[=matmuze;194237]
I get your point, and I am aware of those licensing limitations, however many people might actually be okay with those terms…
I also reckon that would profit to a third party company, but is also the case for Unity right ? As far as I know those guys profited A LOT from fruitful collaboration with …
Furthermore you cannot simply compare C# scripting with FMod, Enlighten, Scaleform, since they do not usually represent a “deal-breakers” functionality – I am very much convinced that I am not the only one craving for …
However, if Epic is not willing to help a 3rd party company to develop product and at the same leverage the usability of their engine, then they are making a big mistake in my opinion and that is clearly a spit in the face of those thousands of modest coders that would like to grab their hand on engine.
[/]
First: Unity really doesn’t collaborate with , they collaborated with Novell. Hence the reason why the Mono runtime in Unity hasn’t been updated since took Mono over after Novell was purchased. And they paid quite a bit of money for it.
Secondly: I would call the current in engine Audio solution for UE4 to be at least as much of a deal breaker as C# support.
Thirdly: It’s up to to make arrangements with Epic if they want direct support, but they haven’t even decided whether or not they want to take product to market, so the investment isn’t worth it.
Fourthly: C# is not the only option for people who want fast iteration, as there is experimental Lua support (which was built by Epic), as well as SkookumScript. Why would Epic offer preferential treatment to , unless was offering good value to the community? (Indie-friendly rates being the primary)