It is currently Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:53 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Uru Live vs Obduction
PostPosted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: California
Obduction has funded and the Cyan crew will be going to work on it. Obduction will consume them from now until sometime in 2015. While the game development is 8 to 5 work, I think the excitement of a new game on a hot new platform is too exciting to drop at 5PM. So, I believe Cyan spare time will more likely be spent on Obduction than Uru.

Uru development already seems incredibly slow. I expect the excitement about Obduction to take people away and change priorities in such a way to slow it even more.

I expand on that thinking on my blog: (which can't be linked to per moderator).

There is the possibility that fans engaged in age building will also begin to think about building for the Unreal engine. After all, does anyone think Cyan will ever again build a game in Plasma that only runs on Windows desktops? I don’t.

AFAIK, the Uru content is still restricted to the Plasma platform. If Cyan lets that license include Unreal, would there be any reason to keep developing the old Plasma platform?

Wouldn’t it be easier to move Uru content to Unreal than keep developing client, server, and 3DS tools for Plasma? After all, there are way more people capable of and interested in moving content than programming an old gaming engine.

All the engine development would be off loaded to the Unreal development team. That leaves Uru fans free to concentrate on content.

I would love to see an open source project moving Uru to Unreal. The first step would have to be talking Cyan into allowing it.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Last edited by Nalates on Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:37 pm
Posts: 165
This is an extremly complex topic but what you describe as using the Unreal engine from now on equals the complete recreation of game. On top of that the Unreal4 engine is one of the most expensive engines out there and without licensed mod kits/editors from Cyan fan creations are hardly possible.

I think it was the right choice to abandon the Plasma Engine for good but this ultimately also means the end of any continution for Uru/MOUL in its current form.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:47 pm 
Offline
Former MystOnline Moderator

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:05 pm
Posts: 4193
Location: 56°2'26", -3°20'28"
Nalates wrote:
AFAIK, the Uru content is still restricted to the Plasma platform. If Cyan lets that license include Unreal, would there be any reason to keep developing the old Plasma platform?

The suggestion of porting Uru/MOUL to alternative, newer engines has been proposed to Cyan in the past and it was made fairly clear that was off-limits. That seems to have been re-iterated in the ground rules that Cyan indicated to OpenUru on content licensing (see second bullet in this post - http://forums.openuru.org/viewtopic.php?p=7786#p7786).

I think for economical, new development it makes sense to go with a game engine that is "off-the-shelf" and supported by a third party, rather than an in-house product that requires maintenance and development which would detract from the actual game development. Back when Uru and Plasma first started, the equation was probably slightly different.

Everyone's attention has been taken elsewhere over recent months for a number of reasons, not just the Obduction Kickstarter, and I expect we might see some movement on MOULa again over the next couple of months.

_________________
Image Mac - MOULagain KI#00004826 00004289
In the interests of the environment, this post has been constructed entirely from recycled electrons.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:06 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:14 am
Posts: 52
I recently read that the average cost to build and publish an MMO today is $30 million. I don't have data to verify that number, but I don't doubt that whatever the costs are, they are far greater than whatever Cyan will have left after paying fees and taxes on the Kickstarter funds.

Cyan has returned to the business model they used for Myst, which has proven very profitable for them (i.e. 1st person, offline single-player). In the meantime, MOULa can continue to serve as an excellent platform to retain and strengthen their current customer base - and it doesn't cost them anything. Why would they want to change or abandon that?

Plasma is still a very good game engine, even if we can't paint foliage all over everything. It's capable of much more than most people realize and it can definitely render high-def graphics without a problem. Whether or not client computers can handle high-def graphics is another question. They certainly couldn't at the time MOUL was created. It's also specifically designed for action/adventure/puzzle games. And it's OS and free to use and play. And it's already a full fledged MMO game platform.

Nothing against SL, Nalates, but I wouldn't trade building in Plasma for building in SL on a bet. But that's just me :) .


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:26 pm
Posts: 2460
Location: Ontario, Canada
Nalates wrote:
So, I believe Cyan spare time will more likely be spent on Obduction than Uru.

Is this a problem? I always thought MOULa was a "second place" project. Still as long as people donate, Cyan will have to continue to "support" MOULa as that's what people are paying for.

_________________
-------------------
-Jamie Marchant
If I don't respond it's because email notification is down again and
I forgot to return to the thread.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: California
Unreal 4 EULA grants a free license to use the SDK to develop games. That means the Obduction/Uru communities could create content with a free system. We cannot sell it. But, we can give it to Cyan and they can use the content via their license.

The current EULA allows game developers to sell their games by paying Epic $99 USD, and 25% royalty on UDK related revenue from all UDK-based games or commercial applications above US$50,000. That makes it pretty easy and cheap to get into game development.

http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/DevelopmentKitFAQ.html = How much does UDK cost? A: It’s free to use UDK for noncommercial and educational use. Commercial licensing terms are available at http://www.udk.com/licensing and there is also a Licensing FAQ. Read the Licensing FAQ in the immediately preceding link.

We could debate the technical aspects of Plasma verse Unreal, that will get rather boring. I will point out that with Unreal having a heavy financial burden for commercial game developers and Plasma being essentially free for them, one has to ask why companies are choosing to use Unreal over Plasma?

I can understand a hobbyist that knows Plasma choosing it. But, for someone learning a new development platform, I cannot see why they would choose to spend their time on Plasma. It is too old and out of date and supports too few platforms. Plasma has no commercial developer.

As to it requiring US$30 million to develop a major game… I think Obduction and Minecraft both show that is not true. Popular well written games can be created much more cheaply. Plus apps are way cheap to produce, but those may not often be considered major games... even when they have millions of users.

I agree with Mac Fifi that Cyan has made it clear that content was not going to be licensed for porting to other platforms. I will point out that licenses were issued to use ‘certain’ assets in Second Life. So, I don’t consider this an absolute closed door. Cyan made their statements in a mind frame targeted on a set scenario related to the OU thread. Things change.

On the other hand, it is unlikely Cyan will reconsider Uru licensing while Obduction is in production. And it may be that existing agreements Cyan has made prevent any use of the content on a platform other than Plasma.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:03 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:14 am
Posts: 52
Nalates wrote:
Unreal 4 EULA grants a free license to use the SDK to develop games. That means the Obduction/Uru communities could create content with a free system. We cannot sell it. But, we can give it to Cyan and they can use the content via their license.


If you want to work for Cyan for free, okie dokie. Some people aren't interested in doing that, especially since we just raised over $1,100,000 to get them to build for us.

Nalates wrote:
I can understand a hobbyist that knows Plasma choosing it. But, for someone learning a new development platform, I cannot see why they would choose to spend their time on Plasma. It is too old and out of date and supports too few platforms. Plasma has no commercial developer.

As to it requiring US$30 million to develop a major game… I think Obduction and Minecraft both show that is not true. Popular well written games can be created much more cheaply. Plus apps are way cheap to produce, but those may not often be considered major games... even when they have millions of users.


I was not comparing "big" games to "little" games. I was comparing the cost of creating a single player 1st person only game with a massively multiplayer online 1st and 3rd person game. Yes, there is a HUGE difference in complexity and cost.

Nalates wrote:
I will point out that licenses were issued to use ‘certain’ assets in Second Life.


I wasn't aware that Cyan had licensed some of their assets for use in SL. Given the recent changes to the TOS of content uploaded to their servers by users, I wonder what affect that is having:

"Except as otherwise described in any Additional Terms (such as a contest’s official rules) which will govern the submission of your User Content, you hereby grant to Linden Lab, and you agree to grant to Linden Lab, the non-exclusive, unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, and cost-free right and license to use, copy, record, distribute, reproduce, disclose, sell, re-sell, sublicense (through multiple levels), modify, display, publicly perform, transmit, publish, broadcast, translate, make derivative works of, and otherwise exploit in any manner whatsoever, all or any portion of your User Content (and derivative works thereof), for any purpose whatsoever in all formats, on or through any media, software, formula, or medium now known or hereafter developed, and with any technology or devices now known or hereafter developed, and to advertise, market, and promote the same. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 2.3 is referred to as the "Service Content License." "

Linky to complete license here: Second Life TOS

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from obtaining the UDK and building whatever they like in it. I don't understand why we should throw away something exceptional that we already have simply because some people find it easier to build with different software.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: California
@Jamie,
Quote:
Is this a problem? I always thought MOULa was a "second place" project. Still as long as people donate, Cyan will have to continue to "support" MOULa as that's what people are paying for.

I see it as a problem for those of us that would like to see Uru moving forward with new ages being added. I see it as a big PLUS that they are concentrating on a new Cyan game. And I agree they will keep the Cavern open as long a Cavcon supports it.

@Ruth,
Quote:
Nothing against SL, Nalates, but I wouldn't trade building in Plasma for building in SL on a bet. But that's just me :) .

I respect your choice. Enjoy. But, I suspect you are thinking of SL’s in-world building tools. Advanced building in SL is now done in Blender, Maya, and 3DS.

Quote:
If you want to work for Cyan for free…

People do that now. So, I don’t get your point.

Quote:
I was not comparing "big" games to "little" games. I was comparing the cost of creating a single player 1st person only game with a massively multiplayer online 1st and 3rd person game. Yes, there is a HUGE difference in complexity and cost.

I’ll give you there can be a big difference in cost. But, there doesn’t have to be. Unreal provides MMO support. So, one can develop and MMO in Unreal. There are small indie developers building large project on small budgets.

A huge part of the cost is in building the systems that support the MMO aspects of a game. Linden Lab spends all of their several million dollars per year budget for SL in improving the client and server side engine. Unreal carries that cost spreading it over a large number of games and allows a developer to start marketing their game for $99 and percentage of sales. No large budget required.

I’m not saying large sums are not spent. I’m saying it is not an absolute requirement. There are ways around that and using the Unreal platform is one.

Quote:
I wasn't aware that Cyan had licensed some of their assets for use in SL. Given the recent changes to the TOS of content uploaded to their servers by users, I wonder what affect that is having:

I think the SL change in TOS creates a problem for those with licensed Cyan assets. I doubt the license and TOS are now compatible. The TOS change after the uploading of legally licensed content to SL creates some legal tangles. The Cyan licenses come with a NDA about not revealing the terms of license, as I remember. But, I can’t imagine the Cyan license grants the licensee the right to grant unlimited use of the assets to others. Therefore, it is now likely illegal, a violation of the Cyan license, to upload any Cyan asset to SL.

My point is Cyan has licensed content/assets for use on other platforms. The precedent is there.

Quote:
There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from obtaining the UDK and building whatever they like in it. I don't understand why we should throw away something exceptional that we already have simply because some people find it easier to build with different software.

This is the difference between your viewpoint and mine. You see Plasma as exceptional now. I see Plasma as once exceptional but now old, not maintained, out of date, and few people using it.

We agree people can use whatever platform they want to build ages. For now Plasma is probably the only way to create content that could ultimately end up in MOULa. But, should they choose Plasma they have to deal with it’s limits; limited device support, no new tech being added, old tech, and the requirement for a small community busy with other aspects of RL to support it and train people, an unattractive scenario.

The advantages of Unreal for any new age builders seem to out weigh negatives of Plasma by a large margin. Having played with both Plasma and Unreal, I found it much easier to learn Unreal. Using Blender to build for both Unreal and SL was much easier than figuring out how to build for Plasma. Once one has Plasma figured out they still have to figure out how to get an old 3DS and plugin to make things work they way they want in an age. I haven’t looked at the state of a Blender plugin or the 3DS plugin for sometime. That may have improved a bit in 5 years. But, my last look showed using those to be more of a mystical art than documented tools. I believe that makes the learning curve for new age builders unnecessarily steep.

I also believe the new excitement about Obduction will lead Cyan to do some things differently and hopefully avoid some of the mistakes they made with Myst-Uru and the fan community. They do learn. This may mean they will leave a path open for fan made content, which is all the rage with newer games, and we will be seeing new people interested in Unreal and avoiding Plasma.

The transcript of RAWA’s meeting indicate Cyan and crew are looking to keep Uru Live on a back burner and running as long as Cavcon supports it. It is clear they will be focusing on Obduction. While Mac Fife says we may see something happen in the next couple of months and we have a couple of years before we can play Obduction, I still don’t expect to see Cyan do much with Uru. The energy is following away from Plasma/Uru to a new world Unreal/Obduction.

If you don’t see that as a reason to consider using Unreal over Plasma, you don’t. It’s your choice. I think more people will choose Unreal. To me that means the best possibility for moving Uru Live forward is to move it to Unreal too.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:16 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2266
Location: Tigard, OR
It would make more sense to support H'uru efforts in porting Plasma to create native Mac and Linux clients. There is the fix for the "Windows only" problem.

_________________
MOULa KI: 26838 | Prologue Videos | Visit rel.to to explore Myst, Uru, and D'ni communities!
Click here for social/game profiles


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:31 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:02 pm
Posts: 1474
Location: Hanging around with mermaids. And still looking for the elusive Funky Bahro.
I like to compare it to road maintenance: do we keep patching the old one, or do we pave a new one?

_________________
New to Uru? See this video.

KI numbers:
TOOO 24657
Magical Mystery TOOO 643784
Institution TOOO 816645
Karaoke TOOO 816776

~and featuring~

Murinna (the mermaid) 2484723
Mallina (the other mermaid) 3015052

Second Life: TOOO Fall


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:58 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2266
Location: Tigard, OR
I apologize for my earlier posting. I see now that in my brevity, I probably came across sounding really harsh and not open to new ideas.

I was trying to say, that despite that Uru development seeming a bit slow, an engine change would throw away a huge amount of work that has already been done, and this discussion seems very one-sided to me without considering the possibilities of bringing the existing engine up to date.

If we could get Plasma running natively on other platforms (no more cider wrapper), and improve the graphics engine (as was once talked about), I think it could hold its own well enough. For a game engine that is over a decade old, I think it has aged pretty gracefully.

I'd like to see a more balanced comparison and informed discussion on this. Let's not sweep all that has been done previously under a rug and forget about it, without considering it first.

_________________
MOULa KI: 26838 | Prologue Videos | Visit rel.to to explore Myst, Uru, and D'ni communities!
Click here for social/game profiles


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:56 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am
Posts: 579
Nalates wrote:
I think more people will choose Unreal. To me that means the best possibility for moving Uru Live forward is to move it to Unreal too.
Moving URU Live to Unreal:
It's not difficult to export URU's modeled meshes and UVs to a different engine, and slap a single layer of the original texture on them. But that's a far cry from exporting what we think of as URU.

Nalates, you know that if URU were ported to a new engine, the *community* would not accept anything less than the original. It would have to - at minimum - retain every little piece of gameplay functionality now present in URU. It would have to look as-good-or-better in every aspect of lighting, texturing, animations, and so on. This is not a simple push-a-button-and-recompile matter; it would take a lot of human-hours and testing and refinement. Cyan is not going to do that work, and I cannot imagine that fan groups would do it either - even if the legal hurdles could be cleared to do so.

Show me an entirely-functional, multiplayer Unreal port of Teledahn or Ae'gura, with KIs and markers and sound and animations and linking and GUI popups etc. etc. etc. all working properly, with all the layered textures and lighting tricks of the original, and I'll gladly say I was wrong, that the remainder of the work could also be converted.

_________________
TL;DR
TL;DR: L;D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 5:22 pm
Posts: 1810
Location: California
@Martin, I can understand your desire for a balanced discussion of whether to stay with Plasma or go with Unreal. But, that isn’t really a decision that is being made here or proposed. People are going to use which ever platform they like. Those that know Plasma and are building ages now, will likely stay with Plasma.

My point is the world is changing. We are either letting Uru fall behind or we do something to move it forward. The current process of learning to build ages for Uru is, I believe, unnecessarily complex. For a long time I have encouraged people to learn modeling first in SL then move to Uru age building. See: Learning to Build 3D Models (Second Life Lessons) 2011. This thread is along the same line.

I find Uru development is painfully slow. And in the blog article (no link allowed) I point out other issues, controversial here, that can solved by changing the platform to a newer engine. Ease of learning and available support being significant reasons for a change.

Notice in your post the words, “If we could get Plasma running natively on other platforms (no more cider wrapper), and improve the graphics engine...” (Emphasis mine). Those that want to do that work will. But, while they get around to it, age builders and Uru wait. Or we can simply start moving to an engine that is already providing multiple platform support and the newest graphics rendering and physics tech.

Five years ago I was making the same suggestions and being told it would be quicker to update Plasma. But, 5 years later I don’t see that much has changed. If we had started moving Uru to other platforms 5 years ago, it would likely be moved and running on a modern engine. Shall we repeat that mistake?

I’ll emphasize it again, we are not making a decision on what is going to be done by the community as a whole. We are looking at the reality of what is likely to happen over the next 2 to 3 years. Some people may choose to start making forward moving proposals to Cyan about allowing their content to be moved to a modern platform. Consider. If Cyan makes a Real Uru, what engine are they likely to use? A modern Unreal they are familiar with? Or spend time building up their engine and then building Real Uru?

@Emor, you’re right, moving Uru is not going to be easy. I think you are wrong about what fans would do. Fans have repeatedly done far more and they have already moved Uru to other platforms, including Unreal. It is not exactly legal so we don’t hear about those migrations. Also, much of the work was proof of concept. But, the builds are out there. So, I think there is ample evidence that fans would do the work. After all we were told fans would not do the work to take Uru to SL and yet they did.

Your point that you’ll only change you mind if you see a perfect move of Uru to Unreal seems unrealistic to me. Even Uru as made by Cyan in Plasma is not perfect and without flaw. There are doors that still fail to work correctly. I haven’t found that to be a problem in Unreal.

Are you really doubting Uru can be rebuilt in Unreal? I think Cyan’s choice to use Unreal for Obduction and their comments shows that is more than possible. If you are just doubting that fans can provide the level of quality you think will be needed, you might be right. I think there are fans that can do professional level work. I believe we will see more professional level people interested in working on a project like moving Uru, especially if there is a modern engine they’re familiar with involved. The community has talent.

It may be a bit presumptuous to assume you know what fans will and won’t accept. You could be right. But, people have been very supportive of fan made content that falls well below the ‘Cyan standard’ we often refer to. So, I think it is very debatable what fans will or won’t accept.

_________________
Nalates - GoC - 418 - MOULa I: Nal KI#00 083 543, MOULa II: KI#00 583 875Nalates 111451 - Second Life: Nalates Urriah
Guild of Cartographers Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:07 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:15 am
Posts: 579
Nalates wrote:
@Emor....I think you are wrong about what fans would do. Fans have repeatedly done far more and they have already moved Uru to other platforms, including Unreal. It is not exactly legal so we don’t hear about those migrations. Also, much of the work was proof of concept. But, the builds are out there. So, I think there is ample evidence that fans would do the work.
As I said, "it's not difficult to export URU's modeled meshes and UVs to a different engine (say, Unreal), and slap a single layer of the original texture on them. But that's a far cry from exporting what we think of as URU." If a single full-featured URU Age has been recreated in its entirety in Unreal, looking as good and performing at least as well as the original, I will be quite shocked.

Quote:
Your point that you’ll only change you mind if you see a perfect move of Uru to Unreal seems unrealistic to me. Even Uru as made by Cyan in Plasma is not perfect and without flaw. There are doors that still fail to work correctly. I haven’t found that to be a problem in Unreal.
You are twisting my words; I never made any such claim that Cyan's URU was "perfect". I only indicated that I would be willing to change my mind if I saw an URU>Unreal conversion that was just as functional as the original.

Quote:
Are you really doubting Uru can be rebuilt in Unreal? ... If you are just doubting that fans can provide the level of quality you think will be needed, you might be right. I think there are fans that can do professional level work. ...The community has talent.
Of course it is technically possible to recreate URU using Unreal.
Again, you are misinterpreting what I said; I never claimed it was impossible. I said it would be a very labor-intensive task to do it completely and properly. I said that Cyan is not going to do it (no funding for it/totally preoccupied with Obduction) and that I cannot imagine the fans doing it (most fans with the capability would rather build their own ideas rather than doing the extremely tedious and uncreative grunt work of a conversion). I do not believe, and never never would say that fans are untalented or incapable of doing this, please don't put those words in my mouth.

Quote:
It may be a bit presumptuous to assume you know what fans will and won’t accept. You could be right. But, people have been very supportive of fan made content that falls well below the ‘Cyan standard’ we often refer to. So, I think it is very debatable what fans will or won’t accept.

Let me ask you, then, whether you believe the URU community would prefer a version of URU with lesser visual or technical quality than our current Plasma URU, one with fewer features, simply because it was using the Unreal engine?
Note that being supportive of something is quite different from preferring it over the original...and explorers would have to prefer the updated version to justify the enormous labor involved in an Unreal conversion.

_________________
TL;DR
TL;DR: L;D


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:26 pm 
Offline
Former MystOnline Moderator

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:05 pm
Posts: 4193
Location: 56°2'26", -3°20'28"
Nalates, did you actually read any of the UE3 licensing material that you linked to?
Licensing FAQ wrote:
You can't release your UDK project under terms other than the UDK EULA (like GPL, LGPL, open source, etc.).

EULA wrote:
2. License Grant. [...] (d) distribute the applications You develop using the UDK and derivative works of the UDK only in object code form, only as an inseparable part of the applications, and only to end users pursuant to an end user license agreement with terms consistent with and no less protective of Epic’s rights than those contained in this Agreement.
(my empahsis).

Less of an issue, but still a potential can of worms:
EULA wrote:
3. License Restrictions. [...] but You may not: [...] • use the UDK to develop cheats, hacks, or similar applications;

Aside from that, I think you'd have a wonderful time at the lawyer's office trying to get a mutual agreement on "non-commercial use" to permit the use of the free UDK.

_________________
Image Mac - MOULagain KI#00004826 00004289
In the interests of the environment, this post has been constructed entirely from recycled electrons.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], SEMrush [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: