Are you OK with Purchasing WebGL Add-On?

I doubt it. This was discussed at work yesterday for all of 90 seconds. The cost of moving any one project - let alone all of the many that we have - to another engine to save on some up-front licensing costs is prohibitively high.

If you only consider up-front costs in your decision making then you're not making optimal decisions.

These free/cheap licenses are great for individual getting in at the ground level or small teams with no budget just starting out. If you don't fit those categories then hippo has the right of it - having the right tool for the job is way more important than getting hung up over up-front licensing fees.

 

true, I will be honest and say that yes I will probably end up paying for WebGL because I want to continue using Unity + WebGL, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it...

I doubt that Unity will keep WebGL as a Paid for Add-On, and will eventually become a free core feature of Unity replacing Unity Web Player between 1-2 years. I understand they need to cover their development costs right now for WebGL, but at the very least i'm asking to not have to pay for a Development Preview or Early Access Version.

the only argument I received was that Unity did this with Flash and it didn't work out so well, but this is not Flash... this is WebGL an Open Source Technology that Unity has full control over it's development and can choose to provide limited or no support for a Development Preview, and can choose to Officially Only Support a Completed or more Mature Version of WebGL in the follow up versions of Unity 5. I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

Man why should we pay for webgl when we paid for flash and they discontinued that. Whats the point of paying for tech that is very uncertain only to have unity say they will discontinue support for it. Unity stop it with the new addons, they should be core or free if they are that important.

 

You're right, you don't, but complaining about it is counter-productive. Even if Unity did do as you're pressuring and make it free that just puts us all under more risk. Sure we get some toys with less up-front payment, but what's the point of that if Unity's costs aren't being covered and we end up losing all of the toys as a result?

Regarding the Flash thing, it seems to me that Unity have learned from it. Yes, at this stage it's a really risky proposition. Right now the risk is entirely on Unity because while we're shooting the breeze about whether we want to pay for it later they're sinking capital into tech development. The point is that where we're talking about how risky this might be for us later... they're taking more risk, right now. Thankfully it also seems like they're taking better steps to manage that risk. It sounds like they learned a lot from it, not just on the technical/vendor relationships side but also on the support side. That's all good news to me.

I'd hope that users have similarly learned. Commercially speaking, I wouldn't commit to a WebGL delivery until I'd successfully used it a few times. For the kind of work that we do $1500 to road test tech that could significantly extend our reach isn't a big deal at all, and it's a risk we can easily manage. If it helps us make sales it won't take long at all before it pays itself off. And considering the string track record of Unity's products for us, a $1500 outlay wouldn't be considered a big risk in terms of trying that out.

 

I know that, but its much easier for me to push users to upgrade their browser than to down-grade it. And downgrading might be what I'll be forced to tell them (or switch to another one) if WebGL doesn't deliver all the features performance. It's essentially a lose-lose situation that didn't exist before Google decided to change the game.

At the end of the day, everyone is going to suffer from this, to put it lightly, premature decision. It's just frustrating to end up investing work into something that functions properly and suddenly have to invest even more work into something that properly won't before a long... long time.

Argh

 

Regardless of how you look at it, Unity is kind of going back on their word with this one. Yeah change the argument (its only Chrome after all), still you are backpedaling from earlier statements however you want to word it.
It was understood that you would provide an alternate, and so yeah, you are, but no mention of ripping us off to do it either..

 

Personally I see changing or updating the subscription model you guys have going would be of great benefit.
I think more people would be happy to pay for WebGL if they didn't have to pay so much in other subscription costs.

I also think its good to learn from what UE4 has done. I don't pretend to know all the dynamics of your busness model or what legal limitations you have in the Unity engine, but:

1) Getting rid of the Free Unity version (NOT DEMO, but extend its trial period) and charge less for a SINGLE subscription model that supports all Unity platforms (besides special platforms like Xbox360+, PS3+ ect) would get more people buying into Unity I think. This way you can politically drop one tech like Flash and NaCl support and replace it with WebGL and no one will complain they paid for an unsupported AddOn and lost money as they simply now after access to the new alternative. You can drop bad tech this way faster and save money I would think?

1.1) Keep the "you can't cancel" subscription model or copy the take 5% from gross sales model.

2) If possible open source Unity (at least parts) to the "paying" community like the UE4 is to help lower bug fix costs and increase the power the community has over the engine. Make the licence state any fixes to the engine by the community are required to be shared with the community and or make pull requests on valid changes to the main repo. The reality is people who are going to use Unity without paying is never going to stop, but making it pointless to not pay into a cheaper Unity model might negate there reasons for doing so.

3) Don't get rid of the non subscription model, but charge more for it. So people who are making a lot of money with there games have this choice, but people making less have an advantage as well.

Anyway these are some thoughts iv'e been having after looking into UE4 and reading comments.

 

We won't lose anything.... WebGL is the future, there is no other viable solution for 3D Applications on the Web, there is No way we would lose WebGL when it's the only cross-platform browser solution that is plugin free.

Unity will replace the Web Player with WebGL in time... it would cost them more to Maintain Unity Web Player and WebGL. Web Player won't work in the Latest Browsers in the next 1-3 Years.. depending on how soon other browsers phase out NPAPI as well... which Google is going to past this year, then Firefox will probably follow soon after... as far as i'm concerned these are the only two browsers that really matter with the most market share, and most gamers using these browsers over Internet Explorer or Safari.

 

What earlier statements are you referring to? And how are they "ripping us off"?

To be clear, here, Unity aren't changing anything about the web player or the platforms that they have always made available to us. Google have made a change that impacts us. And somehow you feel that Unity are ripping us off by putting bucket loads of time, money and engineering effort into a solution and then not giving it to us for free? Wow.

 

I feel that you're missing my point. I'm not talking about losing the web player in favour of WebGL. I'm talking about losing all of Unity if people don't pay for things that cost Unity money to make.

Yes, in the long term I expect that WebGL is indeed the way things should go, but that's not the topic of conversation yet. Right now the web player is still here and is still a part of the base package (I remind people again that Unity have done nothing here - the change to its long-term viability is entirely external), and WebGL is not here and will most likely be an additional platform when it arrives.

Furthermore, people are forgetting that WebGL is in fact not a magic bullet. It will not cover everyone. Not everyone has an up to date browser. Not everyone is capable of updating their own browser (e.g.: almost anyone using an office PC). And so on. Even if we could make a 100% switch from the web player to WebGL builds on the day they became available we almost certainly wouldn't want to.

 

Well of course you are going to first judge something by "is it the right tool for the job?". That is not the issue.

The issue is here you have two tools, both identical in their abilities, with only a few minor variations in certain ways of doing the same thing. What people will use as a comparison factor is price, especially upfront price. People dont think of of future price, they think of price now. (ex: spending on credit and out of control debt held by majority of consumers). Price will override many many things. When people see low pricing, or sale pricing, they go crazy. Many businesses have been totally wrecked by a competitor who undercut them massively. The same will happen here. If Unity does not do something to match or beat their competitors they might as well be handing out pink slips to their employees right now.

 

I totally understand that... but you're also missing that i'm not being totally closed-minded to the fact that Unity has a need to charge for WebGL, no problem charge for it if they really need to, but at least give us all a good trail run with WebGL Early Access, instead of forcing us to pay for it right now. I'm not pressuring Unity to go 100% Free, I'm saying at the least give us something to play with so we can decide if we want to invest further into this ourselves.

I'm pretty sure Unity would not be where they are today if they only sold Unity PRO, without giving us a Unity free version.

Although I know this Poll is not 100% accurate or maybe not a very good Poll, and not official data, but Data is Data... i'm pretty sure more than just Unity Forum Moderators are watching this Poll or Thread... it's worth something... and says something about the communities reception of how Unity is handling WebGL.

 

@Kuroato - Hey man I got a great Idea for a new poll you can start.

Poll: Are you OK with instantly getting your project done now?

(Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.)

YES - I totally Want to skip ahead wake up and have everything I ever dreamed done for me.

NO - I want to live through the blood, sweat, tears, cash drain, and ungodly amount of time it will take to conquer my goals.

 

What..? Where is that even coming from?

All that's happened here is that they've mentioned that it's something they're working on, with "Early Access" available some time in Unity 5. I don't understand why that has people bothered about... anything...

 

Unity Developer (staff) already said it will not be free, and it will definitely be a paid for add-on even during early access. Graham (staff) even replied to another user on the Unity 5 announcement thread stating that the Unity 5 Promo Page is alittle misleading, and doesn't say anything about Paid for Add-On. referring to this page: http://unity3d.com/5 so yes we are being forced to purchase an early access version of WebGL in Unity 5. If the early access WebGL was Free for this round, this thread wouldn't even exist.

 

I was more thinking of the "forced" and "right now" bits?

For a start it's not even a thing yet. It's a thing for Unity 5, which doesn't even have a release date yet. Secondly, you're not being "forced". It's an optional add on. You can keep doing things as you're doing them now if that's preferable. (Once more... the issues with the Web Player don't arise from Unity. Unity are providing a solution for a problem that Google have created.)

 

I'd expect to pay more for WebGL. Basically the engine needs to be rewritten and separately maintained for WebGL.

 

Yes, my company definitely would - as the requirement for a web plugin is a MAJOR blocking factor in what we do - several of our corporate clients have IT restrictions which prevent plugins being installed, so WebGL is something we've been waiting for for a long time.

We would be comfortable spending a good amount of money on it - permitted that most of the functionality is available in this type of build.

 

you are taking things way to literal... Unity 5 will come with Early Access to WebGL, that we need to pay extra for... so what do you think i'm talking about? I couldn't possibly be talking about RIGHT NOW as in this very moment... so yes it is a thing already set to release with Unity 5 as it has already been stated by Unity staff and on the Unity 5 FAQ http://unity3d.com/unity/faq

that's the main problem right there sc3, we can all wait until WebGL is fully developed and has the best performance possible before purchasing it as an Add-On, but what my main point here is which angrypenguin seems to keep missing is that Unity's plan is to force us to pay for WebGL Early Access if we want to even begin testing it now (as in with Unity 5 Release)...

I don't know about you but if I were planning to develop for the browser platform, i'd rather have enough time to test an early version of it first before investing money into it given that it has most functionality and good performance. So we'll have to wait a while before WebGL gets to that point... as a Unity Developer (staff) just mentioned, currently it's only running at 50% near Native or Web Player Performance. So who want's to pay for that at this stage of development? not many im sure... that's why i'm stressing the idea of just providing WebGL Early Access for Free for Now... why pay for an early version that may still have ways to go before it surpasses Unity Web Player's Capabilities if at all possible.

 

I'm not missing that point at all. You can't tell me I'm missing the point you're making based on the fact that I responded to what you said (and continue to say, re "now" and "forced").

One of the guys already said that like with their other stuff they'd do their best to make sure trials etc. were available. Even putting aside the fact that you keep saying "now" when you don't mean now, the "forced" to buy without trying is also a point that's already been addressed.

 

trying their best to provide a trial, doesn't exactly mean it will happen... my focus is on facts not Maybes... Fact is WebGL Early Access will be a Paid for Add-On, and that's not cool for me and alot of others im sure...

and i'm sorry my now doesn't actually mean your now... lol i just clarified what i meant by now as in Unity 5 release with Paid for WebGL Early Access and your still focusing on semantics... enjoy i might say Now a couple more times on this thread so you might want to leave now before I make you blow your lid lol!

 

believe me, end users will find a way to screw it up jonas

 

Or the 'now' you'll find in any dictionary.

Blow my lid? Over this? Somehow I don't think so.

You say you're not talking about 'maybe's, but you're spending a lot of effort and frustration on there 'maybe' not being a free trial for you. Despite the fact that someone from Unity has already said they also hope there will be. Remember it's also in their best interest to do whatever it takes to get the most sales. That typically means letting us check out the goods. I see no reason to panic between now and then.

 

as i said elsewhere, i updated my licence to 5 the moment it was available in high hopes i would get webgl in the future. reading, this is not the case i was very disappointed.
two days later.. i wait for the price. i understand, this is a lot of work and you should get your pay for this work. but if it is in the same range as the other add-ons it is too much for me.

 

I really think there is something to be said for a "single product" subscription model. Would make it so you can move money around easier and drop support for one tech in favor of another.

Lower the subscription price on the Pro version, but charge very little for the now "Free" version. If someone drops there subscription, the only penalty is they can't use the product anymore until they start paying again, like an MMO. "Free" version could be like $5 a month, Pro not sure. Also just increase the price of someone just buying the product without the subscription instead.

Fixing the subscription model would negate this conversation I would think?

 

Don't forget about Godot, which support HTML5/WebGL as well.

 

i tried copperlicht and found it awful.. i could get graphics run in browser in no time, but the looked reall ugly. goo had a lot of glitches last time i checked, espacially the statemachine editor. but i liked goo a lot.
still in development are delight http://delight-engine.com/#start and the unity webgl/html5 exporter frost.io http://www.frost.io/

 

I will be quite disappointed if there's no free (or very cheap) solution for publishing a game to Firefox and Chrome. That support was a big part of why I chose Unity in the first place. The thing is, I don't want that for *paid* games. I want that for the free games I do for game jams and the like. So it doesn't have nearly as much monetary value as the other exporters, at least for me.

I would find it acceptable to do like IOS and Android and have a reduced feature set on the free version. I don't care if my free players have to look at a Unity title screen, and the games won't be so big that performance is a serious problem. And should I need the extras that mobile and web don't have for free, I'll be in a position to pay for them, I'm sure.

 

+1

I would gladly pay $5 a month for Unity Standard Edition or even $10 a month, with Unreal 4 Subscription model that's got everyone drooling over it, Unity will need to come up with something better than they already have right now... Monetizing Unity Standard Edition with a very low Subscription Model would be a great idea, and might solve alot of things...

 

That's a terrible idea. Having a free option is one of Unity's best features.

 

Not if they give a longer trial period. I think someone can decide if they want to pay $5 a month after trying Unity for 3 months say.
Point here is to cut money from tech that should not be supported (like flash) while making every happy doing it while they spend time on WebGL. Which means changing how money comes in.

 

No, that's still an absolutely F***ing awful idea. If you want a longer trial period then there should be an unlimited pro trial with a "not for commercial release" watermark where "trial version" appears now. It's not a matter of deciding if you want to pay, it's about having an option where you don't have to.

 

No its a matter a deciding if you CAN pay as a indie dev. You are taking a huge risk paying out a large sum of money with Unity. UE4 no longer has this issue. Unity should also try to make a risk free option that is good from them and the low end or hobby developer.

 

No, it isn't. That is literally what Pro is for. Making the Free version paid benefits nobody because it'll just drive free users away from purchase considerations. It also means that free users who use the asset store now will be disinclined to make those same purchases.

 

Anyway... People NOW have an issue with the cost of Unity Pro. They don't with UE4. Changing the subscription strategy Unity is using to get rid of that issue is not a BAD thing to consider. I hope you understand my larger point with the suggestion.

 

Maybe they have a problem with the cost of Unity Pro because deploying to any platform other than Mac/Windows/Linux requires additional $1500 payments if you want feature parity with Unity Pro.

 

Well yes of course. People seem to like the pay for everything model when affordable.

 

I don't think $5 a month would much to ask for... hell we could pay one time fee of $100 to own Unity Standard Edition, or $5 a monthly comes down to $60 yearly. If you are an indie developer, have working electricity, internet access, a smart phone, you can pay a measly $5 a month for an awesome 3D Game Engine like Unity.

Offering Unity for Free Yes is awesome, but chances are all of you Free Unity Users out there are probably among the majority of the same people disappointed about WebGL not being free, or other things not being free, because all we want is more free things without a thought about how Unity is suppose to make money for continued development of an amazing Game Engine like Unity.

Although I am stressing a Free Version of WebGL, i'm also open to the idea of paying a subscription for a Standard Unity Edition if it means we get more free technology and add-ons.

and yes like zezba9000 mentions, it's more of a risk for you to pay for additional add-on technology than it is if you just got it for free as part of your low-cost subscription or licensed packaged.

 

Except this isn't actually something based in reality at all. In fact, even minor prices for things, even critical things, are shown to drive people away. For a great example of this, look at the $0.05 charge for plastic bags in most supermarkets, and how that shifted people toward bringing their own bags. Putting a price tag on Unity Free will actually drive people away from using it in the first place. That means these same people won't be using the asset store as well as meaning these same people won't be upgrading to the actual moneymaker: Unity Pro.

 

We are not talking about grandma's mental limitations when it comes to a purchase. You can still sell something as free even when its not. Unity is practically Free and can be advertised as such. People who are planning to invest time into something that are going to make Unity money on there Asset store think about what they are getting into. People who don't want to pay $5 a month are never going to buy much on the Asset store anyway.

 

This is factually untrue. I won't pay $5 a month and I'm running uScript, Playmaker, Shader Forge and a number of other things. So hey, there's some direct evidence to the contrary of what you're saying right there. Also, I don't know if you're aware of this, but Unity Free actually used to cost money.

 

Yes i've been using Unity for a long time now.

No because if Unity started to charge $5 a month you would still pay for it after you got over your anger about it. But hey i'm not suggesting there isn't a way to still have a free version. I just don't see what it is.

Tons of major companies are moving to affordable subscription models. Its one of the few things that still work.

 

No, I seriously F***ing wouldn't, and you should stop pretending you know me. I'd probably immediately switch to Unreal Engine 4 and only pay the $20 when I need an update because Unity is seriously antiquated pricing wise and have been since they started selling iOS/Android Pro Licenses.

 

...? Never mind dude, you can argue with someone else now.

 

+1

yes $5 a month is not a reality right now ofcoarse as we are just speculating results... but if developers won't use unity because they have to pay $5 a month or a low-cost after a trial period, lol really come on then, do you think Unity really should care about those developers anyway... like zezba9000 said, if anyone is crying about a measly $5 a month they aren't going to spend anything on the asset store anyway. So who cares if all the freeloader go away... that's less headaches for Unity, less support cost, supporting all these free non paying users...

 

Why? Because I've actually refuted the things you've said with pesky things like facts? Charging a subscription for a base level of Unity would have an overall negative impact on revenue because it's just going to drive people to the alternatives where a "pay us or S*** stops working" model doesn't exist, like UE4.

Those "freeloaders" are the primary source of people who eventually upgrade to Unity Pro. But hey, let's just ignore that because more money = better than, right?

 

Because you are mad. And when people get mad there have been scientific studies to show they will ignore any arguments you make weather they are valid or not. So I don't want to argue a brick wall. So don't take offence to what I just said, i'm being onset in why i'm backing out of the argument.

 

there is no reason why Unity can't offer Unity for free for say 3 Month Trial, and then offer a Subscription model for very low-cost. Most Quality Game Engines don't even offer their engines up for free in the way Unity is doing now... and clearly because of this they need to charge us more money for PRO Licenses or More for PRO Subscription and other Add-On Technology. And frankly alot of people are unhappy with this currently so I can see from other threads on the Forum.

You can argue or get angry all you want... but Unity will have to make some changes eventually if they want to stay competitive, while Unreal offers Full Access to everything for only $19/Mo.