Most people don't know how to contextualize the information when they're told what engine a game is using. They usually look at one demo using that engine and assume everything is going to look like that if it uses that engine. The reality is that these engines are just different ways to skin a cat. At the end of the day, the graphics output is the skinless cat. The differences between them are under the hood and in the tools, hidden from view.
There aren't any real secrets with graphics technology. Most of the breakthroughs are done by researchers in academia that publish papers. The engines are implementations of those publicized graphics techniques. So, you could probably run this same demo on Frostbite 3 or CryEngine 3 and you'd be hard-pressed to see a difference.
Since EA owns Frostbite, that saves them the licensing fee for an Unreal Engine 4, which is over a million dollars for a big budget game. Of course, they're still paying to develop Frostbite, but that's spread out over all the games they'll publish that uses it.
I do question how developer-friendly Frostbite is. Whether its tools are stable. How easy it is to debug and implement new features, etc. Unreal is much more of a known quantity, because it's publicly available and evolved toward wide adoption across the industry. That doesn't happen unless the tools aren't good.
So, while I think the DA team is taking a step forward with Frostbite, the ME team may be heading in the opposite direction. But only someone with first-hand knowledge of the two would know for sure.
Modifié par SmokePants, 30 mars 2013 - 11:53 .