How to Make a Nintendo 64 Game in 2026
phoboslab.org
phoboslab.org
Modern toolchains, programming languages, dev cartridges and libraries from the community makes all the difference. Outside of some niceties like ICE (gotta write that GDB stub for target hardware at some point), it's not that different from what you'd experience with modern embedded work.
Come to think of it, it must have, because the bit-perfect recompilation projects are using the exact compilers from the SDK.
Recompilation projects aren't bit perfect, only decomps. They use a recompiled version of the compilers for Linux so that they don't need to emulated with QEMU like they used to, though.
They provide the devkit hardware, the specification technical documentation and the tool chain to compile the binary.
https://jacobfilipp.com/MSJ/directx.html
"What happened to Windows CE on the SEGA Dreamcast?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKHSlBi5qok
"Making Dreams Come True - Sega's Katana!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIr9YnMgExA
Maybe it was for the Saturn and previous consoles?
Sony however decided to provide a full C toolchain based on GCC as well as a set of very high level libraries that abstracted away basically all aspects of the PS1 [1], all the way up to implementing a ready-to-go 3D engine and MIDI sequencer. This was an unpopular move as the libraries were slow, inefficient and most game developers were used to having full control over the hardware, but it also allowed inexperienced devs to get started quickly (as proven by the thousands of low budget PS1 titles that used the high level APIs) and eventually contributed to the popularity of the console over its peers with worse tooling.
Sony would eventually go on to release some slightly lower level documentation for certain aspects of the console as well as APIs that better mapped to how the hardware actually worked under the hood. It wasn't however until years later that the hardware would be fully reverse engineered at the register level [2], and it took even longer for most homebrew to move away from the official SDK (which only really started happening a few years ago as accurate emulators and homebrew SDKs started popping up).
I bought a MiSTer for me and my son and we played the heck out of Mario Kart 64 and Mario Golf. I think he picked up my "gaming is dead now" outlook since he doesn't really have any interest in new systems or games anymore
I hope it works out. I can see it working in the reverse: I play n64/ps1/ps2/gamecube games with my kid, they go to school and their friends are playing fortnight or valorant, and then you become the bad guy for trying to be an obstacle in that.
I think as adults we get locked into a few things. I remember as a kid I would play anything I had access to and liked. Now it's more of one or two games at a time.
Pop in a game on N64/Gamecube and you're controlling the character within 10 seconds every time.
The modern upgrades for those generations really make them great - the 8BitDo kit to make an N64 controller wireless, N64 Summercarts, replacing the optical drive in Gamecubes with a memory card reader...
My oldest is 7, and my youngest almost 5, and they came into gaming in a round-about way. My sister was visiting when the oldest was 3 or 4, and asked to play "an old Sonic 3D game". So, I pulled the Dreamcast out of storage, hooked everything up, and she played for all of 15 minutes before getting bored. However, my daughter was enamored. Immediately asked to play and even knowing how janky old Sonic was, I obliged.
Honestly, the rest is history. I'm not exaggerating when I say that our living room TV currently has a Dreamcast, a Gamecube, an Xbox One, PS3, PS4, and Switch hooked up to it. Both girls are huge Sonic fans, and play everything from rereleases of the Genesis games, to every brand new Sonic game that comes out, along with a whole mix of other age appropriate games (3D Marios, Animal Crossing, Smash Bros, and Mario Kart all being staples in our household).
My point in all of this is that if you expose them to the older stuff at a young age and it clicks, they'll explore the gaming landscape in their own way. I've also got an 11 year old brother that plays Fortnite with his friends every day, but also is trying to collect every single Lego game that's come out since they started the Lego Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc. series of games. Kids will like what they're going to like, but having parents that are enthusiastic about the breadth of what the medium has to offer will encourage them to dig being the modern offerings.
I was surprised that children that didn't grow up with the graphic revolution, does not seem to care about graphics. They don't seem to care they are playing 40-30 year old games.
Now come on. The greybeard act was never believable nor interesting.
This is interesting, as I was about to say that gaming has never been more alive than it is now - but it's true that at least the developments in hardware are not nearly as exciting as they used to be in the past. Maybe that's what he's feeling?
One gets the impression that gaming is dead when one's only contact with modern gaming consists of reading headlines about a handful of AAA games.
In reality, the gaming landscape has never been better, as game production has expanded in several directions:
- The barrier to entry into game development has been lowered; People who are talented in design but not programming now have the opportunity to create games
- AAA budgets have increased; those who enjoy large-scale productions will find increasingly large games
- There is still a market for old-school games, so plenty of (especially smaller) companies produce retromodern games
Heck, they even still produce commercial Commodore 64 games o_O
Of course, there is less room for radical innovation, but people do not play only radically innovative games. And regardless, innovation still exists today, especially in smaller-scale productions.
All we see out of mainstream AAA gaming is abused devs, private equity scalping, and mindless remaster regurgitation. Basically going through the same problems as Hollywood is with major films. You get a massive banger of a production every few years, and the rest is just endless money burning and developer harm.
Meanwhile the good indie devs are a dice roll on if they are gonna get recognized by the world at large and find success, just like small budget films.
My game library gets older by the day and I prefer it that way, but love it when an indie game bubbles to the surface and gets beloved by enough fans to break into the news cycle. Itch.io is the only place I look for games anymore unless something I need for the collection hits GoG finally.
Go look up the development of Sonic Xtreme in the 90s. A brutal development process in the 90s that led to more thsn half the development team camping out in Redwood City Sega office building for months until they all got so sick half the team went on medical leave. Or Quake, where the game development process literally broke the team.
Going by interviews with the team over the decades, they had clashing personalities and poor leadership.
> AAA game development was far more brutal in the 90s.
Honestly it's probably always been brutal going back even to the early days of Atari. Companies like EA have spent three decades destroying beloved studios for profit, only to now be chewed up and spit out by PE/VC bastards themselves. A fitting end really.
Today you have dozens of influencers doing play through, videos of complete games, everyone and their dog writing blog posts.
You would go out, give you hard earned money as kid, regardless of pirated or original copy, and then get a garbage game with no money back.
That's what pisses off the mostly straight hetrosexual male crowd that make up most of the gaming market.
A big reason why many east asian game studios are doing so well by rejecting that tried and failed formula from the West.
Honestly, the hell kinda remark is that?
It’s nothing to do with sexuality or “companies telling you what you want” but everything to do with companies putting out complete and utter slop and people ACTUALLY buying it all. They wouldn’t waste all that time and investment money if they knew there wasn’t a market for it, but guess what? There is.
Gamers seem to have the memory span of a goldfish. Horse armour? Bad. GTA VI at 80 bucks and no physical release on consoles? OMG YAAAAAASSSS GIVE ME MORE OF THE SAME HOOKER-SEX SIMULATOR WITH CRIMINAL ACTS SPRINKLED ON TOP!!!
Don’t complain about gaming companies’ behaviour if you keep giving your money to them.
> All we see out of mainstream AAA gaming is abused devs, private equity scalping, and mindless remaster regurgitation. Basically going through the same problems as Hollywood is with major films. You get a massive banger of a production every few years, and the rest is just endless money burning and developer harm.
The production ethics and the product are two distinct aspects.
Regarding the product itself, definitely the AAA gaming industry is, like Hollywood, a dysfunctional production model, but that doesn't mean that it's dead in terms of quality - some franchises do maintain high quality (Doom has been exceptional in this sense) but even in terms of new IP, in average, there at least couple of high quality entries in average, every year. Things could go better, but they're certainly far from "dead".
AAA you know what you are getting, big brash but usually really polished cutting edge stuff but also designed by commitment.
Then you have indie games that are high ambition but also very limited in what they can achieve. So you get a lot of things with brilliant ideas but dont always stick the landing. Two recent ones I have been going through are Skate story and Gecko gods. Both have wonder ambition but you keep hitting those issues when you realise, yeah it is an indie title.
There is a middle ground but it is so hard to find in between those two extremes.
As you pretty well point out, gaming in general is doing great, it is only the gaming version of movie blockbusters that is going down the drain.
They take years to make, there is a limited budget in time, money and amount of gamers for all of them, which naturally due to the laws of physics cannot make all of them a success.
AAA gaming is not like going to the movies that one invests at most 2h and it is done, up to the next thing.
I also find kind of ridiculous the whole memes around PC gaming, it never went away, that is where many of us have been playing the the 8 bit home computers.
I can naturally understand where they came from, most likely having grown with consoles and never been close to computers for gaming as a child, like we were in the 1980-90's.
I always felt the same about the look of PS2 games
[1] https://github.com/spicyjpeg/ps1-bare-metal
[2] https://github.com/grumpycoders/pcsx-redux/tree/main/src/mip...
Until then, only arcades had already made the switch.
On PS2, PS2Linux, Dreamcast there was already C++ support, by the way.
- Physical logic gate era of gaming.
- Assembly era
- C era
- OOP era
- Interpreted languages and game logic living in scripts on top of c++ engines
- Fully Gen-AI era?
Yeah, no.
Your historic accounting is not to be trusted by any means if “gen-AI era” is something that you really believe is happening.
Also the era exists whether or not you play the games from the era.
Of course, getting working code that actually does anything useful is a much different story (it's taking multiple days just to write the wrappers for RDP commands, for example; lots of cross-referencing between N64Brew wiki pages v. official SGI docs v. libdragon source code v. Peter Lemon's assembly code to figure out what all the different bitpacked fields really mean and how to best represent them), but it still feels magical that I can just use an ordinary toolchain and not some ancient proprietary monstrosity.
Here’s what I’m working on - it contains a comprehensive retail game metadata library & cheats database, can screenshot running games and execute frame-perfect tool-assisted speedruns: https://youtu.be/UyqtU0hgGRA?si=_YisdNOrQrSpdpNT
This makes me want to jump in. But also, I wonder how many people will ever buy and play your game.
Does Modretro's target market buy this type of stuff? Or are they the type to just download and emulator and ROM.
Speaking as someone who spent all weekend playing his new M64: Yes, the target market often does buy the cartridge. I've got a brand new copy of Xeno Crisis sitting on my shelf, although Xibalba was a close 2nd. (Tied with Buck Bumble ;) )
That said, there's definitely a crowd that would rather buy a summercart and pirate all their roms. Personally, I'm interested in more thoughtful and intentional electronics, so I'm attracted to the idea of old school "buy the game on a cartridge" mentality.
For the same reason it wasn't possible at the time for a third-party to make N64 cartridges themselves to avoid Nintendo's fees. But I assume these lockout chips are replicated or circumvented by now.
Nintendo's boot code is under copyright and thus cannot be used. So the boot code distributed with Libdragon is signed by finding a hash collision with a brute force tool running on the GPU[1]. Fun stuff!
[1] https://github.com/DragonMinded/libdragon/tree/trunk/boot#bu...
And on top of that, libdragon's IPL3 doesn't just blindly copy the first megabyte of ROM code into RDRAM like the official Nintendo one does, but actually expects the ROM data after it to be a full-blown ELF executable, which it parses out and copies pieces of to the specified places.
Pretty slick stuff.
But it's legal to use the Sony and Nintendo trademarks in a similar way. The court ruled that since they are checked by the console, there was no way not to use them, and Nintendo lost their protection by doing so.
This is likely not the case on the N64, but it's an interesting bit of detail of how Nintendo goes about things.
The NDS graphics processor takes binary-encoded OpenGL commands through a FIFO, didn't stop anyone writing NDS homebrew.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bNN9XhGZ3Yw
(Also The Centre for Computing History YouTube channel is seriously underrated)
Anyone know what Nintendo's stance is on the companies making these kind of "brand inspired" retro products?
Undoubtedly their legal team is at work 24/7 finding every angle at which to unleash legal hell upon it.
ModRetro put their effort where it matters[0], whereas Analogue aren't even honest about their hardware, with baseless claims of 100% compatibility, recurring shipping delays or screwing preorders out of picking case shells. Which can't even be readily replaced.
But in general, the thing that really impresses me is what people come up with working within these various constraints. Less is more.
Megadrive / genesis homebrew is where it's at for me. But tbh I am honestly kind of clueless when it comes to this stuff. Still trying to get parallax scrolling and foreground occlusion figured out for my "game."
The point isn't just to be a novelty throwback aesthetic. It's the most accessible way for indie devs to make a 3D game without needing to worry about particularly high quality 3D models and animation.
References: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Luckey
Also,
2026 web dev: 4MB of JavaScript to render a button. 2026 N64 dev: entire FPS in 1MB
But yes, the N64 isn't particularly well suited for this type of game (or anything 2D, really). I didn't know that when I started the project.
The cartridges from Modretro only work on NTSC N64s, though. I'm told the next production run should work on PAL, too.
I'm really looking forward to the Epilogue 64 Operator. I have the GB Operator, and it's been amazing to be able to flash romhacks onto carts and play on bona-fide hardware.
The article says the game is published by ModRetro.
They've all become war profiteers and fascist enablers.
The only way to live with my conscience was to choose not to be complicit.
If you went around scrutinizing the personal failings of every single creator and deciding not to support their art, you would cut yourself off from a huge chunk of human creation. Creators and builders are disproportionately imperfect people.
Harvey Weinstein, for example, is a serial abuser and genuinely evil person. He also was involved in an enormous number of Hollywood productions. Do you go out of your way to make sure to never watch or consume media associated with him? My guess is probably not. It's impractical and also I think the net benefit of this mindset, where we only allow people with certain moral characteristics to succeed, is a loss for society.
I mean, that's just defense companies in general now. Would you rather have your own soldiers dying in a war, rather than robots? Ukraine is using AI in their targeting, is that something you condemn?
This is no different from the invention of machine guns or artillery. Yes, it's sad that these things will be used in war to kill (more) people. But intentionally avoiding that technology means you're just handicapping your own military and sacrificing others' lives for your principles.
Your claim is similar to saying nobody should own a gun, because it should be illegal to defend yourself or others. So everyone who owns any kind of weapon is evil and bad? Only bad people are allowed to own weapons and we should just roll over?
Nobody should defend Ukraine from Russia? Anduril has been helping Ukraine since very early on.
Let the guy have his little side modding hobby.
It is a decision to start producing regardless of how well-intentioned it is. You will be profiting off of people being maimed and killed. Various people thought they solved war through new weapons only to create more effective killing machines. That's what WW1 was.
Palmer does not have to work on weapons nor justify making them. Building tech that will be used to murder people (and yes, it will happen) is a decision. Not funding his other hobby when he's getting money off US military contracts is hardly breaking his bank. He wants to build weapons? I don't want to buy his products. Easy.
Building more efficient weapons does not make us safer. Every dollar saved through "strength" and better weapons matters little to the parents who lost their kid when the most precise weapon in the world kills a bunch of schoolchildren like it did at the start of the Iran war. If you can't gaurantee your weapons won't get used for that, why would you build them? You cannot.
I thought Tony Stark already made this point.
If nobody in the world was manufacturing any weapons and it was fully observable from space, nobody would have cause to manufacture these kinds of weapons. We do not live in that world.
At some point, any reasonable person should agree that if a country exists in an environment that contains many threats it might need to defend itself or others from, then it makes complete sense for it to develop weapons towards that aim. Countries are not people, people are people. So people make the weapons.
It just so happens that Palmer Luckey is a person. He can't sell weapons to any random person or country he wants, he can only sell them to the US or with permission of the US to a country that the US has a strategic interest in defending.
Precision weapons have helped reduce casualties. This is a fact. Please try to contradict this fact in the face of napalm bombing and nuclear bombs of yesteryears. Please try to tell me that precision weapons aren't better than just randomly aiming artillery at the sky and letting'er rip. Please do. I want to hear your well founded argument for this.
Is it more efficient than napalm? Great. It still will be used to kill people which I find to be gross, especially when innocents will die, too. If somebody has to build weapons and somebody has to fund said weapons maker, I'm glad it doesn't have to be me. Doesn't have to be Palmer either.
If they should be killed, then they should be killed with the minimum number of civilian casualties possible.
Countless millions of people died in World War 1 and World War 2. So many people died that we only have estimates, because there were too many to count individually.
If nobody pushed back against Japan, Germany, Russia, North Korea, China, Iraq, Iran and so on, the world would not be a better place. It would be a place where full on global war was legitimized as a viable global domination strategy. And global domination was in fact the goal back then. The problem is, we aren't sure that goal has ever gone away.
As a result, the entire world is a chess board with smaller countries being manipulated or compromised in various ways for some other grand strategy. For many years now we've accepted that there would largely be some sort of equilibrium or status quo. Except these smaller countries also have a mind of their own and their people universally reject being controlled and manipulated.
Russia with Ukraine. China with Taiwan. North Korea with South Korea. Venezuela with Guyana. Iran with Israel, Iraq, Yemen, etc. Now suddenly all of these countries are all the prowl almost simultaneously. If you only look at US action, look at the world we're reacting to. It's not as simple as some political propagandist hitjob soundbite on TV being the complete answer.
"Peace through strength" is a fine motto, but you can't claim that motto and then turn around and base your business on selling to an entity that routinely starts non-defensive wars.
You have so many tools at your disposal for learning, you really have no reason to just have no idea what is going on unless you just don't prioritize your time that way. In which case, it's ok to understand that you don't know, but why hold your opinion so strongly then?
Go do a couple searches real quick and see what some of the points of the war may be. Many of them will be incorrect or incomplete, but you will come back with at least some reasons that exist.
Sure, I can do searches and find people giving various reasons for the war. What's your point? Am I not allowed to disagree with people? If I can do a couple searches real quick and find some people saying A, I'm not allowed to claim not-A?
I don't see how logic dictates that there's a point to this war. I understand that some people believe the war is being carried out to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or whatever, but how does it "logically" follow that there is necessarily a point to it?
So let's start with the nuclear thing.
Russia is a bad actor. It treats its own people poorly, doesn't have a free press, doesn't allow free speech, it blocks a bunch of the internet so it's harder for people to find the truth. You get thrown in prison because they don't like you. Under the Soviet Union they killed millions of their own people in stupid famines from poor authoritarian decision making. They throw you at the meat grinder of the front lines of poor wars and destroy everything, because they do not value human life. They got nukes to make their bad behavior invulnerable. Ok, so fine, the world is a little worse off, but that's Russia.
Russia spread communism to Korea, since they have had a long-term strategic interest in Korea as a basing for attacking Japan in order to control more warm water ports. Japan and Russia have had conflict around this since the 1800s. It's not new. So Korean war. Now North Korea has nukes. They make their people suffer. The world is a little worse off, but that's North Korea.
Russia spread communism to China for many reasons too. China killed countless millions of people through poor authoritarian decision making too, through yet more famines. They kill any of their own people who don't agree. They took over Tibet by force. They execute more of their own people than the entire world executes, combined. They started building up the largest military mankind has ever seen and now they have nukes. Now that they feel invulnerable, they engage in the largest influence and interference campaign in world history, manipulating countries at scale and spreading extreme propaganda worldwide. It is all pervasive in social media comments, YouTube and elsewhere. I've seen this shift happen personally, slowly. It is not organic. So fine, the world is a little worse off. That's China.
Russia tried to spread communism to Iran and helped the Islamic radicals overthrow the government, thinking the communists could have some control afterwards or exist as an alternative party. Instead the Islamic revolutionaries kill thousands of communists to say, "no, go away." Now we have an Iran that is explicitly friendly with Russia, China, North Korea and Venezuela, learning from North Korea's nuclear program, sending its scientists there. It engages in Islamic revolution in a way similar to how the Soviet Union was trying to spread communism before World War 2, with armed activist militant communist groups. They infiltrated Yemen and that caused the war there. They infiltrated Gaza and Lebanon and Iraq. Afghanistan HATES Iran, because of their attempts to infiltrate it with their radicals. Iraq went to war with Iran, because Iran was engaging in revolution inside their country. Now Iran had built up a huge conventional military just like its friends Russia, China and North Korea, and aims to get a nuclear weapon to make their bad behavior invulnerable.
Iran can't be compared the same way as other countries that have nuclear programs, because most countries aren't Russia, China and North Korea which Iran is patterning itself after and buys military hardware from.
We're done with "so fine, the world is a little worse off". This is domino theory. This is salami tactics, slicing little bits of the world one at a time until the steamroll is so strong it has passed the tipping point and physics no longer offers a way for you to push back the tide.
That is only 1 reason for attacking Iran and it is highly abbreviated. There are dozens of other reasons for attacking Iran, defending Ukraine and deterring China from attacking Taiwan. Dozens of other reasons for capturing Maduro and trying to reform Cuba.
The US doesn't want to have to do any of this. We'd rather just be left alone and leave others alone, but that is not the world we live in. There are people that seek global domination and they are not the ones that want you to have freedom of speech or value your life.
If you want to back up your original reply to me, then you need to not only show that there’s a reason for the war, but that the war can actually accomplish those things. And not only that, but that believing otherwise is so catastrophically ignorant that it can only come from a complete failure to be aware of basic facts.
You can argue there are reasons for the war, although I already agree. You can argue that the war has a chance of achieving those goals. I don't agree with that, but it’s certainly an argument that can be made. But don’t give me this stuff about how it’s logically impossible to hold the opposite position.
He's probably not wrong that you have to be a certain kind of person that can stomach the inherent violence involved, that doesn't mean you want to kill innocent civilians. Yet you do have to be the kind of person who understands that civilian casualties can happen. Life is not kind to the mind that is fragile to the realities of nature. That's accurate.
As for nuclear weapons, he explicitly said he thinks they have done a lot to stabilize the world, which does put some limiters on how extreme war can be, because there is an extra red line that actually matters.
When it comes to chemical weapons, he already stated that no he wouldn't create biological or chemical weapons, but he thinks that there should be a special exception for non-lethal means like tear gas and pepper spray. It's like, a woman can take pepper spray out of her purse and use it against a criminal, but the US military can't use pepper spray to suppress enemies without killing them? Killing people is a more viable option than suppressing them? I think that's the argument he's making.
You should actually watch the stuff you link.
Is SAAB bad making JAS Gripen being soon used against Russia?
I find your and similar views to be very childish. And somewhat suspicious.
Who would benefit from the west investing less in weapons systems? It boils down to what side you are on honestly.
This backlash can hurt modretro, it can affect the author of this game, but the impact on the defense industry is zero. And this thread, fuck, you'd think running JavaScript on an n64 would be the safest place to avoid yelling about US politics in 2026 but here we are. And there's nothing to be gained. A smart person doing cool work published a game through a fun and ethical company that is owned by a person that also owns a defense company, so let's all scream about murdering children. As if that protects anyone from anything.
I got it to write a skill for driving the Ares emulator via GDB Remote Serial Protocol and it uses that for its feedback loop.
My point is, people get enjoyment out of game design too. It’s not just about nerding out on technical specs.
Is it about the idea of the platform having limited capabilities (e.g. akin to Game Bub or MiSTer) or about tactile aesthetics (e.g. possibly vaguely comparable - though not really - to r36t or play.date) or something different entirely.
The plot-twist here is: The game design is made by Claude too :)
There's a time and place for everything.
I don't disagree, but I don't see it as a positive, looking at the current game releases and their performance being shockingly unoptimised, there is a lot of lost real world value in knowing the lower level details, it's like anything really, sometimes you have to do the hard/unappealing work to create your best work.
I've been a low level engine programmer in video games all my working life. I worked on a few AAA games that sold 20M+ copies, I'm not saying this to boast, I'm saying this to say I know how the sausage is made. My literal day to day job is fixing issues like "The RHI thread on the Switch takes 0.5ms longer than it should" and optimizing things as much as possible.
I think if you asked me few years ago, I would have also taken the same stance you did - that these tools make it "too easy" and we get unoptimized crap out there.
But you know what, nowadays I feel like I mellowed out a lot. A lot of these so called "friendslop" games are horrible in terms of technical work. And you know what? They still bring joy to people. They still make people laugh and have a great time with the people they like. One of my favourite memories from a game I worked on was reading comments from people who said they were looking forward to just playing the game after work in the evening with their friends. Was optimizing the IO performance on PS4 essential to make the game happen? Sure. But what mattered more was that the game was actually fun to play.
Nowadays I see the improvement in tooling as nothing but a positive. There will always be hardcore engine programmers who know how to do this stuff, I have zero doubt about it. But allowing people to just download an engine and make the thing is absolutely fantastic. To say that it's bad - to me personally - that's gatekeeping. Saying you can't make a game unless you know how to write a renderer or a physics system is so offputting to people who want to make a game but just don't know how - we should be encouraging them, not chastising them for it. Little Big Planet did it well as one of the first games of that kind, if you recall that - just saying, here's a sandbox, make a thing that brings joy to other people. Isn't that what gaming is about?
And on a more serious, business side - it's kinda crazy that Epic lets you use UE for FREE until you start making serious money on the game that you made. You can start a company, hire people, and just start making the game you want to make without paying anything for the tooling. Very few other companies in the world let you do this.
> it's kinda crazy that Epic lets you use UE for FREE until you start making serious money on the game that you made.
Thinking about how powerfull UE is, it is kind of insane.