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

@Jingle Fett:
About the imposter system:
The point is it is much more then an imposter system (see this post), you can bake stuff to render textures (even from blueprint), e.g. depth maps and use it to shadow trees without using lighting on the tree and much more stuff that you can do with render textures. Then combine it with normal maps and LOD and hardware instancing... All that tech was not available on N64, so for me at least these are not the same thing. But yes, this argument makes no sense. Over and out.

 

So anyone finding the bug could use debugger in a first phase , this already helps a lot determine where it is.
UE gives you full source code , mainly for you to be able to program anything that you want in C++. They don't say : "we give you open source to help us correcting bugs", but "it"s open cource you can modify or add anything you want".
Could it be gameplay, rendering , your personnal editor additions to make your own custom game editor to be able , or simply ot change anything that you need.

Unity has it's strenght, it remains lot more easier in programming side indeed. But for pople using Playmaker with UT, they could switch any time tyo UE4. Another point is Unity multi component per opbject that is very powerfull, i didn't have dig it on that side but it seems you can't have multiple blueprints per object.

Will Unity propose some semi open source possibility, i'm not sure , i think they will keep their actual system that is not bad as you can make tool addons or graphic addons, and keep core features closed.
About pricing changes will be needed to adapt to the new market offers indeed, not same pricing and system , perhaps Royalties for users of Free version , to at least allow them to use the full package without limitations.

 

UE4 has a scripting API that you can implement. An Unreal staff member added Lua bindings in like a week. So if you want to give your gameplay programmers C#, just implement this interface.

 

And I've nothing else to do

 

Generally custom non official interfaces are let down after some year or poorly maintained , people having other horizons plans. C# support to be good you need it to be officialy part of the UE package, so more chances to it to be maintained and evolving with versions.

 

In every successfull open source software you have several top notch prog that spend their entire time validating fix...

I didn't say there is not interesting indie project with UE ???

UE have made very clear that blueprint is not made to make a game, but for artist to test things. But hey every new guy think they are smarter than experience UE people and will try to make a game with it, because... it looks easy. It only look But sure some will succeed with their spagethi program (or a 9999th flappy bird clone)

"terrain , LOD , lightening or advanced physics clothes and destruction, some specific animations system as IK collision handling you will struggle a lot." How many indie is dealing with any of this stuff ?
FEZ, super meatboy, antichamber, vlambeer, hotline miamie etc... they all know that without a big AAA team, you should avoid touching these things. Do you ?

c#:
I have 8-9 years pro daily experience in C++ and I'm more productive in C#.
Microsoft designed it for that!

Everthing is very new and very exciting, but wait a few months, you will see all the long term problem that AAA are already dealing with

 

Compared to what you have to implement for any reasonably complex game (custom batching, async loading, gameplay systems, ...) this should be piece of cake. And if your gameplay programmers are better at C# than C++, blueprints or Lua, then it should still save you time in the long run. Actually most scripting APIs I have seen in my life can be implemented in a day or less if you know what you do.
Better than reimplementing and fixing all the features that are missing in another engine and just using it because it has C#.

 

I don't have a big AAA team and I'm happy to touch all that stuff. Maybe Unity gave me the confidence to, since Unity's tools are dumbed down (in a good way), which places those systems within grasping range of a small team.

 

Humm ... i seen some WIP game that could tunr in complete game using blueprint. Strange , are you sure Epic said that ?

This is what we call coders point of view people. Many people using unity ro 3D artists uses Playmaker to make complete games. Blueprints allow you to quickly modify and create interactove gameplay in your game without having to compile, like many AAA engines using scripts, it allows more productivity for designers and 3D artists that are not coders to design level interactions also.
Me like many ithers are not interested in coding missing features and spend time in 3D creation instead, so it's important that we have all tools for LOD, streaming , shader editor ... all in place already.
Blueprints are interfacing C++ for a more hight level usage But for coders who know perhaps they will propose C# soon ?
UE4 is clever tools to help you , not C++ coding only :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=px8Hw7SbWdE&index=3&list=PLZlv_N0_O1gaHlJrP4F12Px7ceHw3PDq-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIvcTwlosMQ
I wish we could find such tools in Unity some day without having to pay plugins.

 

I don't see what's clever about options which are already baseline available in Unity. It's not doing anything more than what Unity's physx components do.

 

UE4 seems more polished : www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw1UK85sARc
But it's a matter of taste again.
More serious issue is UT can't handle populated comple levels with medium size out of the box making it crash. Will that be better next time ?Will LOD tool, other tools and others features will be available for all and non Pro users ? I really hope.
Until Unity 5 comes out , what could be a long waiting , some of us have PBS, many tools and no limitations for 20$ and some idea project going on.

 

So, got a bug report for us? Cos I've got pretty large levels going and it's not crashing. I'm not saying it's bug free but medium is stretching the bounds of reason at this point. Anyway since you've said you're using UE4 why not check back after Unite? Constantly posting UE4's praises isn't actually constructive nor does it have anything to do with the price (which is what this thread is about).

 

Not from me but from a more bigger project as Son of Nor game.
How is your game in terms of scaling and how many things are going on on the level is what can make you reeach the limit ?

Well some people take short cuts like UE4 is not for beginners or no game can be made using blueprints only ?
A small counter example among others :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=StYIWJm62Go

Many people don't have tested both products just post pre made ideas they have or things they have read, some people makes statements without even paid some 20$ to try UE4. That's why some of us having tried both products have a better view on both and that are not fanboy of UT or UE ,we can come on conversation to correct quick affirmations.

As using UT4 for prototyping a 2D and some mobile 3D game where it shines , but i like also UE trying and learning perhaps that could become a game later so each have it's strengh. I recognize UE would need some C# support.
Another major issue of UE4 , it's Beta engine, so lot of bugs , i could not deploy with crashes each time , 2D will need to grow because Unity have lot better editor and features for 2D ...
so no UE is not the best engine specially on smaller and individual projects , but it reamains a big bulldozer in indie area, not recognizing is lying to yourself.

UE have some good things some of us have for 20$ , so let's wait and see if UT will propose some almost as good package for amateurs.

 

In my game (it's open world 2.5D) there's around 4,000 colliders and thousands of objects per scene, and Unity appears to be doing OK. I'm wondering if the problem is with physx that people have in larger scenes, or just generally running out of ram. In any case, if it crashes it's best to report a bug so it will get fixed.

I'm not saying Unity isn't flawed but everything's flawed. Medium sized scenes are what Unity's good at (I can't see it being robust for huge worlds at this point in 4.x, no... but 5 should deal with it nicely).

Exactly, and that's all that needs to be said. The people have spoken, Unity has heard, the rest is up to Unite and beyond. If no announcement then people are entitled to just do what they will

 

@hippocoder: I totally understand where you're coming from. Sometimes, though (as per the information below), I don't think letting false assumptions stand will help anyone.

@Wild Factor: Sorry if this comes off negatively, but I don't think you understand at all what's going on over there.

"In every successful open source software you have several top notch prog that spend their entire time validating fix.."

[They have teams for just that, and it's been working pretty well. Everything integrated into the engine passes strict quality control to meet their standards. This is a good thing, yes?]

"But you should ask AAA team that have used Unreal with source code for many years... When you will be force to spend 2 entire months redoing your production plugin each time the unreal make a massive update, like what I've experience in a AAA team, you will change your mind."

[Won't you have the same issue with a closed source engine after a major update? Having the source would certainly be a plus, not a detriment. The best solution, of course, would be to avoid that upgrade mid-project unless absolutely necessary.]

"UE have made very clear that blueprint is not made to make a game, but for artist to test things."

[No. In fact, blueprints are continually improved from build to build with the explicit goal that they can used exclusively (or nearly exclusively) someday for almost everything (and the "almost" gets smaller with every version). This has been repeated more than once on their weekly Twitch streams.

One of their artists (artist, not programmer) made an entire Flappy Bird clone using only Blueprints, and not one line of code, as an early test to make just that point. Now, most UE4 developers will likely use a little of both, but I think it's nice to see that functionality available for non-programmers.

One of Epic's own game projects, Fortnite, makes extensive use of the BP system to empower its artists to create systems and implement ideas which would have been impossible before without programmer assistance; this both accelerates their workflow and allows them to use their creativity in some pretty cool ways.]

"But hey every new guy think they are smarter than experience UE people and will try to make a game with it, because... it looks easy."

[That's really not the culture. People work together to solve problems over there, and I have yet to meet anyone on the forum who thinks he's smarter than the Epic guys. That's one of the benefits of sharing source with the users (as well as their heavy presence on the forums). The most talented community members contribute quite a bit, and get credit for doing so - 33 user submitted bug fixes and features were added just in update 4.3.]

" "terrain , LOD , lightening or advanced physics clothes and destruction, some specific animations system as IK collision handling you will struggle a lot." How many indie is dealing with any of this stuff ?"

[The list is a bit longer -- for example, I didn't see a visual editor, cinematics editor or advanced material editor listed.

The better question, though, would be which out of the box features might any indie want to use for their project? It might be just one or two, or it might be more, depending on the project's needs. Regardless, in UE4, that integration means: A) It won't have to be purchased, B) The functionality is generally much better than a third party add-on, and C) The features will be properly maintained by the engine's developers.]

"FEZ, super meatboy, antichamber, vlambeer, hotline miamie etc... they all know that without a big AAA team, you should avoid touching these things. Do you ?"

[That's just the thing - if it's already built in, will enhance your game, and is easy to implement, why the heck would you leave it out?]

"c#:
I have 8-9 years pro daily experience in C++ and I'm more productive in C#.
Microsoft designed it for that!"

[And Blueprints were designed to be more productive than C++ as well, with a specific emphasis on game development. It sounds like apples and oranges to me. It's all about personal preference -- use what you're comfortable with.]

 

Entirely made with Blueprints.

Looks better than my game! Haha!

Regarding Unite: I think Epic's solution with weekly live streams is an elegant solution. They even save money not to organize an mega event. Also it has a comfortable mood, some guys casually talking about thier engine. Somehow it emits a more "indie" feeling which is just cool.

In this regard the Unity staff comes sometimes with not a very proper attitude: http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/wo...etes-negative-feedback-on-asset-store.249824/
(Please check Caitlyn's reply in aspect of the whole thread)
This is something Unity has to change in my opinion.

Regarding Open Source: It is remarkably how many contribute to a solution and working as a whole to improve UE4. That is something which vanished in the Unity Community I think: Look at the Unify Wiki, where at some point people stoped sharing thier solutions or workarounds.

 

Ok pause a second. What I have to say has nothing to do with Unreal vs Unity.


.............It's not open source!


Yes, you do get full source access by paying a monthly fee for licensing, but you cannot redistribute the source freely to non-licensees, thus: not open-source.

find me the words open-source in their EULA

Since you require a license it goes against the very definition of open-source. I actually think it's great they give full source access but I won't kid myself into thinking it's open source.

Please send an email to Epic and ask them directly(with an answer from an epic employee): Is your software Open Source? (these exact words with a yes/no answer)

You will have your answer there.

The fact that Epic never corrects anyone(nor says the words"open source" themselves anywhere) in even their own forums is extremely disturbing.

They never write or claim anywhere that their software is open source. Full source access is not "open-source"

p.s
I'm not jumping into the versus..

I use both engines, you'll find me in both forums. I like them both for different reasons. I use Ue4 with my friends right now for fun, we're making a small first person puzzle game with our own server running perforce. And I use Unity Pro on my own since I prefer it personally.

 

I totally agree. I probably should have formatted that wall of text above a bit better, but that was actually a quote from Wild Factor, not me.

Okay, back on topic. Really!

 

I would say good.

This is the main point of visual programming like blueprint used also by Snowdrop engine also, their artists can create gameplay interactions , dynamic visuals without kowing programming , just take a look at 1:58
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NviN5ZiL5bs
You gain a more creative artists with more freedom, once you have some 3D engine completed, the concerned part by productivity is the 3D part not the code.
Blueprints are really easy www.youtube.com/watch?v=XybOzCRJSFo

What is the point , it's Unity have such plugins like Playmaker for example , but it's not free (90$), they should consider make it part of the engine.

 

I'm not disputing the advantages of having source code access. In many cases it can be highly beneficial. However. What I'm saying about the source code access is that in Unity's case (which is different from most due to how open it is without source) we don't get to just talk about the "negatives" of the asset store while glossing over the benefits as well. People don't get just to go "herp derp Unreal has source, Unity doesn't! Haha!" It's not as simple as that.

In Unity's case, it's very much a cost/benefit scenario. Do the advantages of granting source code access to the community outweigh the negatives?
For example, if Unity offers source code access, a lot of the middleware Unity uses (like Umbra and Enlighten) goes straight out the window. Unity then needs to spend valuable time and money re-implementing features Unity previously had (no doubt why Epic is making their own real-time GI instead of using Enlighten directly), while also breaking backward compatibility with older projects . This is time and money that could have been spent fixing bugs or implementing brand new features. Or spend it on features more Unity users will benefit from.

You talk a lot about the negatives of the asset store (and that's fair, they're valid points!), but you're also completely ignoring the benefits.
For one thing, it encourages contributors to make the best products they can because the better the product, the more money they make. Because they're working on their feature separate from Unity, they can achieve much faster turnaround times and work much more closely with the community than Unity could ever hope to.
And what happens when Unity decides to include their feature as standard? Well if they want to continue making money, they need to step up their game and make their product better than before (for example Unity 5 is going to have IBL, a feature of Skyshop. What will Skyshop add to compensate? Same applies to NGUI).

This frees Unity up to work on more important features. Maybe not important to you in particular, but Unity has a large community. The needs of the mobile developer isn't the same as the needs of a AAA developer, neither of which are the same needs of architectural designers or military training software. Unity has to consider all of those needs and if you think your needs are more important, well that's plain selfish and indicates you're not looking at the bigger picture.

About having to spend money on all those extra addons. YOU need those. YOU need skyshop and shaderforge for YOUR project. YOU need that kind of shader system. Not everyone does, certainly not a large portion of the Unity userbase. You also have a number of free solutions, you don't HAVE to buy them. Blueprints/logic editor? Antares Universe has a free version last I checked. Shaderforge? Strumpy is free and open source to boot. And so on...

Those features are things you choose to buy or implement yourself. Those features aren't "missing" from Unity as you put it. They're simply features that Unity doesn't have at the moment.

Now what if I were to tell Unity to focus on other features, hmm? Who should they listen to in that case? You or me? Who's right and who's wrong? Well like I said, Unity has to consider all needs and then prioritize what they work on.

For example, in the case of my own game BHB, I don't use Skyshop. I don't use shaderforge. I don't use NGUI. I don't use any logic editors or or GPU particles. Yet in spite of being a one-man team, I've managed to implement most of what I need myself.
BHB also isn't some little rinky dink indie or mobile game either:

Spoiler

So why should Unity waste time on features I don't need??
(Because that's basically what your complaint boils down to here).

The point is, Unity isn't at nearly as much of a disadvantage from lack of source access as people claim. There are pros and cons to both sides and neither is inherently better. Don't forget that Unity has features that Unreal doesn't too, and if you really need the source it's available (which I feel is a fair compromise).

 

Just a better to have it than not really, I doubt I'll ever use it I don't want to deal with that headache unless I must.

P.S Floaters destroyed AHAHAHAH!
P.P.S Looks good!

 

I don't know..
Squashing bugs, or adding features on your own, or by a fellow community member is a pretty big advantage vs. waiting for bug fixes, or features for years.

 

Because you're not the only person using Unity.

 

Yeah, I'd have to agree. Different users have different needs, and more features help to accommodate more project types, which means more customers for UT.

Of course, I'm also in agreement that bug fixing for current features is an even bigger priority, so it's nice to see that UT seems to be taking steps in the right direction on that front. Many users won't have faith in the usability of upcoming new features unless they see that bugs from older features can be handled expeditiously.

 

*le sigh...*

Spoiler

Evidently you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Here are some relevant excerpts from my post.

 

Oh I agree completely. Don't get me wrong, if UT decides to make the source available, hey I'm not going to complain! I just feel its relatively reasonable the way it is since if we ever do find ourselves in a situation where we need it...Unity already has source licenses available (no idea on price though, probably expensive but I'm sure special arrangements can be made).

P.S The UI programmers at Zeta Corporation think they're geniuses but in reality they just have a rather juvenile sense of humor
P.P.S Thanks!

 

Exactly it's not opensource! And I don't understand why people keep saying this.

 

Not really. Open source licenses are indeed licenses too.

 

lol my mistake, apologies. I was typing it quickly/blindly.. insert/replace> "paying for licensing"

Since you require paying for licensing it goes against the very definition of open-source.

 

"In every successful open source software you have several top notch prog that spend their entire time validating fix.."

[They have teams for just that, and it's been working pretty well. Everything integrated into the engine passes strict quality control to meet their standards. This is a good thing, yes?]

Exactly my point !!! Bug are not fixed much faster (if you just extract the sentence without the previous quote, of couse the meaning changed...)

"But you should ask AAA team that have used Unreal with source code for many years... When you will be force to spend 2 entire months redoing your production plugin each time the unreal make a massive update, like what I've experience in a AAA team, you will change your mind."

[Won't you have the same issue with a closed source engine after a major update? Having the source would certainly be a plus, not a detriment. The best solution, of course, would be to avoid that upgrade mid-project unless absolutely necessary.]

No you won't have the same issue. See how many times Unity change the interface. See how fast most plugin are updated on the asset store! Ask a AAA team with UE4...
Having the source code is a plus for many things, but not plugin. In case Epic or Unity don't fix a bug that bother you fast enough, you can do it yourself. It also reduce the depedency and the financiall risk. AAA team can't risk using an engine without de source code, because if EPIC goes bankrout, they need to be able to continu working.

Source code -> reduce dependency with the engine maker.

"UE have made very clear that blueprint is not made to make a game, but for artist to test things."

[No. In fact, blueprints are continually improved from build to build with the explicit goal that they can used exclusively (or nearly exclusively) someday for almost everything (and the "almost" gets smaller with every version). This has been repeated more than once on their weekly Twitch streams.

One of their artists (artist, not programmer) made an entire Flappy Bird clone using only Blueprints, and not one line of code, as an early test to make just that point. Now, most UE4 developers will likely use a little of both, but I think it's nice to see that functionality available for non-programmers.

One of Epic's own game projects, Fortnite, makes extensive use of the BP system to empower its artists to create systems and implement ideas which would have been impossible before without programmer assistance; this both accelerates their workflow and allows them to use their creativity in some pretty cool ways.]

I don't see how this is an argument against what I'm saying. You agree with me and confirm what I'm saying!
And whaoooouuu a flappy bird clone!!! (We can do a flappy bird clone in assembly... is it a reason to do it in assembly???) Sur they probably made a good use of the terrain and material editor

"But hey every new guy think they are smarter than experience UE people and will try to make a game with it, because... it looks easy."

[That's really not the culture. People work together to solve problems over there, and I have yet to meet anyone on the forum who thinks he's smarter than the Epic guys. That's one of the benefits of sharing source with the users (as well as their heavy presence on the forums). The most talented community members contribute quite a bit, and get credit for doing so - 33 user submitted bug fixes and features were added just in update 4.3.]

I didn't say anything like that ??
But you're right, I'm wrong by saying they think they are smarter. They don't listen to advice. I may say it otherwise: People thinking that they can make an entire game with blueprint, should listence to the wise UE4 team that advise them not too.

" "terrain , LOD , lightening or advanced physics clothes and destruction, some specific animations system as IK collision handling you will struggle a lot." How many indie is dealing with any of this stuff ?"

[The list is a bit longer -- for example, I didn't see a visual editor, cinematics editor or advanced material editor listed.

The better question, though, would be which out of the box features might any indie want to use for their project? It might be just one or two, or it might be more, depending on the project's needs. Regardless, in UE4, that integration means: A) It won't have to be purchased, B) The functionality is generally much better than a third party add-on, and C) The features will be properly maintained by the engine's developers.]

Hey, but they don't use any of these... Every big indie title can be made only with feature in Unity Free

"FEZ, super meatboy, antichamber, vlambeer, hotline miamie etc... they all know that without a big AAA team, you should avoid touching these things. Do you ?"

[That's just the thing - if it's already built in, will enhance your game, and is easy to implement, why the heck would you leave it out?]

Because it needs time and money just to test it, make it looks good in your art direction etc.... If you have a team of artist, no problem. If you don't, that's just stupid (or you are a newbie that want to make a mmorpg in a 3D world and like the bluit-in lens flare effect and will never finish a game). Don't bite off more than you can chew.

[And Blueprints were designed to be more productive than C++ as well, with a specific emphasis on game development. It sounds like apples and oranges to me. It's all about personal preference -- use what you're comfortable with.]


No blueprint was not design to be more productive than C++. Don't try to convince yourself. Blueprint is design to let an artist without nowledge of programing, testing things (door opening etc..), and making prototypes without waiting a prog to be free. It reduce the dependancy between the art and the prog team, which increase the productivity in a big AAA team. It's also use to make quick gameplay prototype.

Blueprint is high productive for a prototype, but you will hit a productivity wall as soon as you will try to do a real game. It's also a one man prog. Don't try to work at several prog, or fixing a bug in someone else blueprint code.
But UE4 experencied prog who design this thing and me, may be wrong...

PS: If UE4 is better, why are you still there ?
PS 2: I found the Unity Subscription too expensif.
PS 3: Sorry I'm provocative, and that's the way I am. Still what I'm saying is not always wrong... Even if it "attack" UE4 and your love for the brand.

 

That's not true. I can show you indie titles that show over 1000 units on screen at the same time (they tried with Unity and it failed with much fewer units). I can show you many indie titles that use render texture and post processing. There are indie titles that use custom rendering pipelines that you cannot do in Unity because you cannot change the renderer at that level.

 

Indeed. And as part of that, open-source must also be freely distributable. The Unreal source is not open-source, it is just source code.

I think that since many indies/hobbyists are are new to software development in general, a lot of these things (and the terminology) are new to them.

 

No free plugins are not good or not complete to really go farther.
For example I use Unity Free , for one project i want advanced lightening features , particle physics etc ... im' not ready to pay something as i don't know if one day i would complete it or would sell it.
UE4 give me all tools and advanced features without limitations for 20$, It's a big difference.

It is not perhaps full open source, but we know it has benefits and commuity is doing great things , stop lying to yourself.

Again saying blueprints can't make a game, more than flappy chicken ?when you have never digged blueprints for real or Playmaker in Unity ?
Blueprints has all you need , level changing , game templates, HUD, all input managements, file read/write and other new features braught by the community. What is missing for you to make a TPS or FPS game in blueprints ? nothing until you go very complex.
Some example of full blueprint amateur games ?

I would say to people putting false ideas, to pay 20$ and dig blueprints , follow tutorials and make something, and come back to discuss it within 3 or 4 weeks.
I know also some people making complete 3D mobile action andf other games using Playmaker in Unity.
So these people saying blueprint is not enough to make a reasonnable game are also saying playmaker in Unity is not enought to make a game. This is coder point of view against visual programming could it be UE or UT.

The only downside of blueprints if i had to compare with some Unity visual solutions, is that to make custom bluprint components you have to dig C++ and more complex framework , while in UT you can write them with simple C#.

UE remains strong tool and offer as for 20$ you have lot more than UT Pro that would cost at least 1500$.

 

So when the Free Software Foundation, the worldwide organization that has defined the terms for free and open source software since the early days of computing, makes a distinction between free and open source, they're actually wrong?

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html

 

WHO CARES

 

How you ppl find time to work on your games while arguing so much for so long on the internet?

 

Hi guys,

A few comments, apologies for the wall of text...

We engage with our community way more than people realize, which is understandable. In addition to these Unity forums, we have lots of email lists with numerous messages every day where we interact with the community. We set these up because they're super focused like on iOS, Android, Xbox One, UNET, Audio, etc. and the relevant devs actually monitor and moderate those so you always get an expert. This was our solution because the Unity forums are just too big and overwhelming for all the internal devs to monitor. But if you're not on those lists, then it would likely seem that we're so silent and uncommunicative I suppose. Some possible solutions would be to convert the email list traffic into forum threads so it's visible to everybody, or maybe we could create an email list justfor people that are actively posting on Unity vs UE4 if they aren't getting heard.

As for not listening to the feedback or acting on it, that simply isn't true. We have started a number of threads ourselves on fixing systems you brought to our attention. The piece that's missing on this is we're in the process of publicly posting roadmap info and that's going to be on our web site and we simply haven't gotten that finished yet. We have tons of work going on and all the recent feedback is being taken into account. Our sustained engineering has been releasing patches every week, and lots of bug fixes are making it out much faster now.

As for pricing, we have spent a ton of time thinking about this since Unity was created a decade ago, as well as both before and after GDC. We have spent the past few months talking to MANY Unity developers from the largest studios to part-time hobbyists to figure out if we're falling short, and where. Of all the various people and types of studios that use Unity, there's only really one group that feels we're not offering them a compelling value proposition right now: those making little or no money on games at the moment such as students, hobbyists, and new pro developers just starting out or without any money. For this group, UE4 is very interesting to them. And already some have already tried UE4 and come back and said they still prefer Unity and have asked us to help them as UE4 is workable for them (too immature and features change too fast to use commercially, royalties, not truly multi-platform, costs $$$ on consoles, runs too slow both editing and runtime on devices, etc., etc.)

We would like to find a way to help them and this group be successful of course. Many have asked us to implement some sort of royalty, but we won't do this as we simply don't believe in taxing our developers own IP. And we have received hundreds of ideas about all the ways we could restructure pricing, etc. We understand some people are frustrated and think we're not listening, but that's not the case. We've used this opportunity to gain as much insight into how game development has changed, and what we need to do to help all developers be successful. But as of this moment, there is no pricing-related decision or announcement were holding back on for Unite or anything like that. That could change of course, never say never, but as of now there are no plans to announce a price change.

On source code, most of the feedback people have given us from all our interviews and calls has been that they don't want source, they just need it sometimes to fix bugs or make small changes to move on. Keeping source updated is a pain, and merging sucks. But they mostly worry about having restricted source like UE4 rather than open source because of potential legal liability. This might not be a big issue for people just getting started, but for any studio doing commercial work this is a huge issue because their publishers and partners see it as a legal risk because if any UE4 code makes it's way into any of their projects, then they're liable to pay Epic royalties. So the studios are reluctant to have any internal projects use UE4 at all. A number of customers already have source to Unity and because we don't have royalties associated with our engine, it's well accepted, even by our big platform partners. We're looking how we can provide source for at least parts of Unity going forward so that our customers get what they need to get their projects done and shipped.

Our internal focus right now is simple: get 4.6 and uGUI out to the world, ship 5.0, and focus on making Unity the most reliable and delightful way to make games for any platform.

Cheers,
Brett

 

It's 2014. My initial reaction to this entire post is "mailing lists are still a thing?"

Like, I'm sorry, but that's one step removed from asking me to dial in to the Unity Developer BBS.

edit: I can't even figure out where these mailing lists are.

 

Hi bibbinator,
Thank you for your reply, though I am extremely disappointed to hear no decision of a price change has been made."those making little or no money on games at the moment such as students, hobbyists, and new pro developers just starting out or without any money" is actually many groups fit in a single sentence. I do believe these groups combined make up for a massive percentage of the Unity userbase. I do understand you have to do what you think is best for your business, but we will also do the same.

 

Good to hear from you, thanks.

Maybe a "get answer from the devs sub-forum" with very strict rules to minimize the non-sensical posts?

Good to hear that.

Sorry that sounds a little like BS. Costs on consoles are zero!!! And it covers all the main platforms, so for me that is multi-platform.

What? This argument smells a little. If you think about it you realize that the "risk" of having Unity source around is much larger. With UE4 it is clear you pay 5% if you use parts of its source in your project. With Unity this risk is absolutely unbound, Unity could sue any offender for 100% or more. So I don't see how this can be any argument pro Unity at all.

Free of cost with just an NDA please.

 

Thans for the answer , this is direct response and i like that as i am in that case of hobbysts.
I know the advantages and plus values of Unity , so i just have to hope to be successfull with Unity free or some UE game, then i'll consider buying Unity pro license to benefit maximum license and tools.

What bout Pro versions upgrades costs ? Some people complained saying it was too many or they was too expsensive ? It is a false statement ?

 

I still say that an easy to implement thing that would help alleviate at least some complaints would be to increase the Pro trial to an unlimited timeframe and to watermark builds with "Not for commercial release"

 

This evidence/conclusion is exactly the goal of his long message.

 

what?

 

Yep it's right, editor is somewhat slow even de activating effects, and mobile is not working so great right now , because of using it i can confirm.

 

about editor slowness:
In our last completed Unity project i'm getting 4fps in editor (also with play mode), unity stats still showing 60fps , thank god it runs fine when compiled to release (on i7 / 7970). Pressing play in editor and play starting take ~1minute (if not crashing with out-of-memory).

 

Are you saying that it isn't useful to construct a mailing list to email content and information to 100+ specific people? Would you find it more straightforward to individually type out each and every email address? In fact, what would your alternative be?

 

"Free" as in freedom, not cost. There are those who believe that some open-source licenses are too restrictive with regards to what other licenses they can be used with and things of that nature. It is a very minor distinction. The very core of open-source is that it is available for free (cost) to anyone with out limitation, and that you can redistribute modification/variations along with the source.

But that isn't really relevant, as Unreal source is neither free or open-source, you must pay to access it, it has restrictions for use, and you cannot distribute it.

 

That is wrong. Free of cost is not required. I can sell you OSS if I want to, I just have to provide you with access to the source code (only to you, my customers; and only for the very restrictive licenses like GPL, for MIT I can sell without giving you the source (by just distributing under my proprietary license)) and I cannot prevent that you distribute it (again if I distribute MIT code under my proprietary license I can).
There are actually many shady businesses that sell GPL licensed programs and there is no way to prevent that if they provide access to the source to their customers.

Please don't write about stuff you understand only halfway. There is so much stuff about OSS licenses on the internet that is wrong, don't add to that. Source: years of experience handling OSS licenses (like selling GPL code to companies, so no it must not be free of cost for sure).

 

So finally we have the response about this thread, that is Unity won't offer the same as UE4 it means.

I think it's better and Unity knows it's value , advantages and believe in their product.
Free version will stay like actual one with some limitations, at least it's free andf you can sell a game until reaching enought to buy Unity Pro. No royalties is a big positive point.
Now the only question is when Unity 5 will be shipped ?