UE4 - If you love something, set it free

[CrimsonStrife]

While you still pay royalties on commercial products (funding counts as revenue), the engine is now free to use, source code included.

[eezstreet]

Remember when I said that them making it a subscription service was a stupid idea?

 

Now who looks stupid?

 

@@Xycaleth @@ensiform

[ensiform]

Saw already

[Circa]

Nice.

[ensiform]

It still wasn't a terrible idea to have a fee seeing how much they are giving access to.

[eezstreet]

It still wasn't a terrible idea to have a fee seeing how much they are giving access to.

Yeah but it's a bad/unsustainable business model, considering very few ever want the bleeding edge version and will readily update their code every time a new version comes out. It's low maintenance for small projects to pull/merge, but with large projects (like something out of EA) I can't see why they would honestly want to pay every month for something they don't need. Subscription-pay models for software updates* is never a sustainable business model. Neither the end user nor project managers care if the version is up to date, unless there's a major stability problem (which also has lots of nasty side effects for the company..)

[DT.]

I like how I'm getting my last sub refunded and a $30 marketplace voucher.

 

 

*UE4 shouts: "MESA FREE!" queue fireworks and force ghost Obi-wan Cantbillme

[Vartex]

Haha great news! Just when I started to get used to Unity

[CrimsonStrife]

CryEngine will probably shit themselves collectively over this. They only recently got into the subscription model.

 

While Unity may still have quite a lot of cost, it at least has the advantage of a well established user-base.

 

Yeah but it's a bad/unsustainable business model, considering very few ever want the bleeding edge version and will readily update their code every time a new version comes out. It's low maintenance for small projects to pull/merge, but with large projects (like something out of EA) I can't see why they would honestly want to pay every month for something they don't need. Subscription-pay models for software updates* is never a sustainable business model. Neither the end user nor project managers care if the version is up to date, unless there's a major stability problem (which also has lots of nasty side effects for the company..)

They'd have been better off with something similar to the UDK model with a one-off fee.

 

Given my experience with Epic and their licensing methods, I suspect that something like this was likely the plan to begin with, and that the sub was only meant to be temporary until they figured out how the engine would fair in the wild/made it more stable for general use.

[ensiform]

Yeah but it's a bad/unsustainable business model, considering very few ever want the bleeding edge version and will readily update their code every time a new version comes out. It's low maintenance for small projects to pull/merge, but with large projects (like something out of EA) I can't see why they would honestly want to pay every month for something they don't need. Subscription-pay models for software updates* is never a sustainable business model. Neither the end user nor project managers care if the version is up to date, unless there's a major stability problem (which also has lots of nasty side effects for the company..)

You were never required to stay up to date. The launcher did have a way to convert to never version or at least attempt to.

 

Large companies also still have the option of paying the full license like previous UE3 but retain ability to update.

[CrimsonStrife]

You were never required to stay up to date. The launcher did have a way to convert to never version or at least attempt to.

 

Large companies also still have the option of paying the full license like previous UE3 but retain ability to update.

This was also true @@eezstreet there are/were custom license options available to people who could afford them that would avoid the sub model. There was/likely still is, a custom option to avoid royalties, but I imagine it to be convoluted/expensive.

[eezstreet]

This is the point I was trying to make. Nobody wanted the subscription model, hence why they got rid of it. Subscriptions aren't sustainable business models when it comes to software updates. That's exactly why Adobe and Microsoft don't follow this model. CryTek just follows trends and doesn't really think for itself, so I wouldn't be surprised if they went the same route as Epic.

 

Also I highly doubt that this was Epic's idea all along @@CrimsonStrife, otherwise they wouldn't be giving out refunds.

[CrimsonStrife]

This is the point I was trying to make. Nobody wanted the subscription model, hence why they got rid of it. Subscriptions aren't sustainable business models when it comes to software updates. That's exactly why Adobe and Microsoft don't follow this model. CryTek just follows trends and doesn't really think for itself, so I wouldn't be surprised if they went the same route as Epic.

 

Also I highly doubt that this was Epic's idea all along @@CrimsonStrife, otherwise they wouldn't be giving out refunds.

Creative Cloud and Office365 are Adobe and Microsoft following the subscription model with almost absolute gusto. The only argument I see there would be that they still maintain some standalone versions.

[eezstreet]

Creative Cloud and Office365 are Adobe and Microsoft following the subscription model with almost absolute gusto. The only argument I see there would be that they still maintain some standalone versions.

I picked my wording there carefully for a reason. Paying for software access is a completely different matter. Nobody is going to pay money for a subscription that amounts to patches for the game. If it's an MMO and you're required to pay a subscription for basic access, then yes, people will pay for it. Totally different concepts.