I’ve seen it first hand. Repeated statements by the corp execs asking for one thing, studio directors trying to push something else.

I mean, I’ve also seen execs ask for ridiculous shit as well, I’m just saying sometimes it really does come from the studios themselves.

To be fair, I don’t think all of the blame can be laid on execs. Game directors and Art directors are often the source of the issue.

I’ve seen execs come to a studio and say: “Make something AAA, a single player game with unique gameplay and a great 10 hour story, and get it done in a couple of years. Don’t worry about the bottom line, we want a showcase experience.”

Then the directors come back with: “Okay, showcase you say? How about a AAAA 20v20 open world multiplayer shooter (nobody is doing that!), SaaS (to keep’em coming back), with ultra realistic graphics (it’ll be epically fun that way), a $100million budget (we’ll outsource to save money), MTX so we can make tons of money (we get profit sharing right?), and we do it in 3 years (for work-life balance)?”

Devs are just sitting there shaking their heads and thinking… “Here we go again…”

I’ve always disliked how washed out BotW looks. It’s like they could only process limited colours so they reduced the contrast and everything is light grey with a hint of colour.

I don’t think anyone has mentioned: being very competitive.

Somewhere uncomfortable

Username checks out.

Pretty sure it says “Have you tried turning it off and on again?”

It’s hard to understand without the associated hand gestures though.

(Edit to add in seriousness: yes, the first part says it can’t pop up the integrated flash, second part says try restarting the camera, I think)

Agreed, just making a joke because of the context.

Real men sit to pee so they don’t have to clean their own piss up later.

Whenever I talk about this, some asshat will come along and make a comment about sitting on a tree. No, dumbass, I don’t sit to pee on a tree. Or a urinal. I sit to pee on my toilet at home so I can tell you what an idiot you are while I’m pissing just to prove how manly I am.

Agreed. As I mentioned elsewhere, Falcon 9 is still revolutionary, but I was just clarifying that the SRBs were recycled, as that is sometimes forgotten.

The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) from shuttle launched were recycled. They parachuted into the ocean after being jettisoned and were recovered and refused. They just didn’t land themselves. The external fuel tank was not reused.

Yes, but it’s essentially incremental engineering, made possible by ginormous funding, including NASA money, and a private company doing things that NASA can-t politically afford.

NASA spent about 50 Billion today-dollars developing (not launching) the shuttle program and that went to private contractors (Boeing, Lockheed, United Space, etc.) Starship has a long way to go to hit those numbers.

I really don’t find anything SpaceX is doing revolutionary

Really? Nothing? Many people said what Falcon 9 now does on a regular basis could not be done. No one was even trying. The closest plans were still going to land horizontally and went nowhere. Now, you have to explain why you’re not landing your booster, and what your plans are to fix that going forward: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/09/11/china-wants-to-replace-jeff-bezos-as-musks-greatest-space-threat/

They quite literally revolutionized the space industry in terms of the cost to launch to orbit.

Imagine NASA crashing 4 Shuttles before getting landing right. There’d be no NASA by now.

Yet another way they’ve revolutionized the industry. Almost everyone is doing expendable tests now so that they can move forward quickly. Columbia started construction in 1975, launched for the first time in 1981. When they launched it, it was a fully decked out space shuttle and they put the whole thing on the line - including two astronauts. Imagine NASA trying to do that now. They’d be grounded so hard they’d be jealous of Mankind having a table to land on.

In terms of the overall point, I was talking about Unreal specifically. If it makes you understand better that all engines are geared toward specific game features, great, read it that way. However, you still don’t seem to understand that UE5 isn’t the right engine out-of-the-box for every game. So even if I buried that, and now it’s clear, you’re still in denial.

You keep saying it, but at the scale of games Bethesda makes it isn’t simply a fact that switching engines will be faster or easier. Even switching a code base from UE3 to UE4, or UE4 to UE5 wasn’t/isn’t a simple task (I’ve done it, I know.) Completely switching engines means you’re losing almost everything. You simply don’t seem to understand the scale of work entailed with moving major features from one engine to another. Or for maintaining features in an engine you don’t have full control of. I’ve done that too.

You’ve already said that you can’t be convinced otherwise though, so clearly you think you’re smarter than them, despite their deep knowledge of what they’re making.

I’m not saying they made all the best choices (or that they will going forward), but being flippant about the obviousness of the choice, and saying it is simply faster to switch engines demonstrates serious lack of knowledge and experience in the matter.

Yes. AA/AAA dev with UE3, UE4, UE5 and several proprietary engines. I’ve even contributed to Unreal Engine code with bug fixes.

Baldur’s Gate 3 is built on the Divinity Engine.

They don’t make the engine to make that game.

They shouldn’t, if they’re going to be an engine company. But anything that isn’t for keeping Fortnite pulling in billions of dollars is secondary.

It has gained features over a long period of time that would fit common use cases from other developers, regardless of what Epic has built.

Gained and lost. Very basic things necessary to make all the new features work with anything “not Fortnite” were missing when UE5 was released. It absolutely released as an engine for making Fortnite type games and everything else was/is an afterthought. You either had to make atrocious work arounds, engine changes, or wait for stuff to be fixed/added, delaying your project.

Meanwhile, nothing will convince me that Bethesda’s tech stack is worth keeping.

Do you have inside knowledge? UE5 isn’t the be-all end-all of game engines. Not everyone should switch to it. And frankly, as gamers and devs, we desperately need a good competitor to show up soon. Epic is gaining way too much control over our experiences.

The problem with Unreal Engine is (and always has been) that Epic makes the engine to make the game they’re currently working on. So right now it is a Fortnite engine. Previously it was a Gears of War engine. (Maybe throw Paragon in between.) It started out as the engine for Unreal Tournament.

So if you want to take that engine and start making a different type of game, it’s not necessarily going to have the tools you need. It’s not necessarily even going to do what you need it to do at the base engine level. Not that it couldn’t, but Epic doesn’t give a shit. So they give you all the source code and support for building your own version of the engine so you can add the features you need.

You want to make a vast, persistent, open world with vast dungeons you can enter and explore? Yeah you’re going to have to build support for that in the engine yourself. You want to do it without loading screens? Better get deep into that engine code. You want to have vehicles or mounts? NPCs, companions, AI enemies? When they hadn’t added them to Fortnite yet, totally up to you to figure out, and probably through modifying the engine. Need to make major rendering improvements? Better dig in. Problems with the art pipeline lacking features you need

Every time you touch engine code, that’s new tech debt. If a new version of the engine comes out, you have to integrate the changes. The longer the project goes on, the harder that becomes. Then Epic finally comes out with the feature you built yourself (say vehicles) but its only partly the way you did it. Now you’re fucked and you have to decide right there: strip out your changes, switch to theirs and redo most of your work, or, stop taking engine upgrades and integrate new features piecemeal. Now you’re in tech debt hell.

Almost every developer starts off with saying, “we’ll use the engine as is, no engine changes allowed!” Three months later the cynical director is having a high level meeting about allowing a major feature get implemented in engine code. But it will be alright, they tell themselves. 3-5 years later they’re up to their eyeballs in tech debt of engine changes, and realizing Amazing Game 2 either needs to be built using the old version of the engine they’re stuck on from 2-4 years ago, or built from the ground up on a new version of the engine.

I’d be thinking long and hard before switching to UE5 if I were Bethesda. And they have the advantage of having access to some of the best Unreal Engine developers in the world (Obsidian, The Coalition) now that they’re part of Microsoft. They’re also probably getting a bunch of pressure to make the change as the studios create a corps of experts.

If I were them I would be very tempted to make the necessary changes to Creation Engine, and stay far, far away from Unreal. Sacrifice a year or two and your top engine devs to overhaul the pain points of Creation Engine, keep full control of your pipelines and versioning, and make the game you want to make, not the one Epic wants you to make. You can even make awesome DLC or a smaller sequel game on the old branched engine while the overhaul takes place, and just have a small core team working out the kinks on the new system.

I guess my point is, tech debt is not the point, because there will always be tech debt. It’s a much bigger decision than that.

The router might have a page for fixed IP addresses.