Search Unity

  1. Unity 2019.2 is now released.
    Dismiss Notice

Full Unreal Engine 4 Developer Kit $19/MO + 5% / Why can't Unity Offer the same!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by im, Mar 19, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Peter Apple

    Peter Apple

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Posts:
    50
    From above info.,

    For 2D games, Monkey-x wins.
    For 3D games, UE4 wins.

    What is the role of UT? Will UT be used by those with huge investment in the past, or by the asset creators only?
    I found that most of useful functions can only be found in Asset store, not in the tool itself.
    Have UT already become bloatware?
    Besides license fee, it seems that we need to consider how fast bugs can be removed during each update too.:(
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  2. sandboxgod

    sandboxgod

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Posts:
    366
    I find it odd when I see some complaints about UE4 performance (not that I find it unreasonable but I am curious what scenes people are using). What stats did you guys use? You will want to profile outside of the Editor, so you do not take a hit from Slate (which adds about 2.41 ms from what I recall last time I profiled). Slate adds about a 14% penalty is my rough estimate if the target is 60 fps.

    My UE4 project was hitting 60fps (over 16.6ms) quite easily but it is a Space game so it shouldn't be too taxing nor overly ambitious at this early stage. * When/IF I come back to that project after my personal Unity projects are out of the door, I will gradually add on complexity until we approach around 15ms per frame leaving room for Destruction and particle vfx

    If you have some assets, try arranging in the editor and see what performance you get. I was going to work on bringing over Micheal O's Dark City as a test. But it was too time consuming converting the assets into PBR.

    I do recall when I ran Elemental demo my performance wasn't any good (30 fps dipping down to like 15-20fps in the UE4-Runtime). But no way would any title I was planning on making with it would have so much going on. I want to make fun games I can crank out in 3-4 months. Not crank out AAA visuals. I've crunched plenty at game studios already chasing that
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
    gruddlebug likes this.
  3. sandboxgod

    sandboxgod

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Posts:
    366
    One of my best friends makes a good living from his Unity games (I don't know his income but I know he's self employed working only part time for occasional gigs). But his games target mobile devices. Haven't heard him complain about any show stopping bugs all these years. But he does complain about his expenses for upgrades ($4500 Pro for all platforms). I'm pretty sure he wouldn't jump ship to UE4 though. I think people like him will continue funding UT for a very long time. Perhaps after a year+ maybe UT might have to worry about losing people like him

    His games are all pretty much 2D though. Some have 3D art.
     
  4. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    2,502
    Well, by that logic, you could also argue that we don't need DirectX 11, because there were plenty of good games around before DirectX 11. And honestly, there are examples of old tech that was fantastic in its day. For example, the original Doom was absolutely awesome in its day, but looks terribly dated now. As the tech matures, gamers expect to see modern looking games. Render textures and full screen post processing effects are common in modern games.

    Here is an example showing the difference between Unity Pro and Unity Free using the same environment asset from the Unity Asset Store:

    Unity Pro:


    Unity Free:


    Here is a different yet similar asset in UE4:


    After looking at all three videos, it is difficult to argue that Unity Free is good enough to justify investing significant time into to making certain games. Simple mobile games can easily be done in Unity Free, but more complex things (large open world PC games) show Unity Free lacking in expected features.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  5. Teo

    Teo

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Posts:
    564
    That's the problem Unity does not seems to understand. There will not be a massive exodus and all will happen in time if Unity do not act as fast as possible, with price and features, and ultra bug fixes.
     
  6. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    After looking at all three videos, it is difficult to argue that Unity Free is good enough to justify investing significant time into to making certain games. Simple mobile games can easily be done in Unity Free, but more complex things (large open world PC games) show Unity Free lacking in expected features.

    Some render to texture techniques as Bloom and HDR are very very old, why Free version don't propose at least some pre made fullscreen effects accessible to all like these ones ? Even small games could benefit more appealing graphics.
    Even simple amateur games with UE4 lightening effects make them look so good :




    UE4 is a totally new product, really friendly having and making many things to make it easier to pick up and use; that's totally different from UDK3, amateurs are very active and produce really good things. For hobbyst searching non limited features, or teams giving a try at making a game , you have to learn Blueprints , and should be able to make something.

    The problem is UT don't proposes a more tailored pricing solution
    Pro :
    - UT Pro with comparable UE4 pricing system with Royalties : it would benefit hobbyst and serious people at same time
    - Actual Pro prices for bigger companies and indies that don't want Royalties.
    Intermediate :
    - Free version with limited features, that you would buy some 100-200$ ; but added some common and neede hard coded in engine full screen effects and some features making games better without lowering Pro version interest
    Free :
    Like acually, Unity Free with limited tools and features.

    UT Free remains great for some category people , even mobile was not free some time ago, it's easy to learn and use and that's better for many hobbyst than having to use some open source 3D engine without any decent editors and tools. We can only thanks Unity for that.
    The downside is it don't proposes basic AA or Bloom/HDR , i think many people would be able to pay 50-100$ for some Free + version having performant AA and Bloom.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
    sandboxgod likes this.
  7. Teo

    Teo

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Posts:
    564
    @zenGarden

    I don't think fragmenting more Unity licenses will be any good.

    Unity needs to:
    1. Keep company running with out going bankrupt and be on profit.
    2. Be in competition to UE4 and CryEngine at features and price level, if they want to actually count next year also.

    Please notice, UE4 and CryEngine was both close to 1 million a few months ago.

    Also GameBryo is a super expensive engine, and now, GameBryo enter in equation with Reach3dx for mobile market. For how long you think they will stay hidden and will not do a move like Epic did? Also Havoc?

    None of them offer a dual licensing. Like "Free" and "Pro". Unity Free is the biggest mistake from Unity I think. And yes I agree, any super simple game can look super nice with a few "pro" features.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  8. rockysam888

    rockysam888

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Posts:
    650
    You are absolutely right!
    However, the gaming world keeps on changing very very fast.
     
  9. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    I don't think fragmenting more Unity licenses will be any good.
    Could be better choice, Ut has it's strengh as established , turned to indies form the beginning, Unity Free was 400$ before but no Royalties. They will just have to choose a good balance, i'm not worried and i think they will choose something that will also please the amateurs. Many people would be ok to pay 35$ subsciption system where you could stop it any time.

    Also GameBryo is a super expensive engine, and now, GameBryo enter in equation with Reach3dx for mobile market. For how long you think they will stay hidden and will not do a move like Epic did? Also Havoc?

    Gamebryo and Havock are mainly big middleware for game AAA company tools (specially havock for character and physics).
    Their main job and business is not not indies even if they make a try in indie market.

    UE4 main business is also AAA companies, but they take indies really seriously (video tutorials, complete examples projects , Blueprints, friendly editor) ; they put lot of work on that side perhaps more than Unity.
    (I never seen some 3D engine company putting so much to propose such quality example projects).

    About mobile majority makes 2D games or simple 3D ones for mobile, could it be succesfull corean Mmo or other games, fasterart making, more wide range mobile devices support. So Unity or some other free 2D-3D engines remains best choice. I tested Havock mobile, where are the tutorials, not easy to hanlde , workflow is far from fluid , full FBX animation is missing. PC version is not cheap, does it do as good as UE ?

    None of them offer a dual licensing. Like "Free" and "Pro". Unity Free is the biggest mistake from Unity I think. And yes I agree, any super simple game can look super nice with a few "pro" features.
    This was a choice , not a mistake. You had UDK3 free also with 50% Royalties also. But UDK3 was not concurrent caus too complex in many areas, not easy to take. This has changed now , UE4 is friendly for new comers as it has never been.
    But im' sure even if UT would keep it's pricing, for some companies and serious teams they will stay with it caus of no Royalties and more easy in the coding side.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  10. rockysam888

    rockysam888

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Posts:
    650
    I am only interested in this:

    Assuming Unity 5 offers subscription of $19/month + 5% royalties for all platforms (same price as UE4), could we finally get the same level of graphics quality and speed as UE4?
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  11. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    could we finally get the same level of graphics quality and speed as UE4?
    They will come with PBS, and some good middleware lightening, you 'll have something that will look similar. As fast i don't know, i run UE shooter demo at 45 FPS with lot of advanced settings with a four years old 3D card, it will depend on your game also, but any engine needs you to work to bring better fps.And UE is not only graphics, it proposes many systems (vertex painting, matinee, shader editor , advanced particles , many others ).
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  12. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,811
    But can *you* do that in Unreal Engine 4? or Unity 5? what would enable you to actually do it? most of it is art, still. Otherwise cubes with lensflares doesn't get you too far. The focus should be on what *you* are getting results in. Are you not getting results in UE4, and that is why you need the price of Unity to be cheaper?

    Food for thought.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  13. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    I much prefer Chinese food.
     
  14. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,122
    Yes. And in UE4 I can do it with considerably less work.

    Can we maybe put an end to this meaningless hypothetical that comes up in every thread multiple times now?
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  15. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    But can *you* do that in Unreal Engine 4? or Unity 5? what would enable you to actually do it? most of it is art, still.
    I totally agree that 3D is the base of your game and you must keep coherent in art style you choose (even using simple graphics can go wrong if not putting good design shapes and reasearch)

    But tools and features can make better your 3D art :
    Big texture not detailled in FPS view , just mix another texture for detail you tile on the shader ( would do great on clothes). Will UT5 propose that for example after PBS release ?

    It will save you lot of texture space and faster load time : instead of using ultra detailled textures for each rock, you can use medium textures for each and apply one detail texture to all to bring details even on very close view.

    Otherwise cubes with lensflares doesn't get you too far.
    On pure amateurs side, if you need better graphics actually UE is better, not limited, im' not sure they do only cubes :

    Not bad could lead to some indie commercial game specially on Steam.
    On standard lightening looks not engaging at all, poor look, in UE4 withPBS and advanced lightening looks great so more attractive and chance of success even for a simple little game like that.

    The focus should be on what *you* are getting results in.
    For Companies or serious users having Pro version , perhaps they need UT5 and new prices ? i don't know as im' not in that case.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  16. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    @zenGarden

    Otherwise cubes with lensflares doesn't get you too far. On pure amateurs side, if you need better graphics actually UE is better, not limited, im' not sure they do only cubes :

    I never got this, 3D (realistic(ish)) graphics is all about fancy lighting / shadowing and post. VERY simple for anyone, google V-ray sphere or V-ray cube...!

    The trick is getting it to run real time on crap hardware, it's simple as hell to make realistic looking scenes as long as nothing has to move. Also shaders even though it's now part of the artists toolset, they still use DX or OpenGL as their API. It's tech as much as it is artwork. You can literally stick a sphere in a box add materials with the likes of V-ray or mental ray and it'll look realistic and / or drop dead gorgeous. Anyone and I mean ANYONE can do that, phew! now that's done.

    As hardware progresses we don't have to compromise as much, which is kind of being offset by AAA games shoving their games full of *fluff* or stuff.! So UE4 requires better specs, but it looks better. Which is kind of given really..

    Yes I understand you can draw 2D games, I understand you can hand draw textures and for them sort of games it's ALL about the art. All this comes back to what type of project you're doing and the lines between modern 3D art and tech is becoming blurred.

    Personally I enjoy quasi-realistic, where imaginative art meets realism. Cause lets face it the real world (especially in the UK as it's always cloudy) can look pretty drab.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 14, 2014
    Ryiah and zenGarden like this.
  17. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,811
    So why are you using Unity if everything in UE4 is less work? it's hardly hypothetical, just a direct question.
     
  18. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,122
    Because at this point I've had to sink too much time and money into Unity for it to be financially viable to switch engines in mid-development.
     
  19. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,811
    So by this admission you accept the cost really isn't $19 a month, but much, much greater.
     
  20. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,122
    Sure, if you want to be ridiculous and put words in my mouth.

    The cost is higher because I'm in the middle of development and would have to recreate nearly everything.
     
  21. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,811
    The recreation step isn't the expensive part - this can be largely automated, and they both have somewhat similar pipelines. The expensive part is actually learning everything, and this a constant for everyone. Unity is actually easier to learn, they take great pains to dumb stuff down so we can.

    This is an engine feature - how easy it is to learn, how much hand holding it does and so on, and just as important a feature consideration as graphics or blueprint. The reason I speak up is because a lot of the comments seem to me personally to be grounded in ignorance - just blindly assuming the grass is greener and cheaper without properly evaluating personal results gained from using a given tech.

    In any case none of these discussions can be taken seriously until Unite - where I would expect Unity to take the time to make an announcement (or not) - then people can make their decisions knowing that this will be their answer.
     
    GiusCo, zenGarden and Deleted User like this.
  22. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,122
    Uh, sure, if your game is literally nothing but art assets. But my game also has things like a non-standard physics tracking system, crew management system, and various other things that, yes, I would have to completely rewrite because I'm in the middle of development. I'm not just slapping some prefab components into a scene, putting art on top, and calling it a day.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  23. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,811
    I appreciate that it is more difficult for you to switch mid-dev. We wouldn't dream of it either. But my point was that for most people posting here, not all of them have that problem, yet there is more to evaluating an engine than just the price. For example, I actually like that Unity dumbs stuff down for me. I think it's the way forward: dumb surface details, but with the open door for more should you want to get your feet wet. I think it's worth paying more for, but that's just my opinion & people are entitled to all sorts.
     
  24. ippdev

    ippdev

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2,643
    Not much left there pal.
     
  25. sandboxgod

    sandboxgod

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Posts:
    366
    I really liked this post even though I don't think Unity will have to change anything beyond revisiting their subscription fees at some point. I'd love to see Unity Free get some post fx. Maybe we'll see some Artists start using it for their portfolios? That's a real killer to Unity. Just searching Unity randomly on youtube will net many interested buyers a lot of poor looking unity free games. Do the same for UE4, heck even an empty map will look good (you know, the one with the nice skybox, lens flares, HDR, and golden beams of sunlight glaring)
     
    zenGarden likes this.
  26. nipoco

    nipoco

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Posts:
    2,008
    And that is kind of a problem with UE4 that I have.
    Every amateur can now create a game with HDR bloom, motion blur, sky lights etc.

    And to be honest I start to get tired of that "J.J. Abrams lens flare UE4 look" which almost every UE4 game has. It's losing its appeal if you see that in every f***ing noob game. But that's maybe just me. I don't know.

    For me, there is a bit more about game visuals, than just some good post-fx slapped on top of a game.
    You need good art assets and even more important, a consistent and appealing art direction. UE4's demos do look fantastic, because these are done by a bunch of different and highly experienced artists. Everyone a expert in their respective fields.

    Not to mention the importance of fun gameplay. Look at Steam. Some of the best selling games there, are simple 3d, or pixel 2d games.

    Personally, I'd rather play Shovel Knight, or Minecraft, rather than a Bling Bling fest, with lame gameplay.
     
  27. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,122
    I'm sick of the default ambient light of 20% grey, default white area lights, default terrain grass, default terrain textures, awful default FPS controller, and awful skyboxes of a lot of Unity projects. I'm not sure what your point is here.
     
  28. Archania

    Archania

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Posts:
    1,662
    People are too lazy or don't understand what to do about changing it.
    They are set as default for a reason. It is up to the user to change and modify as needed. Issue is that most people just don't do it.
     
  29. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    I'm sick of taxes, what's your point here? Actually what's my point here.. Errr. Oh yeah, I like eating lemons.. Honestly I really do.

    Well anyway, I'm testing out Unreal 4.3.. If it passes the no monitor smash test it's in.
     
    Ryiah and Imre like this.
  30. nipoco

    nipoco

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Posts:
    2,008
    My point is, that with no effort, you can't create a good game.

    All you get are visually equal games, with the same default look.
    That also applies to Unitys default ugly look. As well as to UE4's post FX fest. Neither of those is really creative.
     
  31. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,122
    Except you're kinda framing that as a problem with UE4 when it's a problem with literally every game engine. The thing is though? It's actually a lot easier to get the aesthetics you want in UE4 out of the box. Not the default settings, but the aesthetic itself. I'm working on some test projects in UE4 and right now the only thing I've had to do to get one of my things working is set up a special system so I can emulate the light vector node that UE3/UDK had. The whole process took maybe an afternoon of experimenting.

    Right now UE4 isn't just an appealing option from a financial standpoint, but an appealing option from a development standpoint and that's a huge problem for Unity.
     
  32. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    @ShilohGames

    That Unity free version of the Medieval pack looks the same in Unity Pro to me.. Hmm!

    Also I believe it's about setting your own expectations, who is your competition and how far do you want to go?
     
  33. inrain

    inrain

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    Posts:
    36
    I subscribed to UE4. It'll be weeks before I feel comfortable with it. After a couple days of testing, it's quite obvious how beneficial it'll be once I'm in the flow. In the short term, I'm learning both Unity and UE4, about 50/50 time split per day now. (Most of the online courses are around Unity and still of great value.) Handling both works for now.

    In using UE4, one point strikes me even harder. Unity Pro vs. Free stripping away profiling and other optimizations is incredibly short-sighted. Every game built on Unity using Free comes with Unity's powered-by logo. It's meant to imprint favorably into the world's eyeballs and memory. Every game built on Free is therefore a direct reflection toward public perception of Unity itself (and thus the rest of Unity developers to some degree). We know that sentiment on various forums. There's a running perception that Unity isn't powerful and surprise when anything capable is built with it. Less ignorant people are forced to explain that it's a powerful 3D engine in the right hands.

    Unity Free is one of the smartest, most appreciated tactics of Unity. It's given developers everywhere incredible access to learn and create. That's wonderful. However, then Unity
    effectively discourages those same developers from certain optimizations and good practices. The majority of them are walled off by a $0 to $225/month gap. I know it's a valid pricing strategy. It works to a degree. It made a lot of money for them, hopefully. Yet, the duality of making Free pervasive and discouraging a focus on quality and speed is, at least from my perspective, a tactic that degrades the brand over the long run. If they continue that pricing gap, I'll understand their desire to keep testing those waters and wish them well.

    Here's to Unity 5 being a beast regardless. Waiting for the rundown at Unite 2014.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    Ryiah likes this.
  34. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    Personally, I'd rather play Shovel Knight, or Minecraft, rather than a Bling Bling fest, with lame gameplay.
    You can't compare pure gameplay and Retro games with what some population of hard core gamers only waiting for great graphics. Who said better advanced graphics was not compatible with best gameplay : Mario Kart 8 , Mario World 3D etc ...
    Let's forget default engine packs, but yes Epic put bunch of money to make propose grogeous 3D level demos. Unity could do the same.

    A simple example :
    It is some years Free version stays without performant HDR,Bloom, AA, even when it was not free. I never considered 1500$ as i'm not a company and don't have incredible game idea. The game would be for PC mainly, like many other people
    i thaught : hey where is the Bloom or AA that can really enhance a game , Bloom is something that even existed on BLitz3D.
    So like many people that would not put 1500$ and want attractive minimum screen effects , i just took and tried affordable 3D engine alternatives to have the benefit of enhancing it with HDR, DOF, Bloom , Anti Aliasing ... The problem is none had the easyness of C# and not same tools interface and many problematics.
    Now UE4 offers me the possibility to finally have my 3D assets looks gorgeous with PBS, and lot of enhancements features (AA, DOF, Bloom, Global Illumination etc) and simple Blueprints. Only the gameplay remaining the same just need to port it, so the choice is simple.

    There is many people that don't stay or don't go for Free because they looking at some advanced waters and sky , screen effects or terrain on others alternative engines, they find just find it looks incredible better than Unity Free. so they prefer to pay a cheap price and learn another engine like Esenthel, Ogre 3D and others. Even if they make a simple outdoor game not so bad buying some good assets, they want it to look great with Anti Aliasing , Bloom , Dof and some others.

    I like UT for the asy coding side and editor, but the Free version is really lacking minimum enhancements for users wanting for a specific game the appealing lightening and effects factor.
    Some pure moutain and water exploration game or demo made by some amateur will always look better on other affordable 3D engines rather than in UT Free.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    ShilohGames, Teila and sandboxgod like this.
  35. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,138
    No argument there. In fact, I covered exactly that in the very post you quoted:
    (I nested in an earlier quote for clarity.)

    Nobody's claiming that the free version can do everything. That's the whole point - if you want to be able to do everything then you have to buy in. But the free version does let you do a huge range of stuff really well. Any claim to the contrary is a simple case of "blaming the tools" - you either picked the wrong ones, or you've still got learning to do.

    Yes, good games could indeed be made better by having some more tools, effects, etc. up their sleeves - but I stand by my assertion that if you can't make a good game with the tools in Unity free then just having more tools at your disposal won't change that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    Jingle-Fett likes this.
  36. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,138
    Sure but isn't this the same with all tech things? Tech is constantly moving forward, often at a startling an unpredictable rate. We have to make choices at the start of projects based on what's available at the time.

    In this case - as is pretty common - mid-development you've found a new option that would have been superior if it had available back when you'd been making the choice, which it was not. As a result, you now seem to be getting frustrated at Unity for not being as good as that new option is, even though back when you made your choice you must have thought it the best way forward and were presumably happy with the pricing and terms.

    If you imagine for a moment that you had known that UE4 was coming, its pricing and terms, and exactly the state it would be in today all in advance back when you were picking an engine for your current project, would you have instead picked UE4 knowing that you'd have to delay the start of your project? That's another key consideration for people getting upset at greener grass for current projects - UE4 wasn't available when you started, and that's a pretty colossal prerequisite for a tool being suitable for a project!
     
  37. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,138
    Me too, though we have different taste in games. ;)

    UE4's out-of-the-box effects style is technically very impressive, but artistically it's going to get bland real fast for exactly the reasons you've given.

    Unity doesn't really have any real style out of the box. I've always been cool with that, though, because I don't want my stuff to look like everyone else's stuff by using default effects. I also think that a lot of high end studios using Unreal put a fair bit of effort into tweaking the out-of-the-box stuff to suit their desired style better. WIthout that effort, if everyone just presses the same "turn on the effects buttons", all of the games will look samey regardless of how much fancy tech is behind it.


    Absolutely. Having a good looking game isn't about ticking a box to turn on the tech. It's about having genuinely good art team and a quality art direction.
     
  38. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    It were use Unity or build my own and the latter option would of added three years to the project, it wasn't out of choice I picked Unity up. But still I grew fond of it...

    It wasn't available when I started, but some people are waiting for Unity 5.0. It's like juggling balls...
     
  39. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    2,502
    Really? When I watch the Medieval pack videos side by side, the Pro version looks quite a bit better than the Free version to me.
     
  40. rockysam888

    rockysam888

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Posts:
    650
    The main difference between them is having shadow and other effects applied.
     
  41. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,122
    Okay, I guess I have to point this out again.

    This isn't just "a better thing came along for my specific project" but "the thing that came along is better for pretty much all projects that aren't just 2D titles." Even that last bit there is a bit weird to say because Epic is making pretty dramatic strides with their 2D system in a really short period of time.

    Right now Unity's problem isn't just UE4's attractive entry point for a smoother and easier to learn development process, but the fact that UE4 is improving at a dramatic rate in all areas when it was already dramatically ahead of Unity for most 3D project development. Meanwhile, Unity seems to move at a snail's pace by comparison. I have to point at the GUI as a prime example of this. People were expecting that the new GUI would finally drop in Unity 3.5, which was nearly 2.5 years ago. On the UE4 front, they've been working on this and it's actually still easier to make a GUI using blueprints in UE4 than it is to make any GUI in Unity right now. Bugs have persisted in Unity for years, but many bugs in UE4 are getting fixed in a matter of weeks, if not days.

    It's not like Epic just dropped a clone of Unity Pro online and said "$20 a month and 5% revenue after $3000." They came out with an excellent engine and they've stuck by their initial promises to listen to their community and keep things running.

    This is what Unity is up against. Not just money, but every angle.
     
  42. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    WIthout that effort, if everyone just presses the same "turn on the effects buttons", all of the games will look samey regardless of how much fancy tech is behind it.
    Shaders are easy to edit, and you can modify keep ro remove screen effects, you can really change the artistic look of your 3D game.



    The main difference between them is having shadow and other effects applied.

    Indeed.
    If you need Bloom to enhance all lights and brighter colors, and anti aliasing to avoid really dirty edges, how can you do with UT Free. Buyed FX Lab plugin it just eat half frame rate on your game, too much slow. So you can only use another engine with some affordable hobbyst pricing could it be UE4 , Shiva 2, Esenthel or others.

    It will always be plenty of users of the Free version happy without needing more features (specially in 2D field) ,they sell games or stuff in the asset store.The main thread is lot more towards people having solid projects and using the Pro version.

    They came out with an excellent engine and they've stuck by their initial promises to listen to their community and keep things running.
    They are putting a big effort and money on their product towards inde people, it's not a simple try at indie market like Crysis have done, just giving the engine and let people try to use it. Could it be all the clear tutorials , commercial quality example projects , context help on editor , Blueprints, all is made to have you become able to make something and make you feel in a friendly placve , that's a big difference ( for example the car system and tutorials they put just shows that points).
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
  43. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    Well it looks different in engine than it does on the video, I can record a vid if ya want?
     
  44. TheDMan

    TheDMan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Posts:
    201
    Thats only true to an extent.

    Take a look at ShilohGames post, the videos both of the Free and Pro version uses the exact same (and exceptionally great art).

    No matter how great your art is, the Pro version looks a million times better, and a million times more appealing. The Free version looks like its over 10 years old.

    So people can keep throwing out the "its the art and skill of the artist that matters" .... but if the canvas is S***ty you can be the greatest artist in the world and it wont help you much.
     
    Ryiah, Imre, Deleted User and 3 others like this.
  45. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,811
    True, but still, can you source exceptionally great art? Yes the engine is better looking. Yes the car can go that fast. But still, no point unless you can drive it that fast, or that well.

    In my case I simply don't have enough hours in the day to make use of Unreal Engine 4. At our team size, we get better visuals from Unity purely simply because we get more done in the same time frame. Therefore the game looks better, from our team from Unity, for the hardware platform we target.

    If this wasn't the case, we would put up or shut up, and be using Unreal Engine 4 instead of Unity 4. Since Unity 5 looks a whole lot better, there does not appear to be any reason why I should switch yet.

    I am not a "fanboy". I'm too old for that S***. But, I see beyond just the button you push for visuals. I see the work required to animate those visuals in code. To code visual effects. It's not just - lets enable lensflares, physically based bloom and all that. I can have all that in Unity with a few asset store purchases.

    Price isn't an issue for us, it's about what I can get done within an amount of time.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  46. sandboxgod

    sandboxgod

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Posts:
    366
    Ah, but my post was discussing Art portfolios (not gameplay). I see where you are coming from. But the writing is on the wall. 3d artists use CryEngine, UDK, and UE4 primarily to pimp their work and get jobs in the industry. Those extra post vfx mean a hell of a lot to those guys. They care not about gameplay

    edit: I'd love Unity to chase after them. But the whole Pro vs Free thing messes that up. A better subscription model might work? Hell they are using UE4... But who knows maybe they'll try Unity 5 anyway. After all, they do buy ZBrush. Granted ZBrush is bout half the price and upgrades have been free (so bad example I guess). Actually that's a super-bad example LOL
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
  47. 3agle

    3agle

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    508
    It's funny how many people have shown in this thread that their stance of 'Pick the right tool for the job', is actually, really, 'Pick the right tool for the job, so long as it's Unity'.

    My personal opinion, is that Unreal Engine 4 is not being evaluated fairly by a lot of Unity users, and that's fine.
    It's understandable that Epic's attempt at emulating the workflow that made Unity so great has made some people uncomfortable. It's logical, even.

    However what doesn't seem to have hit home yet, is that they achieved it. I'm not going to argue any points because I'm honestly not bothered, but I will explain how I feel.

    When I open Unreal Engine, I'm constantly inspired and motivated to create something interesting, new, shiny. It feels like the days when I used to play with the Quake engine and get super excited about being able to emulate curved surfaces with BSP geometry. It feels like the next step.
    When I open Unity, I feel like 'I have this great Idea, where should I start?' and the answer is normally 'Well, I better re-write this engine feature' or 'Better make sure I work around that little quirk that makes this much harder to do'.

    I'm not saying Unity isn't great, but there's a reason Unreal has been an industry standard for so long.
    I'll still use Unity, for sure, it's my day-job anyway. But the ability of the Unreal Engine is staggering, and I don't think people should miss that for some prejudices.

    I don't want to start an argument here, like I said, I don't care for it. I'm just stating my opinion, to be thrown into the mixing pot, as it were.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
    Ryiah likes this.
  48. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    About 3D art , all 3D engines have beginners and not art skilled people making cubes or bad visuals and push the button effects to add bloom , DOF and just show how good it is.

    My personal opinion, is that Unreal Engine 4 is not being evaluated fairly by a lot of Unity users, and that's fine.

    That's the problem without really test tools and system how can you really say it could never fit with your needs , not enougt valuable or you could not work as good and fast ? Specially when many tools are in it to speed up your work (collisions import and creation, LOD , Matinee ...)

    I see the work required to animate those visuals in code. To code visual effects. It's not just - lets enable lensflares, physically based bloom and all that. I can have all that in Unity with a few asset store purchases.
    Many things are done with tools to spare you have to code it , oculd it be particles, movement, animations, collisions, physics ... But sure custom programming in C# remains easier.

    I tested workflow importing FBX character self made from Blender, it's almost streight forward and will keep imroving, managing nimations and blending-states is as similar as Unity Animator.
    Importing
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkJPfGEcrrA
    Managing animations
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyYTYF0G5Kk
    Something i don't have tested but clothing with Apex is also steighrt forward
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRaStTw0-l0

    You can customize anything almost, on terrain creation you make a custom shader with as many texture, effects as you need :
    (and you just use paint tool on editor to paint your texture)


    All that without needing to spend 90$ on each missing component for the Pro version.
    Many people would have less headache problems having such highly configurable system without struggling with lot of plugins.There is lot of helpers like physic volumes for water an many others, very configurable , you just gain lot of time in production, and many others, not sure UT to have all equivalent on plugins.

    You must try the tool and tutorials to see it's more than meet the eye. Perhaps less lightweight than Unity, less easy in pure coding part , or not as good workflow for some people, but definitively a better tool for some others.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
  49. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    @TheDMan

    YESSS YEESSSSSS! Somebody finally gets it, rendering tech is VERY important to the look of a game. Everyone should know this, they should also realise the trade off between said tech and performance. Here is the catch, rendering tech is artwork in itself..

    The engine and renderer is THE most important part of the design, no point spending 70 hours on a beautiful char only to be let down by piss poor rendering tech in the game engine.

    @3agle

    I know for what I do Unreal is a better engine, but it still doesn't mean I'd prefer to use it.
     
    Ryiah and sandboxgod like this.
  50. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    25,811
    That's getting way off topic guys :) This thread is about why Unity can't offer the same price. Perhaps we should rename this thread to "Other Engines" and generall merge everything from all other engines. Since that's practically what people talk about.

    Simply putting "engine X has this feature and it's cheaper than asset store" isn't "why can't unity offer the same." but yeah, if that's what the community wants to talk about, I'm willing to merge threads and rename this one so everyone else can get on with what they do want to use ie Unity, on the Unity forums.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.