mad" (by the way, most AAA studios already have contracts/price agreements with these engines given the amount of revenue they generate for Unity/Unreal).

[0]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi8PTAJ2Hjs

[zlg_codes]

Game development is not exclusive to business, but you are correct I have not worked for a firm to make a game. Nothing about that arrangement attracts me, especially given the abusive nature of the industry and the frequency that they go through crunch, lack any real worker protections, no unions, etc.

The way AAA studios make games and do business puts me off as well, so pointing to them as an example doesn't really change my outlook. I already don't buy their games and disapprove of their business models.

If I was interested in being exploited for my passion I would consider entering that industry, but as it stands I will be going solo dev.

No game dev company out there seems to treat its staff well during a game's development, so even if I wanted to work on a game as part of a team, I'd be looking at a poor work/life balance and a stressful work environment. I'm too old for that kind of BS.

If I can't build and release the game myself, then it simply isn't good enough to release. I cannot trust collaborators to not take control of my projects, nor would I entrust creative ideas to a for-profit entity without my cut.

Long story short, I might work in the industry if it was a healthy one. Because it's not, and I still want to make a game, it falls to me and only me to make it happen. That's kind of comforting, knowing your failure or success ride on your own action instead of someone else's. Nothing is more disappointing in a group project than failing because of someone else's fuck up.

[iyasu]

>Nothing about that arrangement attracts me, especially given the abusive nature of the industry and the frequency that they go through crunch, lack any real worker protections, no unions, etc.

I'd beg to differ on this point. Lots of changes have been made in game development culture including less crunch culture[0]. Worker protection/unions aren't exactly something that's afforded to many white collar jobs in the first place, not sure why that would be an expectation here. Even so, there have been improvements to this - e.g. the Game Workers Alliance. I encourage you to ask developers this question today.

>No game dev company out there seems to treat its staff well during a game's development, so even if I wanted to work on a game as part of a team, I'd be looking at a poor work/life balance and a stressful work environment. I'm too old for that kind of BS.

There are game companies that do treat their staff well! I don't think it's fair to make blanket statements like this when there are a ton of studios with a ton of varying cultures. It's not like solo development isn't stressful or immune to crunch either, even if you choose your own hours. Solo development calls for highly varying skills - it's one of those things you underestimate until you've actually tried it.

>If I can't build and release the game myself, then it simply isn't good enough to release. I cannot trust collaborators to not take control of my projects, nor would I entrust creative ideas to a for-profit entity without my cut.

Nothing good in this world gets built in a vacuum. A hyperbole, potentially (e.g. Stardew Valley, Rainworld), but game development really is a road best driven with a team - people to help out in different disciplines, lighten the load on others. Finding a good team is hard, but once you do, it's hard to want to forgo them. I don't think I can convince you on this front, but the vast majority of solo developers who don't release a game should be proof enough.

No hard feelings from me - I just wanted to clarify what the game industry is actually like today. The Kotaku articles can be frightening, but talking to people in the industry today and getting thoughts from different roles (e.g. producers, designers, engineers, QA, artists, etc.) and different industries within game dev (indie, AA, AAA studios,etc.) would help form a more informed opinion.

[0]: https://twitter.com/GrantPDesign/status/1402325020890652672

[zlg_codes]

I appreciate your input but I'm not in it for a career. I'm in it for personal satisfaction. If I can't build a game on my own then I'm not good enough to call myself a game developer.

A team can't bring that satisfaction to me. Kudos to those who enjoy working in groups. For me, I end up doing more than my share of work and correcting others' mistakes. At that point, you may as well make it yourself. People are more of an obstacle to my progress than they are an enabler.

[elteto]

I mean, why would you expect them not to charge you money for something they clearly spend tons of money in developing? They are a business.

The bait and switch is real, but after N of them we have to start asking ourselves whose fault is it if we fall for the N+1th one.

[zlg_codes]

In my case I haven't fallen for anything, but this community seems to have a problem with pointing out it's mostly businesses doing this behavior. If you stay away from commercial software, this crap disappears.

It shouldn't be normal to expect to be exploited imo.

[elteto]

It was a rhetorical "you" ;) Businesses will do business things, I don't think we should really be surprised when they decide to not subsidize everyone anymore.

In other words, a company giving you a "free" product like Unreal should be assumed to be a loan that you will have to pay in the future.

[ksec]

> but this community seems to have a problem with pointing out it's mostly businesses doing this behavior.

Wow. I was typing "It is fairly recent behavior, at least it wasn't like this before 2014."

Then I realise that was nearly 10 years ago......

[johnnyanmac]

It isn't a coincidence. But the situation is larger than unreal nor Unity. It's the beginning of Q4/end of Q3 and this tends to be when companies make new initiatives and it's been no secret that big businesses's low interest rate borrowing has been done for months now.

Same reason why we have yet another flurry of layoffs happening.

>In-house development doesn't suffer from this issue, and you'll have full control over the code.

Yet many AAA studios have at least dabbled with Unity/Unreal. A few have switched entirely. Engine programmers aren't cheap to keep in house and it's much easier to have entry level workers come in with existing engine knowledge than teaching them on the job. Even if this all feels shitty, full control for a business may not necessarily be the answer.

>As an aspiring game dev I kinda want nothing to do with these tools that want to jerk you around on pricing and aren't absolutely crystal clear on costs.

I wish you the best of luck. That's my endgame. But I'm not at a point where I can disengage from big corporate and I have bills to pay. I'm laying the groundwork slowly but maybe in a decade.

>Blender is free and can do a ton.

Blender isn't a game engine. And lender's attempt at making a game engine is exactly why it can be harder to switch from big corporate than it should be. It's a lot of moving parts and is hard to maintain. Open source's biggest weakness is interest, since there is no financial incentive to keep supporting a free product.

That said, look into UPBGE as a spiritual successor if you rely a lot on Blender for development.

[zlg_codes]

I am in 2D for now, so anything SDL based is enough. But, part of what's put me off of 3D is the business side. Modeling tools are difficult to use and take years to learn adequately. I'm not interested in paying for a sub while I'm learning, and terms in a license that are subject to change do nothing to inspire confidence in any particular solution. This is a social and ethical problem imo.

As you pointed out, doing it correctly requires experienced developers who will stick around. I think that's a more rewarding and better cost to spend money on. At least the worker won't try to modify the terms of what you're building on.

I'll check out that project sometime. 3D is still a ways out for me but any libre software that can make it easier to learn sounds great.