Yup, some thing can work. You can go online, search the various stores, and find the assets if you must. It is obviously easiest to download from either side's respective online store since that store is plugged directly in to the system. You can get models and assets from other locations and then deal with conversions on your own, and if you develop your own assets you'll need to do that anyway.

The point is that just looking at someone's room model does not give a good feel of if the engine will be a comfortable fit for you. That is the quality of the art assets, not the quality of the engine.

It is the details of the engine and also your specific project and your specific skills that make all the difference.

Both engines are fully capable of building the game matching the very limited description given in the post. The questions of "better" and "easier" are up to nuance and personal preference. Both are solid, functional game engies. Both are easier than building your own engine. Both are used in big games. Studios really do use them both on game consoles, mobile devices, and PCs. Both can be great for beginners to experiment in game development. Both are inexpensive, you can try them out and see how they feel without a large financial investment.

Yup, some thing can work. You can go online, search the various stores, and find the assets if you must. It is obviously easiest to download from either side's respective online store since that store is plugged directly in to the system. You can get models and assets from other locations and then deal with conversions on your own, and if you develop your own assets you'll need to do that anyway.

The point is that just looking at someone's room model does not give a good feel of if the engine will be a comfortable fit for you. That is the quality of the art assets, not the quality of the engine.

It is the details of the engine and also your specific project and your specific skills that make all the difference.

Both engines are fully capable of building the game matching the very limited description given in the post. The questions of "better" and "easier" are up to nuance and personal preference. Both are solid, functional game engies. Both are easier than building your own engine. Both are used in big games. Studios really do use them both on game consoles, mobile devices, and PCs. Both can be great for beginners to experiment in game development. Both are inexpensive, you can try them out and see how they feel without a large financial investment.

The room that he built is from stock UE4 models and it's also an Epic tutorial to build that room.

If the assets are in FBX format however then UE4 could make use of things from the Unity Asset Store; if they are in some crazy format then they can't of course... having not looked at the asset store for Unity I couldn't say either way of course

Good point... as Unity has no widely used proprietary format (I think it might even have none), all the models on the asset store will be either .fbx or .obj, MAYBE .blender.

No Idea if UE4 can import all of that, but I guess at least fbx and obj should be fine, maybe even the blender format.

But really, just read all the information available about a certain asset in the store. There is a content listing in the middle, checking that you can even find out what format a certain model is even if the description blurp does not mention it.

In the worst case, import it to blender, export in fbx format, as long there were no animations, that should be quick and painless.

... Which of course also works the other way around, given UE4 does not use some crazy proprietary format.

The room that he built is from stock UE4 models and it's also an Epic tutorial to build that room.

Absolutely, every asset I used comes by default when you create a new project. Here's a link to the tutorial https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZlv_N0_O1gak1_FoAJVrEGiLIploeF3F

I used that image more to highlight things like lighting, reflections, shadows etc; all completely trivial to set up.

Of course you get the same sort of features with Unity, you just have to pay more to use them.

http://martiancraft.com/blog/2014/08/an-unreal-decision/

^ read this article

I would say that unreal is (was) designed to make FPS games so I would choose that over unity. However, In other cases, I would choose unity over UE4.

http://martiancraft.com/blog/2014/08/an-unreal-decision/

^ read this article

I would say that unreal is (was) designed to make FPS games so I would choose that over unity. However, In other cases, I would choose unity over UE4.

Interesting article... Really, for me as pure Unity dev, some interesting insights into the life of people who already made the switch to UE4.

Some things about the article:

- 32 bit editor, while being showstopper #1 in some special cases, is usually not a problem. I would have to ask how they hit the 32bit memory limit... or why exactly they worked with multi-GPU workstations from the start, especially when the theoretical memory limit gets lowered by another 20% for a questionable gain (maybe they use a tool that can use multi-gpu, IDK...).

I fought with the 32bit limit when I tried to build huge terrains with an insane resolution (target was 8x8 KM with 1x1 meter Heightfield... suffice to say, you REALLY need to work around limits here, which I didn't... which is why my editor constantly crashed. In hindsight, 1x1m Heightfields for such a huge Terrain is a freakin stoopid idea from the get go... I later managed to get it to work in a different engine optimized for large streaming terrain... but because of the way the engine was built, my terrain now consumed multiple Gigs of disk space. For a single Level, without much else going on).

There are enough people who did successfully build large terrains in unity, there are enough terrain streaming assets in the store, so I guess that a) the guys just wanted to do something crazy with their level design, b) didn't invested the time to find a workaround (which can be quite a hassle, true), and c) wanted to make the switch anyway because of other limitations.

- The PBR Shader thing: Common guys! The images you put up from unity use weird toon shaders without real AA from what I can see. In the UE4 images you use high quality PBR shader with proper AA.

I understand that you advanced your project a lot since dabbling in Unity, but you better would have just dropped the unity picture. It will lead to the false impression that its the problem of the engine when you simply just used different shaders and postprocessing.

PBR Shaders can be had for free from the Asset Store: Lux is a free system which does the job very well. Unity 5 will birng built in PBR shaders which will make the thing even easier to use, as you don't have to bake your cubemaps anymore. There are like 3 or 4 more PBR systems available for a cheap price from the asset store.

The only thing where they might have a point is that Postprocessing shouldn't be Pro only, as well as deferred rendering. Deferred is IMO the Renderer of the future, and if you use Deferred, you at least need Postprocessing AA as the normal AA is no longer working.

+- My personal opinion is that Version Control is NOT the task of an engine. It is like using a hammer and also expecting it to cut down trees.

Now I understand just too well how utterly aggrevating and inefficient using the usual Version Control tools can be across a large team which do work on the same files, and a Unity project will be one of the worst case scenarios here.

Still, until the Collaborative Editing tools really become stable and do work (I have seen the ad vids from the Hero engine, I haven't used it in person and do not believe all the hype yet), Version Control for large game projets will always be a problem IMO. An integrated solution is nice, the fact the Versioning System of Unity costs extra is kinda weak, still, problems with VCSes are usually a problem of the people not using it right. It will be more a thing of preferences than facts.

+- Better tools sound nice, though I would wait for Unity 5 to make a judgement. Especially lightmap baking is getting a complete overhaul.

+ It is really interesting to read about their expieriences with the visual scripting system. Another thing I am highly sceptical about, but then I am a Programmer and often ditch the Text-Editors in CMSes because it is quicker for me to simply work in HTML.

I would really love to see how some of my non-programmer friends would react to the visual scripting tools.

+ Good to hear that Unreal Tech support seems to be more responsive than Unitys. This is the one area where I have to say Unity is often dropping the ball. Its a hit and miss attempt when placing a tech support request in Unitys forum, and even in their Answers tool months can go by without an answer to sometimes simple questions.

I guess the tech support elves are just completly drowned by the amount of support cases because of the huge community, still, nice to hear Unreal developers have it better.

+ not requiring a Mac for iOS deployment is a BIG plus to me, if that is true.

I wouldn't say "Unreal is for Shooters"... Unreal is every much an universal game engine as Unity AFAIK. Might be that the tutorials are more prone to being shooters because of the engines legacy, while the Unity tutorials often have roots in casual and phone games.

I used that image more to highlight things like lighting, reflections, shadows etc; all completely trivial to set up.

Of course you get the same sort of features with Unity, you just have to pay more to use them.

Well, depends on what features you are talking about... "lighting and reflections" are the same between Free and Pro. Shadows are now also available in free, just hard shadows, but a trip to the asset store and 25-45$ spent (don't remember what the price is nowadays, bouth it when it still was 25$) on the "Shadow softener" gives you the smoothest and best shadows that surpass even the soft shadows of the Pro version. Money well spent.

Its more the post processing that the usual user might miss first. No Depth of field or other effects without Pro is a major downer. And I personally would miss deferred most. I cannot bring myself to work with a forward renderer, it is just too limiting to me.

Of course, if you really want to do high-end stuff and stay efficient doing it, the missing profiler and dynamic batching is a MAJOR pain too. Not having to combine static meshes can save you a lot of time, and having an insight into what goes on on the CPU or GPU without building the game everytime and firing up an external profiler is also a time saver.

But the only thing why a simple scene will not look the same in Unity 4 and UE4 is because the person who set it up skipped a short trip to the asset store to get all the free goodies for enabling PBR and the like. The last few % in graphical glitz might cost you some $, but as long as you shop smart (I don't, I just hunt deals in the asset store, which is why I have my download list full of "stuff that might be useful in the future" ), its below 100$.... which you also will have to pay over the lifetime of your UE4 usage for upgrades.

Trivial to set up: you might have a point there. Not everything in Unity is trivial to set up, especially not some stuff from the asset store. There is a certain learning curve with every new asset you download. Having no expierience with UE4 I of course cannot compare this to UE4....

*puts on Epic Employee hat*

The last few % in graphical glitz might cost you some $, but as long as you shop smart, its below 100$.... which you also will have to pay over the lifetime of your UE4 usage for upgrades.

Of course those upgrades includes a LOT of stuff; as I said before every 6 weeks or so we are kicking out updates which include performance fixes and new features (a some sizable list of them at that, via community feedback) not just graphical glitz - as to if people think this is worth while or not is another matter but trying to say that a 'few asset store things' is the same as 4 or 5 months of updates is a little misleading imo (more so considering the higher base set you get for your $20 - which can be a one off payment - than the free unity stuff).

Of course those upgrades includes a LOT of stuff; as I said before every 6 weeks or so we are kicking out updates which include performance fixes and new features (a some sizable list of them at that, via community feedback) not just graphical glitz - as to if people think this is worth while or not is another matter but trying to say that a 'few asset store things' is the same as 4 or 5 months of updates is a little misleading imo (more so considering the higher base set you get for your $20 - which can be a one off payment - than the free unity stuff).

Hey man, I didn't mean it this way. I am sure you Epic guys do an epic job (yeah, I know cheap pun is cheap, even if intended ), and if there is somebody that knows the worth of constant upgrades, it is myself. One of the reasons I keep upgrading my Unity Pro license, and given that I would pay less with UE4 even with a constant sub than with Unity pro upgrades (480$ per 2 years vs 600$ for an early upgrade with every major Unity Pro version), I would most probably would just keep my sub running all the time.

I guess it is just fair to make people aware that IF they download UE4 and you guys keep up the good work, the might spend 20$ multiple times over the course of the years just to get necessary updates. I know some people try to eke out as much as they can for as little money as possible. So it is an important consideration for these guys, even though I am not 100% sure Unity will come out on top even though of the 0$ starting price... depends on the needs of the project, and certainly will end up as a win for UE4 if you aim for the best result possible.

I see how I might have devalued your work with my comments an I am sorry about that. I did not meant to make such a general statement about 5 months of UE4 updates vs Assets from the Unity asset store (altough some assets ARE amazing quality work for a good value...).

You need to see though the Unity guys are also not lazy (lately) and pushing out good stuff at an increased rate, and these updates are free (for Pro users for all minor version updates, and totally free in the free version).

Thus my crappy calculation:

Unity base + 5 months of free updates + 100$ spent on the asset store = UE4 base + 5 months of paid updates....

As I said before, I do not really feel entitled to make such broad statements like Unity = UE4 as I lack the expierience with UE4, all I want to say with SOME upgrades, the achievable quality can be roughly the same, for a similar price.

Really, I highly respect what you do at epic, and I really appreciate the love you give to hobby devs and broke Indies with UE4!

Don't you have to pay extra for a Unity mobile license also, $1500, and you also need the pro version, $1500, before you can buy a mobile license?

Overall UE4 is a better deal price wise and tech wise it has almost all the features plus it has an excellent visual scripting editor(Blueprints). Unity's selling point is it's assest store and huge amount of community support/knowledge. But as said if you can get Unity store assests in FBX format or are able to convert other formats to FBX then maybe UE4 is the better option.

Obviously the other consideration is scaleability, whether UE4 can build the type of game you want.

I see how I might have devalued your work with my comments an I am sorry about that.

It's cool, don't worry, I was just giving a counter-point to the position is all