Search Unity

  1. Calling all beginners! Join the FPS Beginners Mods Challenge until December 13.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. It's Cyber Week at the Asset Store!
    Dismiss Notice

KEEP Unity MAC Only!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by VICTOM, Jul 20, 2008.

  1. VICTOM

    VICTOM

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Posts:
    233
    Some people think that Unity should be ported to the PC. Unfortunately history has proven this over and over to be not such a good idea for the consumer and and the product.

    Why do a disservice to the Unity community and to the game industry? This is not just a silly Mac VS PC issue. This is a real consumer concern issue.

    Ever hear of a person making to the switch to PC and never going back to the Mac?

    I've heard many stories of people leaving the PC for good. Friends, strangers, as well as many of the people who made the switch because of Unity.

    So I googled for stories of people leaving the Mac for the pc and I could not find one. Makes me go hmm...

    Yet how many GREAT programs make the switch from PC and never go back to the Mac? Or if they do return to the Mac they end up being a lesser supported version. I can think of many great software that did this.

    * Bryce was first written for the Macintosh in 1994.
    * Excel was originally written for the 512k Apple Macintosh in 1984-1985.
    * Photoshop was first written for the Macintosh in the summer of 1988.
    * Premiere was originally written for the Macintosh in December of 1991.
    * Zbrush was first written for the Macintosh and demo released Sept 27, 1999

    (PhotoShop is the closest - but there are still features in the PC that are not in the Mac)

    Not to mention all the failed or luke warm ports of software that tried to go from PC to Mac.
    And Maya originally written for SGI machines is lousy on the Mac compared to it's original OS.
    And would you really want 3DS Max on a Mac?

    When much better (price included) and simpler programs like Cheetah 3D and Silo are on the Mac.


    Why? Because in the business world quantity makes up for quality and the consumer suffers for this. Now I ask why do you want to suffer? Better yet, why do you want me to suffer? All because you do not want to upgrade your computer to a Mac?

    Within 3 to 4 years time even the fastest computer of its day will need to be upgraded. Why do you want to continue to suffer with a new pc?


    UT, Please Keep Unity Mac Only.


    Cheers,
    Reformed Life-Long PC Advocate
     
  2. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    I agree with you that the Mac version will necessarily suffer by making Unity cross-platform. It's a matter of a small team no longer being able to exert as much control, and develop software with a clear vision. However, despite the quality suffering, a PC editor could bring a lot more money into the company, and I consider that to be more important than having Unity on the Mac be as good as it can be. Unity is awesome. The more places it exists in the industry, the better.

    Your argument is also nothing new on these forums.

    For some reason, that doesn't come across as a powerful argument to me. :? :)
     
  3. EducaSoft

    EducaSoft

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Posts:
    650
    Nice try but you must also understand that more customers = more money = more money to invest in new techniques.

    So I can understand UT to make a pc version too. And I hardly think they will drop mac.

    Anyway, I did buy 2MACs allready to use unity and must say that I am a PC fan and will always stay at PC. But For unity alone I use the Mac.

    Its a matter of productivity and the world isn't fair, I know...
     
  4. forestjohnson

    forestjohnson

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Posts:
    1,370
    Probably the difference between the applications you mentioned and Unity is that Unity is not being sold out, ownership of it is firmly in UT's hands.

    They are absolutely never going to make PC the primary platform by any large margin, at least while they still own their own product.

    I think a PC port is a crucial part of the advancement of Unity and UT, but no matter what you and I say they are going to do what they think is best. So far, I'd say they have a pretty darn good track record for making good decisions and quality software, so I'm not worried :)
     
  5. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    And it must be noted that UT has already created a fantastic and unique product that which no other company has matched. There's no reason that they can't perform another magic trick with a PC version, and keep both versions amazing. History might be against them, but really, things have changed so much as of late, I don't know if there is a relevant history. All the apps VICTOM mentioned got switched around when I wouldn't have wanted to use a Mac anyway.
     
  6. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,170
    Unity Technologies thinks that Unity should be ported to Windows. Pretty much end of discussion, I'd say.

    --Eric
     
  7. jeremyace

    jeremyace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    1,661
    Tools are tools. Mac and the Mac OS is just one tool among many. Windows and the standard PC hardware is a tool.

    XCode, Visual Studio, Emacs are tools, OpenGL is a tool, as is DirectX.

    My point is, no tool will _ever_ handle every job. Mac OS is awesome, but it's not everything. Windows has a lot going for it also, but neither is it everything.

    Ask any quality craftsman, and even though they will have a favorite tool that they use the most, they will cringe at the idea of only having that one tool in their toolbox.

    It's like Unity supporting the languages it does. I dislike JavaScript with a passion, and others love it with a passion. The end result is we are both happy, and we both still get our work done.

    I understand your points on the track record of software that has switched focus to PC in the past and I understand the worry about UT going the same route. The "cha-ching" effect. ;-)

    Here's the thing; if we can tell people flat out "if you are serious about using Unity, then buy a Mac. If you are professional you buy the hardware you need.", then why can't we tell ourselves "if I am serious about using ZBrush/_______, then buy a PC. If I am a professional, then I buy the hardware I need."?

    At the end of the day, the more flexible Unity is, the better for everyone. I too hope UT doesn't go nuts and spread themselves too thin. ;-)

    -Jeremy
     
  8. GWPGearWorx

    GWPGearWorx

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Posts:
    327
    Ok I had to jump in on this topic ;) I am a PC fan, for the gaming side.... However I bought a PS3 and a Wii for my gaming fix, due to not having to upgrade it to play games ever 3 months hahaha

    Anyway I jumped over to a MAC and I am NOT looking back. I love my Mac *pat *pat Everything about it is much more productive from a development standpoint.

    Now I can see and understand why UT might consider a PC version, due to grabbing at the bigger slice of the pie so to speak, however I do see this also hurting the development on the mac side. Due to their small team being spread too thin.

    Do I think there should be a PC version? Yes but NOT now. Unity is too young and needs some more nurturing before they consider taking that leap. From a technical standpoint it is gonna be a bitch to get this to work well on a PC due to the OS.... Vista e.t.c (sucks period) Let alone to be stable.

    Also this is just a side note, and not really a strong one, however, I personally find the Unity community to be mature and helpful, and every other engine I have used on the PC (and I have used loads) are riddled with immature morons that are nothing more than annoying. Thats something this community could do without.

    Not only that but the technical support e-mails alone for the PC side would really weigh down the UT team. This too would take away from the mac community also.

    This is a topic that can be discussed for hours and hours, and both sides have their pluses and negatives. However in my opinion, I personally do not think that UT should even be considering a PC version just yet, there is still lots that needs to be done to this product. (even though it rocks as is and keeps getting better.)

    And finally, if ANYONE is serious about game development, and not just kicking the tires. They would invest in a Mac to use Unity. The tire kickers are the kids or people that are not gonna take it anywhere anyway. There are tons of good engines and on the PC already. However like I said, the serious ones would not blink an eye at investing in a Mac. I bought my Mac just for Unity and game development, and I would do it again.

    Regards.
     
  9. Morgan

    Morgan

    Joined:
    May 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,210
    Both sides are true. Luckily I have a Mac, so I win either way :)
     
  10. ugur

    ugur

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Posts:
    681
    I´d much prefer it if unity first had iphone support finalized and ideally support for xbox 360 and/or ps3 deploy going before the editor is ported to Windows. Partly because i just recently got a mac for unity dev, mostly because i´m worried it would slow down adding more features and supported deploy platforms to unity if every editor feature would have to be integrated twice,once for the windows version and once for the mac version.
     
  11. EducaSoft

    EducaSoft

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Posts:
    650
    Its too late for that now. PC development is already started for unity.

    Anyway, I think Unity Tech has brains enough to know what they are doing.
     
  12. ugur

    ugur

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Posts:
    681
    yeah,seeing what all they made so far i´m hopeful that they´ll handle this nicely,too, its just the usual worries :)
     
  13. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    Jeremy, you seem to be running under the assumption that the end product is what matters. For me, the journey is much more important - that's where your life is tied up. If I am unhappy every day during the creation of something great, do to my tools, that's just not worth it to me. If I hate the tools, I don't bother (or I do it begrudgingly to make enough money to be able to stop using them asap). I know some "Windows-heads" who are interested in Unity, but I never make the case to them that they need a Mac. Unity for the PC is said to be coming, but without any sort of release timeframe, and I let them all know that this is the case. For a lot of people, there is a very real choice to wait for certain software to be ported, and use lesser tools in the meantime, or have your process be hellish. Not having the better tools can be just as bad or worse, so it's a personal choice to be made.

    I personally have not found the alternatives to bring anything I crave to the table. And I don't see a reason to need multiple tools when one other tool can do so much by itself, and save time, and possibly space. The key is versatility. If your tool is versatile enough, then it's just a waste of time to switch to another to perform an action.

    We see eye-to-eye here. I think this is a great parallel. I am indifferent, as far as the supported languages go, at this point, but fully understand how it could pain someone greatly to be forced to use one.

    I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence. That is dependent on the problem from the second sentence being tackled, so good luck to the development team.
     
  14. Dragon Rider

    Dragon Rider

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Posts:
    280
    Sorry, but I can name no instance of a Mac dev package for the 360. The 360 basically runs a windows Gamer(TM) OS. It's made to connect to windows but nothing else. I honestly don't know about the PS.

    For me, Mac-to-Mac and Mac-to-Wii dev are good enough for me. With the iPhone, I don't know if it would be worth my time to develop for it. They weren't made for gaming.

    You people are right about version controls/cross-platform glitches. I would never trust myself to make a Mac game on a Windows PC becuase windows is so random for me. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Nothing I can do about it. Dunno why.

    That's why I switched to Mac. It's much more sturdy and reliable and I know that in an emergency I can always use the console. :) That's a big factor, being able to "killall Firefox" when I need to. :wink:
     
  15. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,170
    That's no different than the Wii. You need Windows for Wii development too, even with Unity.

    Better hardware than the PSP or DS, an App Store where you get instant distribution to zillions of people, very favorable revenue percentage...if you have a game that's even remotely suitable for handheld gaming, why wouldn't you?

    --Eric
     
  16. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    I had no idea. Lame.

    There are no buttons on it. The iPhone / iPod touch isn't exactly a standard handheld. I think it's a great platform for indie developers, but not having buttons and analog sticks is not great. A PS3 and Xbox 360 game can be designed identically, because the input devices are not only identical in function (aside from an accelerometer in the PS3 controller), but also in layout. A multitouch game is not so portable.

    That I can't agree with at all. I have seen this platform compared to a Sega Dreamcast, in power, in multiple places now. I think a game like Skies of Arcadia, one of the best I have ever played, would be great on the iPhone.
     
  17. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,170
    Blame Nintendo for not having a Mac-based dev kit. ;)

    That's why I said "remotely suitable." :) Some games would need adapting; some just won't be suitable. But yeah, if you have something that will work, then whether it's worthwhile is a no-brainer.

    --Eric
     
  18. nm8shun

    nm8shun

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Posts:
    476
    I left mac for PC; got tired of second fiddle on games, and there were too many 3D apps at the time that were PC only (Maya, XSI, Houdini, Boujou to name a few (although some of that's changed)).

    I came back for Mac specifically for Unity. I still do the majority of my 3D prodution work on the PC, then do my Unity work on Mac.

    I'm not arguing either way, I like both. But just wanted to point out that there is at least one of us who dropped Mac for PC - and i was quite happy too. My mac and my pc are my computers, not my religion.
     
  19. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    I actually feel that my computer is a symbiotic entity with my body. It's not much different than my contact lenses or my hands - it makes getting things done either easier, or possible where it would have been impossible without someone else's help. I've been kind of chunky and I've been in pretty decent shape; using a Mac, to me, is a parallel to the latter instead of the former - the world becomes easier to navigate.
     
  20. MatthewW

    MatthewW

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Posts:
    1,355
    You can make a valid argument that in the beginning the Windows port will eat resources. Some core things will need to be changed and generalized, which may consume bandwidth for people who could otherwise be doing new things.

    But the counterpoint to that is Unity can anticipate additional sales from the Windows port, and therefore bring on additional manpower. The bulk of the work will be done by new people, who couldn't be doing new things (because if there wasn't a Windows port they wouldn't be there anyway).

    I think the resource argument is a wash in a multi-year timeframe.

    However, a Windows port is absolutely vital for the web player's penetration rate. There are a vast amount of developers, from individuals to 100+ person shops, who would gladly create Unity content but for a Windows version. Adopting a Mac/Unity combo is prohibitively expensive for many larger studios, and many hobbyists can't be bothered to change platforms to develop games on the side. Don't discount the hobbyists, either--it's very easy to find examples of simple single-author Flash games with millions of plays.

    These Windows-based developers will create tons of new Unity content, which will drive up web player adoption--in player install rates, but also adoption in distribution portals, advergame opportunities, and even premium download/retail/console development. It boils down to increased opportunity for everyone here.

    If you have any plans that make use of the web player, you should be absolutely behind the Windows port...
     
  21. cbman

    cbman

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Posts:
    23
    This is something that has been in the back of my mind also and I'm only evaluating Unity at this point. I definitely believe Unity on Mac will suffer when a windows version is available. Of course the Unity team knows what's best for them. That is to make profit and windows has the market share. But that does not mean it's good for Mac users. As the original poster said, this has been proven many times.

    In fact it seems this has already started. I have not really looked into the details of it but this from the release notes:
    "Removed hardware depth buffer bias for shadows in OpenGL. This can make shadow bias slightly worse, but matches Direct3D behaviour".

    Is Direct3D the standard for Mac rendering so it OpenGL has to match it? Could not Direct3D rendering be adjusted instead?

    Another engine I'm looking into started as a Mac engine. Today the windows version is the more important one and Mac issues are far down on the list.

    I love the asset workflow in Unity and how great it is to use on the Mac but this is an issue that is of real concern to me. Should I invest in a tool that is likely to not be as well supported on the Mac in the future? That is a question I don't yet have an answer for.
     
  22. taumel

    taumel

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    5,293
    It already is hard enough getting the unity webplayer behind the firewalls of medium/bigger companies due to a) a lack of a few features which would be very important to have for producing non gaming content, b) because of the application isn't known this well in the windows world and c) because of the low web player penetration.

    The first thing you'll go through with the it people beeing in charge is what do we need this for and were can i see the app which produces the content, guess what, most companies don't have a MAC infrastructre and also don't plan to invest into one just because of one application and go through all the additional licence costs which then show up.

    From a bedroom coder point of view which wants to feel special you can keep it on da Mac.

    From a buisness point of view were you also want to make money with it, it would be a bad idea restricting it to the Mac.

    Sooner or later Director will also be having an updated 3d engine (and that's still the number one platform for online 3d content which companies accept beside of Flash), Flash will learn 3d more and more and what do you have then with Unity only on the Mac with Flash and Director beeing both available on Win and OSX?!

    Personally i like OSX a lot but i don't like the Apple hardware as it's way too unflexible compared to the PC world.
     
  23. Lucas Meijer_old

    Lucas Meijer_old

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    436
    imho a lot of people would buy a mac to be able to use unity if only they knew that unity is as nice as it is.

    But nobody is going to lay down 2000 euros "just to see" if it is any good. I know I didn't. People had to rub my nose in it before I started to seriously considering unity.

    I think a windows port would make unity sales explode, which is good for everybody. The only thing to worry about is if UnityTech will gracefully deal with such an explosion in revenue+possibilities, and not grow faster than they actually can.

    I haven pretty good faith they'll do so.

    Bye, Lucas
     
  24. Lka

    Lka

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    Posts:
    297
    As mac user I'm not interested if or when the windows port will be done, what I don't like is that I'll have to pay for this feature to upgrade to next release. I'll upgrade only with other major features introduced.
     
  25. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,603
    Agreed

    What I am more worried about is the pre-teen userbase, with their pre-teen behavior that has a strong tendency to make advanced users taking active parts in communities, that cost the devs quite a bit of cash for the raised support efforts and board moderation needed to keep a board productive and "nice".

    That Unity on Windows will have to face TGEA with editor inclusion and all Pro features + sources at $145 (or $295 if you don't own TGE already) is another thing but that would be a pure financial thing that the devs would have to decide how to face like "a pure windows standalone version with no alternative deploy" or whatever.
     
  26. Scrat

    Scrat

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Posts:
    316
    They are not all like that. I guess it really depends on their background, whether they are looking for WYSIWYG engine which doesn't require any programming or if they are themselves developers. If you take a look at the Ogre forum, you'll find 14 years old kids who are very proficient in C++ and ask non-trivial questions.

    Unfortunately I get your point and have the same worries as well. The fact that Unity is more "visually-appealing" will inevitably attract people like you described. A solution should be found because it'd be a real shame to have forums polluted by questions already answered thousands of times just because people aren't capable of using the search button.
     
  27. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,603
    I agree, there are exceptions. But sadly only very few.
     
  28. taumel

    taumel

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    5,293
    Kind of shortsighted as even if you're a die hard Mac user you'll benefit from the availability on windows and the output these users/companies can generate in several ways.

    As for you kids concerns, maybe this already turned different compared to the good old days. :O9
     
  29. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,603
    Yes it turned different, got a magnitude worse as now even 10 years old have parents that fork out 100-200$ for engines to get their kids busy and have their own time again.
     
  30. taumel

    taumel

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    5,293
    And guess what, they also have a right to. I would try to see it more tolerant.
     
  31. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,603
    Well at best we wait till it is even near to happen and we get to know the licensing details.
    If they focus on the Pro license only then all is no problem actually.

    If they attract the pre-teen class userbase through offering an Indie priced option, well then hope that I use blacker color than the reality will be.
     
  32. Gnaws

    Gnaws

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Posts:
    43

    "idiots, kiddies, incapable, stupid, lazy".
    Don't forget our community isn't above judging people either. :oops:
     
  33. taumel

    taumel

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    5,293
    @dreamora
    Hmm, i would be interested seeing something from you at all. When thinking about it i also can't remember any game from you on the Blitzforum. Maybe you're thinking a little bit too ambitious here?

    I welcome that they don't rush out updates as in the beginning because it's very imporant having a) something like a solid base for a longer time as otherwise it can make writing your own solutions kind of superfluous, b) that new features hopefully can be integrated better and with more testing and c) it gives them the chance to introduce larger features as well. All things were you also benefit from afterwards. I'm fine with anything between three and six months this way and as you know on your own we're getting more reasonable updates than we're getting lately with BlitzMax for instance.
     
  34. Dreamora

    Dreamora

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Posts:
    26,603
    Valid point sadly ... :)
    But since a few months I'm the programmer behind a Blitz based development technology licensed by a few tousand users.

    For my own game projects to get anywhere I first need to collect enough funding to buy media. As long as I work with my dummy visuals (or worse - self created one) I most likely will never finish something, there you are right. Thats why I always developed "technology" with Blitz (Terrain Dreams 1/2, Particle Dreams for B3D and BM, Kamaya, ...).


    EDIT: edited my postings. Sorry for my wording and dark drawing, just my bad experiences in the past 6 years.
    I'm really hoping for the best and will do my best to help this great technology get there if possible.
     
  35. taumel

    taumel

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    5,293
    Generally spoken, because a) small updates also need to be tested and b) because a bug beeing removed also could mean that it's part of a different implementation behind, fixes this bug but introduces a few unsolved issues somewere else. If there were really nasty issues Otee often released quick and small udpates after they showed up so far.

    If you're having the ressources or the technology you obviously could improve this like Mozilla with driving different technologies parallel or like Luxology with baking a current version out of your abstracted environment but also there it needs extensive testing. Beliebter Spruch von Scherzkeksen in kleineren Agenturen: "Mach mal schnell ne CD-ROM!". Das geht halt meist in die Hose. :O)

    I don't know of any dev-blogs beside of the links (for instance Aras) which are avilable on the site here.

    BlitzMax is great but the situation for the updates has been better.
     
  36. Tibbar

    Tibbar

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Posts:
    46
    Going back to the original comment by VICTOM:

    This is reminiscent of all the Playstation 3 fanboys crying foul over the fact that Final Fantasy XIII will be available for Xbox 360 as well. A lot of people emotionally tied to the superiority of their platform are enraged about flagship games/programs no longer being exclusive and they argue that the game will "suck" because of resources spent on porting. Merely being interoperable does not automatically mean lower quality. It may mean slower development cycles.

    PC software companies aren't the only ones guilty of dropping support for the competing platform. Apple is just as culpable. Here's a counter example: before Apple bought the compositing program Shake, it was available for Windows. Apple promptly dropped support for the PC. Was that fair to graphic artists who don't care about platforms and just wanted a nice program to get their job done?

    Furthermore, I would love it if 3ds max came to the Mac. One less reason to have a PC. Cheetah 3D is nice but limiting for me.
     
  37. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    No, but it should. I think the game is going to be bad like all the others, so I don't care, but if developed solely for the PS3 (or solely for the 360), it could be a better game. At least this will bring more money to the company, so I can have a better Kingdom Hearts 3. :wink:
     
  38. EducaSoft

    EducaSoft

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Posts:
    650
    Don't forget that a paying 13year old kid is also a customer and should be handled like any other customer.

    Maybe there will be some more RTFM , I agree, but thats something inevitable.

    Customer is customer.
    I sometimes tend to ask some RTFM questions also. Sometimes it just happens.
     
  39. jeremyace

    jeremyace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    1,661
    That's just fine, and a lot of people share your opinion which is also just fine, of course.

    However, in professional software development, the end product IS what matters. It's not an assumption.

    Personally, I don't particularly like the fact that I have to use a computer and these primitive input devices to do the development. I am not being sarcastic, I am serious! But, like using whatever platform's dev kit or APIs, I don't have a choice.

    And for your journey point (which is a very valid one that I generally agree with), that's why I think it's good to support multiple platforms. Then more people can enjoy their journey. But tools are still just tools.

    Good points, but think of this; Humans have a limited brain capacity. So the more of them you get focused on _specific_ areas, the better and more refined those tools will be. As soon as you get a single coder to do many things at once, none of the tasks will get the deserved attention. That's a part of why I think we will always need multiple tools. Some people will just do the job better than others, and they may not be employed at the same company.

    I too wish that one product would handle it all, but that's just not realistic. It's best for me to adapt to the reality now, and learn how to still get stuff done quickly in spite of the problems.

    Anyway, this is it for me, as there are already a good selection of views on this subject. :)

    -Jeremy
     
  40. Aras

    Aras

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    4,539
    Oh, we have brains? That's news to me...

    Seriously though, it looks like the major argument against Windows version is that there will be too many users all of a sudden, and everything will become a mess. This is a valid concern, but by extension doing anything that makes Unity more popular (which might not include Windows version) can cause this. Should we stop adding new features and making Unity better because of this fear?
     
  41. jashan

    jashan

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Posts:
    3,105
    True, you guys ain't got brains - you got über-brains ;-)

    Personally, I think the "users swamping the forums and support requests swamping UT"-argument is less about increasing the user base, but about shifting the "demographics" of the user base. And I'm not talking about young folks in this context because I know there's a lot of cool young folks using Unity on a Mac, so age definitely is not the problem. At the same time, immature behavior not necessarily implies young age ;-)

    One interesting concern from that perspective (attracting other "kinds" of people) could be more about people using a cracked version of Unity to create a cracked version of Unity games and publish those with a whole bunch of cheats...


    More seriously, though, I kind of like an attitude voiced by Cocoatech on their blog a while back:

    N.B.: They're not talking about Windows and Mac OS but just about two different versions of Mac OS...

    It's a bit of a different story, of course, since Cocoatech is not a big team, and UT is already used to having to work with gazillions of incompatibilities with different OSs and graphics cards and driver versions and whatnot, but still I think it's a perspective worth looking into:

    Tigersharks: Taking Path Finder 10.4-only


    Of course, the given advantages of a Windows version of Unity are also valid (in particular Web player penetration). However, I'd be somewhat careful with the "more users = more money" point. Obviously, more users means more money flowing in to the company - but a significantly more complex development cycle also means more money flowing out of the company.

    Well, however things turn out: I hope it'll all stay fun for everyone involved...
     
  42. ugur

    ugur

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Posts:
    681
    My biggest concern is that working on deploy options for other platforms like 360 or ps3 would take a backseat when focussing on a windows ide version.
    To me its very nice that with unity one can also deploy to the web but its one of the least important points to me, if i was most thinking about web deploy and high plugin penetration i´d stick to using flash, i more care about beeing able to do things flash can´t handle and deploy to consoles and the iphone then instead though so i don´t care much about plugin penetration figures.
    Nice to have them be way high of course but personally i´d prefer beeing able to deploy to 360 way more.

    "However, I'd be somewhat careful with the "more users = more money" point. Obviously, more users means more money flowing in to the company - but a significantly more complex development cycle also means more money flowing out of the company.
    "
    Agree with that.
    I also think that supporting more deploy platforms would make unity way more interesting to commercial game developers than a windows ide (Since those working commercially on games for a while usually either already have the money to buy a mac or can save it up with the knowledge they can easily earn it back once making one unity game and making money with it in some way).
    I think the windows ide version would make the plugin penetration numbers raise quicker thanks to way more pc only younger indies picking up unity, i guess many of those would probably be using a cracked copy of unity though (since the price is not easily affordable for someone not earning any income yet and yeah, well, how many younger guys do in average actually buy all the software they use?), focussing on more target platform options would attract more paying users quicker i think.
    So to me it feels more like a decission about what´s more important: quicker plugin penetration numbers raise or quicker support for more deploy platforms.
     
  43. Bael

    Bael

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Posts:
    106
    You will not be able to deploy to a 360 without a Windows version.

    Understandably the community here is concerned its demographic will change unfavorably - but my experience leads me to believe otherwise. Overall, the game-development scene on any platform is mature and self-policing. Yea, you do have the occasional kid asking well-documented questions - but forums never degrade to the level being presented here.

    And to think opening Unity up to Windows developers solely will bring this sudden influx is ridiculous. iPhone support will probably bring just as many, if not more, complete development 'newbies' here trying to make a quick buck on a hot product.

    Unity is missing out on a huge slice of the gaming pie by being Mac-only. Just like game development houses (who are mostly taking their products multi-platform) - this is a buisness, and in order to continue growing your buisness and insure the success of your products you need to reach as broad of an audiance as possible. A Windows/XNA/360 version of Unity has the potential to greatly increase sales and market penetration, pushing Unity out of the fairly niche market it occupies right now.
     
  44. ugur

    ugur

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Posts:
    681
    I wondered whether that´s the case or not, too. If it is the case that a windows ide would be required for 360 and/or PS3 deploy then not only plugin penetration numbers but also the possibility of more deploy options would raise with a Windows version so that then sounds nice :)
    Then only left for me to worry about would be whether its too much work to support development of new features on several platform ide versions and then the whole evolution of unity would slow down, but yeah, the UT fellas probably know best what they can handle nicely :)
     
  45. polytropoi

    polytropoi

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Posts:
    677
    Plugin penetration FTW!

    The net is the platform that matters, for so many reasons.
     
  46. VICTOM

    VICTOM

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Posts:
    233
    The argument that the PC has all the content creators strikes me personally odd because I remember working with VRML and the argument then was the reason it wasn't catching on was because there were no Mac dev tools for it like there was for Flash dev's. Because everyone knew VRML was ugly and that the artist were all Mac based.

    The number one laptop sold today to college age people is the Mac. Life long pc users are converting to Mac and not looking back.

    This is NOT a demographics concern - this is a consumer quality concern.

    As for a larger company being better for the consumer? Not likely.

    A larger company means more overhead costs.
    A larger company means more time focused management.
    A larger company means more risk avoidance.
    A larger company means less time for product dev.


    FACT: Small teams can and do great things because they can take on risk that a large company can not. They can run circles around the big ship.

    That's EXACTLY what UT is able to do and is doing because they are a lean fast attack ship. As ships get bigger they don't get better they get slower.


    But this is NOT a thread about company size. It is a post about making/keeping Unity as the best product for the consumer. So they can keep making stuff that makes the rest of the industry jealous of their talent and lean fast attack ship.

    I'd also like to echo the Cocotech Quote:
    And this isn't about UT not having brains it's about them keeping their hearts in the product.


    Best Regards,
     
  47. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    I think that's up to us, to show off their product, and seriously, what Unity game does the average gamer know about? Maybe Velociraptor Safari. If the big players realized that people could do great things faster and cheaper with Unity than anything else, then there might be no reason to expand. But as it is, Unity needs some killer apps (other than itself) to say to people with money "get Macs for your dev team, to make even more money, or you are imbeciles."

    I want to do what I can, but I'm still very much a student in a lot of the disciplines involved in making a Unity game, so I can't pump stuff out as fast as I would like right now. I think it will be very hard to ignore a bunch of fun 3D content on the iTunes store, though, made by independent developers, so that's my best idea about how to show off what can be done, financially speaking, with Unity.
     
  48. jkreijkamp

    jkreijkamp

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Posts:
    129
    I agree with the original poster in that there is quite a big risk in having a windows port will mean that we'll end up with no Mac OS X support in the long run.

    Let's do some bogus numbers. Assume there's a 5% market penetration of Mac OS X and in the whole development effort of Unity 10% of the costs are for keeping the tools working on Mac OS X. Is it business wise smart to keep developing the tools for Mac OS X? Especially when dropping Mac support doesn't have to mean 5% market loss, because like there are now PC users are willing to buy a Mac just for Unity, it probably will work the other way round to.

    Also, if the tools don't have to run on Mac OS X, why not drop OpenGL completely? Whould save probably quite some extra % of cost and the team can focus on DirectX specific optimisations. Let's be honest, the Mac gaming market is not where the money is.

    So, I (just having bought the Pro version) am wary to of the way Unity will go when they have the tools running on Windows. The dropping of Mac will be at least a few years away but, unless a lot is gonna change in the OS market an Mac penetration, IMHO a very real risk.

    I'm wondering if the windows Indy version only generates windows binaries ;-)
     
  49. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,327
    Yeah, but the Wii, PS3, and DS are doing pretty well for themselves. OpenGL isn't going anywhere any time soon. UT will make more money still in the long run if they can add support for at least the DS or PS3. I could still see Unity becoming a PC-only tool, which I don't want to happen by any means, but I'd see them dropping DirectX before OpenGL. Not that I expect that either.

    And seriously, like I said, the iPhone / iPod touch, for a lot of Unity developers, WILL be where the money is.
     
  50. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,170
    Yes, those numbers were quite bogus. ;) Also, cross-platform apps usually have much higher than 5% of the sales going to the Mac version. Sometimes around 50%. Even Office, that most Microsoft of apps, has 20% of its sales being the Mac version (although that was last year; it's probably higher by now, considering 2008 had 3X the sales of previous versions, despite somewhat negative reviews). Also, Mac marketshare keeps going up, so I would expect more and more apps to have OS X versions in the future, not the other way around. You can already see that starting to happen.

    Windows is more gaming-focused so it might not end up that high with Unity, but on the other hand, Unity isn't just about making games. Not to mention the increased competition in Windows, even though most of it's second-rate compared to Unity. I could see a 50/50 split not being totally out of the question. So stop worrying.

    --Eric