Ambiera ForumDiscussions, Help and Support. |
|
| [ 1 2 3 ] Page 2 of 3 |
|
|||||
|
I see and it's kinda misleading at least for me and I think for some as well. I'm sure it is not a typo and more of a choice if that is the case, but if you compare it word wise, Studio vs Professional means the PRO would sound the high end one in a marketing sense or whatever, wouldn't you agree? That is why "instinctively" I was confused by the pricing. I hear you. However, I think they are correctly named. "Pro", in this case, does indeed mean that it is for "professional" use and, as a result, has "professional" features that the free version does not have. However, "Studio" means that version is better suited for a "studio" that needs to make core changes to the engine in order to have the engine perform they way they want for their studio. In other words, a studio might have specific needs and CopperCube Pro just might get them 90% of the way there. But they need more. Instead of going elsewhere, they can purchase the Studio version and customize the engine JUST FOR THEIR STUDIO. While an individual can do this as well, it is typically a studio that needs this access to the source code. It allows them to better integrate CopperCube into their pipeline, to add features that CopperCube does not already have. to add such things as custom file import/export, and many other things. Coming from a graphics professional background, I find that the names "Pro" and "Studio" work well and are easily understood for what they are. And once I saw what was offered in both, it was even more easily understood. I suppose what it comes down to, regardless of the titles, is what's included. The higher priced one provides access to the CopperCube source code. So, no matter what it's called, it's priced appropriately (compared to the Pro version). |
||||
|
I see, it seems the pro is the middle guy there. btw, do you own either version? got free for now. |
||||
|
I wouldn't say that Pro is the middle guy. I would say that Studio adds one thing only - source code. Not everyone needs the source code, especially with an engine whose target audience seems to be creating games with no programming. ;) There are just two versions of CopperCube - Free and Professional. That's it. Studio is not different from Professional in any way. It's exactly the same. What you'd be paying extra for is access to the source code. So, Studio IS Pro. I have the free version currently. I plan to get the Pro version, but I want to get deeper into learning the software first and a bit into my game development before pulling the trigger. |
||||
|
that's not the case and trust me it's still the middle guy, coz you got 3 versions.. MS Visual Studio Community Edition Professional Edition <-- middle guy Enterprise Edition CopperCube Free Edition Professional Edition <-- middle guy Studio Edition it's a fact So, Studio IS Pro. Now Studio IS Pro? so I was right along, heh just make up your mind dude. 
|
||||
|
wrote: Studio is not different from Professional in any way. It's exactly the same. What you'd be paying extra for is access to the source code. So, Studio IS Pro. that's your opinion. I already know that you get source code with studio, not a big difference to you but for others and niko (hence the double the price). |
||||
|
Sheesh. Really? You don't get this? Look at the features of both Studio and Pro. What do you see? They are absolutely identical. No difference at all. Studio is Pro. They are the exact same. When you purchase Studio, you get something besides Pro - you get the SOURCE CODE. It's an additional product. Let's say a company offered a game engine in two packages - Pro and Studio. If the Studio version was IDENTICAL to the Pro version, but offered an extensive set of prefabs or a model pack, what would the difference be in the game engines? Nothing. Not a thing. The game engines were identical, but the Studio version offered something additional. This is exactly what Ambiera is doing with CopperCube. Pro and Studio are absolutely identical. Studio does not offer more features than Pro. They are the same. Period. But with Studio, you get an additional product - the source code (it's a separate download). This enables studios to modify the engine if they wanted/needed to. So, yes, I stand by my statements. Pro and Studio are exactly the same engine. Pro is not the "middle guy". Studio IS Pro, but with an added (and separate) product, which is why you are paying more for Studio than Pro. It's pretty simple. |
||||
|
I know it's identical, I'm a pro game dev btw and into heavy coding, already know how CC works coz I already used Irrlicht and IrrEdit before. We're not talking about code and product. For niko and the pricing, it's a big difference. Stop making this about yourself dude and your needs. guy (niko) makes a Studio version just to make the code available, so he can earn more and it's a good thing. It's pretty simple. whatever your self reasoning is, it's still 3 versions. 3 versions selling on Steam and on this website. That's 3, and Pro is the middle guy. So simple. |
||||
|
I agree. It is a good thing for Niko. I was just arguing that "pro" is not the "middle guy". And, remember, you're the one who thought the pricing was wrong because you, the professional game dev, didn't understand the difference between what "pro" and "studio" normally means within the industry. :P BTW - Professional 3D graphic artist here. Been working in the field for a long, long time. |
||||
|
remember, you're the one who thought the pricing was wrong because you, the professional game dev, didn't understand the difference between what "pro" and "studio" normally means within the industry. :P Ah says the "Studio is Pro" guy you see, that's still ambigious and depends on the company. I gave this one earlier for the sake of not starting an argument, but you insist to take this further so.. |
||||
|
BTW - Professional 3D graphic artist here. Been working in the field for a long, long time. yea, I would suggest just using Unity, you're not going to last long here. Not saying it's easier and it's better than CC, but you will get more help and tutorials there with no coding and logic background. good luck pal. |
||||
|
Naw. I prefer Godot over Unity. But CC is perfect for my current project. CC is an incredibly dated engine, but it is sufficient for what I am currently working on. Have fun, "pal". |
||||
|
Naw. I prefer Godot over Unity. But CC is perfect for my current project. heard that excuse many times before. let's face it, it's not looking good there. and using Godot you still ask the obvious game scene questions? smh I used it too before and it's terrible, slow and overhyped. CC is faster and better cause it's Irrlicht. CC is an incredibly dated engine obviously you don't know how game engine works as you work on graphics art. Shaders dictate great visuals and CC has that option, so it's a choice. So it is not dated, it's up to you to make it look good. niko is a one man army here so I totally understand his situation here with CC. |
||||
|
CC is very dated (out of the box and not altering the source code). Only one light can be used for real-time shadows? Most engines these days allow for virtually unlimited lights with real-time shadows. Normal maps cannot receive shadows from real-time lighting (yet). CC relies on lightmaps for shadows and lighting. The lightmapping used is dated and not all that accurate compared to other lightmapping solutions. PBR rendering doesn't exist for CC. CC is DirectX 9 and OpenGL currently. Really? DirectX 9? The particle system is pretty ... old and limited. CopperCube reminds me of the old 3D GameStudio (which is dead and outdated by about 10 years). Look, CopperCube is good and capable. I am not in any way disputing this. But to debate whether it is dated or not is silly. It is. But that's okay. There is plenty that can be done with a dated engine. My current project does not need all the bells and whistles. And there is a lot I can do with CC that does not require actual programming. So, I like CC. But that does not mean I don't recognize that it's dated and limited when compared to other, more modern engines. As far as Godot, I'm going to guess you've not worked with v3. There is a reason the engine is getting such traction in the last several months. In any case, no worries. You have fun. Reply if you want. I'll move on with my project. |
||||
|
All the features that you mentioned -> Shaders. you say you don't need source code, well you do now, that's why there's a "Studio" version in the first place. Now you get it why it's 3 versions. You can't compare Godot with CC cause CC is still proprietary code, you can't make versions of it and niko can't get help because it's not opensource. so, he must do it alone (or he has a small team who knows) while trying to make sales for the Pro and THE Studio version, so he gets all the dirty work, reverse the situation with Godot and you got what you are asking for. yea moved on, but you started it. Studio is Pro.. hah give me a break. end. |
||||
|
Godot is, quite frankly, garbage. I legitimately can't see why people praise it so much. The interface is downright awful and the asset management is just piss-poor. Ridiculous... |
||||
| [ 1 2 3 ] Page 2 of 3 |
|
|
){kind=link}