Microsoft isn't finished acquiring game studios

[WYP]

Microsoft wants more content, and building new studios isn't easy.



Read more about Microsoft's future investment plans.

 

[Avet]

It is a good plan. They can share the same engine and recources for all games.

 

[NeverBackDown]

It is a good plan. They can share the same engine and recources for all games.

That's a bad plan. Using one engine for everything isn't efficient as it requires so much work to get working for everything it eventually does barely anything. All breadth no depth.

 

[Avet]

That's a bad plan. Using one engine for everything isn't efficient as it requires so much work to get working for everything it eventually does barely anything. All breadth no depth.

Epic would disagree. Unreal runs everything. I see no reason why Microsoft wouldn't expand id Tech 7 into something similar. It is a bloody good engine.

 

[NeverBackDown]

Epic would disagree. Unreal runs everything. I see no reason why Microsoft wouldn't expand id Tech 7 into something similar. It is a bloody good engine.

Epic can disagree it does not change the truth. Being well rounded doesn't mean it's the best in everything.
UE doesn't run everything. You're also assuming idTech7 can already do everything Unreal can. I doubt it could. In that sense it's not bloody good.

Unreal does many things well and games are built around the engine for the convenience. For example it's extremely good at large open world's, but it's World Composition still has many limitations. It still requires tons and tons of work to get the systems working like you want. Blueprints are very useful but are not a one size fits all design (impossible to be). Many of the systems are even 3rd party solutions such as the physics engine being used from Nvidias PhysX. Which has basically become standard in the industry. I believe SPS mentioned this a long while ago.

UE is a unique case. I'm not surprised you brought it up. However it also the benefit of over a decade of development from multiple studios who's code has been contributed into the source engine. It's open source after all. It would take a very long time for idTech7 to reach that level between fewer studios working on it. Though with the backing of MS they definitely have the money to do it. If anyone could it would probably be them. This is the only point I agree on.

If you want the best engine, you make one for your specific application. There's no denying this.
In a more efficient case, build one for a few genres at the expense of having everything be designed specifically for one game. That's basically what UE4 did. Fps, open world, action games, are generally very popular with this engine. However it could change in the future with UE5.

 

[Greenback]

I'd agree with NBD, going through the history of the Frostbite engine, it would be a long time before an engine is capable of being a base for every type of game, and forcing a developer to use something that's not ready can have a big impact.

 

[ImprovizoR]

Engine diversity is a good thing IMO. And now Microsoft is in possession of quite a few very old engines that can be reworked for modern titles according to their needs.

I'd agree with NBD, going through the history of the Frostbite engine, it would be a long time before an engine is capable of being a base for every type of game, and forcing a developer to use something that's not ready can have a big impact.

Precisely.

Using Frostbite instead of UE for Mass Effect Andromeda was one of the reasons why the game sucked. It wasn't the best engine to use for a game like Mass Effect. No one knew how to properly use it and it just wasn't built to handle an RPG like Mass Effect. But EA wanted the new Mass Effect to be built on their own engine. And they wanted a more open-world experience. This meant that the game needed huge maps, which is something that Frostbite supports, but it's not enough to base your entire game on. It was a mistake that potentially killed an entire franchise.

Empty suits ruining things for the rest of us, as usual.

 

[Warchild]

I'd agree with NBD, going through the history of the Frostbite engine, it would be a long time before an engine is capable of being a base for every type of game, and forcing a developer to use something that's not ready can have a big impact.

Actually thats a great example of how an "engine to rule them all" turned into a disaster. Frost engine began well, we hyped it up and then EA purchase DICE. Then we see the engine pushed into everything EA.

It was amazing for SLI, probably the best scaling engine for multi gpu out there, but with that, it was a disaster for BF5. So much so that SLI was forced disabled because by having SLI and graphics set to lowest possible in Multiplayer, it was possible to see enemies through walls. Go back on previous BF titles, they too had major issues with frost engine.

In the end, the masses were mocking EA for new titles the moment we saw Frost engine being used.

So yeah NBD is right.