By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
20happyballs on 24 August 2012
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
20happyballs said:

You are lost. We have been comparing the budget between this tech demo and current gen games. Not this tech demo compared to the other next gen engines. It's obvious that those other engines were running on higher budgets. 

Our overall debate is about whether or not this tech demo can be said to look worse than current gen games. My argument is that it can be said to look worse. My bias is my preference of things other than the polycount. That hardly makes this debate pointless...unless you want to start to claiming that your opinion should be everyone's opinion. Then the debate would be pointless because there would be no way to reason with you.

Zarx said: Unreal and Cryengine 3 = over $1 million per game and/or revenue sharing where you have to pay a % of the revenue from the game, depending on the size of the game and the extras and support you get.

Unity = $1,500 + $500 for collaborative tools and some extra optional extras for $200-1,500  

That is comparing the budgets of engines current and next bud. Not lost at all. 

In fact, it's been compared to both from the beginning of the thread, if you've been keeping up. And I say again, you can't call for reason and make a biased, unfair comparison, doesn't matter if you acknowledge it or not. Lastly, and this makes twice I've asked, if you know the budgets of the engines you're defending, I'm all ears. 

I've never referred to the posts prior to mine. I don't see how you could have thought I included them in our argument. I never answered your questions about the budgets because you never answered what you meant by budget. That's your fault. I now see that you didnt mean computing budget but rather the cost of using the engine. I didn't think you were talking about that budget because that is completely irrelevant in terms of measuring the engine capability. A weaker engine is still a weaker engine. 

So you say that there can be no debate if there is a bias? If people did not have a biases there would be no debates. Please tell me how you would choose a side of a debate without having a bias. Sure the comparisons I've given are a bit unfair, but not unfair enough to throw them out. I'm all ears...