Re: Community Update: Sandbox Source Code & CRYENGINE Documentation

#11
zeph wrote:
and that may mean that we make amendments to the business model which we currently use.

Requiring users to pay for Sandbox source is rather counter-productive considering the direction the engine has gone over the past two years. Paying for Sandbox access in the past worked because ALL USERS got an up-to-date useful program out of it which they otherwise wouldn't have had. Making existing users of your free tech pay for additional access levels just doesn't make sense. It doesn't provide any additional quality of life or utility. It just forces them to make a design decision surrounding their game. "Do I pay for Sandbox source code and hope I can do more things with it or do I design my game within the limitations imposed by the existing bounds?" Those that would seriously make use of it are already those most likely to bring you income. Making them pay for access is just milking them for more. Keep in mind that the cream of these very people are those that would likely be recipients of the, for some reason still, nascent Indie Fund where you give them money instead.

Your current business model concerning the engine is pay what you want. PWYW makes Cryengine have a free to develop licensing model and a royalty free distribution method. When I look back to the beginning of EaaS and start connecting the dots of events leading up to the release of CEV, I have a pretty decent idea of what happened. I can understand there's a desire to lead back towards that direction, but breaking Cryengine's free to develop nature is a step backwards across all fronts. It shouldn't even be considered until the official support resources that have been on the horizon, for nearly two years now, are in place.

There are things I want to do with the engine that I'm not sure if it's actually possible or feasible. Barebones fp64 large world for example. It's theoretically such a simple idea; just change one line of code, of which I already have access to, and then rebuild everything. I know there will be side effects, but I can't tell how they would affect my game ideas until I have a sandbox experience within Sandbox. That means I must have Sandbox source code. I live in the richest country in the world, but I am dirt poor right now and am only surviving (literally) by the graces of my family. I know that most people are able to, but I'm not in a position to just toss money away to try various ideas. The sheer uncertainty regarding the amount of time I'd have to spend just to familiarize myself with new code makes this prospect even more undesirable.

From the beginning of CEV, Crytek has said "we hear you" when it came to editor source. Eventually, that turned into an announcement that it would be exposed with 5.3. That release was held back to 5.4 after some licensing issues arose. Now, well after 5.4's slow yet massive iterative release, we're hearing that we may not actually get it as we were told? Please just follow through and publicly expose it for free.
Dishonesty is not good trait for a company. Often times, one dishonest action can cripple a business. Even if the business itself isn't ruined, its relationships with others can easily be irrevocably spoiled. To be frank, Crytek doesn't have the best of reputations right now. It's boggling my mind that such things are being considered.


Couldn't have said this any better. I totally agree, that Crytek is suddenly turning away from the "free" nature, is totally not understandable for me. And Crytek really can't afford that with it's small community to suddenly turn away from their original direction.

Just my 2 cents.

Re: Community Update: Sandbox Source Code & CRYENGINE Documentation

#12
zeph wrote:
and that may mean that we make amendments to the business model which we currently use.

Requiring users to pay for Sandbox source is rather counter-productive considering the direction the engine has gone over the past two years.


woah! hold your horses! making changes to a business model and making the users pay is a big jump. As collin said they are not looking to go away from free. Please try not to take things out of context and maybe ask a question first before you make assumptions and go on a rant. no that i don't like rants ;) Anywho crytek is a company and needs to survive by any means necessary. I never minded paying a monthly subscription when i had too, this engine is worth it :D

Thanks for the update crytek and collin. Crytek might want to work on promising things that they can not deliver might avoid an explanation. We all need to practice this though, in all software development there is way to much premature promising. I am sure it was an honest miscalculation of when you thought the work would be done. happens to the best of us.

Re: Community Update: Sandbox Source Code & CRYENGINE Documentation

#13
cwicwi wrote:Loving the way the engine is shaping :)

About the trainings, i i already suggested that: give us some training using real samples from Hunt: Showdown... What are the developers techniques for the first person view, the animation, the special effects / particles, the sound system, the AI, the environment configuration / level design, Schematyk, etc... REAL WORLD SAMPLES... the dev diaries are awesome, but we need more info, specific training info about HOW the things are made ;) Amazon is doing that, Epic is doing that, Unity is doing that (but i LOVE Cryengine) :)


We will give samples but just dropping in the game code base of Hunt is more problematic overall and you enter the realm of GameSDK once again. It is just not this simple but we have a plan to execute and provide samples in the Hunt code base. A more clean and agnostic approach that works towards the future without inhibiting growth like GameSDK currently does is the direction forward. Some setups for Schematyc would bleed over and certain systems that are required will be scrubbed of code that doesn't fit the coding guidelines and making sure that it is as modular and explainable to the public as possible.

Re: Community Update: Sandbox Source Code & CRYENGINE Documentation

#14
Collin, could I please persuade you to clarify a bit the statements below

collinbishop wrote:For now the amendment would affect the Source code offering which is the intention of the response and transparency.


Does this mean:
1. That an amendment (for now) might affect the availability of the engine source code as it is today on github for free ? Meaning, the engine source code remains available, but only to those who pay a fee ?
Is this a distinct possibility of an amendment, however remote ?
2. That such an amendment is only a distinct possibility regarding the editor source code ? i.e make source of Sandbox available, but only to those who pay a cost ?

collinbishop wrote: Free is not going away and accessibility to the engine is always the largest goal while minimizing overhead.


What exactly do you mean by free here ? More exactly, what free product is not going away ? Do you refer to Cry Engine product ? Because how I read this CryEngine product can and will remain free, while access to the source code of the engine and tools might change (be amended) to require a licensing fee. The two do not go hand in hand. A free CryEngine product does not necessarily mean free acces to any of the product's source code.

Can you please clarify this ( free product, vs free product source code ) in a manner which is unambiguous and leave no space whatsoever for interpretation ?

Re: Community Update: Sandbox Source Code & CRYENGINE Documentation

#15
collinbishop wrote:We will give samples but just dropping in the game code base of Hunt is more problematic overall and you enter the realm of GameSDK once again. It is just not this simple but we have a plan to execute and provide samples in the Hunt code base. A more clean and agnostic approach that works towards the future without inhibiting growth like GameSDK currently does is the direction forward. Some setups for Schematyc would bleed over and certain systems that are required will be scrubbed of code that doesn't fit the coding guidelines and making sure that it is as modular and explainable to the public as possible.


Right, i totally agree, thanks for the answer!!
Looking forward to see the training materials updates :)

Re: Community Update: Sandbox Source Code & CRYENGINE Documentation

#17
Hello,Cryengine team, I really like this engine, I would love to learn more about your engine programming information, for i know now,if i want to complete a project, I need to understand Schematyc,flowgraph,c++, C#, perhaps with Lua, I do not know how to solve the problem in only one way. Different Unity has only C # and JaveScript, Unreal has only BP and C ++, and for any one of them, basically it can solve all the problems, Unlike Cryengine, I need to know 5 ways, I think this is very complex, so that all beginners are prohibitive, this is not simple, which makes the engine looks very unfriendly, and up to 2 years now the C # Not have perfect API, now you want use schematyc...,which way you want us to use,Maybe you can reduce some, but can do better.

Re: Community Update: Sandbox Source Code & CRYENGINE Documentation

#18
you just learn one, ok. unity can make game only use c# or js. unreal can make game only use c++ or blueprint. cryengine provide more, but you only need one. you want full functionality. then you need learn c++. this is same true for blueprint of unreal engine.

the fast way to learn is read gamesdk project source code. then you master most of the engine.
if you know about unity component system. then you can skip cryengine5.4. straight to make game.

schemynic and flowgraph is just for nonprogrammer same as blueprint.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest