Mark Rein speaks on Silicon Knights v. Epic suit
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Aug 9th 2007 at 1:59PM }
There have been some developers who spoke out regarding development issues with Epic's Unreal Engine 3. Sony even admitted their concerns by sending in their own engineers to get the UE3 working on their "timed exclusive" title Unreal Tournament 3 for PS3. Whatever the issue with the engine, the latest bit in this saga revolves around Silicon Knights allegedly co-opting the UE3 tech as their own. Epic says in their suit, "Indeed, the plain language of the Silicon Knights' Complaint makes clear that Silicon Knights wants to take Epic's Licensed Technology, pay nothing for it, and use it any way it pleases." Epic wants "compensatory and punitive damages, the destruction of infringing goods, including infringing computer code, and attorney's fees and costs." This is only going to get bigger before it gets better.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Freeze @ Aug 9th 2007 2:05PM
That game will never see the light of day. I am tired of holding my breath.
Grey Fox @ Aug 9th 2007 3:06PM
No its going to ship but they better hope it makes them lots of money because it sounds like they are screwed.
AoE @ Aug 9th 2007 4:35PM
um... it sounds like if Epic wins the counter-suit, it might not ship, as Silicon Knights will be left without a game engine. Which would be hilarious. Hopefully it'll encourage Dennis Dyack to be an even bigger turd than he's been in the past.
Dennis, we're waiting patiently to hear you whine like a bitch again! Always funny!
AnonymousTipster @ Aug 9th 2007 2:08PM
Sadly, I was actually looking forward to this.
Damn.
Mike @ Aug 9th 2007 2:09PM
It's a shame that they've got to go through this. The video released on XBL looked amazing. As a software developer I can understand how they feel. It's annoying when the tools you rely on just won't do what they're supposed to do.
Crashman06 @ Aug 9th 2007 2:11PM
Yep. Too Human's dead as a new Duke Nukem.
Truepatriot @ Aug 9th 2007 2:14PM
what are you talking about?
duke nukem forever is coming out next year EXCLUSIVELY on the phantom.
Stevo @ Aug 9th 2007 2:13PM
This Sucks. I was really looking forward to Too Human. Oh well...
Knight Marquise @ Aug 9th 2007 2:14PM
Personally, I've always felt Mr. Rein is a tad on the shady side. I wouldn't be surprised if Epic gets spanked when the dust settles. There's simply been too many devs, off the record usually, that have implied similar problems.
mr nimblewick @ Aug 9th 2007 2:15PM
Maybe this will teach game makers to create their own engine instead of rehashing this one into multiple generic FPSs (yes yes, I have heard of too human, be quiet). But probably not.
Triforceowner @ Aug 9th 2007 2:19PM
You want Stalker for every game? It takes a long time to make your own engine from scratch, you need to use another engine to save time and make the game come out while it will still be relevant.
mr nimblewick @ Aug 9th 2007 2:26PM
I want games to be different from one another again. It seems that every game I read about nowadays is running on the UE3, meaning it'll star men in cyber suits with shaved heads. I'm sick of it.
d-pad @ Aug 9th 2007 2:45PM
You can blame UE3 for many things, but hinting that the engine is somehow forcing devs into a certain art direction with cyber suits is just...retarded.
Also, games have been using licensed engines for years. Take a look at the history of the quake and original unreal engines.
There are some fantastic games (half-life anyone) that used the 'same' engine, so I really don't know what you're talking about.
mr nimblewick @ Aug 9th 2007 2:54PM
Hm... Preeetty sure Half-life wasn't on UE3.
BobbyBob @ Aug 9th 2007 3:05PM
Half-life was made in a modified version of the Quake engine. That same engine was used for dozens of games.
I think that d-pad's point was that even if a game uses a third-party engine, it doesn't have to be a derivative, standard experience.
Viridium @ Aug 9th 2007 3:06PM
Nimblewick, you frigging toolbox, he was referring to all the games made using the Source engine that was developed for Half-Life 2.
mr nimblewick @ Aug 9th 2007 5:09PM
I see, he was talking about something other than what I was in a vague way.
Pardon my staying on topic.
I never said that games that use the same engine were necessarily bad, just that they are similar (since they, you know, use the same engine).
Zeus the God @ Aug 9th 2007 11:32PM
nimblewick, what you don't seem to understand is that UE3 was made for FPS and third person shooters. Thats why you won't see a racing game using UE3.
Games that use UE3 don't have to be or look generic, or even look like the things are in other existing games. The engine is the enabler. The way it looks all depends on the developer.
d-pad @ Aug 10th 2007 10:08AM
Nimblewick,
What the hell man? I am staying on topic.
You said:
"It seems that every game I read about nowadays is running on the UE3, meaning it'll star men in cyber suits with shaved heads. I'm sick of it."
Your little rant implies that UE3 is somehow creating men in cyber suits - whatever that means. What I'm saying is that it's not UE3 that's doing that - its THE DEVELOPERS!!! There is no preset look that devs have to follow when using UE3.
It's an engine that renders whatever the artists decide to create. Models, textures, sounds and all other content is created by the DEVELOPERS! All UE3 does is render the content in realtime - although I do find that UE3 games have a similar soft back lighting, but that's beside the point.
Understand? With me?
What you're saying is in the same vein as blaming the paintbrush for generic landscape paintings. Talk to the artist - not the effing tool.
Badboy1979 @ Aug 9th 2007 2:18PM
Everytime I read a post about this situation it makes me recall a video with Bill Gates asking CliffyB directly (I think it was some sort of MTV feature on Gears of War) about having GeOW ready in time for its release date and the amount of pressure that must have been on Epic to get the game done.
It wouldn't surprise me if Epic really did slack/lapse in their contractual agreements with other companies around supporting/updating the Unreal engine because they were slammed with building Gears.
This drama will definitely be worth the popcorn.
Ging @ Aug 9th 2007 2:29PM
That was the MTV feature-ette "Road to E3".
It'll be a real shame if this does cause the death of Too Human, it was starting to show some real promise based on videos and what not.
Badboy1979 @ Aug 9th 2007 2:39PM
Yeah that's the one... Thanks!
Bleck @ Aug 9th 2007 2:21PM
If Epic fights, then will lose, because Bleck says such, blehahahaha! Bleck!
Robert @ Aug 9th 2007 2:23PM
It's hard to argue with that kind of logic.
Matt @ Aug 9th 2007 2:56PM
seriously dude. Run for Government. I'll vote for you!
shoeshine @ Aug 9th 2007 2:42PM
Destruction of infringing goods?
Yikes. To hell with Epic. SK's lawsuit isn't attempting to permanently put them out of business. The destruction of Too Human would bring down SK for good. They can't afford to not put that game out.
AoE @ Aug 9th 2007 4:38PM
SK gone for good... as long as Dyack doesn't get another job in the industry where he can whine and blame the press/fanboys for his team's shortcomings, that sounds good to me!
JustMe @ Aug 9th 2007 2:43PM
Basically, Epic made promises to Silicon Knights about delivery and did not meet those deadlines, and Silicon Knights is basing a bunch of products on the technology, but can't release their products because of certain features they planned to use are not ready.
Some other developers have mentioned missing portions of the engine, and cited that they had to write their own pieces, which seems to lead credence to the issue that SK is raising. Most major UE3 games have been delayed. Also is seems even Sony is lending a hand to Epic to work on the engine.
Even though Epic is counter suing, I think SK certainly has a case or a least a legitimate beef with Epic.
BananaBoat @ Aug 9th 2007 3:02PM
I for one hope Silicon Knights loses and their game has to get scrapped. Is anyone actually looking forward to playing too human? If anyone is, it's nowhere near the amount of people looking to play Unreal Tournament 2007 (Or UT3, whatever they are calling it these days). It seems to me that the U3 Engine is fully out and ready (Gears of War, and other games give credence to this) but that Epic's ever changing of the source code has lead to problems. Then again, I have no idea, so nevermind what I just said. Epic for the winnnnn. WE LOVE YOU CLIFFFFYYYYYYYY!
Crono @ Aug 9th 2007 3:10PM
Seriously, dude. You need to go away. You haven't contributed an intellegent post yet, and this one is by far the dumbest.
xXFenixKnight13Xx @ Aug 9th 2007 3:21PM
I was actually looking forward to this game. Sk shoulda jus kept their mouths shut cuz they prob arent even going to get to release this game. Its BS! On th eother hand I love Gears haha!
Signed- A Seriously 10,000 noob Killer on GEARS
Jake @ Aug 9th 2007 3:42PM
I was looking forward to Too Human. Hands-on impressions were very positive. The scope of the game and concept behind it is solid. The gameplay just looked fun, Norse mythology angle sounded sweet, and the graphics were good.
As for Unreal tournament, that game will only be big now that it is built more for consoles. The PC versions, while very great games, never sold much more than a million apiece. If it were still PC only, there would be like 2 million buying it if that.
ExMcloud @ Aug 9th 2007 4:26PM
Actually even GOW had its problems it was no where near perfect and honestly alot of people have been lookin forward to Too Human so speak for your self
d-pad @ Aug 9th 2007 3:07PM
FFS...
I never said half-life was on UE3. It was on a modified Quake 2 engine - just like a bunch of other games were.
My point is that UE3 is not responsible for creating stereotypical shooters - developers are.
d-pad @ Aug 9th 2007 3:11PM
By the way...this was supposed to be in response to Nimblewicks thread.
mr nimblewick @ Aug 9th 2007 5:13PM
And my point is that not only are developers making generic games, but making on the same engine as everyone else also makes them play like each other (and often look similar, do to limitations of the engine).
It must be said, though, that if this engine wasn't available, many of these games wouldn't be able to be made. I think that would be a good thing, though I can see why others would consider that bad.
Night Elve @ Aug 9th 2007 3:17PM
Seriously i really hope Epic wins this lawsuit. Silicon Knights are a bunch of idiots that cannot code and thus need to complain about how incapables they are making games.
Avatar @ Aug 9th 2007 4:48PM
Even if you had used proper grammar that would have been a stupid thing to say.
"complain about how incapables they are making games."
I mean, wow.
dan stabbingworth @ Aug 9th 2007 6:16PM
Fish don't gots no good metal to listens to!
sZimm @ Aug 9th 2007 3:35PM
honestly, who can be surprised that developers are having problems programming for new multicore platforms using a brand new engine? ...but any good artist should know that blaming the tools for his own shortcomings isnt exactly fair...
Jake @ Aug 9th 2007 3:52PM
Both sides probably have some valid points. I mean, SK must have felt like complete crap when they received weak sauce UE3 updates leading up to E3, with playable code only two weeks before the show, while watching Gears run flawlessly and take best in show. Epic allegedly failed to give them the full UE3 code as they were contractually obligated to, despite their clear ability to do so.
At the same time, SK has essentially taken Epic's code, learned from it, and created their own engine by changing lines here and there. Kinda like plaegerizing an article where you change all the words in the sentences, but follow the same logic path beginning to end. Sure, SK has likely added to it and surely improved it from where it started.
This might end as a "tie". SK may receive damages for Epic's failure to fulfil the contract despite its obvious capability to do so. At the same time, I highly doubt SK will get the legal right to do whatever they want with the "Silicon Knights Engine".
One fact that I want is whether or not SK continued to accept Epic's updates well after they allegedly started "building their own engine". If they were still accepting tips, then I can't see them winning this thing. If they contacted Epic early on and said they were going to make their own engine, then Epic would stop giving updates and maybe SK has some pretty complete ownership over the engine.
Regardless, this thing is going to get really nasty and SK might end up in the gutters. I really hope that Too Human is still released, though.
Crono @ Aug 9th 2007 4:04PM
I thought that when you licensed an engine, you were allowed to make any changes and tweaks required to make the game you wanted to make.
Otherwise, all unreal engine 3 games would look and play exactly like UT3. If SK is claiming a brand new engine that they would have sole ownership of, I don't think they could win. But if its still under the UE3 licensing contract, this should be a win for SK.
Ian @ Aug 9th 2007 4:28PM
You are allowed to make all the tweaks you want. You just can't SELL those tweaks to someone else. I believe they get sent back to Epic and if they want, Epic can implement them into the engine but the originating company does NOT own the changes they made.
Ian @ Aug 9th 2007 4:27PM
Heres the thing. Too Human was supposed to come out on PS1 in 99, then on GameCube in 02 and now in 07 they decided to switch again and they can't get it to run right, yet its Epic's fault? I'm feeling like they got in WAY over their heads and can't bail themselves out now. Ubi got R6:Vegas done on the UE3 engine... Turok has been demoed and looks good. BioShock is on UE3, thats coming out very shortly. The problem is, 99% of licensed engines require coding on the developers part. Usually you are buying a head start in engine development, not a complete polished project, especially one you KNOW isn't finished yet.
Silicon Knights of ALL companies should know that when it comes to programming, NOTHING is finite when it comes to dates. Otherwise their game would have been out 8 years ago on PS1.
skooby @ Aug 9th 2007 4:33PM
If you read the complaint... it sounds like it will be interesting...
That Epic promised certain things at certain times... and haven't delivered. This forces SK to take things into their own hands.
Counter-suing isn't the best idea in my mind for Epic... Some companies will just not want to deal with the head aches if they think that they could be sued if things go wrongly.
I think SK has a real case here, since Epic and others have acknoledged that it hasn't gone as smoothy as they had hoped.
But the courts will decide that...
Mr Khan @ Aug 9th 2007 4:48PM
I'm getting tired of both Mark Rein and Dennis Dyack
just put 'em on the list to be sent to the deserted "Island of the Idiots of Gaming" with Jack Tretton, Perrin Kaplin, J Allard, and Uwe Boll
Crono @ Aug 9th 2007 4:57PM
LOL, right on.
syco @ Aug 9th 2007 5:41PM
If Silicon Knights says there's something wrong with the U3 engine, then there probably is, and I imagine the last thing in the world Epic wants to do is admit to that, because they'd have to work out a deal to make it right, not just with SK, but with every developer that has liscenced their engine. That would be very expensive and time consuming. They probably think it would be cheaper just to out-lawyer SK. Which of course is complete BS, but there isn't much SK can do about it.
BananaBoat @ Aug 9th 2007 6:04PM
The only decent thing Silicon Knights ever created is Legacy of Kain, and then they managed to stomp that franchise into the ground with horrible sequels. The game they made for the Gamecube was alright, but it was no masterpiece. They can't come anywhere near the uber skills of Cliffy. Oh and Mark Rein really does need to STFU and GTFO (He's up there with the creator of God of War, as one of the most obnoxious people in the industry)
shoeshine @ Aug 9th 2007 6:10PM
Eternal Darkness was the best Gamecube game there was.