Crytek releases Cryengine source code on Github

Back in March, Crytek started offering its Cryengine V game engine to developers on a "pay-what-you-want" scheme. Today, developers don't even need to go to the trouble of paying $0 for the engine to check it out. The source code is now publicly available on GitHub.

According to David Kaye, Crytek's senior systems engineer, the company moved the code to GitHub for a couple of reasons. First, Crytek wanted to make it easier for users to see the differences between one release and the next. Second, the company wanted to make it more convenient for users to keep up to date with new Cryengine releases.

The code might be publicly available, but Cryengine doesn't use a common open-source license. Users must agree to a limited license agreement, which states that Cryengine cannot be used to develop anything other than games. The code can't be used for military projects, gambling, science, architecture, or what the license somewhat amusingly calls "serious games." By that, Crytek means things which are technically games but "not developed for the sole purpose of entertainment." The company cites examples of "training, simulation, science, architecture, etc."

The open-source project still has some work ahead of it. Crytek is working to make it simpler for its internal version-control system to accept pull requests from GitHub. As users start digging into the code, it'll be interesting to see what projects develop out of Cryengine and its Marketplace.

Comments closed
    • Liron
    • 4 years ago

    Good to know. I was using it to make a short movie… probably more accurate to call it an animated joke, but if only games are allowed, I guess I have to start converting assets to something else.

    • meerkt
    • 4 years ago

    The seemingly industry-wide shift in 3D engine licensing brings up a lot of questions. Epic’s engine is pretty similar. The same 30% marketplace split, but also a 5% royalty on engine usage.

    How is this financially viable? Do they only bank on the 30% they get from marketplace assets? Do they expect to improve the engine thru third party code submissions?

    What about secret algorithms and techniques? There was always some sharing of technical ideas, but not to this extent. id’s engine releases were always previous-gen or two. Is this brave new world going to based around “marketplaces” for everything? Will game differentiation based on technical merit nearly disappear?

      • blahsaysblah
      • 4 years ago

      You have it wrong. The 5% is nothing compared to the highly vetted feedback and bug fixes they are getting for free. Which is snowballing as they get bigger and bigger.

      You need talented folks and significant effort and time to become familiar with UE4 and its workflow, tools and architecture. A chair is a chair, but you need to know highly specific workflows and knowledge to be good with one engine versus another.

      They were financially viable long ago. Nothing has changed. This is all gravy. The big licenses for direct access to developers are still there and will always be there. Think of big studios as enterprise. You always need paid support so you can get your business objectives done in timely manner. They were very profitable before.

      Only wrench is the parent company is Chinese as of a few years ago.

        • meerkt
        • 4 years ago

        If even before it was a “services” model similar to Red Hat, why did they start open-sourcing their engines just recently?

        What Chinese parent company?

      • Pwnstar
      • 4 years ago

      You assume they get the majority of their profit from engine sales.

    • Thrashdog
    • 4 years ago

    As an architect, I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry at the notion that my industry has more money to throw around than game developers.

      • slowriot
      • 4 years ago

      Has there been a disruptive offering like the Unity licensing model in your industry?

        • Thrashdog
        • 4 years ago

        Unity and UE4 are both available on a free or freemium basis to the architectural market — in fact, our 3D viz guy has been experimenting in-house with UE4 to good effect.

      • flip-mode
      • 4 years ago

      Doesn’t matter; unless it comes from Autodesk the industry at large isn’t interested, no matter how obscene the subscription terms are and no matter how disgustingly bloated Autocad becomes.

        • Thrashdog
        • 4 years ago

        It’s not so much that we don’t care as that between Autodesk’s acquisitions and vendor lock-in shenanigans, we’re powerless to do anything about it.

          • Arclight
          • 4 years ago

          You could crowd fund an open source project as an alternative to Autodesk. It might not be as good at first, but the more time would pass the better it would become until one day it will be a viable alternative. The same has happened with Linux, I’m using it right now when just a couple of years ago I couldn’t have possibly considered it would replace Windows for web browsing, data storage, music, movies and other basic tasks that need to be done on a computer.

            • Liron
            • 4 years ago

            It’s not that simple, since you’re required to submit the plans in the latest Autodesk proprietary format, so often.

            • Arclight
            • 4 years ago

            That’s not a valid argument against such a project, it just means that now Autodesk is trusted, not that it’s the final solution to architecture. A century ago, it would have been paper blue prints, that disappeared too. In a century it might be in VR or AR, who knows? The idea is to start something when there is no alternative, otherwise nothing will change.

            • sweatshopking
            • 4 years ago

            hahahaha linux is still terrible compared to windows or OSX. if that’s your argument then you don’t have one.

            • Arclight
            • 4 years ago

            If Linux is so terrible, how come it’s used on the ISS or on nuclear submarines, or for IoT or for smartphones or for HPC?

            • ermo
            • 4 years ago

            I would argue that, for linux to become successful on the desktop, a de facto monopoly distro will need to emerge, into which its main sponsor pour enough engineering resource that noone else can realistically change its direction.

            Canonical is trying valiantly, but they are likely finding themselves outspent by Red Hat, which has resulted in their efforts so far being somewhat less than de facto standards (see bzr vs. git, mir vs. wayland, unity vs. everything else, upstart vs. systemd etc.).

            With LXD/LXC and snappy, they’re well on the way to do something nice, but odds are they won’t be able to make the industry — particularly RedHat — follow and thus they’re doomed to be a niche within a niche.

            Only once Android and ChromeOS merge, will linux become big-ish on the desktop. And at that point, it won’t really be linux in the traditional sense.

            Windows? It’ll live on, but become less and less relevant is my guess.

            • sweatshopking
            • 4 years ago

            i never said it didn’t have a place. I assumed desktop was the discussion, and I accurately compared it to windows and osx.

            • Arclight
            • 4 years ago

            You compared nothing, just expressed your feeling and declared Linux to be terrible, which is anything but. Linux is a perfectly capable OS, it can handle basic tasks like web browsing, music, video watching etc. just fine. I used it as an example because it actually managed to displace Windows from many applications, the same way a crowd funded, open source project could one day break the monopoly that other software companies have.

            • slowriot
            • 4 years ago

            It’s kinda funny to me. In 2016 Linux is the predominate platform. It is the most popular platform to serve content via the web. It’s also the basis for the most popular mobile devices, the ones most people use to consume web content.

            It’s also growing in popularity in the laptop form factor via Chromebooks. Rapidly.

            I’m not one to push Linux on the desktop. As a Linux SA I’m actually quite the opposite and perfectly fine with people sticking to Windows (or OSX) because it works for them and I don’t see much benefit catering to that user base on the desktop. But the denial people have regarding the popularity of Linux is funny. It isn’t in your face, but everyone uses it every day.

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 4 years ago

    So when will we see a crysis 4 or a another solid FPS from them???

      • Acidicheartburn
      • 4 years ago

      I’d settle for an HD remaster of Crysis 1, but then again Crysis 1 still looks incredible even by today’s standards.

        • Pwnstar
        • 4 years ago

        Yeah, it wouldn’t take much work to bring it up to top-of-the-line. Just add DX12.

          • synthtel2
          • 4 years ago

          Does this need a /s? I suspect it is /s material, but it didn’t budge my sarcasm detector at first. (Mine hasn’t been known to be particularly reliable though.)

          More seriously, even just throwing the Crysis 1 content into the latest version of the engine is a lot tougher than it sounds.

            • Pwnstar
            • 4 years ago

            I wasn’t being sarcastic. DX12 is the latest tech. If I was being sarcastic, I would have said “Put it on the Windows 10 Store!”

            Dat UWP restricted goodness!

            • bronek
            • 4 years ago

            There is not much difference between “upgrade to DX12” and “put on Windows 10 store”, since both technologies are exclusive. Upgrade to Vulcan, that’s a different story.

            • sweatshopking
            • 4 years ago

            UWP isn’t restricted, and does not require the windows 10 store. Gosh I wish you guys would get with the program.

            • synthtel2
            • 4 years ago

            Just tacking on DX12 (or Vulkan, FWIW) to Crysis 1 would do basically nothing. DX12 does nothing for how the game looks on its own – coders still gotta code that regardless. DX12 would merely give more options for other parts of the upgrade process, and while Crysis looked great for its time, the state of the art has advanced tremendously since then. Basically, you’re all but rewriting the whole renderer (or porting the content to CryEngine 5). Even once you’ve done that (and even the port wouldn’t be that easy), the assets you’re using are still from 2007, and it shows.

    • Pwnstar
    • 4 years ago

    Is Crytek trying to sell licenses for “serious games”, then? Or is it just not possible to make those with this engine, at all?

      • TwistedKestrel
      • 4 years ago

      I’m thinking they either already DO sell such licenses, or there is a third party that has the exclusive right to do so

      • [TR]
      • 4 years ago

      I think it’s specifically Serious Sam games. Crytek HATES Croteam!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This