On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Michael Menegakis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Tei <[email protected]> wrote: >> recently Unreal has "open" his engine > > IIRC it has a hilarious clause that you have to pay almost all of your > profits if not more (a large percentage on gross) in case you go > commercial.
Not so. http://www.udk.com/licensing.html For the royalty-bearing license, $99 for the license, first $5000 of revenue $0 royalties (technically $99 from the license fee, but thats a $150 discount for the first $5k), further revenue is %25 royalties. There's also a per-developer seat of $2500/year, however, the only example they gave for application of that license is an internal use scenario at a company. So 1 developer, and you use the application for internal training purposes with all your employees, or something like that. I would definitely go with the first, and overall it seems rather friendly to free game developers (no revenue, no royalties, not even the $99 license fee) and indie developers (no fees until you're ready to sell). I can understand applying the royalties to "revenue" since there is no guarantee of it even being "profitable". Considering games cost about $50/copy on average, you don't have to pay royalties on the first 100 units sold. As far as profits, the %25 for Epic's royalties is an expense, plus whatever it cost in wages, development systems, rent, etc... Subtract expenses from revenue, whats left is your profit. Its up to you to manage expenses and set the price where you can actually make the profit you want. That said, I personally wouldn't touch U3 until the Linux port is done. _______________________________________________ ioquake3 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ioquake.org/listinfo.cgi/ioquake3-ioquake.org By sending this message I agree to love ioquake3 and libsdl.
