<https://torque3d.org/forums/topic/1524-epic-upping-the-ante-again/#comment-12737>
<http://schema.org/text>
"It all sounds good in theory, but in reality it is always a little different. For example the supposed benefit for artists in making asset creation easier which is not really the case, yes in theory it saves you work, but in reality it first increases your work. Those big engines and tools come with big libraries of professionally created assets, that the \"artist\" just places into the scene. Have you ever tried to create a photoscanned 3D art asset? It takes hundreds of photos and lots of work of exporting and importing, rendering etc for such an asset to be finished, it is far easier to just take a photo and slap it as a texture on a flat face of a low poly model, looks amazingly realistic unless you get close or it gets dynamic.    Yes in theory it looks and sounds nice, but the question is how much of that do we get in reality?    Do you remember the new Unreal Tournament? It was supposed the new big deal and they had amazing looking demos, it was supposed to be open source and build by the community, but recently it was cancelled, because it failed so hard. Why did it fail? Because the users could not reproduce the good quality, you had like a handful of maps that looked as good as the demo created by professional artists from Epic and then you had everything else, that looked so bad, some levels even looked worse than Unreal Tournament from the year 1999.    Even our Torque3D demos from 2009 or whatever still look better than almost any game that was produced with the engine until now, that is the difference between theory and reality.    If you up the tech it also becomes harder for artists to compete, because you raise the entry barrier. "
<https://torque3d.org/forums/topic/1524-epic-upping-the-ante-again/>