Are you tired of saying "sorry, that isn't available in the free version"?

Then
Unity 2.6.1, free vs pro. Ok so the free one had a lot missing, but that was ok, not such a big deal, the difference wasn't TOO great. People adapted, the divide was small, no harm done and everyone had fun.

Now
Unity 3.x free vs pro. Really now, come on. The differences in what isn't available or entirely crippled in the free version is lets face it, taking the piss. What indie developer is going to chose Unity free over one of the other alternatives out there? I know the whole point of the free version is to draw people in so they pay for the pro version, but this time there's such a difference between the two, and so much isn't available on the free one, not to mention it has a watermark slapped on as a final kick in the teeth. That don't you think it'll just drive people away? Developers who perhaps can't afford to go pro right now, but would have otherwise spent time learning it, turned away due to lack of features, learn something else and with all that time invested doing so, probably wont come back.


This isn't some request to give the free version more features, quite the opposite in fact.. Maybe it's time to let the free version go? It's almost painful to watch users on the free one struggling to do the most basic of things because of them being crippled or unavailable. I can't honestly see them enjoying themselves at all, can you? Aren't people tired of posters turning up, asking why this and that can't be done, only to have to reply with "nope, can't do it on the free one" and then the resulting "awww no fair" comments wanting shadows n S***. I know this stuff went on with earlier versions, as I say, it wasn't so bad then. But it sure looks to be creating a pretty big them vs us scenario between the pro users and the free users now, and I'm sure as updates come out and time goes on, that's just going to get worse.

Lets be honest. It's practically useless beyond being a half baked demo (which thanks to the 30 day pro trial which does show all the new features and abilities, and the fact the free version is missing so much, makes it pointless as a half baked demo version at that). Nobody in their right mind is going to settle for the free one to actually create anything serious with, not when they can just go use one of the many other applications out there that are either also free, or far cheaper than Unity Pro yet offer just the same, or more. Really, frustration will drive Unity free users away to more attractive offers.

Then there's the indie developers out there who are providing scripts, shaders, new features etc. Left with a choice, put all their effort into a better version that's pro only and get bombarded with questions and emails as to why it doesn't work right for lil Jimmy using his free version, or cripple their own work so the free version users get something too.

The free version is quickly becoming like the retarded little brother, you gotta be nice to him even when he starts drooling and pisses his pants while you're getting a table at the Texas Roadhouse, but really deep down inside, you wish he'd fall down the stairs into the basement and go away. Yes, it was a nice idea making a free version, it did I'm sure, bring in quite a few users who went on to go pro with 2.6.1, myself included, and I'll probably go pro with Unity 3 too, but not because of the free version, but because of the 30 day trial, that actually let me see what the thing is like. If I'd been left with the free one, safe to say I'd be using UDK now. The amount of things missing now in Unity 3 free, is just too much and it simply can't compete with well.. anything, except maybe Gamemaker, but even then it would be a close call.

So what do you think? Keep Unity free going in the hopes some poor s.o.b can find a use for it, or should they (the devs) accept it just isn't working out and dump its ass via text while it's busking in its shadowless none bounced unoccluded watermarked no seamless loading lack of render to texture limited forward rendered subway.

 

The free version is excellent. For anyone needing free tools for game development, they would be wise to use this. This is an extremely powerful tool, even free, and if it doesn't suit your needs, find a different game engine that has all the features of Unity free and a few more, see if its free. I would bet $19.99, that this is the most powerful and simple game engine around for its cost($0).

That being said, I wouldn't mind a halfway price for the product, say $750 giving a few more features.


Edit: Now that I read entire your post, I believe you must be absolutely out of your mind.

 

NOOoo don't listen to him! The free version is all I've got!

 

Eh?? They can learn to script, how to set up physics, practice level design, make FPS and RPG games.. Boo frakking hoo..they don't have shadows or screen efx. I played with 2.6 without shadows for three or four months (found it in January of this year) and my work and future vision got funding and am now the CEO of a company with a large sum backing me. I then bought Unity Pro. I still ain't turned on shadows or used screen efx. I would say your post is not well measured in thought processes or you are stuck with an idea that good shadows or sfx make or break a game editor environment. Not so.. All the game mechanics can be scripted right out of the box. The SDK for the most part, outside of art asset stuff like render targets, are available to all. Unity is just dandy how it is. Want pro? Prove your chops with free and freelance it or concept something with it and get backing. This is business. Treat it as such and you will succeed and have fun while yer at it.

Best Regards
BTH

 

The free version is a pretty capable game engine in its own right.

One thing it does do is teach aspiring devs how to "cheat" in effects. Sure, there are things you can't do with the free version. But you could fake it. And sometimes, that actually ends up running more efficiently than if you had that particular feature.

 

Some people forget that U2 originally wasn't designed to have a free one.
It has a $199 and a $1499 license

with the move to free with 2.6, the feature delta basically became laughable between free and pro, as a pro user you somehow felt like not being treated seriously sometimes as all we got is shadows and render textures. As asset server licensee I got another punch by seeing VCS becoming a pro feature instead of an AS licensee only one.

now with U3, there is at least reasonable enough feature delta to make sure that freeriders keep in mind that they are indeed not paying anything for what they get (which is aside of the tech the exact same stuff as those who payed, same support, same board, same resources, same example projects). They even got all the new productivity stuff like snap to surface, the further enhanced editor capabilities (which are still not crippled in free, although such stuff is normally the first thing to cripple for the low cost licenses, the "productivity features").
the current feature delta, which will likely grow further as more of umbra and beast gets integrated, at least gives free users a good reason to upgrade.
With U2, the only reason was shadow and postfx .. not very tempting for most as neither is required to create great games especially for web and mac


The purpose of the free unity is rather trivial: create an interesting game, make some money, buy pro OR create a rather interesting concept, get funding, buy pro, finish and release it.

its not "create a great looking game with a pro team paying $0 for the technology that enabled you to do so"

 

I'll be honest and say I can't take your post seriously with wild hyperbole like that.

Er, no? How often does that actually happen?

--Eric

 

I think its once every few days.

 

Thankfully, it's not up to mob rule, they determine their own product usage and features.
The company's stated desire is to allow free use of Unity so anyone can use it,
which is both generous and wise for many reasons.

 

I think some of you missed the point but that's cool, was just curious Also this as explained in the original post, isn't some thread about me wanting more features in the free version. I already have 2.6.1 pro and can get U3 pro if and when I want (I'm using the trial for now and in no rush to buy as I've still a few weeks left on it), I've nothing better to spend my money on. So it's nothing to do with jealousy for the pro features. I could go out and buy City Engine tomorrow if I felt like it (but that would be silly). I simply think the free version offers so little that it's usefulness is highly limited, and as a method of attracting new users, the gap between free and pro has widened with U3 to the point where many will simply pass it by.

Sure, you can say it can be used to learn this and that, but everything looks prettier and easier from higher up doesn't it? When you're back in that position, looking up from the bottom at all the features you don't have. It's not quite so attractive for a new user.

Out of interest, how many of you are actually still using the free version?

 

I'm using the free version atm... clearly it's not as good as having the Pro version... but while my team starts up and tries to find our niche... Free certainly is not an evil alternative. The watermark is only for a few seconds.... and while that imo is the most painful of the shortcomings of Free.... it will definitely allow my team to develop some creativity. Not all games have to look like CoD modern warfare or Crysis etc. In fact indie games rarely do.

I do see an increasing delta between Unity free and Pro... but I'm not paying yet... so I can't complain I suppose

 

I am.

 

Why can't they have a system like UDK where you get all the features but they get a royalty?

 

The problem is if the gap does not widen, the same thing as with U2 will happen: the freeriders will remain freeriders, helping the technologies future rather little.
Also it was rather clear that freebies won't get the $110k / title technology. They already got more than I expected due to the direct shadow lightmapping from beast. Would have expected that neither part becomes available.
In addition they got the tree editor too so its not like anything fundamental is missing.
The only really hurting thing missing is VCS support and thats for good reason as we know, you can take it for granted that otherwise many would ignore the Pro upgrade requirement beyond $100k yearly turnaround without it ie when they could work reasonable with a team without the pro upgrade
Also I doubt that people will pass by cause either they go to UDK and realize that their 2 man dream is rather unrealistic with their artist background or they end with something else where they realize that editor expansion and productive workflow aren't present.
The only real alternative for most to unity is shiva as it covers a similar range, but shiva lacks on the editor scriptability and shader end (as you can't inject own custom shaders at all basically) which means that the technology can not grow.
Actually until Shiva 1.9 it does not even accept plugins, something unity pro had for years (like custom shaders and editor scriptability too)

It has its pro over unity as well naturally but at the time unless you have 2+ real programmers on your team not just hacky kiddos, Unity will win any comparision hands down, even the free one, when it comes to freedom, productivity and project required editor customization

 

The best thing about the free version is making ten times better games than people with pro because whether you spent 1 million or nothing on your game engine matters squat in the end.

Also, most pro features I would probably not use even if I did have pro.

 

indeed, being restricted drives creativity on how to overcome problems in an appealing way ... and not rarely in a more performant than if you could just missuse some feature

 

It`s the opposite. The freeriders have helped the technologies future of Unity enourmous. Unity development became a big boost, it really started growing AFTER the Indie version became free. Not before. Which shows that your argument is wrong. The free users were and are a BIG win for Unity. Not little. And they are of course no ballast, are not as evil as you try to tell us here. Unity would never be where it is when there wouldn`t have been the free version and the free users.

Also freeriders helps other users. Also freeriders writes tutorials. Also freeriders helps to make the app more known. Also freeriders reports bugs and helps to improve the app. And every finished game, even from a freerider, is an advertising for the app. And it can be a freerider that becomes a musician, a graphics artist, a leveldesigner, etc. for a commercial Unity title.

There should of course be a difference between the Free and Pro version. It should be big enough that nobody of the Pro users have the feeling to waste its money, compared to the Free users. And i am totally green with comfort restrictions. Like the lightmapping stuff. Or stuff that just professionals really needs anyways. Like all the network stuff. Or removing the engine logo.

And i would be fine that i am not allowed to sell my app before i own the Pro. That is the only restriction that really would make sense, you earn money with Unity, then pay for it. And that would honestly be the only reason why i would ever think of buying the Pro. Which will never happen, because i am a hobbyist, and i stay a hobbyist. I make long enough hobby games to know that i will never earn a dime with my games. Means the Pro is out of reach anyways, because it costs too much for my hobbyists budget. And that is the case with 95% of all Unity Free users.

You are of course right. We "freeriders" get something free, so we don`t really have a right to complain. But i feel like the thread opener, that the current limits in U3 are a bit too limiting. The limits are by feeling bigger than in 2.6. It`s balance goes into wrong directions. I am very unhappy with restrictions at basic features that makes a game that is made with Untiy free look ugly. Then i don`t need a free version at all, and my time with Unity is wasted. I think of switching to UDK therefore. Hey, realtime shadow, here i am!

 

Right free users are a win to unity as a brand.
But they deliver exactly $0 to pay developers to add new features, do bugfixing, hiring the support staff they burn through (most pro users here will agree that the freeriders are a major problem because we paying users go through the same support queue as the 100k freebies, meaning we have the same several day waiting time ...), as such they are entitled for what they get not what they would like.


and no, selling prevention is the very single delta that makes no sense for two reasons:
1. they can't afford an army of lawyers to sue anyone breaking it, thats just bullocks
2. if you can't sell your game you can't make money and thus can't afford pro -> could be hardly any less usefull
3. it would mean that the webplayer build option would have to vanish as not using commercially means no usage in any way that allows you spreading the word on your company.


also games done in unity free don't look ugly, at least not unless you have the same talent for art as I have
But thats why I'm a programmer and no artist, I can't justify the pain I would cause with my art

With UDK you will get shadows, right.
At the time though you also get 10-100 times larger production times to reach the same target.
Is that really what you are looking for as hobbiest?

also the minimum requirements of UDK especially the editor are in the range of what Unity 3 requires for deferred

 

To Quote Chris Brogan - "Nobody asked Hemingway what pencil he used".

Yet he still wrote great books.

Do you care what ratchet/spanner a mechanic uses to fix your car?

If you don't like the free version - then buy the full version.

 

A truck driver doesn`t get a truck for free neither. First he has to invest money into a truck.

With having Unity Free, you could at least develop your game up to the point where it is ready for sale. And then even in the same quality when the Free wouldn`t be this limited. Which can convince publishers to invest money. Tadaa. Here comes your money to buy Unity Pro. Or do it like UDK: pay a royalty AFTER you have earned your money. Seems to work pretty fine for them by the way. Without an army of lawyers

I don`t see a reason why it should vanish. There is no Pro or Free Webplayer. Just a free plugin that needs to stay available and free to become a web standard. And Unity is at a good way here

Again. The facts says the opposite. Unity has GROWN very big AFTER Unity went free. Before that Unity was trapped in the same marketing trap than the other 3D solutions. You forget the advertising factor. Your calculation is wrong therefore. You bash the free users for no reason. They bring in fact lots of money. Not directly of course. But reality has shown that the amount that can be earned indirectly is enourmous

Is not longer possible with Unity Free because of the limits. So what?

I heard that there is not really a big difference. The workflow is a bit more complicated. But i`m happy to pay this price when i can reach the goal that i cannot reach with Unity anymore. But first lemme try UDK for a while. Then i can say more

 

I somewhat disagree. You say Unity really started growing after they made the Indie version free, but what is your idea of growth? Sure the community exploded, but in my experience a lot of people try free stuff just because it's free and not because they have any interest in it. And also, still my opinion, there is a lot more crap on the forums now than before. I liked the small fee for Indie. It was high enough to keep those obviously not interested in Unity out and low enough to let anyone interested in.

I'm partner in a small web development company and we use Drupal for all our projects. It's open source and that's great, but finding quality help when you're actually stuck on a real problem is extremely hard as every forum is so bloated with complete nonsense issues people could easily have fixed themselves if they had just bothered to read the documentation.

Also, I don't understand how people hype realtime shadows to be such a big feature. They're barely used even in high end commerical games. Take Halo Reach for instance. It has some of the best lighting in a game today and realtime shadows are only used for characters and vehicles, yet those could easily be replaced with blob shadows or similar and look just as good (at least in my opinion).

And there's plenty of features in Pro that can easily be done with Free, it just takes more work or other workflows:

- Audio Filters: Can easily be done outside of Unity.
- Lightmapping with GI: Can easily be done outside of Unity.

There's plenty amazing free, open source and commercial programs for baking both lightmaps and applying filters to audio. And no doubt will you get better results than you can inside Unity if you master a program made specifically for the job.

 

Now that`s a Killer argument!

 

We will never share the same opinion from what i read. A hail to different opinions

Well, Unity didn`t win the wall street journal award for best software when there was no Free version. Now Unity does have over 200.000 Users nowadays.

Before it turned free, Unity was also just one of the engines in the pool of possible low to mid budget development tools like Shiva or 3D Gamestudio. With the same small market share. Then the Indie turned free. And by that it became highly attractive for nearly everybody. Hobbyists started to switch to Unity. Professionals too. The whole market machinery followed the Hobbyists and Professionals. By earning more money Unity was able to speed up development dramatically. Which made the evolution gap to the other engines in the same range bigger and bigger. Big companies started to realize that there is a big market because now there is a big big community. Lego anybody? EA?

Without this turn, without the Free version, without the free Users, Unity would still be one of those small engines in the low to mid budget pool. That is my idea of growth

 

If someone makes an ugly game in Unity, it's not because they're using the free version.

It won other awards though.

--Eric

 

ugly game != ugly looking game

There is a difference

Meh, i don`t like the new smilies. They are too hard to separate from each other ...

 

Christina Ricci was never looking hot anyway :/

 

Hm ... every few months or so someone complains. That is boring. Some people complained that Unity Indie had less features than Unity Pro. Then people complained like maniacs that Unity Indie turned to Unity and now is offered for free. Now people complain again that Unity Pro has more features than Unity (free).

If, instead of spending your creativity thinking about what you could complain about and then reasoning why you have a right to complain, you'd have the money to buy Unity Pro in no time.

So, everyone has to make a very simple choice:

a) Put all your attention on what you're lacking and get more of that (i.e. get more lack).

b) Put all your attention on creating something of value and offer it at the price it's worth. And get more of that (i.e. get more value).

To be honest, I find it totally ridiculous to be offered an engine that is by now probably worth many millions of dollars of development time for free, then look at the 10 1/2 features (guessed) that Unity Pro offers in addition and say "we're almost getting nothing at all". It doesn't say anything about Unity at all. It just says something about a mindset that is totally fixated on finding lack. And if the only difference between Unity and Unity Pro was just one single feature - I'm sure, some people would complain about exactly that single feature.

On the other hand, there's also people using Unity ("free") and very happy about it. And I think that's awesome and cool. I'm pretty glad that some of those people speak up in this thread.

 

@Jashan - well said

This thread probably needs to be locked here

 

Nah, it's an interesting discussion and both sides are giving some good points that are worth reading. If it gets nasty then sure it can be locked, but it's not at that stage right now.

 

I've gotta say, I haven't upgraded to 3 yet, I'm still using the free 2.6 system, and I love it. I've only just started my project, but wouldn't have got anywhere near this far if it hadn't been for the free version. I can see how it benefits the community at large by introducing a lot of people to system.

Ofcourse, I am still new, so maybe I will regret these words But I don't think so.

 

It's shameful enough to use such an awesome tool absolutely free... here's the degree of giveawayness:

1) get on a hot air baloon and throw a million dollars to a raging crowd

2) give unity free away

3) join the peace corps

2nd place, not bad!

 

Use whichever you prefer, the point is the same.

Indeed, they're hard to distinguish at all. Need way more contrast.

--Eric

 

while i think the free version is fine as it is, i have a feeling that there would be a lot fewer threads like this if rendertextures existed in the free version.

 

If people are totally content with Unity Free's functionality then Unity is doing something wrong.

Unity free is a full game development tool (you can make games with it) and it's supposed to have a strong upsell. If they put the things that people really want in Unity free, why buy Unity Pro?

Complaining that the games made in free don't look as good is dumb, because they are not supposed to look as good. That is why it's free. You can still make gorgeous games in free. The visual appeal of a game is largely defined by the texturing and model work, as well as the overall design and flow. PostFX can help obscure when the others are done poorly, but are not a requirement for a visually pleasant game.

Have a look at World of Goo. Very simple graphics, no obvious PostFX, all achievable visually in Unity Free, but also a joy to look at. Just don't plan to make Crysis with a free dev tool.

 

I think the free version is quite capable with the exception of not being able to collaborate with other developers. Say a coder wanting to work with an artist remotely or vice versa. Thats probably the most common scenario for hobbyists and beginner indie coders wanting to make a start in game dev.

Other than that, the lack of some fancy rendering features are not vital to getting a competent looking game out there.

 

Only if you suck at graphics development. Here's a game I made a long time ago with Unity Free (Indie at the time).

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/23987-Stupid-Ball-Thingy

Lots of stuff has been faked, and I had to use external lightmapping (this is prior to U3), but I think the game looks pretty good. Runs at about 500 fps on a standalone on my 8800GT, which is pretty fast. I may even remake it with Unity Pro/Unity 3 and make it look even better.

It's entirely possible to have a game look crappier in Unity Pro than another game made with Free. I've seen it on these forums before. They just go nuts with the shadows, and the game looks awful with or without shadows, and runs at 3 fps because they can't optimize to save their lives.

Exactly.

No. I have yet to say that.

 

Your reasoning is spurious at best. Unity also didn't win the Wall Street Journal award for best software when I wasn't using it, and it did when I was using it. That isn't actually proof that me becoming a user helped them win the award. You're confusing coincidental occurrences with cause-and-effect. If you put half the effort into making games that you put into arguing you should get something for free, you would have long ago earned enough money to buy Unity Pro, a new computer and a few other things besides.

 

I think free is a good idea to keep around. as I use it. and Sure no shadows and screen fx is a drag. and the watermark is also a drag. but my current project is a browser based game. and If you know anything about making a casual game, its that casuals dont generally have nice gaming rigs. so you have to kinda rule shadows out anyway. at least if you want it to be played. I plan on using Unity Free till I have the extra cash to put in for pro (and likely an android license to go with it).

So overall I think they should keep Free Edition
Cause if they take it away. I'll go back to GameCore and then buy their Pro Version. (Same Price)

 

You can bake shadows in your DCC app. That's what I would do if I needed a scene with shadows and had to use the free version.

Can we seriously stop comparing UDK and Unity! It's no match. You will not get very far with UDK in the same amount of time you put with Unity. Its all about prototype speed and doing things with Unity is so much faster. It took me a month just to get how "UDK works", how UnrealScript works, UDK API, Actor/PlayerController, Actor tick groups, etc etc. And I'm actually someone who wrote a game engine in the past! --- a Ogre3D/PhysX/OpenAL type engine.

Then you can count me out, because royalty is one of the reasons why I switched from UDK. Although I gotta say not the main reason by far. It all depends on what you want to make. If you're gonna be an army of indie devs (12 people and up) and make a game that will make a million dollars then maybe royalty is not an issue. If you're only gonna make say $30,000 in the app store then royality is an issue! (see if $3000 for pro+iphone is expensive then).


I can see myself making a profitable game with Unity Free. The point of buying pro is not just for features, its about supporting the company that give us such great technology.

Seriously how many engines do you see with a unified editor like Unity? And unified editor is a feature you get for free in Unity.


Game Developers work around the game engine they have. Do you think people making games for consoles, or iphone have the latest and greatest tech that PC games have?

wow GameCore, yet another engine I had no idea about. Two weeks ago I had no idea what Shiva 3D was, now GameCore. Just when you thought you have a grasp on all the competition out there...

Making Unity indie free was a good idea. It made companies like mine pay attention (small indies that want free technology that you can just take and integrate into your pipeline right away). Demos don't do that. But I really started paying attention when Unity 3 was announced at GDC back in March.

 

If you can't make a freak'n cool indie game with Unity free, then there's no way you any make anything remotely decent with Pro. It's the artists (and programmers), not the tool, that make it great in the end.

 

The one really bad thing about Unity Free is that now lots of people try it first before trying all the other different game engines.

Maybe they should raise the price of Unity Free to $1, then people will try all the other free game engines first before trying Unity and realize exactly what they're getting for free.
EA/Lego etc didn't license Unity because it was popular or because it was free; they use it because it's a very productive environment.

 

<rant>

Do you know what I am tired of hearing on the forums? People complaining that the free version is worthless or needs this or that new feature. Maybe I grew up in a much older time, but my favorite games I grew up with didn't have these fancy new features. Guess what? They are still my favorite games. It's all about the gameplay, I always bring Ocarina of Time into these arguments because still today its considered one of the best games of all time and had none of these newfangled features. So you young whipper-snappers get off my lawn! Unity free is something you should be grateful for! Back in my hard core game playing days developers had to hand code 15 miles worth of C or C++ to write their own engine with limited graphical power and had none of these fancy stream-processors or multiple cores! Physics were non-existent and 3D was somethin' new in Starfox for the Super Nintendo!

By the way, if you don't like free that much and can't afford pro, how about you stop using Unity/browsing the forum and find another game engine to use instead of complaining so much?

</rant>

 

not so free...
not sure if any of you guys remember, but there was a time when the indy version was $200. I was one of the guys who got into this whole unity thing way back when it first kicked off. so just imagine how pissed off it would make those of us who tossed away two benjamins on the indy version only to be told that it no longer exists.
I totally agree on how crippled the indy version is. Some of the best and simplest features arent there. I wont go too much into detail on this but it would be nice to use simple things like decent water and heat wave distortions, transparent objects, etc.

 

Nothing stopping you from using transparent objects in Free.

--Eric

 

And that`s the reason why professional artists are all wrong to use Photoshop instead Windows Paint, right? Sorry, but that`s Nonsense. The tools do make a big difference

Please don`t tell me that it doesn`t matter which engine with which features i use to make a game. That`s the whole game business about. Better lighting, better shaders, better this, better that. People uses professional engines with the latest features to create their games, and not last century hobby engines with outdated features. By your theory this wouldn`t matter. And that is simply not true. It matters

Sure, this is a hype somehow. Gamefun is not just graphics. But players are picky. They decide if they want to play a game by having a look at a screenshot. And when they dislike the graphics then they will not play it. Graphics is what gives the first impression of a game.

You are of course right when you say that not every game needs hyper realistic AAA graphics. But the graphics has to be consistent in itself, and has to fit to the game you want to make. You can make a bat n ball game with simplest geometry, lighting and textures. It will still be fun to play, and will not look ugly. But you better don`t try to create a graphics adventure like Myst in that style.

Again. The big boost came AFTER Unity went free. Not before. That`s fact. This award was just an example of the boost

One of my worst experiences so far, documentationwise and communitywise. Bought the indie when it was not free. I finally gave up at it then. And didn`t even get my money back because i was not allowed to resell it. I am actually a bit pissed when i read about GameCore

 

I'd like to see them make Unity Pro free and ask for more cash from the folks that actually release a successful commercial product/game.

$500 for every upgrade is a lot of money for what ultimately amounts to being a casual hobby for most users.

 

Then it would have the UDK pricing model, which I dislike.

If it's just a casual hobby, then you'd be using Unity Free and not be paying anything. Although $500 every few years isn't "a lot of money" by any reasonable first-world standards. I'd guess even casual hobbies can easily cost more than that.

--Eric

 

yea that about sums up the argument of spending 1500 on an entire engine instead of using the free version that does not give you everything you want. Oh no, I cant get everything I want for free and have to save up for several months to buy the version I want!!! lol

 

Unity Free is probably the best thing that happened to the game industry for a long while. You can do so much with it, it's a huge steal. What the hell are you complaining about? If you want more, pay the price, support the developers, or roll your own stuff and see how far you get.

 

+1
That's a better summary of my feelings on the issue than my rant above.