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

Biggest flaw is ONLY considering the 19$ revenue.

 

Well, can you provide me with links to researched data on how many (%) of indie developers who use Unity made enough profit in their game for the 5% royalty?

Like I said before, the above calculation were made for the most conservative estimate - since I do not have data on how many % of indie developers who made more than enough profit for the 5% royalty, I chose not to include it.

 

Seriously? The only thing I took issue with was The truth will be somewhere between those two numbers which is as I said, unlikely to be true.

 

It should be noted that Epic are quite able to drop the sub, and probably will at some point if they feel the need to compete harder, or bring in a lower barrier of entry. Right now this is just pocket change considering their partners (tencent) earn a billion a month. 5% is a big deal for epic, and the mainstay of their revenue to come.

It could be considered bait (this is just gossip): Originally want to go free but come up with an intriguing concept: charge $19, and get the competition to break it's business model by reducing their prices. Once the competition has reduced it's price/butchered it's revenue model, we go free, dealing a killing blow. This forces the competition to raise their prices once again at a later stage, showing weakness and angering their user base to the point they discontinue using it and come to UE4 for the 5%.

It's just gossip. Is there a ring a truth in this? You decide.

 

So, which part of the calculation made this untrue?

 

No I don't think it's gossip, I think it's a brilliant strategy. It's what I would do if I were Epic's CEO.

Most of the time people use "basic" math to come to a conclusion:
Sports Car A is $45,000 U.S.D (U.S. Dollars) and has a 13 city/ 20 hwy fuel rating
and
Sports Car B is $90,000 U.S.D (U.S. Dollars) and has a rating of 9 city/ 15 hwy fuel rating

Most people will go with Sports Car A because it's cheaper upfront and you'll spend less money on gas (down the road).

This is why so many of these Unity Vs XYZ threads are popping up, they are looking at the price of Unreal and demanding that Unity match it. I think deep down they don't want to jump ship and go to Unreal Engine 4 (they've gotten used to Unity). It's just that visually when comparing our current version of Unity versus UE4 or Cryengine Unity looks "lack luster" (to put it nicely) and it's upfront price is unappealing.

 

That's pretty clever. But why not just make it free in the first place... Unreal 4 doesn't even have the marketplace yet which seems to be a reaction to the unity asset store. I think should start investing more money into the asset store, for example edy's car make it free for those that buy unity pro (unity starts to buy it out for like a million bucks or whatever) imagine what that would do you would see a gold rush to become an asset store asset store

 

I think that's the problem. Unity has 300+ employee's and countless items in the asset store. I agree that buying out some assets from the makers would make Unity more appealing.

I've always wondered why it took Unity so long to keep up with the other game engines. I mean 300+ employee's is a big company compared to Epic. To not have some built in features as a visual scripting, character animation and shading is strange. It's almost as if only 5 out of the 300 employee's hold a degree in Computer Science.

If you really think about it, this tactic of $19 a month can really destroy the image of Unity. Even though many people have said earlier that "It costs the same down the road",...you're forgetting that perception is everything in this world. $19 a month has been tattooed in everyone's mind. Unity now has to find a way to beat that "bang for the buck" appeal of UE4. Even if Unity doesn't change it's pricing system, they would have to released Unity5 with a TON of features to justify the price. If not,...UE4 can just sit back and watch Unity's own fan base tear it top pieces.

Epic already has more AAA game titles under it's belt than Unity. With a $19 price and that resume, even a hobbyist would be tempted to jump on board the UE4 engine (some of those hobbyist favorite games were probably created with the Unreal Engine). No matter how you slice the cake, the pressure is on on Unity 5 to deliver big, or else it'll start to suffocate from it's own lack of ingenuity and pricing system.

 

Because if you can get free money why not get it?
Even though it is pocket change for them right now, I think they would still prefer to get those money than to just give it all for free.

 

UT has another huge advantage over Unity - UT's own games has huge MODDING COMMUNITIES - and many game developers started their career from the hobbyist modding community. None of the Unity published games so far that I know of allows you to mod.

 

Kerbal Space Program.
It's extremely easy to mod Unity games that are standalone on the PC, I've done extensive stuff with this subject before and it's a lot easier than you'd imagine. In fact, I made a tool that makes this easier than I'd care to show.

 

Yes, Please. I would love to have a peep at that tool.

 

Do you know any standalone unity pc games I could maybe modify legally? I can't really show the tool itself or it's output on an external game, it's an internal tool at this time; the best I can do is just modify an existing game using other tools to show how easy unity games are to mod.

I can't really give the specifics of it, but I guess I can say that it can export scenes in standalone games into the unity editor and I don't need the original project.

 

Modding on UDK is how I got into making my own games (and for clients) on Unity (and UDK). I do agree that hobbyists start off modding, then eventually move into developing their own. I'm mostly a game designer/ UI/UX designer I don't do much codding unless I have to.

The social media assault and word of mouth barrage,... are the two reasons Unity can't stand by Idly allowing Unreal Engine to breed chaos within the Unity fanbase. Yes we can (most of us) agree that Epic can release the Unreal Engine for free. But in the meantime, they will make "free" money because they know that the price tag for Unity Pro requires a person to sell their soul and their first born child (versus $19).

It still puzzles me how a company as large as Unity doesn't have a Social media department that is combating this assault 24/7. I can understand Unity 5 isn't done, but the Social Media department/PR Department can hype the heck out of it until it comes out. I own a small business and I do make games (as well as other things) for my clients. I just recently lost Five clients that wanted a game done on Unreal Engine 4 because of what they saw. When the "layman" can want a game created on a engine just because of the hype that engine is producing that means Unity isn't doing it's job in informing the public about it's capabilities.

 

Because by making it free in the first place, you just have your competition strengthen their free offerings as opposed to weakening their main source of income.

It's only a theoretical business chess. I don't know what epic or anyone else is doing and I certainly don't mind what they're doing. It's all very interesting to watch businesses manoeuvre. At this scale, it's very clever stuff, very focussed on targets. Nothing is random unless by design.

 

Couldn't you use the Angry Bots example project?

 

I don't see why so many people want to buy Unity for so badly or any game engine for that matter. Unless you are making some serious cash off of game development and/or plan on making this a full time career path, you probably DON'T want to waste your money on any game development toolkits, Unity included!
I've been developing for years and have failed to really generate any real cash revenue making games. And let me tell you all now that I have been self employed for almost 10 years now doing programming/IT work. I work for some huge people in the world including corporations and even some people in Hollywood. I know how to make money in this business and one thing that has been a economic sink for me has been game development. I keep doing it because I would love to have at least one successful game for my life and something for my portfolio/resume to have. And the current project I am doing I am very devoted to making a success whatever the cost.

I am quiet happy with the free edition of Unity. It gives me everything i need without too many strings attached. If my current game makes enough to buy the software full out then I will do so. Bu to all you thinking you need to be spending money on this stuff, please take my advice and do NOT buy it even if you have the money to do so unless you are getting some kind of return for it. You will be wasting alot of money that you wish you could get back.
All of you people "what if my game sells hundreds of thousands of copies blah blah blah". That is a pretty huge WHAT IF! Most games flop and you waste time and energy on them, plain and simple.

Stick to the free versions and a budget. Don't be an idiot unless you have a very serious gameplan.

 

I don't get this, firstly there are tons of Indies that do earn a lot of money. What are they doing you're not? Secondly if you're successful in IT, it's how I started off what's $1500.00 to you? What's 20K to you? Remembering back $1500.00 was a weeks wages. Even if you were a semi serious hobbyist using IT to fund your hobbies, the cost of Unity Pro is no skin off your teeth.

Also it's not a case of wasting time and energy on these things, as my wife originally said do it because you enjoy it and if something comes out of games it's a bonus.

I enjoy music, I'm a singer / guitarist for a metal band. I've spent a shed ton of money in a dead fiscal industry with a small niche on a studio setup, I couldn't care less because I enjoy it.

 

For commercial development I don't see the cost difference being an issue. It looks like a lot to a hobbyist, but for commercial operations it's not really an issue. Profitable game studios are paying $80k minimum for decent dev's. They pay for any learning materials you need, all kinds of stuff. a $75 per month license for an application that is core to what you do, is not even thought of twice. It's a non issue, period. The real question to a studio is what is the most productive tool for the job. It's a lot easier to hire C# developers then C++ developers for one thing, and they cost less. And especially for mobile/social games that have relatively short lifespans, time to market is critical, and higher level languages often win there.

 

Really no offense, but because you've failed to make a significant income from games yet, doesn't mean it is all doom and gloom.
And being successful as freelancer in a different field, doesn't mean you're somehow automatically successful with games development.
You actually need the right ideas, ideally a good niche, and a solid businessplan in order to be successful in this market.

 

That's so awesome. You just gained +100 cool points in my book -- game dev + music. I gave up my music major in college to pursue more lucrative careers, but I really miss it.

 

Yeah, for commercial development, you're spot on. Just use whatever tool will best get the job done.

I suspect the concern here, as has been echoed repeatedly in these threads, is the potential for lost users and income from indies and hobbyists who are willing to pay a small amount for the chance to develop something cool, whether money is made or not. There are a whole lot of indies out there in that category, and UE4 is a pretty compelling choice now.

 

Well really it is a no-brainer for tinkerers as it stands right now, unless Unity does something to address it.

For someone who mainly just plays with prototypes and ideas what is better, a AAA engine with full sourcecode, access to Oculus Rift integration, no limitations for $20/mo(less than I spend on coffee) or Unity, closed source, with free version that arbitrarily prohibits things like networking and native libraries such as the Rift.

 

Does Unity Technologies have to show it's accounts, as some companies/countries require this and if the data is available it would take some of the guess work out of the calculations?

 

Why are people so concerned with that? even if you had the data, it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

 

It might give us an insight into the impacts to UT's business and a better understanding regarding what they have to weigh up when going from a full priced model + addons to a single subscription model.

 

Yeah, but... so what? Will that change how much you're willing to pay for things? Knowing more about how they make pricing decisions doesn't change the value of their products to its end users, does it?

 

It does it lets the users more easily decide to stay with Unity or not.

 

...what?

This can't actually be true. Primarily because it makes no sense whatsoever.
I am not saying it isn't true, but I'd prefer to hear what people in the professional field say. Maybe you guys can elaborate?

Programming is programming. If someone is experience in one, they are experienced in the other. Especially given how similar C# is to C++ and vice versa.

It took me all of what? 3 days to switch from C++ to C#? Never again have I ever needed to even google something related to C# that I knew in C++.

Agreed that programmers cost a lot and it is not easy to hire (good ones). If someone said they were a C# developer and couldn't do C++, or vice versa, I'd laugh during the interview. I'd also not hire them, because they must be a special kind of idiot to come into an interview for a job they are obviously incompetent at.

I mean...seriously? I don't understand. What kind of programmer can call themselves a programmer of only ONE language? That sounds more like a scripter to me.

Is this legit?

 

Although I'm sure it's not random, it is not unlike big businesses to be so trapped in their own bubble or become so lofty that what they do is pretty much random in the eyes of everyone else.


I've seen some R.O.F.L.W.T.F. moves by big business that makes you wonder if the person in charge is a monkey throwing darts at a spinning wheel of choices. Of course, in most of those cases the monkey would make a more rational CEO.

"What do you mean we need to dump our stock in Bananas? THE CEO WILL BE OUTRAGED!!! MORE BANANAS! BUY BUY BUY! .......*ding ding ding*.....WE ARE RICH!!!!! Go bananas!"

 

Why?

Do you want to see the financials of your local bakers before you decide on what loaf of bread to buy? Or do you compare their prices to the value each loaf represents and buy the one that best fits?

 

OK putting bread to one side.

Say as a developer, on a tight budget, you have the option to stay with Unity or go with Unreal. Now you're tempted to go with the shiny newness that is Unreal, but know that you will be back to the beginning of learning a new engine. Which is a huge investment in time and effort. So it's easier to stay with what you know, but your budget may drive you to adopt Unreal as Unity's Free version is normally lacking in features and the Pro license is beyond your budget.

I suppose it's like a subway opening up next to your bakers.

 

None of that has anything to do with why knowing about Unity's bank accounts has any impact on your decision about what engine to go with on a project. In fact, it kind of supports what I was suggesting with the bread example - that value fit is what actually matters.

For what it's worth there are reasons where you may want to know this stuff. For example: You're a huge defense contractor taking a long term contract and want to verify a supplier's financial security. But I can't think of a single one that factors into the context of a conversation like this.

 

I have never worked or even browsed Unreal or its code.

Is it anything like Unity, which has a WYSIWYG editor?

From what I understand, it is akin to using any other library or framework, like SFML, but significantly more powerful with more features (and a lot more required in understanding how to use it).

Almost like making a game from scratch, which is the polar opposite of Unity. The Unity Editor is what separates Unity from game frameworks. It's what makes it, IMO, a "game engine" (my definition).

 

Anyone having questions about Unreal are better off trying it instead of babbling endlessly on forums. I suggest everyone tries it, and any other engine they're interested in. Unity isn't some kind of closed world where it's afraid of the competition.

So go and try it out, give it your best shot. Then decide on the engine you want to use. I did, and Unity is still the best fit for the games we want to make.

 

No, it's not like that at all.

 

To expand on that ever so lengthy statement , in many ways the UE4 editor has leapfrogged the (current) Unity Editor. It's easy to start building levels right away, completely customizable, but also quite complex because it has things like Matinee, the Material Editor, Blueprint Editors, etc. built in. You don't really need to pay $19 to find that out though - just browse one of the UE4 videos on YouTube and judge for yourself.

 

Thank you for actually elaborating instead of saying "No. The End." lol.

That is interesting to know that UE4 has a powerful editor, rivaling that of Unity.

I do not care for the UE4 engine and have no desire to switch as it would be pointless and the opposite of productive. I also do not feel like wasting time even watching videos. So thank you VERY much for telling me briefly so I can know about it.

I typed in google "KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!" for an image, but thought this one was way better instead, even though it makes no sense at all in this discussion:

 

Yes! In fact it is probably more WYSIWYG than Unity itself. It comes with a very capable editor system that is running inside the Unreal engine using the same GUI system you would use for your own games.

It has a WYSIWYG shader editor very similar in concept to ShaderForge.

It also has a WYSIWYG scripting system called Blueprint though you can still use C++ (I'd personally use both as Blueprint is excellent for gluing components together). Though it does not have a unified development environment for C++ like Unity does with MonoDevelop. Instead it uses Visual Studio on Windows and XCode on OS X.

Aside from these, it has a WYSIWYG in pretty much every other aspect of the engine. There is a reason why it is getting as much attention as it is. It is a really good competitor to Unity.

 

While Arowx example doesn't really seem to have much of a relevant association with the numbers; the numbers do matter.

People don't know if investing in Unity is worth it in the long term; both financially and time invested in learning the tool. Numbers to see if they're doing okay and are not impacted by UE4 critically would go a long way.

 

Even if the numbers were available I think it is still too early to know. Also I believe most of those going to UE4 would likely be hobbyists who want access to the most features for a low price.

 

Why would we expect them to suddenly be "critically" impacted by UE4?

Are people forgetting that UDK had already been available for ages, that the high-end landscape hasn't really changed all that much with recent events, and that Unity exchanged a low-cost Indie license for a free license in part because there wasn't that much money at the lowest price points anyway?

 

UDK was also a very... dense and unfriendly piece of software. UE4 honestly does compare very well against Unity both in terms of features but access to those features.

 

Oh, I understand that and I agree that it does change things for a lot of people. Still, the fact that someone else as high a calibre as Epic decided to compete seemingly directly with Unity to me validates there position far more than it undermines it.

 

You would have sold me on it, except I read one post that said its 2D support is lacking compared to Unity (which the person stated "working with it is wonderful compared to working with 2D in UE4. bleh.".

I think on my next 2D game though, I will probably reconsider using a game engine. Although Unity has helped speed up the process a lot, I am not so sure it is worth it.

Of course... if I already pay for the Pro version, which I almost certainly will, I will probably use Unity again despite my pause, lol...

 

Honestly? I think that they had to take far less of an active role in this than is being assumed. Unreal Engine had been hurting for an interface redesign and ease of use upgrade for ages now and Epic had gone on record as saying that it was a major focus of UE4. Even before we got the indie friendly pricing news, we had a lot of videos coming out showing how UE4 wasn't going to be the obtuse flustercuck that UE3/UDK was.

Honestly, I think the only thing they really did here to directly compete with Unity was to make a slight change to their pricing and licensing structure, and even that makes them money on the lowest level.

 

Yes it does appear as if the "2D support" is really little more than working with textured quads in a 3D environment. At least that's the impression I get from looking at video tutorials some users have made. There could be more in-depth support but I'm still learning the basics so I've kept entirely to 3D.

This is my approach as well given that I am very comfortable working with C++ and SDL. I'd likely use Unity as the mapping tools with an editor extension that spits out the data necessary for a custom engine.

Oh yes! The sole reason I started picking up Unity was because of how difficult UDK was. Unreal 4 is a very big step towards user friendliness. I remember spending two weeks trying to learn UDK and I never quite got to where I could get a script working. Blueprint, and even C++ code through Visual Studio, is so much easier to work with.

 

Yea, even if I don't use UnityEngine I will most likely keep it as my "Tool Builder".

Even when using Unity, I started another project to create a tool to help render pixel by pixel through converting images into text and keeping the colors and all that good stuff. So easy to setup, and don't even have to build to do it. Just drag & drop image and *poof* done.

 

I think there are more than 5 CS degrees, but if you see the speed Epic moves there is some huge difference in play.

I just looked at one of the videos on youtube. Look at this: an environment artist made this in 4 days (and some weekends)!!! Baking to 3d imposter sprites and much more. We could be happy if Unity had more people that could code like the Epic environment artists.
17:10-25:40

The Advernture Kit at 14:45 done by the community is also very cool. I think because UE4 is almost free, that a lot of cool community stuff will be free too compared to Unity where you have to buy everything (it is kind of viral, like most blender addons are free and the ones for Max cost money).

 

IT took me a month to learn how to use UDK. Of all the software I've ever used in my life UDK had the longest learning curve (Second was Cinema 4D version 7, that's when I joined the Cinema 4D family, that took me almost 3 weeks to learn).

The UDK Interface was Dog vomit glued with human vomit then sprinkled with a dash of pepper. It was (and still is) horrible. Thank goodness UE4 changed all that.