goldenboy wrote:This is one good reason to not use them unless you are sure you can cope with a post-release engine bug tracker. Basically all risks are yours and yours alone.
This is one of the wisest statements I've heard about quake-based engines. You centered the point. I've never seen that way since now. I always thought (stupidly) that, being around since '96, quake engine technology (I think of the networking part, for example) was stable and tested enough to be used smoothly to create commercial games. I never thought that new features (skeletal animation, ODE physics, csqc) could create issues that (probably) could have never been solved. Great post, gb. You opened my eyes!
Now it's time to understand if the job worthes the money to use an engine without paying royalties (but Unity 5 has changed this trend too. At least for desktop games) but living with the fear to publish a game with bugs that could remain bugs (because hire a C programmer that solves a game engine bug could be difficult to find and very expensive) or use a commercial engine (with very few or even no fees) and be (relatively) safe.
It's just reasonable to use the stable and well tested, well documented alternative with the huge community.
Well, even inside3d community is a great community (we're probably fewer, but maybe we're better)!