Comments on Unity3d difficulty and VS Unreal Engine

You tell me to switch to the topic, yet you're still arguing...
Ok. My last post in this thread and I'll shut up.
That example video of yours is ridiculous because that game probably isn't using any of the features you mentioned earlier, except maybe render texture for the bloom, and the use of render texture, as well as shadows can pretty much be avoided in this specific case without any noticeable effect on the visual quality. It's just a matter of being creative and having good artists, which they do and have.

As for the "enough examples of hobbyists creating games beyond their capabilities" argument... How many? 1 in a hundred or a thousand creates a game that is noteworthy enough to make the news? And how many are making games that will never need nor use this features? If your game is not a 3d game, you'll never need 99% of this features. If your game is 3d, there are still tons of examples where you can do without them.

P.S. I'm pretty sure a lot of newbs getting into gamedev and reading reviews from the people like you will never look at Unity, because of the stereotype that Unity free has severe limitations. Even though they might never need the pro features for the game they want to make.

 

You could argue the same thing about a lot of AAA studios. How many produce games that are truly noteworthy? Making the news does not impress me though and it is one of the last sources I go to for information.

Unlike those who blindly assume that hobbyists and indies are incapable of using supposedly advanced features like RenderTextures, I actually try to make a fair comparison of the engines I work with so I can recommend them to others.

As I stated earlier, Unity is acceptable for mobile development, but Unity Free will limit your visuals enough that it'll look very dated on the desktop. Even relatively ancient engines, such as Blitz 3D which is entirely DirectX 7-based, support RenderTextures.

There are ways to bypass this limitation, namely with ReadPixels, and achieve the same effect but the downside is a bigger loss in performance. If you're already losing a fair amount for a single effect then you may as well go with a fancier engine and get access to everything.

Key phrase being "might never need". That is quite a bit different from "do not need" or "will not need".

 

I was looking on Unreal's website and noticed this too. It could save a lot of bookkeeping if you aren't making much money off your games (probably most of us).

So if the 5% is based only on amounts exceeding $3000 per quarter per product, you could potentially make up to $12,000 per year from a single game and not have to pay any of that 5% at all. And since it's PER PRODUCT, you might hypothetically create 10 small games each making $12,000 a year (that's $120,000 a year) and never have to pay any of that 5% at all.

More realistically, indie devs could tinker around experimenting with making many small games without worrying about that 5% unless they hit it big. The "3000 per quarter per product" clause is what caused me to sign up and start playing around with Unreal.

I haven't dug too deep yet but one word I would use to describe Unreal is "polished."

 

Locked since there's no point encouraging this behaviour any further. If you want to use UE4 use that. If you want to use Unity use that. Try both. Enjoy. No more mindless repetition of the same discussion.