Silicon Knights lawsuit against Epic

Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Silicon Knights lawsuit against Epic

I thought the technical details of this were interesting. Here is the full text:
http://www.shacknews.com/extras/siliconknights_epic/siliconknights_epic.pdf

It gets very interesting at page 32. This confirms my observation that Unreal Engine 3 does not even resemble the technology that was promised in the old UE3 preview promotional videos. Apparently, the engine uses vertex colors for lighting. If you remember the first UE3 videos, the promised something completely different.

Also during the August 12, 2004 meeting at Silicon Knights’ offices, Tim
Sweeney described the lighting model that the Engine would make available.
According to Sweeney, the model was to be mostly dynamic with three or
four lights affecting each object, and with only a small amount of precalculation
needed for static lights. Lighting is a key component to any game
designer’s efforts to create a realistic scene, and the ability of a game engine
to create a scene whose lighting is constantly shifting by virtue of a number of
light sources is integral to that effort. However, that promise by Epic also
turned out to be untrue. Prior to May, 2006, when Silicon Knights had to
begin creation of its own engine to avoid losing Too Human and possibly
going out of business altogether, Epic’s recommended model and means of
using the Engine for lighting had changed repeatedly and without warning.
As of May, 2006,, Epic and its Engine had been unable to deliver the lighting
model on which Sweeney had sold Silicon Knights the license. Upon
information and belief, at the time Epic shipped its own game, Gears of War
– over seven months after the deadline for successful implementation of the
Engine on the Xbox 360, as provided by paragraph 5(a)(iv)(B) of the
Agreement – the prescribed lighting model for the Engine was to pre-calculate
as much of the scene as possible and consolidate the light effects into three
US2000 10177182.1
33
light vectors per vertex while lighting the character from a single point light
that approximates the overall scene lighting. The net effect of those
restrictions, simply put, is to dramatically limit the dynamic nature of the
lighting and the creativity with which that lighting can be used throughout the
game; limitations that Epic plainly represented at the outset of is relationship
with Silicon Knights would not be present in “the Engine” it was going to,
and did, license to Silicon Knights.

During that same August 12, 2004 visit to Silicon Knights’ offices, Tim
Sweeney also represented on behalf of Epic that the Engine would allow
many tens of characters on the screen at the same time. That representation
was reinforced by Joe Graf on behalf of Epic on or about January 3, 2005,
when he stated that the Engine would allow 40-50 characters on the screen at
the same time. As of May, 2006, when Silicon Knights had to begin creation
of its own engine to avoid losing Too Human and possibly going out of
business altogether, Epic had not delivered software, code, tools, and/or
information sufficient to, and had otherwise failed to, fulfill those promises.
In fact, as of October 30, 2006, Epic had conceded that it was only placing 8-
10 “pawns” on the screen at one time in the version of its own Gears of War
that it was (as of that time) hoping Microsoft would certify.

On or about February 21, 2005, Joe Graf, on behalf of Epic, further
represented, in an e-mail to Silicon Knights that the Engine would operate on
final hardware at 30 frames per second with more than 30 characters on the
screen. As of May, 2006, when Silicon Knights had to begin creation of its
own engine to avoid losing Too Human and possibly going out of business
altogether, Epic had not delivered software, code, tools, and/or information
sufficient to, and had otherwise failed to, fulfill that promise.


Yes, this is interesting.

It is a shame that end users cannot sue too.

Often the commercial public are affected by misrepresentation of computer game capabilities. Developers spend months spouting on about the capabilities/features/content and then by the time the end product is sold, a hell of a lot is missing. Valve did this with Half-Life 2 - they pulled a lot of content out of the final product. However, do developers ever declare what they have pulled prior to an end user finding out?

It is a shame that end users cannot sue too.

End users don't have a contract with the developer, they have a contract with the retailer. If the game is not "as advertized", you're entitled to your money back and many game shops do that for whatever reason anyway. If they didn't you have legal recourse in the small claims court. I can't imagine anyone taking it beyond the small claims court for £35, but I guess you could if you wanted to.

From the document it also looks like it only simulates a point light for the ambient plus only one simulated direct or spot light - that is, if by 'light vectors' they mean the RGB components of vertex coloring - which is the minimum in cinematography (even though you never need more than four lights to properly light a scene).

However, this part of the document is very, very vague, expecially the part regarding characters.

I didn't read the entire pdf so I don't know if they define what is called a "character", because otherwise the performance heavily changes depending on the complexity of lighting, mapping, polys, LOD, and animation... thus making the definition easily debatable in court. Stranglehold and Airborne probably have often more than 8 characters on screen, and even though they were released a year after Gears of War I don't think Epic made such a leap forward with the engine.

Overall, I think that the most serious breach of the contract is the alleged lack of support from Epic due to their involvement in Gears of War. From a technical standpoint developers should know that a roadmap differs from actual implementation, and developers which approached the Unreal engine in the past were in a similar situation but delivered good products nonetheless (I remember an interview with the developers of Wheel of Time discussing how the engine was an everchanging work in progress). However, from what I understood it looks like the contract actually had delivery dates associated to features as part of the deal, so legally it could be another matter entirely.

Yeah, Same with oblivion. They ripped out the full dynamic shadows at the last minute. And the AI system ended up being very ordinary, big let down after the fancy demonstrations before launch.

And the AI system ended up being very ordinary, big let down after the fancy demonstrations before launch.
Massive let down. Its bloody frustrating when the guards know you've done something wrong and come a' runnin, even when they have no idea where you are.

What bothers me is Epic promised an engine that would be completely revolutionary, knowing that they could not deliver, and instead provided an engine that is very, very low-tech, and no one seems to notice the difference.

I think the biggest issue with this was that Epic saved its best parts for it's own game. Essentially funding its superior technology off the backs of would be license purchasers. I won't name names but I had a similar issue with an indie level technology provider and I called their participation in both games and engines a conflict of interest. In my opinion the Silicon Knights lawsuit is a clear indicator that I am correct. Technology providers should provide the best technology to customers first and then to themselves.

well having worked on 3 unreal engine games I can assure tou that its a joy to work with and it has n't stopped other companies making first class content.
big fuss about nothing

What bothers me is Epic promised an engine that would be completely revolutionary, knowing that they could not deliver, and instead provided an engine that is very, very low-tech, and no one seems to notice the difference.

I agree - I wasn't particularly impressed by the graphics people were so hyped about - in fact I thought it was strange that UE3's lighting looked actually quite similar to UE2 with the exception of a few fancy shaders for characters / objects / effects / etc. I guess it just goes to show what hype can do to so many people.

Lighting is a key component to any game
designer’s efforts to create a realistic scene...


Apparently someone forgot to tell the guys at Silicon Knights that decent animation does as well.

Ruz, the problem isn't with the engine specifically. More to the point it was the timing relative to their contract. Everyone knows that by now the engine is fine, after Gears of War shipped. Licensing the engine and developing the first game to showcase the engine simultaneously was a huge conflict of interest.

post deleted