They literally rushed the current gen out to get ahead of the raytracing fad when it was still nascent, and now Nvidia doesn’t give two shits about it to go play with Gen AI in traffic. This is the first time the industry was in a stare with PC, and they blinked first.
I still don’t see what Raytracing has done for gaming besides marginally better reflections at a greater cost to the consumer. We’ve solved all our photo realism and lighting problems with PBR.
Ray tracing is not a fad though, and reducing it to just reflections is ignorant. Reflections, shadows, bounce lighting/global illumination, etc. all get noticeable bumps in quality. They are definitely more subtle than previous bumps from new techniques because those old techniques have gotten so damn good. But at the same time, those previous techniques have reached their limits and have unfixable problems. Whether that is occlusion artifacts in reflections, light leaking from global illumination, non-interactive baked lighting, shadows with uncanny resolution and no penumbra, hacky ambient occlusion, etc. etc… the problems are all minor, sure, but they are there, noticable, and devs want to keep pushing.
And this is ignoring the benefits on the dev side as well. No more annoying rasterized light placement. And pulling your hair out trying to hack the engine to get the look youre after. “It just works” is an unfortunate comment but holds a lot of truth. Even non realistic looking games will use more and more ray tracing as time goes on because of that. And eventually every device and card will have performance for a full suite of effects. Its an inevitability, not a fad.
Yeah these discussions are hilarious, like watching people arguing about anti-aliasing back in the day. Rerendering the whole scene again? Just to remove some jagged edges? What a waste.
Raytracing is future technology, I’m glad it’s in every game now even if it’s not always well optimized or worth using, because it will make those games age that much better when I want to go back and play them in 10+ years.
I heard from a friend that, allegedly, Riccitiello sold a load of his shares in Unity last week, almost like he knew those shares would be worth less this week… No idea if there’s any truth to it. You know how rumours can be.
I’m starting a game design degree on Monday, and I know Unity is on the syllabus (though not until later in the year). Guess it’ll be interesting to start the term with a conversation about how useful knowledge of Unity will be long term. Since the majority of graduates from this university go into or start indie studios (due to geography), how Unity treat smaller developers is definitely going to be relevant.
I don't quite get how the changes are so bad for indies. You must have both $200k revenue and 200k installs before the fee starts ticking on the excess installs. Do indies really sell that kind of numbers?
I can see how the flood of ad-based mobile F2P games are hit, but I don't feel sorry for those that run that kind of model.
Some do and can you risk to be one of them if Unity takes that much after the first week?
Terraria, a game that got fresh content for years, meaning people were each update reinstalling the game, installing it on multiple platforms etc.
During its first week of release, the game sold over 200,000 copies. That number increased to 12 million by June 2015. As of the end of 2020, the game has sold over 35 million copies worldwide. Read more: tuko.co.ke/421556-top-20-selling-indie-games-time…
The reality is that it’s a lot of fuss for a game development company to switch engines but for an experienced individual developer it’s not a huge deal to switch engines. If you learn game development and design today using Unity then 100% of the game design knowledge is exactly transferable and 80-99% of the game development knowledge (depending on exactly what you’re doing) will transfer to Unreal or Godot or whatever else you might need to use later.
It’s like a musician switching from one audio production suite to another. The musical theory stays the same and while the exact details of how to make each bit of software do stuff is different, the actual stuff you’re making it do is broadly the same.
Yeah, not surprised. Industry consolidation sucks in general, but Embracer specifically always felt like it was way overextending. Their bizarre acquisition spree was always going to end badly.
With all the news coming out the past couple days about The Veilguard, I’m starting to piece together a suspicion that Bioware is picking things back up where they last had decent ideas: early to mid 2010s.
I think Veilguard will feel like a stuck-in-time successor to Inquisition, stale by that period’s standards and grossly outdated by today’s, especially in the wake of Larian’s enormous success reinvigorating the kind of game Bioware has forgotten how to make.
I’ve been a fan of Dragon Age since Origins and this game looks like another step towards the kind of simplified gameplay that every game has made. It’s disappointing that the series has gone from an RPG to a generic 3rd person action adventure game, but given the gradual evolution of the other games it’s not really surprising.
kind of game Bioware has forgotten how to make.
Such a nice way to sum it up. You would think that the success of Baldur’s Gate 3 would show publishers that there is a (large) market for actual RPGs, but that’s maybe too much to hope for.
That is what their marketing wants you to think, the reality is going to be its just another soulless shallow designed-by-committee AAA rpg. Nothing ive seen so much has led me to believe otherwise and they have quite a streak of bad games to break.
“These charges consist of approximately $50 million to $65 million associated with office space reductions, approximately $40 million to $55 million related to employee severance and employee-related costs, and $35 million to $45 million in costs associated with licensor commitments,” reads the filing.
The severance I get, but why is closing offices costing them so much. And what are “ licensor commitments?”
It is dystopian really the nature of shuffling hundreds or thousands of people to a building, into a cubicle, in front of a computer for 8 hours a day.
cause commercial rental is a commitment, if you can’t find another company to take over your lease, chances are you have to pay the majority of left over amount + penalty + restoration. Licensor commitments are similar but probably on tech/software licensing, ie. server rentals, Maya/Speedtree licensing agreement for the site, whatever cloud service they use for backup and share stuff, etc. Those at bigger scale aren’t paid year to year like your regular indie studio just subscribe to Adobe/Autodesk for app uses per seat.
Every big UK company I have worked for doesn't own its building. They will typically agree to rent a building for 5-20 years at a fixed rate (longer times if its being purpose built for them) .
So I would expect this is paying out the rest of the rental agreements for a building to escape the building lease.
It is to do with financial reporting and the way asset and operational costs are reported.
My favorite example of this is Tribes 1, players found if you tap jump fast while going down a hill, they could “ski” down and gain a lot of momentum. The dev’s hadn’t intended this to be the case, but players loved it, and the dev’s thought it was cool so they left it in. Now skiing is just considered a primary trait of Tribes games.
gamedeveloper.com
Ważne