Understanding Game Engine Choices

To grasp the importance of this change, it's essential to recognize the critical role that game engines play in development. Choosing between an in-house engine and a commercial one involves weighing costs against the ease of creation. Commercial engines like Unity or Unreal come with licensing fees that can vary based on a game's revenue and development scale. Naturally, studios prefer to retain as much of their profits as possible, which is why they often opt for in-house solutions.

However, using a commercial engine can limit flexibility, as studios must adapt to the engine's capabilities. If an engine lacks certain features or performs poorly in specific tasks, fixing these issues can be challenging. Developers may have to rely on workarounds, and while they can suggest improvements to the engine creators, changes often benefit a broader audience rather than a single studio.

Common grievances about engines like Unity and Unreal include outdated coding languages, challenges in collaborative efforts, complexities in online multiplayer setups, and performance issues linked to specific workflows.

The Drawbacks of Proprietary Engines

On the surface, it might seem logical to avoid third-party engines and develop a proprietary one. This choice allows studios to dictate development processes and retain full profits. Nevertheless, creating and maintaining an engine demands significant resources and expertise. Over the past decade, many companies have transitioned to third-party engines, as the costs of maintaining their own engines have proven prohibitive.

A notable example is EA's Frostbite engine, which has faced criticism and was imposed on all EA studios despite its limitations. Initially designed for first-person shooters, it lacked the necessary functionality for other genres, leading to complications in projects like Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Similarly, Square Enix struggled with their Crystal Tools engine, which could not adapt to the demands of various games, resulting in production delays.

CD Projekt Red's Considerations

After the troubled launch of Cyberpunk 2077, CDPR acknowledged the limitations of REDengine, which struggled with first-person shooting and driving mechanics. Their earlier game, Thronebreaker, was developed using Unity, suggesting that REDengine might not have suited that project's needs.

It's also worth noting that game engines have evolved significantly over recent years, becoming more capable and efficient. With the convergence of video games and film, many engines are now used in major movies and TV shows, resulting in increased investment and advanced features.

Given CDPR's size, it appears they may not require a proprietary engine. Larger studios like Rockstar and Ubisoft have the resources to maintain their engines. To ensure the successful launch of their next title and restore consumer confidence, CDPR's decision to adopt Unreal Engine 5 seems prudent. This transition allows them to allocate resources more effectively and leverage the support available within the Unreal Engine community.

The video titled "CD Projekt RED + Creative Assembly vs Unreal Engine #StutterStruggle" delves into the implications of CDPR's switch to Unreal Engine and the challenges faced by studios in adapting to new technologies.

In another insightful video, "CDPR Explains Why They Switched to Unreal Engine For The Witcher, Game Director Selected and more!" the studio discusses their motivations and what this means for the future of their games.

The Future of CDPR and REDengine

As CDPR continues to support Cyberpunk 2077 with upcoming DLC, it is likely that REDengine will still be in use for a while. However, given the studio's strategic pivot towards Unreal Engine, it seems that the days of REDengine are numbered, marking a new era for CD Projekt Red.