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

But you said that we're getting people to fall into using Unity free for so long that they're tricked/trapped into having to buy Pro because learning another tool would be too time consuming and Unity Free is too limited... that is your argument. Accusing everyone around here with "straw man" doesn't make it so.

Yeah, I appreciated that clarification ;-)

The two first reasons are definitely to grow Unity in this industry. The last one, and the most important to some people, me included, was to make the tool available to everyone for free... simple as that. I'm sorry that you're too cynical to accept this without seeing ulterior motives and marketing slogans everywhere. You're also looking at UT as a single entity when it's made up of 80 people that come from many different backgrounds. I was one of those people that bought Unity Indie and got "trapped" into a job here... and definitely not on the marketing team ;-)

That's fine. If a better tool suits their needs then more power to them. You found a tool that better suits your needs so why are you on this forum so vehemently arguing about this?

 

I'm not sure "angry birds" and "cut the rope", the latest iPhone blockbusters, need shadows

 

I was close to buying Angry Birds, until I noticed something seriously wrong and why it was deeply flawed to the point of being unplayable.

 

So I just did the unthinkable and re-read my posts in this thread. Having done so I'm going to have to go ahead and call you a liar because nowhere did I say UT tricks or traps anyone in any way. How does a "Super Moderator" manage to completely make stuff up like that?

Take a look here to find out why you're building straw-men: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You can try to spin the "reasons" as much as you want, but the simple truth is it's ALWAYS all about money. Grow Unity in the industry? Why? So more people will eventually buy it. I'm not saying it's evil, it's just business. UT isn't doing anything wrong by using age-old marketing ploys to get paying users. Dreamora hit it on the head with educational discounts and such. Companies do it to create brand loyalty. That's just the way it is, man, and if you really think that all this marketing and getting the word out is out of the goodness of their hearts then you just don't understand business outside of Wonderland.

Because as I said I still use Unity for other things. If you don't want people to speak the truth and point out shortcomings start filtering.

 

Well, what exactly were you trying to imply here then? That UT makes free suck on purpose so they'll upgrade? Naw, that doesn't sound like a trick/trap at all! (I know you didn't say "on purpose" but like I said it's definitely implied)

Umm...lets assume that it really is just about the money and marketing and that's why UT did it. So what? So...what? It doesn't change the fact that Unity indie is free and that you're still getting something for nothing. You keep bringing up the fact that "it's ALWAYS all about money" as if it were a negative thing or even particularly relevant (your own Straw Man I'd say)

I first found out about Unity back when it cost $300. I knew it didn't have shadows. I knew about all the other stuff too since it's clearly explained in the product features. Plenty of people bought it KNOWING it didn't have shadows. When it became free I was overjoyed because I was literally beginning to despair (I honestly was going to have to wait a long time before being able to afford it at the time). Was it a clever marketing scheme? Maybe. But so what? What difference do the reasons make? Maybe it was pure business but as far as we know it's just as possible UT really was just being nice. We have no way of knowing and really it just doesn't matter.

If you're more worried about shadows than gameplay, well good luck making a game that's actually fun ( well unless it's that one game where you actually are a shadow, but that's an exception). Had Unity not been made free I wouldn't have been able to spend all that time learning it. And I WANTED to learn it. Before Unity was free, believe me, I was cruising the net carefully dissecting almost every single game engine available (I'd used the Unity 30 day trial on my computer, and any other computer I could find, so I knew just enough about how Unity worked). Price, graphics, everything. Still couldn't find anything that worked as well for me as Unity does, the closest I found at the time was C4. (obviously Unity suits my needs but if it doesn't suit yours then you really should switch engines, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that)

Besides, without free, I wouldn't have been able to work on my game. Here are some screenshots from an early prototype (not my current project tho, this was back in 2.5)




OMG, you know what I've changed my mind. We NEED real-time shadows, this scene looks like absolute S*** without them. The models, textures, shaders (parallax on the floor and walls), real-time dynamic and bounced lighting (nothing is baked) and shadow cookies make no difference whatsoever! This scene proves unity free is crap and we should get rid of it! [/sarcasm]

But you know what? When I do eventually get Pro, it'll look even better.

(sorry for going off on a rant, it's just that some of the posts on this topic seem quite ridiculous to me, I seem to be one of the few that is actually happy about Free)

 

@jingle... I wanna play! NICE

 

J Fett,

When you mentioned non-baked bounced light, do you mean point lights to simulate bounced light (not that that's bad, I'm just curious if you know something I don't )

 

These screens are not made with the FREE release at all. Don't try to trick us in thinking it was.
(it's (if it's Unity at all), done with the PRO (either full or trial version).

 

Huh? Sorry for chiming in, but what makes you think this is made with pro? Which features you do recognize for pro?
The light of the ceiling could have been easily done with a cookie on the light. Uhm...what else is there?
Good shaders are available in free.
The rest is good art and lighting.

 

Let's put that in the context of some of the previous statements you made (that you should have read in your little review, JF already pointed this one out):

I'd call that tricking and trapping if it was true. You're also implying lack of integrity (marketing vs. "how they really try to manipulate their users by offering them some bait"). And by putting "the free version sucks" in UTs mouth, you're also implying that they hate their own product. Well, maybe not "hate" - but that they think "Unity Free just sucks".

And another one:

Again, I'd call that "tricking and trapping" ... if it was true. I'd also call it "taking advantage of people's naivity" and it implies that UT thinks their customers are naive. Not very nice stuff that you're implying there, or is it? Let me repeat what I just read here, literally: "UT removed shadows JUST for that reason. Just to get people familiar enough to not want to relearn a better tool that just isn't free."

But I can't blame you … a person that says …

… is very unlikely to be open to the possibility that maybe sometimes it's not about money alone. Of course you need to make money to make a living and UT is very open about that motivation. Nothing wrong with that. But I don't perceive the UT folks to be doing what they do only for the money (and that's what you said: "always all about the money"). And frankly: If that was the case, Unity wouldn't be what Unity is. But obviously, in your arrogance ("there is only one possibility and that is that their one and only motivation is making more money"), you won't be able to see that even if it's right in front of your face.


Well, everyone has different perceptions of what they or others write ... but I'm sharing the perception that you are calling a "straw-man argument" what I don't perceive to be an actual straw-man argument ;-)

So, to be honest - the way I see it right now you are trying to hide behind a straw-man ... but ... well ... that doesn't work too well due to the straw-man's nature, or does it? ;-) Is the straw-man stuff maybe projection?

But of course, my perceptions might be totally wrong

 

Wow, you are starting to become really funny. Did I just read it right that you are implying that Jingle Fett is lieing? Or is that another straw man?

 

What in those screenshots require Pro? I see pixel lights, bump/specular shaders, and a projector. All available in Free.

 

In general, not only for this subject/thread:

I'm getting the feeling this forum is turning into a so called "Apple™" kind of setting.
"Don't touch this or that (my purchaged product i love to shine with), even if proven incorrect, don't mention it, don't complain.. we love to spend money, so should you!" kind of attitude.
PRO users ruling the free onces, while we are suppose to be ONE family of dev's using the same base foundation. And as e.g. Free users, we can complain if we want, we can suggest (which in the eyes of the PRO users is the same as complaining: proven in many threads here), without the Elite squad (pro users) marching in, and destructing our threads with their (in their eyes) supreme thoughts. In short: As soon as there is a mention of the word free in relation to a feature suggestion/bug, many of the PRO users seem to develop a sort of spasms to react, to make sure we should "as freeriders" not dare to ask/mention anything in that sort. We PRO's only have the right to do so.

You get the idea... ([sarcasm]if not: pro user by chance? [/sarcasm])

 

the only one needing glasses is you cause then you realize that there is exactly no shadow at all.
the image with the shining onto the model shows that just too well, there is no shadow from that monster casted at all!!!

the light with "shadow" there technically can be achieved by just using a light source with a light cookie

 

Saymoo, your last post feels an awful lot like, "I'm not helping to pay for dinner, but I should have a say in where we go."

Unity Pro users expect their needs and wants to be attended to before Unity users, it's completely reasonable. You say free users can suggest, but a lot of suggestions are basically complaining and a lot of them are along the lines of "Unity should really put this great feature in Pro!" Fancy that, people who paid for a product have a hard time supporting adding features to the free version when the Pro users and studios are the ones who provide the revenue to support production.

There is and should be a split between Unity Pro and Unity. Likewise, most Unity Pro users realize that if a studio were to use Unity and dropped tens of thousands of dollars, they could reasonably ask for some assistance or customization. That is how life is. You pay more, you get more.

 

saymoo, you weren't being sarcastic that this isn't Unity? Oh my ...

Those screens surely could have been made with unity Pro. They could just as well have been made with Unity Free because there's no shader which is used in Pro at all. You'll just have to know how to use your tools.

And actually complaining is allright if there really IS something REASONABLE to complain about. Unity Free is not!
Wouldn't it be free then I'd have to spend about 250,-EUR for my indie Update of Unity2. Which BTW didn't have real time shadows, either and I didn't complain

 

No, it's not implied either. Apparently you've never seen shareware or try-n-buy software. I mean, it's only been around for what 20 years right?

Indeed, so what? If you would bother to read anything you'd see that I said it's not evil, just business. I'm not complaining about it, just answering someone's question. And if you call that a straw-man, you clearly don't know what a straw-man argument is. For the rest of your pointless reply you can see my above comments to other folks as you just restated exactly what they said.

P.S: Is that creature walking on the ground or floating? I can't tell without shadows.

You might call it tricking or trapping, a non-biased, realistic adult would call that business marketing plain and simple. As I said to Jingles, read everything before commenting. I said it's not evil, just business. Maybe you think businesses are inherently evil, not me. I think they're all out to make money, and guess what, they are. Because if they weren't then what's the point?

See above. Anything you think I imply is on you. You're free to misinterpret peoples' words to make your arguments and positions sound better.

You spoke about naivete and you're right. Only you're the naive one. Do you think sending a lady to Costco to give away free samples of food is their way of feeding the hungry? Of course not. They want you to taste their product in hopes that you'll like it and buy it. Again, it's been going on for hundreds of years. If they didn't hope Unity Free would lead to increased revenue on up-sells and word-of-mouth advertising they would do what I said: include all the first party features in advanced.

That's not a perception, that's your lack of understanding of the definition of the term.

Wow, I wish it was just starting. It's been like this at least since I got Unity. It's called Fan Boy Syndrome. I do have to point out, however, that those screen shots could have been produced in Basic and/or Free. The "shadows" are just baked static shadow maps.

 

Nice placement of light cookies btw.

 

I agree that one aspect is making money. Of course. But the way you write it very much makes it sound as if that was the only reason that matters. Do you really believe that the only motivation that people have is money or am I just misinterpreting what you say? Seriously, I do hope that I'm misinterpreting you there ;-)

What do you think about the idea that someone does something they love doing primarily because it's incredibly rewarding to simply create and give? Is that what you call Wonderland? In that case I got news for you - Wonderland is quite real and some real people actually do live there (don't know about the UT folks but I do know last time I met them it certainly felt more like "Wonderland-people" than "greedy-capitalism-people" or even "haha-now-I-have-my-own-business-look-how-great-I-am-people" or "how-can-we-squeeze-the-most-money-out-of-that-world-by-smartass-marketing-people") ;-)

Of course if you do something you love and you know just a little bit about how the world works (most of us have to pay bills every now and then ... some also have to pay paychecks) you will also spend a moment or two on how you can monetize what you love to do. So it's not like money doesn't play a role at all.

However, there's a significant difference between someone who just tries to make money and someone who loves to create and wants to put giving and taking into a healthy balance. However, as far as I can see you seem to reduce things to "it's just about the money" ... which ... I guess mostly says something about your personal reality-tunnel (which I do not share ;-) ) ... like:

The key is understanding that not everything has a single motivation but usually, there's many motivations blending - and while you can get a "feeling" for what motivates people when you're in direct contact with them, in the end it's impossible to know for sure from the outside. The world outside of Wonderland might be much richer than you think. Of course, one aspect is marketing with the intention of creating abundance which fuels creativity ... another aspect is generosity. Yet another aspect is finding joy in seeing what others can build on top of what you have created (that's called "appreciation"). To some people, such things mean much more than money. Believe it or not but it's those things that convert your reality to "Wonderland" - and the rabbit hole goes much deeper than most people could even imagine. If you're not greedy or reduce everything just to the monetary and business aspects of it, it's not so hard to earn enough money that money simply stops mattering much.

However, obviously, you'll want to avoid trashing your own business by removing any motivation for anyone to purchase your product a significant part of which you offer for free (for all kinds of reasons, including - but not limited to - marketing). In the end, that's what everyone has to find their balance with on this funny little planet, these days.

My feeling is UT found a pretty good balance with the free version. It enables game development for a lot of people and just upsets a few folks who aren't capable of coming up with a game design that works without realtime shadows and sound FX (in terms of "filters") and render-to-texture and the other few features that are missing.

And for those, there's lots and lots of other possibilities. So I guess everyone can be very happy when they choose to. Or everyone can feel miserable when they choose to. In the end, it really is that easy.

 

Yes, obviously it is. Do you honestly believe someone said, "Hey, I think we owe it to the community to make Unity free! Let's give it away!" No, no one said that. Sure there might be some folks at UT getting a warm, fuzzy feeling for having a "free" product, but make no mistake, the reason they made it free was all business.

That's called, "Not a business." If a company has investors, as UT does, they have to show some return on those investments. No one said they don't love their jobs. No one said they don't love their product. But the reason UT exists is to make money, not to save the rain forests, not to cure AIDS. Get over it already, man, really.

I love making games, especially for my kids. But the only reason I go through the trouble to make them is to sell them. I'd much rather play with my kids personally than spend countless hours making video games for them to play by themselves. You can try to play the high road and pretend people don't work for money, but if you love your job so much, do it for free. I love what I do. But if I didn't require money I wouldn't do it. It's not my nature, it's human nature. That's why socialism doesn't work.

So that's a pretty douchebag point of view. So anyone who uses real-time shadows isn't a capable game designer? Yeah... so every "AAA" game on the market has substandard designers since they couldn't get around having to use real-time shadows. That's idiotic. I guess anyone who payed for Unity Pro "just for the shadows" is also a crappy designer?

 

it's actually more like "After having eaten the meal, only the one paying can tell the waiter/waitress, what he/she rates the food. Or before that, the one pays chooses what you must eat. Even if you don't like / or being allergic to some that food he/she want on his/her plate, but prefer something else on your plate. In a restaurant normally everyone can choose his/her food to eat, when going out to dinner"

The rest of your argument woes, since it's called PRODUCT ENHANCEMENT. And did it occure to you, that UT might started off with some features to get it going, for THAT particular version? Now there's a totally NEW version, and thus a tech that has evolved deeply.
This means more features, more enhanchements. Thus also more room to update the free edition, with some very asked for features.
There is still plenty of room left to having it differentiate from the PRO in terms of features. e.g. BEAST, Ambient Occlusion depth. Video, API access, etc etc..

Don't forget, i will say it once again, back when the now free edition was nonfree, even then people got whimped away with the same type of arguments the PRO users now make with the free version. And that's wrong imho. We're equal. Only some high end features are differentiate us from possibilities. That ALL.
I underderstand that People who bought the PRO are keen on protecting their investments, just as you saw the complains when the indie went free. But let's face it. Time changes, so does tech use.
And RT shadows, are a sooo common feature, you can't even mention it as feature anymore nowadays, since EVERY SERIOUS middleware render tool has it incorporated as a basic thing. If it was 2004/5 then you might have a valid point, because then RT shadows where a new type or rendering in interactive titles like games. But as said before, tech has evolved, and so has the market (and user expectations in general).

 

I'm not sure you're really in a position to criticize other people for being douchebags...

 

It's not 2004 and I do have a valid point which is not dependent on the year.

Unity sells a product, which they also now offer for free. Some people paid for it, I was one of them. But businesses are free to lower their prices as much as they'd like. People bought Unity (now they just download it) without realtime shadows and other features, it was well advertised. If the tool is not what you want it to be, find one that matches your price and performance expectations and go to that.

 

I'm sorry to hear that. But if you say "I love what I do" and then you say "if I didn't require money I wouldn't do it" one of the two statements can't true by the definition of love which is voluntary by its very nature. When you love something truly you need no other reason for it. It's really that simple. Think about a woman (or man) just spending time with a man (or woman) for the money. That's not called "love" - that's called "prostitution", and it's two completely different worlds. On the other hand, if you love your lady and you find out she's super-rich ... lucky guy. I'd say the UT guys kind of are in that position: They totally love creating a game engine and they figured out that this also has monetary value and monetize it. That way, they can focus fully on what they love doing (instead of having to generate an income by other means which might be fun as well but not as much as creating a game engine is).

And hey, now they also give part of it away (ah, yeah, stayed on topic, stayed on topic). Instead of sharing "their baby" with just some 10,000 or so people who were able to afford either Unity Indie or Pro, they get to share that baby with 200,000 folks from all kinds of backgrounds. And how cool is that: Now they also generate more income because more people know about "their baby" many of which are happy to also spend some money for using it (and getting some extra features for that money).

Anyways ... so I guess you just said "If I didn't require money I wouldn't do it" for the sake of the argument. Seriously, doing something just for the money and for the money alone is the worst motivation I could think of. In most cases, it won't work that way because people will feel it and look for someone who creates for the joy of creating. Some people don't see the difference - but more and more people do.

You know, slavery really sucks and when you work only for the money, it's basically slavery (if you look closely enough, it's just a more subtle mechanism in place for keeping you busy "working" than what most people recognize as slavery: you're not forced with the whip but the fear of poverty probably isn't much less painful for most people than the whip ... and for good reasons).

However, if you work for the love of it, and find ways of monetizing what you create - ah, freedom ... luvly

Weren't you the one constantly complaining about straw-man arguments? I didn't say "anyone using real-time shadows isn't a capable game designer" so your douchebag conclusion is living in the realm of fantasy. I said "... just upsets a few folks who aren't capable of coming up ..." - so, in other words what I said was: If you aren't capable of coming up with a game design that doesn't need feature X, Y, Z, and you don't have that feature available, then you might get upset about it. A few people do get upset. Others don't. The funny thing is: What gets some people upset is simply their lack of realism. They run into a wall while sleepwalking and then say "ouch" on the forums and then go on to say "wow, you evil UT-capitalist-tricksters, you put that wall right in front of me, now take it away, kk?"

Reality right now is: Unity Free has a few less features than Unity Pro. So one option is getting Unity Pro which in fact gives you a bit more freedom - it does give you a few more possibilities than what Unity Free gives you. It gives you significantly more freedom for working in a team*, and it gives you somewhat more freedom when it comes to nice visuals. The shadow-issue adds a bit of realism.

*(with Unity Free you'll have to cope with not-so-great workarounds for working as team - I think in the end that really is the most painful limitation of Unity Free especially because it's much easier to create a team with a free product than when everyone has to pay 1000+ for their license ... from my perspective, that would be a significantly more important thing to discuss than the shadows which don't even have anything to do with unity [pun intended])

There's a lot of games that Indies/hobbyists can do that don't need those FX at all. And it's wise as an Indie/hobbyist to create such a kind of game. That's usually one of the things you start with: What am I capable of? And one part of that is my talent, another is the available resources (money + time) and another one is the technology I'm using.

What's not so wise is trying to add too much realism as an Indie when you have to deal with limited funds, and shadows are part of that (the bigger part is that generally speaking, the art for realism is much much harder to obtain - which admittedly is less a problem when you're a very talented artist yourself and you focus on realism in your art ... it's also no problem if you got the funds to buy that kind of art). When AAA means "throw a crazy amount of money and time at the problem of creating realistic visuals" then having limited funds just doesn't really put you in the position to compete with "AAA".

Of course, you can think of non-AAA game designs that require shadows for the game mechanics ... but if that's the kind of game you want to create, you'll simply have to factor in the price of Unity Pro into your game development costs. Or look for a cheaper engine if you feel that will be the better approach for you. Haha, there's another option: You can simply wait until there is a free version of Unity that has the feature you desire, just like some people waited for a Windows version instead of simply buying a Mac (yeah, saymoo, you were right - it's all about Apple-fanboyism, and just that, muahuahua).

 

Yep you caught me, that's exactly what it is It works surprisingly well. Another reason i can't wait to get pro, deferred rendering is perfect for that kind of use

For reals? Sorry to disappoint you but it's all Unity free (Unity 2.5 no less). There is absolutely nothing in here from pro. As I said before, the shadow is from a cookie (a really good one no doubt but still nothing more than a cookie). Trust me, if I had pro, color correction and bloom/glow and motion blur would be all over that. Furthermore, using a cookie has the advantage in that if an object under it moves, it will react exactly like a shadow would, so even though the creature doesn't cast shadows, it is affected by the cookie even when it moves (and it does move). If for whatever reason I was upset about the creature looking like it's floating due to lack of shadow, that's easily resolved with a blob shadow, something Free does do.

You might be right that in a lot of cases that's what happens. Us free users do have the right to complain...but certain complaints have been answered so repeatedly that it's just tiring after a while.. And as I said, I at least, am not a pro user. I don't feel that Free HAS to have real-time shadows (don't get me wrong, I do want them if given the choice, but it's fine enough as it is). If they really are that vital, then my screenshots (which you have mistaken for Unity Pro) by definition must look like S***.

Again, how do you know that? How do you know someone didn't say "Hey, I think we owe it to the community to make Unity free! Let's give it away!" I'm not saying they did, but if you say the motivation was only money (without any proof whatsoever) it's just as possible they were just being nice because they love what they do. If you can provide solid EVIDENCE (of which there is none) that that was the sole reason for doing that, only then what you're saying holds ground. But not until then. Furthermore, if you agree with me that the reason doesn't matter, then why do you continue to insist that it really was only about the money? You've said it multiple times already...

Gee, you know for someone who talks about straw men you really have quite a few of your own...
Anyone who isn't capable of making a game WITHOUT shadows (and only specifically "real-time" shadows), now that is a crappy designer.
And please, don't bother with the argument that I/we don't know the definition of a straw man unless it's your personal secret definition of a straw man and NOT the one you so kindly gave us the link to.

Also +1 to Jashan's posts

 

You mean like you?

Not true. I know people who love smoking. They quit when they had kids so as to not expose them to it. Just because you love doing something doesn't mean there aren't other things you'd rather do. For example I love spending time with my family more than anything else. You're a real black white thinker, aren't you? And you totally left the last part of that quote out to help you didn't you. I'm not even a little surprised.

The rest of your comments are all covered by my above statement so I'll just skip it.

Man, your comments just keep getting more and more bizarre. You REALLY should look up the word slavery, dude. Really.

Your words don't fit your alleged explanation. Your words say that the Unity Free users who are upset and want shadows are not capable of a game design that does not require shadows. I use Unity Indy, and I made five games that don't require shadows. So you are quite wrong.

Again, the rest of your comments ramble on about the same old thing that no one is debating. Of course Free has fewer features than Pro. Isn't that the point of this thread? Restate the obvious much?

How do you figure? In the average engine shadows are just there. They just work. Where's the added difficulty? That's like saying it's harder to play golf with golf clubs than with a pencil. Where do get such crazy ideas?

Because I'm neither stupid nor a brainwashed fan boy. Really, it's common sense. And by your rationale, unless you have evidence that they made it free just to be benevolent, you're wrong too. Only a disillusioned fan boy would truly believe that they didn't do it for solid business reasons. A fan boy with absolutely no head for business.

Again, a douchbag comment.

Clearly you and Jashan don't. It's not that hard.

 

@codinghero, it seems that you are biting everyone in the ass for no reason.

 

I said that my previous post would be my last in this thread, but what I should have said is that it would be the last at pushing my points or trying to clarify misconstrued meanings which seems is what these last few pages have focused on.

This is absurd. this thread has degenerated into meaningless arguments over previously stated posts that have been shown to be 'misinterpreted' by many of the others here on the forum. This thread also appears to be nothing more than some users just arguing for the sake of arguing or they really just can't look at another view and accept it for what it is. I say this as when any point is clarified it is immediately refuted as not what the user meant or people not knowing definitions of words/concepts. If anyone wishes to refute my perception of how this thread is degenerating or what it looks like to me, I don't care. It's how I view things and you are not going to be able to change my perception or my version of reality; which I see is rampant in the recent replies here.

I think it's time for this thread to be locked and everyone move on. We have all made our points and shared a great deal about ourselves and our positions. Now let's all shake hands and act a little more civil to one another and drop this topic. Agreed?

[Now I am officially done with posting anything in this thread. You can "quote" me on it.]

 

Nah, they're just reviving some old animosity they have for me. They don't like to read about dissenting opinions and I don't mind being a dissenter.

@MakerOfGames, you are 100% correct.

 

I'm surprised that no one has explicitly brought this up (or if someone did, I missed it and apologize) but it's not hard to imagine a game that requires dynamic shadows (ie: uses them as a mechanic). I'm sure the mechanics of such a game could be implemented without shadows, but how then is the player supposed to know what's going on if the visual cues are all missing?

My point isn't about whether or not Unity free should include shadows, it's that people need to stop stating that 'only bad designers/hacks require shadows to make their games fun.' Thinking that way is to regard game design with very limited vision.

 

Wrong. I'll throw your word right back at you "you totally left the last part of that quote out to help you didn't you. I'm not even a little surprised."
All I need to do is hilight a part of my own quote to respond to that since you left out that part:

Hey, what does your wiki definition link say about straw men btw?

Dude, do you think you're THAT important, I mean until you started posting I had no idea who you were so it's not like it's something personal or something. And contrary to what you say, I do like seeing other people's opinions, especially the dissenting ones. In order to progress, you need to acknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of an argument. The only thing I don't like reading is poor arguments that deliberately ignore the overwhelming evidence and only choose to see what they want to see.

Me, I can be convinced of literally anything, as long as there are logical arguments and evidence to back it up, I don't shut out ideas that I "don't like" or that go against mine. Your arguments really are falling flat, and I don't say that to flame or anything, but what more evidence can the opposing side bring you? Proof that a pro-looking game can be made in free? Already did that...
If you brought evidence that free is crap without real-time shadows and backed up your arguments the right way, I would believe you, really.

And to be honest (not trying to flame you), from your comments I'm starting to think you want real-time shadows not because you can't make your game without them (because obviously you can and it can even look as good as a game made in pro) but for no other reason than because you want them.
Tell me really, why is it impossible for you to make your game without real-time shadows? Why is free crap without real-time shadows?
(things are getting kind of heated so lets both of us try to cool it down a little so this thread doesn't get locked, I do enjoy a good debate)

 

That's actually a pretty good point. I mentioned in one of my earlier posts a game that was built around that and I think it was made in Unity (I can't remember the name but it was awesome, the main character actually is a shadow and you interact with objects by pushing their shadows around and they can have multiple shadows, it was insane and makes Portal look like a kiddie game)

I think the main thing is that a lot of the people complaining about the shadows want it just for the sake of wanting it, not because their game actually depends on it. If it did, then obviously they shouldn't go with Unity free or should take the lack of shadows into consideration when designing their game

 

Hi Taintspore,

Actually, I did bring it up just recently - and I think others did before me ;-) ... and I agree: there are few cool game ideas where you would really need features of Unity Pro to implement them. The reason I say "a game design that requires some feature you don't have is bad game design" is because part of game design is knowing your limitations and one limitation you might have to be aware of is the technology you're using. Another one is time / talent.

So, it's actually a broader vision of game design that doesn't stop at the game mechanics but includes some production planning (so it might not be totally technically correct). I'd put it this way: Unity free does make a lot of game designs great game designs for anybody who can afford a computer that runs Unity free. However, a few select game designs require shadows, render-to-texture [insert-pro-only-feature] to work as intended and as such require using a game engine that supports feature XY or a creative workaround (which, admittedly, may not always be available).

It's kind of like when you have that great MMO idea but don't have the funds to create all the assets that an MMO simply requires. Sometimes, it might be possible to elegantly work around that (e.g. procedural content). Sometimes you can use tricks. Sometimes not. It could be the greatest "game design" ever but it doesn't have much value if you can't make it into a product. IMHO, "good game design" is when it's fun in the end - and it's only fun in the end if you can create it.

 

And this is wrong. I personally would have a good use for it.

Or ask Unity if they could put the basic feature called realtime shadow into the basic version of Unity so that they don`t have to leave to use a basic feature in a basic version. And that`s what some here did.

 

I've been following this thread since it started and I must have forgotten that it was mentioned.

@Jashan

I guess I misinterpreted some people's (I'll assume your) use of the term design. I was thinking of design in a purer (more theoretical?) sense, more akin to algorithm design,* rather than game development as a whole.

I would have to agree that one of the marks of a good designer/developer is to be able to embrace limitations and work with them.

* (ie: factorizing a number, there's one algorithm I have in mind but I can't remember the guy's name, however it needs a quantum computer so for now it is purely theoretical...)

 

.

 

Can we discuss something where people are more likely to be civil and polite? Perhaps politics or religion.

Clearly this conversation is not going anywhere.

 

We have already touched this aswell

I enjoy the free healthcare here in Sweden by the way.

 

You win an internet!

 

No, you just failed to realize that I was responding to two points in one reply. Either that or you're purposely mixing things up. When I said, "...by your rationale... you're wrong too," it was in response to your words:

See, no straw men, just you mixing up responses and quotes for one reason or another.

Uh, do you think you're so important that anytime I refer to anyone you automatically think it's you? There are other people in this thread that I am responding to you know.

Again, who are you talking about here because I never said you had to have the Pro version for anything. I never said I wanted shadows. I never said I wanted the splash screen gone. I think you're thoroughly confused on who is saying what in this thread, dude. All I was ever saying was why UT made Unity Basic free. You should go back and re-read to get everyone's positions sorted out.

That's only true if one is totally locked in to a given engine/tool. By definition a game designer is one who designs a game, not one who designs a game to fit into a specific set of limitations. Maybe you should refine your comment to "...part of Unity game design..." or "...part of practical game design..."

This is some weather we're having, huh?

That's great, but free health care isn't socialism. And where can a guy go to get into a heated argument about gods and such?


By the way, I have to agree... these new emotes are total S***.

 

Real time shadows are not present in free because if it were, it would remove the number one use case for light cookies.
As the usage of light cookies goes down, Aras will see that it's only being used by 2 or 3 people in the world for headlights, and he'll decide to streamline the graphical pipeline by removing support for light cookies entirely.

That will leave us with a world without cookies.

World without cookiez r bad.

 

@cannon, I stand corrected.

 

No! Make the light cookies a Pro feature. They are needed for performance boost and optimizations

 

I haven't done a build with ver 3. So its watermarked? Oh well, time to find something else.

 

I'm very disappointed to see so much hostility and rudeness here. This is not what I have come to love about the Unity community.

 

I'm not dishing out $1500.00 for the Pro and then another $1500.00 to do Ipad dev as a hobby. There should be some middle ground. $3k is not indie friendly for those just starting out.

 

Starting out to do iPad as a hobby would cost $400, not $3000. Unity iPhone Basic has a splash screen at the beginning, not a permanent watermark. Same with Unity Free on desktop/web.

 

Dear unity friend, i don't want to start a thread-fight against you but every time i see you around you are fighting against each others...
I don't mean to offend you in any way but do you have some kind of social problem?

 

Offtopic:
This is funny.. reading your avatar, in relation to your post.. "social problem".
Coming from someone who's into PSYCHO(S interactive) (had to write it, no offense though)

anyway ontopic...
I Think CodingHero, is one of the few ones here, who actually expresses what many in their true hearts know, but are ashamed/freightend to acknowlegde it.
I understand that it might seem as a personal attack, as in person to person. But that's just a shallow look at the posts. If you look closer to CodingHero' posts you will see it's not ment as person to person, but thought vs thought. Often i see a thought battle between codinghero and others, but if you really read the core of the battle, and reflect it on the reality arround your and look objectively towards yourself in such a situation the battle is about, i often (if i like it or not) have to agree with the points CodingHero makes.
I also notice, that many forum users here, who have been into a battle with CodingHero are too freightend to say the words "ok, you're right about this or that" or "hmm, if you put it in such way, then yes, i understand what you mean"

no offending intentions towards any person, just to contra expressing myself towards tatoforever' thought/opinion.

 

I actually disagree. I don't find anything wrong with what Codinghero has said and agree with him on many points. However, his aggressive and rather uncivil approach to debate makes heated arguments out of something that should be a normal conversation. I think much of the resistance hasn't been to what points he's trying to make, just the tone.