In-house game engine is given a name and a logo even though it will never be used by any other developers outside of...

Why do game companies do this?

RAGE was used by the LA Noire devs tho

so they can sell the use of the engine if it becomes desired by other devs

Fox Engine was never used, MGS V was Havok

La Noire devs were Rockstar Australia

Havok is a physics engine/middleware, retard. That would be like saying Half-Life 2 runs on "the VPhysics Engine!" instead of the Source Engine because it uses VPhysics (which is a fork of Havok btw)

Lolwut

Havok is not a complete game engine, it's only a physics engine. A lot of game engines use Havok for physics, Source, Gamebryo, Breath of the Wilds in-house engine.

The Rockstar Advanced Game Engine for example uses Euphoria Physics for the padestrians and Bullet Physics for soft-body simulation

Havok is middleware, not a fucking game engine and Team Bondi developed LA Noire, not Rockstar.

Too be fair Team Bondi was pretty much Rockstars bitch. All their games were published by them and their debt they owed to Rockstar ended up in the closure that sent all its developers and some assets to Rockstar

so this is the average poster on Holla Forums?

LA Noire was their only game and was originally under SCE. Whore of the Orient was going to be published by WB Games before it was cancelled.

Because maybe at first they really tried to market to other developers in using the engine but never succeeded and just stuck around.

See Serious Engine and MT Framework

seriously, I thought all the retards would leave after Summer ended there is a change in poster style after Summer ends, but retards will always be retards

I think today it's mainly used as a marketing tool. Ubisoft has like 5 different fucking engines they just use freely and interchangeably. You really think Ubisoft thinks any of them will see the light of day in another studio? Even that Mario Rabbids game was under them.

Why not? They need a name for the game engine and a logo to display it in the credits. I like it more when game companies use their own in-house engine because they are in control of every aspect of the game. Also, I think the engine isn't really exclusive to the company, if other dev want to use, they can buy the licence but it cost more to the development budget plus you need to train peoples to use it.

To market the games. They advertise how great this engine of theirs is in order to help hype up whatever games the develop with it. "MGSV on the Fox Engine" sounds a lot better than "MGSV on some engine we developed in-house".

They don't technically need a logo, and the engine can be a placeholder name like "engine [Name of the dev team]".
It looks cool tho, I like it

No they don't, because they will most likely be the only ones who see it and it's very unlikely they will ever deliver any kind of toolkits. Where is the R.A.G.E. toolkit? It's sitting somewhere in a Rockstar dev workstation.

That would be like playing Pokemon Fire Red and seeing after the Gamefreak logo "Powered by the Pokemon Ruby Engine!"

Game engines are tools to aid in game development, but they've become thinks for marketers to flaunt around

Placeholder name is still a name and a logo just makes it more professional looking


I dont see any connection between a logo to display in the credits roll and releasing a toolkit to the public. You don't get a toolkit, so what?

They are

You don't need to display the engine in the credits at all, unless you've licensed it from someone else. It's like making your own pen ink and then crediting it in the book you wrote with it.

Don’t know why people rag on it so much. One of the best things about MGS V is the embleming.

If you're gonna argue "professionalism", then a placeholder name isn't as professional as a final name either.
If you're gonna market it outside the dev team. Otherwise it's pointless. No need for professionalism when it's not even relevant that other people know what you're using.
I like it but it's not really necessary.

CDprojekt Red called their engine REDengine and Unreal Engine was made for Unreal game, it doesn't matter what the name is, it still a name for the engine.

They could have made bank if they set up a bunch of networked custom embroidery machines to let people get physical patches of their emblems.

Why not? its the most important thing when making a game.

It matters if it sounds silly, like if the Dark Souls devs had named their engine "Engine Project Dark" back when the name wasn't decided yet and it was just "Project Dark".
Either way, my point is it doesn't even need to be mentioned.

a game called Unreal using an engine called Unreal doesn't sound stupid to you?RAGE doesn't sound stupid to you? so no, it doesn't matters if the name is stupid.

But it does considering its the most important part when making a game

Not really.
Nope.
No? The vast majority of games don't mention what engines they use in the credits.
You credit people on the end credits, not the tools you used. You're saying it like you had to credit Photoshop if you used it for the designs.
They just mention it to advertise it.
For example, the engine that Team Silent used was built in house but a name for it was never given and it was certainly not mentioned in the credits.

This is easily the dumbest thing I've ever heard on Holla Forums. Enginedevs get shat on all the time nowadays, with people insisting they aren't necessary in the age of Unity and Unreal, and now you're saying that they aren't allowed to be proud of or even name their shit.
If you've made multiple engines, you want to give them different names to differentiate them. Iterative changes get extra numbers, completely new engines usually get a new name, and so on. Having everything be "engine" would get confusing really fucking fast and it would make dev conversations really tedious, all this to appease some autist who thinks engines only have names for marketing.

No one said it was retarded you dickweed.

Because it is the game. Crediting an in-house engine is entirely redundant, because you're already crediting the people who made it.


We're talking about the public advertisement of in-house engines, dingus.

Well, thats just your opinion then

So is yours.

Engine names are public for more than just advertisement to normalfags, faggot. Developers often release papers and presentations on their work, and public engine names makes both finding these resources and tracking an in-house engine's evolution much easier.

So arguing about it is pointless because it all comes down to [my opinion] > [your opinion].

Yes. It's not even the main point I was addressing. I don't even care about your opinion on those names. Preferences are not an argument.

the main point that you want to address are pointless

because they can

so?

My point was that they didn't have to. I never said they couldn't or shouldn't, I even said I was OK with it.
God damn you're a dumb fuck.

You don't credit Photoshop because it's not a tool to make the game, it's a tool to make ASSETS for the game. Artists mention what tool they use in each of their portfolio entry all the time.

Assets are part of the game. If you shipped the game's code without the assets, it wouldn't be the same game.
Either way you don't need to mention the in-house engine, or even name it.

Wow, thanks for adding nothing of value to the thread, why do you even bother posting with your passive aggressive argument. You must be a centrist cuck.

...

...

...