Star Citizen is now using Amazon Lumberyard instead of Cryengine.

Source

Looks like Crytek is finally out of business when their licensees are jumping ship. Anyway, that also put all the rumours to the rest that CIG has the rights to distribute their modified Cryengine.

Edit: To all the console plebs looking to mock Star Citizen should know that Lumberyard IS Cryengine 3with AWS and Twitch support added in. Crytek sold the rights to Cryengine 3 to Amazon during their last financial turmoil.

whew. almost had a heart attack there. switching out the engine after so long into development usually leads to disaster. but it is cryengine essentially so thats not a huge deal.

It's basically derived from the Cryengine.

Oh great. This is gonna be an Amazon exclusive now, isn't it? Probably need a Prime account to play or some BS.

Wait if SC's engine was based on Cryengine 3 anyway and Amazon owns Cryengine 3 and Cloud games is not dependent for anything with Crytek then what does any of this have to do with Crytek exactly? I don't understand why they are even mentioned since this seems to be done because they want to use the Cloud and Twitch features of Lumberyard...which they probably could have done themselves considering all the code work they did to Cryengine 3 anyway.

BTW since we're talking Crytek, they kind of deserve what they get due to all their crappy games. Robinson was disappoint. Honestly they should go back to the roots and stick with engine development which they are fantastic at along with their art direction. Maybe should have bought a well known old franchise for the cheap and brought it back to life ..something people have yearned for years to have rebooted.

No it's not. There is no publisher involvement in Star Citizen and there will never be any.

They've done this to save them having to create services which Amazon have already built in to Cryengine. Why reinvent the wheel?

@pimphand_gamer:

I'm not sure there any engine designers left at Crytek. I heard they all left to work on things like id Tech and Unreal.

@GarGx1

I'll believe it when I see it. I know Amazon would love to have a hyped-up AAA title leading their foray into gaming, and would be willing to throw money around to get one.

As long as we are making stuff up, maybe the game will require you to be a red headed, left-handed, libertarian to play. What BS!

-Byshop

Game was supposed to come out in 2022, now we'll be lucky if it comes out by 2029, the same year Kojima's Death Stranding is suppose to come out.

@Byshop:

Yeah, go ahead and mock me, you think I mind? Being a cynic is just part of who I am, and that's not going to change. As I said, I'll believe it when I see it.

Sad. Was a cool engine criminally under utilized.

To be fair, this mess of a game will be a disaster no matter what. I feel sorry for the backers, while they wait, and wait. and wait, I'll be playing cool games like Elite which was released, was great and runs 60fps looking great on medium/low hardware.

Good times.

Oh man, I'm right handed. :(

There's a difference between critical thinking and making up road blocks based on random connections, but the more you know about the subject matter the less prone you'll be to make random assumptions. AWS is a cloud platform and Lumberjack is a version of the CryEngine that has native integration with AWS. Cloud platforms are a natural fit for online games because they take the burden of hosting an unknown number of servers (depending on load) off of the developer/publisher and the service can expand or contract based on need. It has no dependency on Amazon's retail website (although Amazon.com was migrated to AWS years ago) and using AWS doesn't require an Amazon.com account (you actually -have- to make separate accounts because they use different identity stores) anymore than using an Oculus requires a Facebook account. Hell, you probably use a number of services that are built on AWS without even realizing it. Reddit, Foursquare, Pinterest, and Netflix are all built on AWS along with a ton of other popular internet services. Does Netflix require an Amazon Prime account?

-Byshop

Why couldnt a SC backer...also actually PLAYS and enjoys Elite? Lol! Many, like me, also play Eve Online on the side. I like to list World of Tanks, War Thunder and Armored Warfare too...and a myriad of other games.

Whats with this "its either this side or that side" extreme mentality? The real world isn't like that at all.

The game is still using a modified version of cry engine 3 that CIG worked on all they did was swap logos and now has addition Amazon support.

Every time I speak to a Star Citizen fan they say very bad things about Elite even though it done everything Star Citizen didn't.

I think they are jealous tbh. It's certainly a pretty immature attitude.

Lumberyard is Cry engine this is just a rebrand. I think OP made another edit for console plebs to read ;p;

What is lumberyard? heck what the f*ck is a game engine?!

I didn't care much for that game, at least not in VR. Aside from the issues it was rather boring and way over complicated Imo

Dat Lumberyard tho..

I'm an SC backer and I've put hundreds of hours into Elite. I think both games have their strengths and weaknesses.

-Byshop

RSI is effectively a publisher working with multiple owned dev studios to put out SC, SQ42...

C.I.G. have opened 4 Studios to make this game and they are self publishing. That is not the same as a game being funded and controlled by a overlord publisher such as EA, Activision, Sony, MS etc. There is no outside board of directors and hedge fund investors pulling the strings behind the scenes.

This game never going to be finished

Well, they are publishing games (as many publishers do with their own studios)

They are not self funded dev studios, so they are completely controlled by their overload RSI. It just remains to be seen if RSI is terrible or not...

The point is star citizen doesn't have outsiders in suits controlling the game.

@aroxx_ab: it's the same as cry engine just rebranded I'm guess you miss what the ops said at the end lol

either way, you're point is meaningless until we see how RSI behaves long term. Considering that the first release of SC won't come any where near delivering on all the ships they sold... to me it seems like they are selling a lot more on hope and hype than product which is exactly what publishers do... + DLC galore. I wouldn't put their behavior above any one elses.

@silversix_@aroxx_ab: Do ppl actually do research nowadays lol

This basically like jumping from one version of linux to another.

Lumberyard and StarEngine are both forks from exactly the SAME build of CryEngine.

We stopped taking new builds from Crytek towards the end of 2015. So did Amazon. Because of this the core of the engine that we use is the same one that Amazon use and the switch was painless (I think it took us a day or so of two engineers on the engine team). What runs Star Citizen and Squadron 42 is our heavily modified version of the engine which we have dubbed StarEngine, just now our foundation is Lumberyard not CryEngine. None of our work was thrown away or modified. We switched the like for like parts of the engine from CryEngine to Lumberyard. All of our bespoke work from 64 bit precision, new rendering and planet tech, Item / Entity 2.0, Local Physics Grids, Zone System, Object Containers and so on were unaffected and remain unique to Star Citizen.

Going forward we will utilize the features of Lumberyard that make sense for Star Citizen. We made this choice as Amazon's and our focus is aligned in building massively online games that utilize the power of cloud computing to deliver a richer online experience than would be possible with an old fashioned single server architecture (which is what CryNetwork is).

Looking at Crytek's roadmap and Amazon's we determined that Amazon was investing in the areas we were most interested in. They are a massive company that is making serious investments into Lumberyard and AWS to support next generation online gaming. Crytek doesn't have the resources to compete with this level of investment and have never been focused on the network or online aspects of the engine in the way we or Amazon are. Because of this combined with the fact we weren't taking new builds of CryEngine we decided that Amazon would be the best partner going forward for the future of Star Citizen.

Finally there was no ulterior motive in the timing of the announcement. The deal wasn't fully finalized until after the release of 2.5 and we agreed with Amazon to announce the switch and partnership upon the release of 2.6, which would be the first release on Lumberyard and AWS. If you have been checking out our schedule updates you would know that we originally had hoped to release 2.6 at the beginning of December, not Friday the 23rd!

I hope this clears up some of the speculation I have seen. We are very excited to be partnered with Amazon and feel this move is a big win for Star Citizen and by extension everyone that has backed the project.

p.s. I wont be replying to this as it is Christmas and I am meant to be enjoying a bit of time off with my family (and playing some games - you may see me pop into a Star Marine or AC match or two!)

p.p.s Happy Holidays All!

- Posted by Chris Roberts on the RSI forum

It's unreal how many people are losing their shit over something that's actually positive. It literally took them one day to make the switch.

Dude, you're making shit up in your head. Roberts Space Industries (RSi) is the name used for the two US development studios and an in game space ship manufacturer. The two European Studios are called Foundry 42 because the Manchester studio (run by Chris Roberts' brother Erin and two of their friends) was opened to primarily create Squadron 42, Frankfurt didn't open until 2015. Cloud Imperium Games is the 'publisher'. All 3 companies have been set up by Chris Roberts for the creation of Star Citizen and Squadron 42.

At the end of the day the name and role of each division is irrelevant because it's all owned and controlled by Chris Roberts with no one else calling the shots.

Most publishers started out as a developer and acquired/started more developers. RSI is the top of multiple development studios at this point. Just because a company is a developer AND publisher doesn't stop them from being a publisher. That's how activision, ea, Bethesda, blizzard (before merger), capcom... the list goes on... started.

There is only 1 difference, backers replaced normal investors... A distinction that's not a long term proposition and doesn't change that (like many publishers), RSI is using hype culture to sell ships for an unfinished game. A game that still looks like its in pre production/R&D phase of development after 5 years. In the end, they'll turn into suites figuring out what can they do to create more revenue streams, or they won't be able to afford to support the game. And considering they are moving to a longer term (see their aim to release MVP) and support the game with updates long after the initial release... there is 0 chance those updates will be free, not without finding more ways to pummel money out of player base.

CIG is the publisher, rsi is the website. They have 3 development studios, Behavior interactive, Foundary 42 and CIG itself. This is just to clarify, I have been using RSI as the name of the company.. Either way what you're saying makes little difference to what I said previously.

Release date is 2027.

Its kinda amazing that SC still has a lot of interest. Generally games lose public interest after years of development and delays. But I suppose when your part of the $130+ million invested into this game. Its harder to let go. Even if some of the backers, won't be alive to see the final product released. As anything can happen between now and the SC/Squad 42 eventual release.

@jak42: Click bait articles to get views that don't mention the fact like how all they did was add amazon features into their engine that took a day. PPl think 4 years is a long time for a game like this know nothning and try to downplay what they shown as if there are games that do what they have fdone.

CIG never stopped showing what they worked on and never went dark like other games.

@deathlordcrime: Well I didn't click on the article, or bother to read it. As I had no interest in doing so.

While 4 years development time isn't bad for a large scale game. Its hard to maintain interest that long. Usually games of this scale don't get announced till much later in their development cycle. But given that this was a crowd funded game, and the demand for a high tech game in the PC market. Things were certainly different for SC. But if you keep trying to add things to the final product, the game can end up in development hell.

Your ingorance is never going to end.

to be fair, at this point I wouldn't appose such an idea.

CiG lay the groundwork, then Amazon buys them up, makes them get their s*it together and deliver.

I didn't mention Behaviour or Turbulent because they are sub-contractors and not owned by Chris Roberts. There have been others as well, like Moon Collider and Illfonic, who have now moved on to other things.

What, exactly, is Chris Roberts going to do to screw over his own developers creating his vision, entirely under his guidance? Lol, I can imagine him now, arguing with himself like Gollum.

You'd be surprised how much longer the attention span of a PC gamer is than that of a console gamer.

Not trying to start anything, but it's true. Look at the most played games on Steam. Most are relatively old releases, especially compared to the most played console games.

They can keep interest in a game (especially one that is currently playable in alpha and is constantly evolving, expanding, and improving) for years and years. This isn't vaporware, after all.

If they release the game, how is he going to continue paying those developers if there are no other revenue streams? They are still a business.. doesn't matter where they got the money from, you want quality content like they are producing, where it takes MONTHS to make a single ship.. they will have extraordinary costs compared to other developers. And since they are still showing off R&D updates, they likely aren't even close to shipping a full game.

Gaming is in a weird state financially though. The price of games has not gone up nearly enough to offset the costs and complexity of quality content. I don't really see publishers at being at fault for being terrible because it seems most developers can't afford to stay open otherwise.

@The_Stand_In: Your statement seems more caused by developers supporting a product long after release. Than the hardware someone games on.

Its also neglecting that console games PS2 and prior. Had very basic or non existent online capabilities. So we can't tell how many people are playing the overwhelming majority of console libraries. But one thing that is known. Is a recent report that 50% of Xbox One owners, have been using the backwards compatibility. On what is a relatively small library of around 300 games.

There's no publisher skimming money straight off the bottom line, there are no share holders or investors to pay dividends to (the company is not publically traded and you cannot buy shares in it) and the $140 million raised so far is all going to the game development. It's now equal second (along side Destiny but still $60 million short of SWtoR) for games with the largest development budgets. The marketing budget is coming from the voluntary subscriptions and is not included in the crowd funding total.

Do you honestly believe that no one will buy Squadron 42, which was separated from Star Citizen over a year ago, once it's released (hopefully mid to late next year)? Or perhaps you think the 1.7 million accounts is the total sum of all the people who will play these games?

Personally I can see Squadron 42 easily hitting 10 million sales. Subtracting the present backers that's around 8 million at $60 a copy. Who knows how many will buy Star Citizen but it'll definitely get a massive boost from Squadron 42. Even if that's only 5 million at another $60 per copy, I think the development would be fairly safe. Of course they need to hit the nail on the head with both games for that to happen.

I know you're struggling with the concept that this game is being self published by the developer, with no outside interference. They'd do more damage to themselves and their brand, if they decided to change that and bring in a publisher. Refunds are a real thing in this project.

You expect it that soon?

Their costs are just different, they'ave already sold it to their primary market so they can't expect to get a large chunk of change on release day because they owe the backers the games. Which has a similar effect as paying their dues with publishers/investors. Trying to distinguish the upfront costs after releasing the game. Please show me how giving a percent of each sale vs giving the sale away to the "investors" of your project are different?

You're EASILY over estimating the market for this game. Elite I think is still under 2 million. A game that has pretty modest PC requirements.. This game has much higher requirements, plays to more specific audience for realism in ship physics. Reality shows us this is not a mass appeal game. 10 Million... totally bat shit crazy for a game like this. Even UC4 hasn't hit that much and that does have a mass appeal market and released before Christmas where the vast majority of sales will be.

You can buy SC + SQ42 for $60 today. They only removed it from the $45 package is just stupid right now, unless they break SQ42 out of the $60 combo and roll it into the $125+ packages I don't see SQ42 generating a huge amount of extra sales, it'll just be something to tide over pledgers until SC comes out. They are stilling selling both as a combo single priced game though... granted that may change when SQ42 is released or when they finally have a vertical slice of the gameplay.

I know you're struggling with the concept that this game is being self published by the developer, with no outside interference. They'd do more damage to themselves and their brand, if they decided to change that and bring in a publisher. Refunds are a real thing in this project.

Its not a concept I'm struggling with, I'm arguing that its not going to make a difference to a large studio that has multiple studios and hundreds of employees. Staying in business means long term revenue streams. My point is publishers generally aren't being greedy, we are just being entitled. And CR with CIG isn't going to be any different. They are a publisher, with a large development house built up now. They will have to find ways to keeps the lights on or scale down, its just inevitable. I highly doubt they will be crowd funding after SC releases for features they already promised.

Also refunds are NOT a real thing. Except for the 7 day grace period. Please FFS go read the ToS. After the 7 days you're refund is prorated and not at all guaranteed. There is nothing that suggests how fast they'll "earn" the money in development time. If they give a full refund after the 7 days its on a case by case basis.

This ^^

Amazon's engine is CryEngine which is why they switched over as out of all the engines available Amazon's would require by far the least amount of work to transfer over too.

@waahahah: So your assumption is that everyone who has any interest in this game has already bought it, and you're calling me "bat shit crazy? Squadron 42 is a cinematic single player game (have you played any of Chris Roberts' previous games?), apart from setting it likely has more in common with Uncharted that it does with Elite. Another thing you're missing is that PC games are not the same as consoles where sales are like a flash in the pan and then on to the next flashy title with Superbowl adverts, they sell consistently over a longer period of time.

You need to pay $72 minimum for both games and when Squadron releases it'll be sold as a stand alone game for $60 a copy. You can bank on this happening.

You remove the external publisher and/or investors who provide their investment to make your game and you remove their inflated returns, is that really so difficult to work out? They are not a publisher, they are a self publishing developer, this is where you're obviously struggling with difference. The bottom line being that there is no other company providing funding, marketing or distribution and therefore no one to pay back with interest and additional dividends. You were correct about the order of companies though, C.I.G. is a subsidiary of RSi, I was always under the impression that this was the other way round.

I know the T&C's well (only a complete fool would give away money without knowing what they were doing) I also know that they have changed since I backed and that the changes that have been made are only valid for people who backed after the changes were made to the currently published T&C's. I know of several ex-backers, some of them well over concierge level, that have received refunds for multiple reasons, it's not as easy as "I want a refund" but it's not as difficult as you think. The initial cool off period is 14 days not 7.

My assumption higher requirements + it being more sim then arcade shooter its reasonable to see that with 1.7 million accounts being closer to elites market is likely the vast majority of people interested in the title. Its also PC exclusive so again getting run away sales like 10 million... is super unlikely. If you want to start talking about longer timelines... I doubt it. It really depends on how well this thing lands, and even then its not likely going to be pulling in everyone at $60 per game. Especially once you split the cost up to 2 x $60 people will likely wait for sales. There isn't a shred of evidence to back up what you're saying. Looking at the performance of another space sim and comparing it to a space sim with higher PC requirements and is exclusive? That's far more likely to show how this will perform. To expect a huge amount of new players early in the games release. is just not reasonable.

Not to mention the amount of stuff they've sold, is likely just going to alienate newcomers...

You need to pay $72 minimum for both games and when Squadron releases it'll be sold as a stand alone game for $60 a copy. You can bank on this happening.

You remove the external publisher and/or investors who provide their investment to make your game and you remove their inflated returns, is that really so difficult to work out? They are not a publisher, they are a self publishing developer, this is where you're obviously struggling with difference. The bottom line being that there is no other company providing funding, marketing or distribution and therefore no one to pay back with interest and additional dividends. You were correct about the order of companies though, C.I.G. is a subsidiary of RSi, I was always under the impression that this was the other way round.

Is it really that hard to work out paying backers with the game on project completion is their costs for using backers money? Where they lose 100% of the sale?

I'm not struggling with the difference, you're failing to show that paying 100% of a sale to a backer is any different than paying x% to a publisher/investor. The only real difference I see is LONG term sales eventually once backers are compensated for their donations extra sales will be more profitable. It just depends how many sales are required to recover the development costs of the game.

Costs are costs, whether it be a publisher/investor/backer. They are all owed when the project finishes. So any one that is a backer, is NOT a sale to help recover the cost of development.

And something they aren't showing on the website? Costs, how much do they have left, and how much did they give back in returns. The number only ever goes up.

Where they are likely going to do better, is when you have backers with 30k into it... they have much much much healthier margins per game sale. And any new sale has no obligations.

I know the T&C's well (only a complete fool would give away money without knowing what they were doing) I also know that they have changed since I backed and that the changes that have been made are only valid for people who backed after the changes were made to the currently published T&C's. I know of several ex-backers, some of them well over concierge level, that have received refunds for multiple reasons, it's not as easy as "I want a refund" but it's not as difficult as you think. The initial cool off period is 14 days not 7.

It is 14 days, but that doesn't change much in the time lines we are looking at (4 years). Yes you just have to kick and scream for a refund and once someone else is involved you can potentially get a refund.

Also you can accept the new ToS and any more purchases after a change can validate that acceptance. If you don't opt for a refund immediately usually that is considered "accepting" the new terms.

@waahahah:

My assumption higher requirements + it being more sim then arcade shooter its reasonable to see that with 1.7 million accounts being closer to elites market is likely the vast majority of people interested in the title. Its also PC exclusive so again getting run away sales like 10 million... is super unlikely. If you want to start talking about longer timelines... I doubt it. It really depends on how well this thing lands, and even then its not likely going to be pulling in everyone at $60 per game. Especially once you split the cost up to 2 x $60 people will likely wait for sales. There isn't a shred of evidence to back up what you're saying. Looking at the performance of another space sim and comparing it to a space sim with higher PC requirements and is exclusive? That's far more likely to show how this will perform. To expect a huge amount of new players early in the games release. is just not reasonable.

Star Citizen and Squadron 42 are not the same game. Yes, they use the same core gameplay but the two games couldn't be any further apart. Squadron 42 being a 100% single player game (friends jumping into your game has been gone for some time now). It's a highly cinematic branching story with a beginning, middle and end. Star Citizen is an online multiplayer game and this is where a comparison to Elite Dangerous becomes valid. The system requirements, really aren't that high, at the moment the minimum specs are CPU i5 2500k/Phenom II x4 940 with a GTX680/HD7970 and will be even less of a factor when the game releases. Sure if you want to run it flat out at 4k and highest settings

Not to mention the amount of stuff they've sold, is likely just going to alienate newcomers...

What anyone as bought for Star Citizen has zero impact on anyone else's experience in Squadron 42. In addition the average spend is $84, so the vast majority of backers have minimum or low level game packages. A tiny handful of backers have spent large sums of money, the last estimate on concierge level backers I saw put them in the region of a couple of thousand out of well over a million, again that's not going to have any effect on the majority of people playing Star Citizen.

I'm in the UK so I guess the website automatically adds 20% VAT based on my I.P. address.

Is it really that hard to work out paying backers with the game on project completion is their costs for using backers money? Where they lose 100% of the sale?

I'm not struggling with the difference, you're failing to show that paying 100% of a sale to a backer is any different than paying x% to a publisher/investor. The only real difference I see is LONG term sales eventually once backers are compensated for their donations extra sales will be more profitable. It just depends how many sales are required to recover the development costs of the game.

Costs are costs, whether it be a publisher/investor/backer. They are all owed when the project finishes. So any one that is a backer, is NOT a sale to help recover the cost of development.

And something they aren't showing on the website? Costs, how much do they have left, and how much did they give back in returns. The number only ever goes up.

Where they are likely going to do better, is when you have backers with 30k into it... they have much much much healthier margins per game sale. And any new sale has no obligations.

With the game funded there are no costs to recover. The backer money is not a 'loan' or a cheque from a publisher that needs to be paid back with interest. RSi. as a company should have zero debt from the games' development. Therefore all the money that comes in from further sales after release are 100% profit. That is also going on the basis that both games take 100% of the funding to develop. Developers who are ruled over by publishers though are in debt and have to pay the money back from their games sales, with additional interest/% cut before they even turn a penny in profit.

Every person I've seen criticise Star Citizen's crowd funding appear to believe that they are running out of money. They all claim that RSi don't show any of the costs or how much money they have left. I've yet to see anyone produce any actual figures to back up this claim. Is there any actual evidence to support it?