The Future of Red Engine?!

+
switching to Unreal is a godsent now they can actually focus on making the game and not messing around with the tech.
UE doesn't have Quest graph and Dialogue editor which are essential tools for creating a story driven RPG. So they still have to do lots of modifying and messing around with the tech :)
 
A little more clarification is needed, I think.

Firstly, the studio is not "switching to Unreal Engine". They're working with the Unreal Engine for a future title. The REDengine is right where it has always been and will be used again in the future, I'm very certain.

The project utilizing UE5 will most likely not be a very heavy RPG. As expressed above, it's not an engine that works really well for RPGs -- by design. The reason Unreal Engine is so powerful at creating sharp textures, dynamic and accurate lighting, etc. is because it does not busy itself with all of the background robustness that's needed for complex layers of RPG functionality.

So, if my purpose was to build a super-complex RPG or Strategy game with tons of intricate mechanics...UE5 would be a terrible place to begin. I'd be much better off using something like Unity for a wide range of different features, Gamebryo if modularity is key, or REDengine if I want to include lots of cinematics and unique, set-piece scenes.
 
UE doesn't have Quest graph and Dialogue editor which are essential tools for creating a story driven RPG. So they still have to do lots of modifying and messing around with the tech :)

The project utilizing UE5 will most likely not be a very heavy RPG. As expressed above, it's not an engine that works really well for RPGs -- by design. The reason Unreal Engine is so powerful at creating sharp textures, dynamic and accurate lighting, etc. is because it does not busy itself with all of the background robustness that's needed for complex layers of RPG functionality.

If you go to unreal store for 50 bucks you can dowload a module for UE4/5 that adds all the stuff for action RPGs... Obsidian pulled out an Action RPG in UE4(The Outer Worlds)with a team and budget that was probably smaller than just CDPR marketing team.
Sure,you might want to differentiate and not use generic module #346 in your game but is why you have a technical partnership with Epic. Its not a 2 days work, but we are talking of a company that till now was writting his own engine.
Really, if next CDPR game has less "RPG depth"-i know, depth is subjective and controversial- than CP2077 don't blame the engine is a company decision.
PS: as a side note Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines was made with a shooter engine (Source Half-Life2) and they were able to put enough RPG mechanics to make gunfight clunky until you start putting skill points.
 
A little more clarification is needed, I think.

Firstly, the studio is not "switching to Unreal Engine". They're working with the Unreal Engine for a future title. The REDengine is right where it has always been and will be used again in the future, I'm very certain.

The project utilizing UE5 will most likely not be a very heavy RPG. As expressed above, it's not an engine that works really well for RPGs -- by design. The reason Unreal Engine is so powerful at creating sharp textures, dynamic and accurate lighting, etc. is because it does not busy itself with all of the background robustness that's needed for complex layers of RPG functionality.

So, if my purpose was to build a super-complex RPG or Strategy game with tons of intricate mechanics...UE5 would be a terrible place to begin. I'd be much better off using something like Unity for a wide range of different features, Gamebryo if modularity is key, or REDengine if I want to include lots of cinematics and unique, set-piece scenes.

But isn't that counterproductive? I thought the whole point of the partnership with epic was so CDPR has a bigger say in how the UE5 is developed and ensures it has the features CDPR need for their games. And doesn't have people (CDPR) working on the engine and not on the future game ofcourse.
 
This is totally incorrect information. TW1 was written on a heavily modified version of a licensed engine. That was the major inspiration for the studio to just write their own engine. REDengine is built and developed in-house. It does not use Unreal.
So what was that Havok thing with Unreal and Autodesk etc... all about?
Post automatically merged:

No Crytek in the intro
*shrugs* Maybe I'm confusing it with another game. I'm pretty sure I'm not. But, agree with SigilFey, he's the insider. I've lost interest. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I play way too many damned games LMFAO!!!!!!!! I'm seriously trying to figure out which game may be the one I've confused, but the intro was one of the things that were most notably changed upon 1.52. I play on PC with the Steam version, not that it probably makes a difference. But, usually my memory is pretty good. All those associated technologies that were shown along with Red Engine are no longer shown when the game loads. I'm cool with being wrong. *shrugs*
 
Last edited:
So what was that Havok thing with Unreal and Autodesk etc... all about?
Yeah, it's "third party" softwares that every studios on "every engine" can use for add features to their games ;)
Like SpeedTree, which help to modelling trees/vegetations, WWise a "sound engine" or JALI which add realistic facial animations (different in function of the selected language).

PS : I talk about Xbox (next gen update on Series X), the loading/boot screen didn't change at all. It's exactly the same as in the video ;)
 
No one said they're switching everything forever to UE5. The next Witcher game is going to be made using UE5, that is all we know. Could very well be that CDPR will be updating it's own engine and they'll come back with it for the next Cyberpunk game, who knows?

It is way too early to say they are moving on from it.

And it is never going open source.
I'd like to believe they won't just do away with red engine. I feel like it would be a huge waste of time and funding to just drop it.
 
I'd like to believe they won't just do away with red engine. I feel like it would be a huge waste of time and funding to just drop it.

No one in this thread can know for sure. We can only speculate and offer our own opinion on the matter of course. It would take a RED to confirm it one way or another.

With that said, I wouldn't call it a waste regardless of the engine's future. It allowed them to create some truely magnificient games that have made them what they are today. If they feel it's time to move on, I doubt they'll be looking at it as a waste.
 
I'd like to believe they won't just do away with red engine. I feel like it would be a huge waste of time and funding to just drop it.

I don't think they simply delete their stuff, because they got a new deal out of it. Sure, they're going to use future Unreal Engines for a long time, they probably have a backup engine, so to speak. Just in case they no longer can make a deal.
 
PS : I talk about Xbox (next gen update on Series X), the loading/boot screen didn't change at all. It's exactly the same as in the video ;)
I remember which game that I might have been confused with, Mortal Kombat XL It has a similar ensemble of tech. It's the only game that I've been playing as much as I play CP77. I think it stuck out to me because of the Scorpion thing. Actually, I think I started playing MKXL because of the Scorpion thing in CP77. *shrugs* Good info! Hmm!
Post automatically merged:

I'd be much better off using something like Unity for a wide range of different features, Gamebryo if modularity is key, or REDengine if I want to include lots of cinematics and unique, set-piece scenes.
Really?! That's interesting! I would have never put Unity in the same sentence as REDengine. Hmm! I'll have to check out Gamebryo, I've never heard of it until now. I'm curious, what do you mean by modularity?
 
Last edited:
If you go to unreal store for 50 bucks you can dowload a module for UE4/5 that adds all the stuff for action RPGs... Obsidian pulled out an Action RPG in UE4(The Outer Worlds)with a team and budget that was probably smaller than just CDPR marketing team.
Sure,you might want to differentiate and not use generic module #346 in your game but is why you have a technical partnership with Epic. Its not a 2 days work, but we are talking of a company that till now was writting his own engine.
Really, if next CDPR game has less "RPG depth"-i know, depth is subjective and controversial- than CP2077 don't blame the engine is a company decision.
PS: as a side note Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines was made with a shooter engine (Source Half-Life2) and they were able to put enough RPG mechanics to make gunfight clunky until you start putting skill points.
I never said it was impossible:
  • XCOM Enemy Unknown / Enemy Within are written in Unreal, being a TBS incorporating many RPG elements.
  • ARK: Survival Evolved utilizes a whole mess of RPG mechanics in Unreal, on top of being an gigantic open world.
  • Conan Exiles is an MMO RPG built entirely in Unreal.
I said it was not a great choice. In fact, it's a pretty terrible choice. Go research the time the developers had trying to get their ambitious, robust games built in Unreal. Read up on similar dev cycles, like trying to get Dragon Age Inquisition built in Frostbite.

Anyone can do anything they want...but using the right tool for the right job is always a good idea. Especially if you have a choice.

CDPR has spent well over a decade building their own, powerful RPG engine from the ground up for exactly the type of games they wanted to make. Why would they then decide to build something in Unreal Engine, requiring them to pay out for the use of a third-party product...rather than just using their in-house product for free?

Is it because a toolkit released for Unreal is somehow better than REDengine overall for making RPGs? I seriously doubt it.

Is it because Unreal works better on more diverse systems (Windows, Playstation OS, Android, etc.)? Possibly!...but they did get TW3 to run on the bleepin' Switch. Not sure that's the core reason.

Is it because the game they're making may be more action-oriented and linear, rather than a full-on RPG? <--- That makes total sense. They want to do something light on RPG elements, with spectacular graphics, and faster, more action-oriented gameplay. That's exactly what Unreal Engine was built for.

But isn't that counterproductive? I thought the whole point of the partnership with epic was so CDPR has a bigger say in how the UE5 is developed and ensures it has the features CDPR need for their games. And doesn't have people (CDPR) working on the engine and not on the future game ofcourse.
I think you're pre-supposing that all the games CDPR intends to make are gigantic RPGs. Gwent is not an RPG. The Witcher Adventure Game is not an RPG. Neither is Monster Slayer, really. Yes, I'm sure we'll see more RPGs. But I'm sure we'll see a lot else, besides.

Really?! That's interesting! I would have never put Unity in the same sentence as REDengine. Hmm! I'll have to check out Gamebryo, I've never heard of it until now. I'm curious, what do you mean by modularity?
I'd say that Unity gets a really bad rap simply because it opts to release for free, and it's not really picky about who it licenses to. The free bit alone means that there are a LOT of really rubbish games on Unity. But the engine is not to blame for how developers utilize it. No, Unity is not as specialized in its approach as either Unreal or REDengine, but it's extraordinarily robust:

Hearthstone is written in Unity...
...and so is Kerbal Space Program.
Cities Skylines? Written in Unity...
Along with Escape From Tarkov.
Pillars of Eternity is written in...Unity.
Ori and the Blind Forest along with Cuphead: both Unity.

Nope, it's not a graphical powerhouse, but you can get it looking pretty good! If you're looking to build something really off the beaten path, though, Unity is a great consideration.
 
ARK: Survival Evolved utilizes a whole mess of RPG mechanics in Unreal, on top of being an gigantic open world.
This is also a great example that using Unreal Engine doesn't mean a "bug free" game and a well optimized game...

ARK still a "very buggy" game even after years of regular patches/updates and still run horribly on consoles. Way worse than Cyberpunk at release, that's for sure (if you have played ARK on XB1, even XB1x which was the best console possible at its release, you would know it^^)
 
said it was not a great choice. In fact, it's a pretty terrible choice. Go research the time the developers had trying to get their ambitious, robust games built in Unreal. Read up on similar dev cycles, like trying to get Dragon Age Inquisition built in Frostbite.
Even if I like CP2077 , the present iteration of REDengine doesn't look like a great example of robust,smooth,trouble free development cycle. And if you need to rely on crunch due to engine issues, i would say you have a problem.
CDPR has spent well over a decade building their own, powerful RPG engine from the ground up for exactly the type of games they wanted to make. Why would they then decide to build something in Unreal Engine, requiring them to pay out for the use of a third-party product...rather than just using their in-house product for free?
You might be able to point me "gameplay features" that were only possible in REDengine and not visuals/cinematics, but if I have to guess they switched to 3rd party engine because they cannot(or they dont want to) afford a big enough engine team able to realease a stable engine with all the (mostly visual) technical advances ahead of game development.
RED engine is not free, it costs them a significant amount of money to develop/upgrade/maintain and it might be they reached a point of diminishing returns.
Is the same reason semiconductor industry moved to mostly fabless model,r&d and operating expenses were increasing each year so it made sense to outsource manufacturing to TSMC/others and focus only on design...
it because a toolkit released for Unreal is somehow better than REDengine
You know that you can interface your own modules right? , that example from marketplace is made by an individual who makes some money selling modules to small teams/individuals.
They want to do something light on RPG elements, with spectacular graphics, and faster, more action-oriented gameplay. That's exactly what Unreal Engine was built for.
If you have the chance,fire up the Outer Worlds is completely opposite example of what you claim.
Graphics are worse than TW3/CP2077, combat and movement is more clunky and less fluid than CP2077 but in terms of quest design-with that i meant the actual quest,not the dialogs/writing/cinematics-,rpg elements(attributes/skills/perks/flaws and they are used during gameplay) is "deeper" than both TW3/CP2077 (whather is better game than any of them, i will call a tie with CP2077/TW3).
 
CDPR has spent well over a decade building their own, powerful RPG engine from the ground up for exactly the type of games they wanted to make. Why would they then decide to build something in Unreal Engine, requiring them to pay out for the use of a third-party product...rather than just using their in-house product for free?

Is it because a toolkit released for Unreal is somehow better than REDengine overall for making RPGs? I seriously doubt it.

Is it because Unreal works better on more diverse systems (Windows, Playstation OS, Android, etc.)? Possibly!...but they did get TW3 to run on the bleepin' Switch. Not sure that's the core reason.

Is it because the game they're making may be more action-oriented and linear, rather than a full-on RPG? <--- That makes total sense. They want to do something light on RPG elements, with spectacular graphics, and faster, more action-oriented gameplay. That's exactly what Unreal Engine was built for.


I think you're pre-supposing that all the games CDPR intends to make are gigantic RPGs. Gwent is not an RPG. The Witcher Adventure Game is not an RPG. Neither is Monster Slayer, really. Yes, I'm sure we'll see more RPGs. But I'm sure we'll see a lot else, besides.
i think finding people that are already familiar too UE is a big factor too. Selfmade engine has selfmade stuff and req much more time too learn then UE is also my guess. Heck i can probably learn it myself trough videos and so on right now. The tool is free too so you can actually learn it before you start working at CDPR. With the whole restructuring and agile way too work im also guessing this is a big factor. perhaps it has a much smoother workflow and so on(im not a gameprogrammer so im just guessing here). I do have some experiance with workflows and fast/just in time production tho ^^

Probably your reasons are a big factor too sadly, kinda wish they went the other way in terms of RPG elements but we shall see. Perhaps this is a reason for partnership too, too make more UE modules with RPG games in mind.
 
This is also a great example that using Unreal Engine doesn't mean a "bug free" game and a well optimized game...

ARK still a "very buggy" game even after years of regular patches/updates and still run horribly on consoles. Way worse than Cyberpunk at release, that's for sure (if you have played ARK on XB1, even XB1x which was the best console possible at its release, you would know it^^)

To be fair, it's less about the engine and more about the team behind the game. The ARK developers seem more focused on getting that next DLC/expansion out than they are on fixing the game's issues.

You might be able to point me "gameplay features" that were only possible in REDengine and not visuals/cinematics, but if I have to guess they switched to 3rd party engine because they cannot(or they dont want to) afford a big enough engine team able to realease a stable engine with all the (mostly visual) technical advances ahead of game development.

This, which also brings me to what I think is the most important thing that seems to get ignored...

Perhaps this is a reason for partnership too, too make more UE modules with RPG games in mind.

This.

CDPR said of their partnership with Epic:

“One of the core aspects of our internal RED 2.0 Transformation is a much stronger focus on technology, and our cooperation with Epic Games is based on this principle. From the outset, we did not consider a typical licensing arrangement; both we and Epic see this as a long-term, fulfilling tech partnership.

Tim Sweeney from Epic also said:

“Epic has been building Unreal Engine 5 to enable teams to create dynamic open worlds at an unprecedented scale and level of fidelity. We are deeply honored by the opportunity to partner with CD PROJEKT RED to push the limits of interactive storytelling and gameplay together, and this effort will benefit the developer community for years to come.”

The wording of the announcement is very important. It's a 15 years partnership to develop games but also UE. If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say CDPR is getting an engine (and Epic's expertise) that's much better at the things they have trouble making/can't make happen within the REDengine. Whereas Epic is getting the expertise of a studio known for the quality of it's RPGs to help them improve that aspect of UE.

It makes far more sense than CDPR moving away from the type of games they excel at in favor of more linear action/less RPG oriented, games.

They've made a few games that aren't RPGs, sure, but they are minor side-projects. Not mainline games for their IPs.
 
To be fair, it's less about the engine and more about the team behind the game. The ARK developers seem more focused on getting that next DLC/expansion out than they are on fixing the game's issues.
Honestly, I think the "project" was a little bit "too big" for Wildcard which is not a big studio.
So even after years of early access, at release, the game was still so poorly optimized and full of bugs, that it would have taken years of developpement... But obviously, to keep working on it, they needed money, so they also worked on expansions, which reduced even more the resources on bug fixes /optimizations.
But they still release updates (very) regularely, but it seem to be an "insane and long" work to do it. So much that I don't know if they could even achieve it one day :D
 
Top Bottom