Better to include Unity launcher or not?

Is it better to enable Unity's launcher (the "Resolution Dialogue" in Player Settings) or better to leave it out? Likewise, it is better to default to fullscreen or not? Every game I've played on Steam just goes directly to the game itself without any launcher, and most (or all) of them default to fullscreen; but I don't know what the norm is.

 

I usually see the launcher on prototypes and demo builds, not final releases. I don't remember ever seeing a final release with the launcher, though maybe on smaller final builds.
Most think it is ugly - personally it serves it's purpose and doesn't bother me. Hearkens back to previous era of PC games.

 

What about fullscreen as default? Most of them seem to default to fullscreen.

 

Not form my experience playing a lot of alpha, prototype and demo versions. I think it is personal preference. I agree having these options in a final build, in the game rather than the game launcher is aesthetically cleaner.

A lot of 2D games don't full screen by default - from my experience.

 

I absolutely never use the launcher on anything but the most basic of prototypes. I think it's tacky as all hell and rarely matches the overall aesthetic of the game or the menu systems I've created.

 

i always disable it, and have my own in game menu instead.

 

How do you rig initial settings without the launcher?

You just use native screen res and default quality?

 

Because of the usage of linux system, I depend on games having the launcher. Often times I cannot get them to work because of default settings. It should at least be documented how the settings can be manual set.

 

Windowed 720p, typically set to the most midrange of the quality settings to ensure the game looks alright, but won't bog down older computers in case they need to lower the settings. I don't like taking over the full screen in case something goes wrong, as can easily be the case in certain multi-monitor configurations.

 

depends on the type of game, if it is more immersive type of game, i will default to native screen res, with medium settings, if it is less so a 720p window is good enough.

Also if you are trying to choose the best defaults, it is often good to have it write out a config file on first run, that is in a human readable form that is used for settings in the future. That way if it someone gets into a state where the user cant see things they can simply edit the config to something they know works on there system.

 

Thoughts on custom bootstrapper? Do people like those or not?

EDIT: Do you think it'd be reasonable to make a small custom bootstrap window in unity (for easy cross platform support) that launches the main app? Would there be some kind of problem with that?

 

You can always just ship with a base json config file to avoid the default load menu. Just inject the json settings when you run the game.

 

Many gamers are comfortable messing with config by hand, but some aren't. I would think very simple custom bootstrap (basically modify config file and launch) would be an ideal? It would take almost no effort really if a unity front end would be reasonable for it (otherwise annoying to manage cross platform imps).

Unless people don't like these for some reason?

 

I just don't really see the point in having a custom bootstrapper if you've got a nearly empty scene containing your options menu, honestly. It seems kinda redundant.

 

i figure the amount of cases where it would fail at getting useable settings from the start are pretty slim and the config as a final safety net in case the remaining few % have a issue and go to support. Also good place for less used settings that only a power user would want to touch.

 

Really? So general consensus is that any kind of bootstrap is not worth it for desktop game?

 

What specifically goes wrong with Linux, and how can we avoid that? Isn't it enough to have a settings menu where the user can change the resolution?

 

just a assumption, but things can differ a lot between linux distros so i could see issues where the game might think the native res is much higher then it really is, and then it being to hard to switch it back while the game is in a bad res.

 

I don't believe I've ever heard complaints for Bethesda's launcher.

 

Honestly it wouldn't be that hard to write a small application with those buttons and just fire the game build exec from there with command line arguments.

 

Probably because that's the least of your worries when it comes to a Bethesda game :v

 

The launch dialog will always be there even if you don't personally enable or use it. Holding down ALT or was it CTRL while launching a game pretty much always shows it and plenty of people know to use it. Many Steam forum guides to use it as safe mode start, for custom hidden key bindings etc.

 

Let me show you one: How the bloody hell am I going to be able to sit back and enjoy playing with a gamepad if games keep popping up mouse-only dialogs before they start? I'm vegging out, and I'm not happy having to lean forward to grab a mouse. ANY MOVEMENT FROM MAXIMUM COMFORT IS STRESSFUL!

Think of the couch potatoes, folks. Think of Big Picture mode. Don't be a bag of Richards.

 

Bioware also used to have them, though they didn't launch when you started the game and had to be found in the installation folder.

 

other thing to consider is that the Unity Launcher wont be able to control all settings that are important to your title, especially if you are driving a lot through custom sharers and post processing

 

I have seen several published games that still have the default Unity launcher. To me, it makes the game look unfinished and unpolished.

I also immediately start thinking that there is going to be no in-game way to change any settings. Fortunately, this is not always true. However, when there was both the initial launcher config and the in-game one, the in-game one was more refined, so why have both?

One released game I played, whose name I no longer remember, had the Unity launcher but ignored everything you did in it as far as settings. I've seen other games ignore some of the settings from the Unity launcher.

Basically, my thought is "don't do it" and that you're going to lower my opinion of your game before I even get to the start menu if you do.

 

Try "Controller Companion" on steam. I use it to move the mouse cursor with my gamepad. Only thing that annoys me are when a game has a loader and the loader registers as a window that takes gamepad input and makes the controller no longer control the mouse but also ignores all controller input. Or almost worse: it registers both and I "click" one thing but it acts like I just pressed "A" on the controller instead.

 

The biggest problem is managing cross platform builds for the launcher. I'd think that using Unity to build the bootstrap itself would be pretty ideal though (unless there's some reason not to).

 

I released a game on Steam that uses the launcher. I did it because it is a pretty simple game and I wanted to invest my available time into improving the gameplay rather than reimplementing all of the resolution, quality, and input controls into an in game menu.

The game I'm working on now implements the quality controls in an in game menu, runs only in window mode and allows the player to just resize the window, and doesn't need any input manager customization. So I'm not using the launcher for that one.

If you are happy with the features in the launcher, I don't see a problem with including it though, especially if its a simple game and it saves you dev time by using it like I did.