Looks like Unitys CTO has been replaced

With how old both of these are I wouldn't be surprised if the people who made them no longer work at Unity.

 

Have you tried it? I tried it a few weeks ago. For like 30 minutes and after that removed it from my system. It's a very proprietary showcase and not a good one at that.

 

The more important question is: Why does none of you guys or whoever is responsible consider this a bug? This makes no sense. Why does anyone even have to discuss this on the forum?

There's clearly room for improvement on Unity's side.

 

Yes, I have and it very clearly succeeded at it's goal of advertising DOTS, but that's irrelevant to my point which is that you don't have to use the terrain system to work with the engine. It's common for developers to create terrain in external modeling tools which is what I suspect is happening with the most recent demos.

 

So getting everyone and their mom to report the bug is the way to go, got it.

I can't imagine why it would be hard to unload them. At some point you scan the database for all the brushes and load them, which in turn loads the textures because of the way the dependency system works in Unity, which is unfortunate because you don't need to load the texture until it's actually needed for stamping. So you either have to virtualize the brushes, or prevent the texture load, or at least don't load them until you need them (right now it loads them when you select a terrain, you might not even be using stamps, so why load them then?).

What I do in the MV content browser is save the GUID into the scriptable object equivalent of your brush instead of using a reference to the texture, and have the editor control make it act like an object reference. Then it's not automatically loaded when you load the 'brush'. Once the UI needs to display one, it loads the texture, generates a 128x128 icon for it and unloads it, so only the 128x128 texture is needed. Having the UI directly display hundreds of 4k textures is a really, really bad idea.

 

Don't get your hopes too high. Usually this kind of thing happens when stocks are doing bad for some time, which is the case for Silicon Valley right now. People investing in such companies needs to feel that major changes at the top will bring new value.

 

Unity posted its first profitable quarter in 18 years last quarter. So its long-term future is looking more stable, although this was on a non-GAAP basis, so all kinds of accounting tricks cannot be discounted.

We will need to see what happens over the next year. The coming recession / financial crisis could still cause massive layoffs / restructuring.

 

what, Unity is not making money, despite the youtube - talks, they say 50 - 60 % of all video - games are made in Unity, it's gotta be an error, also if the engine isn't making money we're sort - of lucky to get new features, or even bug - fixes at all, the engine is losing money // very sad over the stuff, very important cultural work . . .

 

There is a difference between "making money" and "being profitable", especially where growth is being driven by investment.

Unity is "making money" from many sources. They weren't "profitable" until recently because the business was spending more than it was generating by selling products and services.

That's possible because one of their income streams was investors buying in. Investors give money to a business early in a growth cycle in hopes that it accelerates the growth, and thus allows them to take much more out later on than they originally put in. It's pretty common for businesses to be making money without turning a profit for years, though obviously that growth strategy gets riskier the longer it goes on, and has to stop at some point so that everyone can (hopefully) start getting money out instead of putting it in.

 

You wouldn't have to consider that because that's broken anyway. Every time I export something I'm wondering how on earth can Unity possibly have a connection between this asset and another. The only common denominator would be the scene, ie I used those assets in the same scene. But that wouldn't make sense, so I doubt that's what's happening.

Like here, all I want is to export the ShaderPackage script. And this is what Unity suggests for the export:



Obviously the "Include dependencies" function considers more than it should.

Edit: I took a look at the code. Now I know why. And this makes no sense to me including all scripts when there's a single script in the dependencies.

Code (CSharp):

1. internal static IEnumerable<ExportPackageItem> GetAssetItemsForExport(ICollection<string> guids, bool includeDependencies)
2. {
3.     // if nothing is selected, export all
4.     if (0 == guids.Count)
5.     {
6.         string[] temp = new string[0]; // <--- I dont get this API
7.         guids = new HashSet<string>(AssetDatabase.CollectAllChildren(AssetDatabase.assetFolderGUID, temp));
8.     }
9.  
10.     ExportPackageItem[] assets = PackageUtility.BuildExportPackageItemsListWithPackageManagerWarning(guids.ToArray(), includeDependencies, true);
11.  
12.     // If any scripts are included, add all scripts with dependencies
13.     if (includeDependencies && assets.Any(asset => UnityEditorInternal.InternalEditorUtility.IsScriptOrAssembly(asset.assetPath)))
14.     {
15.         assets = PackageUtility.BuildExportPackageItemsListWithPackageManagerWarning(
16.             guids.Union(UnityEditorInternal.InternalEditorUtility.GetAllScriptGUIDs()).ToArray(), includeDependencies, true);
17.     }
18.  
19.     // If the user exports the root Assets folder, we need to remove it from the list
20.     // explicitly, as it doesnt make sense
21.     assets = assets.Where(val => val.assetPath != "Assets").ToArray();
22.  
23.     return assets;
24. }

I guess it's this way for historic reasons and now are better ways to detect the dependencies. If you want me to file a bug report, let me know. "I dont get this API" kind of suggests that someone should look over the code.

 

Becoming a publicly traded company is yet another stream that some companies use to grow further. Unity was able to raise $1.3 billion USD with their IPO (Initial Public Offering) which at the time would've been equivalent to almost two years of revenue.

https://venturebeat.com/business/un...1-1-billion-in-ipo-at-12-1-billion-valuation/
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/U/unity-software/revenue

 

Unity is not having organic growth. They are acquiring companies that are outside of their core competency. It is a dangerous game, and investors are not stupid. Interest rates are high. The easy money has dried up.

Unity is not a new fast-growing startup. Its organic growth potential is questionable. It already has a leading market share in the game engine market.

Unity says it will be profitable in 2023. Investors expect that to be true. ESG ratings can only go so far.

 

dumb as it is, for me it's mostly important they try to at least fix bugs, and perhaps also keep the engine bit more over the indie - stuff, think Unreal, and also Cryengine, more, and more small engines here and there are starting to make that stuff, think having this amazing place where more indie - devs, or ' garage band ' heroes get together is important, so it's not important to me if they have a new CTO // make money, or whatever, more that ' Unity ' stays the same, though tbh thought the engine was a massive money - fest, also everyone knows this engine, then Unreal, a few others, thought the engine was worth 5 - 10 bio $$$$ . . .

anyway, don't understand the money stuff, more concerned over the engine being bit more indie, or for a demographic that tends to get ignored, or they add various commercial features, and it ends up being a cash - grab, or half a Mr. Scrooge McDuck - place to even work, also market culture, or various fiction, or content, etc etc . . .

whatever, the new CTO, the question is more if the engine turns into ' something else ', or alienates the core users, or essentially becomes a Unreal // Cryengine clone, also not sure this is on topic, however think it's important to get to the ' important ' questions, or what this new CTO stuff actually means, or also impact over the engine . . . .

 

+1, I’ve encountered this a lot, and just genuinely confused on why it kept exporting unrelated assets as dependency as well. Encountered this a lot with materials & shaders. I hope this get fixed.

 

Too late for that they are a publicly traded company and must answer to their shareholders.

 

If you want indie focus, Unity won't ever return to that because Unity already largely dominates the indie market and indies don't really generate any profit for Unity since there's no revshare. A few pro licenses per successful indie team is nothing in the face of hundreds of millions they earn from mobile ads.

 

I think at this point if you want an indie focus the only sane thing to do is start learning godot (and its fun! its like unity pre 5 era)

 

I keep describing Godot as "Unity 4.6 with the best parts of 5.3, but with a better core foundation".

 

yea, it looks ever since Unity went from the original owners, think was sold to a big american conglomerate it's taking a turn more, and more for the commercial, or monetize-whatever stuff, the problem is sort - of understand they're at least doing that if the engine isn't make money, it's sort - of a need to move, also if there's going to be an engine . . .

my suggestion is quite simple, most indies, or jam - titles make perhaps 1000 - 2000 $$, most prob. almost make nothing, so if the engine wants to stay indie, and also make money, they simply have to make a different pay-for-services contract, something perhaps more below 10.000 $$ per year, the engine gets 1 % of any $$ made, make above 20.000 $$ year // per employee, it's 2 % for every dollar earned, that's the kind of stuff think could make the engine make a ton of money, or enough to at least pay the employees, however also keep the engine focused on indie, and even less profitable stuff, it'd make a bit of money from all those jam - games, or little-succes indie games, and perhaps then be the engine of that group of people . . .

the point here is, doesn't matter who the CTO is, what matters is what goals, or perhaps ideals, or community - services the engine is trying to make, or produce, and for the engine to stay ' Unity ' think it's more important they start changing their business - model, so it's the ' indie ' engine, ie. there's a ton of money from that group of people, and then they could also start growing that market, or be an even better engine for that demographic == more money, and a better engine . . . .

or, to keep the engine on the community - focused stuff, make below 200 $$, the engine is free to use, make 200 - 1000 $$ per person, or for a title, engine gets 1 %, 1000 - 10.000 $$, engine gets 2 %, and above that engine makes 4 %, it's a way of making sure the core indie - devs are actually giving a bit to the engine, sort - of also fair over not having to make a pro - engine, with also quality features, and licenses from various enterprise - content, and it might be the ' indie ' engine, and have that so-to-speak ' golden ' relationship with that demographic, again the point is whoever the CTO is doesn't matter, what matters is where the engine is going, the current CTO is an unknown, name was something Luc, and has worked for EA, it's more over finding the ideas, or perhaps what-to-do that works for everybody, and perhaps also thinking bit over how to make sure the engine at least makes money, think it's quite necessary to have any business . . . .

 

Almost every company they've acquired is involved in mobile platforms to some degree which is a large part of what made the game engine as popular as it is now.

 

Unity are positioning the engine as a real-time 3D content platform that does a lot more than just games. They are aggressively expanding into other markets like TV/Movies and other industries. All the new Unity tooling is aimed at large studio workflows and big budget titles be it games or something else. Unity is a company with more than 5k employees that can't be sustained with focus on indies even if they introduce more aggressive monetization aimed at the group which would likely push people away, rather than increase revenue.

Unity have outgrown indies and there's no going back.

Also, Unity wasn't sold, the company simply went public and changed leadership along the way from game developers to money suits who do business, not game development.

 

This. Godot isn't fantastic but it's not terrible either and it's free. If Unity tried to enforce tight monetization (esp royalties) on indie developers the ones that are using it out of choice or habit but have been on the fence would jump ship.

They wouldn't lose that much either. Assets from the store that are code won't be usable but almost everything else from the store (artwork and animations, music and sound, etc) can be used outside of Unity thanks to how lenient the license is. Very few assets have custom licenses preventing this.

 

well, looking at Unity the entire thing offers a ton of good content, or also pro - features, and those features also benefit indies, though have to do admit the photo - realistic human generator stuff, or life - like animations on everything, it almost looks better than Unreal, or more monetization-options is perhaps what's bit weird, however looking at all those features they could -also- benefit indies, so in that sense not really worried, or think it might be a mostly win-win for most people, that's where it's difficult to see what's going to happen, or what demographic is going to benefit . . .

for me, have to admit it'd be amazing if at least the engine made money, think at least this cultural, or important platform for expression, and also fiction is at least something that should be rewarded, and money is a very respectable way of doing that, if done with bit concern, or not beyond what makes sense, or etc etc . . .

however, do think the people that have made the engine deserve a proper reward, it's after all almost a cultural titan, or worth a ton, not just money, also fun, or opportunities to a large group of people, however what think really matters is, there's a new CTO, it's a new day, perhaps it's also a person that thinks bit more ' money ', than features, or even what the community requests, however think it's better then to look to perhaps the positive in this, and perhaps if the people that use the engine got together, and had some amazing ideas, or voiced ( constructive ) concerns the stuff might get to the people that even decide over the engine, or there's an important place here to at least share ideas, or perhaps what matters to people that use the engine, and then it could happen, if mostly what people do is either complain, or not share constructive ideas, or stuff that perhaps also is a win-win for the engine, also, not sure anyone is going to listen, and it's bit more sensible to have those amazing ideas, or talk concerns more constructively . . . .

if had to be honest, and looking at all the things Unity are adding to the engine, tbh it looks like it's mostly stuff that could also benefit, or even take the indie - community in a new direction, or perhaps help them develop new forms of business, or otherwise contribute to culture, other content, or perspectives, looking at all the things Unity are adding, though made for very high - quality stuff, or top-of-line, there's no saying people couldn't use it in more modest titles, or otherwise help make indie - content better, so see no loss there, at least one could just use 30 - 40 % of the feature - stuff, and make some perhaps groundbreaking, or also perhaps one could say a modest renaissance over various culture . . . .

these are the important questions, not who's the CTO, and also perhaps sharing those ideas // concerns in a place where people that actually work for, or at least could listen at a modest level to these things, could also get them to the people that's making an amazing engine, tbh can't fault the engine for anything, except perhaps a bit turn to the more commercial, that might benefit also indies, however it's both concerning, also a debate if it's even going the right way, or if bad decisions are made to point them out at an early time, or at least let the engine devs know that people are either upset, or might then vote with their feet, or also wallet . . . .

it's better to be constructive, or make the ' best ' of a new CTO, by at least thinking bit over what that new leadership might listen to, or then try and look for win-win, or more voice criticism, or also concern in a sensible, or perhaps even helpful way . . . .

 

Weta Digital and Digital Monarch Media were not. Those where in films and felt like a move Adobe would make.

 

Unity is not buying other companies to make games. They buy them, as they are profitable. They may as well do nothing with them, to integrate into Unity, other than ownership and prrofit.
They may potentially drive Unity tools and services, to make them convenient for multi mln dollars companies if anything. Us little devs may benefit from them, rather as bi product if anything.

They technically don't need to, unless start loosing market shares.

 

Like I said, "almost every company".

Game engines are used for more than just games.

https://unity.com/solutions/real-time-filmmaking-explained
https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/solutions/film-television

There are a ton of articles on this subject. Here are a couple examples.

https://usv.edu/blog/using-gaming-engines-to-make-feature-films/
https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/entertainment/game-engines-hollywood

Here's one mentioning Unreal Engine's use in Disney's The Mandalorian.

https://www.filmmakersacademy.com/are-game-engines-the-future-of-filmmaking/

 

This always bugged me, I would like to know what is the ratio of developers to money eaters.

 

Is it all necessary things to worry about all we need to community running and work going good. BTW E.A mention already.

 

What you are saying is just not accurate. Since 2018 Unity has acquired the following largish firms. IronSource, Weta Digital, Códice Software, Parsec and Digital Monarch Media. Out of those, only IronSource is focused on mobile games, and they are hardly what I would call best of breed. Parsec does have some overlap with mobile games. Parsec allows you to stream games from your PC to your mobile device, but I would not call it their focus. Their focus is streaming services and remote access both for games and industrial applications.

The smaller companies they acquired, like Graphine and Interactive Data Visualization, Inc. tend to be more within their core competency.

 

A "few" doesn't do it justice. According to Crunchbase (which is unfortunately paywalled) it's a total of 26.

https://www.crunchbase.com/search/a...nizations/num_acquisitions/unity-technologies

ChatGPT was able to identify 14 (better than I expected) most of which are gaming-focused companies.

Spoiler: ChatGPT's List

As of my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, here are the companies that Unity Technologies has acquired and a brief description of their respective areas of expertise:

1. ChilliConnect - A cloud-based backend service provider for game developers.
   
   
2. Codice Software - A provider of version control and collaboration software for teams of all sizes.
   
   
3. DeltaDNA - A provider of analytics and personalization tools for game developers.
   
   
4. Finger Food Advanced Technology Group - A developer of virtual and augmented reality experiences, as well as AI and IoT solutions.
   
   
5. Obvioos - A French computer vision and machine learning company that provides 3D object detection and tracking.
   
   
6. Multiplay - A provider of game server hosting and matchmaking services.
   
   
7. Applifier - A mobile game monetization and advertising platform.
   
   
8. Vivox - A provider of voice and text communication services for online games.
   
   
9. Digital Monarch Media - A virtual cinematography company that uses AI and real-time rendering to create film-quality animations and cutscenes for games.
   
   
10. Agog Labs - Creator of the SkookumScript programming language for video game development.
    
    
11. Parsec - A remote desktop software provider, allowing for high-quality, low-latency streaming of games and other applications.
    
    
12. OTO - A provider of interactive audio and voice technologies for games, including voice recognition and text-to-speech.
    
    
13. Weta Digital - A visual effects and animation company that has worked on films such as The Lord of the Rings and Avatar, and is now working on real-time content creation using Unity.
    
    
14. RestAR - A provider of augmented reality tools for e-commerce and retail.

It's worth noting that Unity may have made additional acquisitions since my knowledge cutoff in September 2021.

 

I'm sure Unity want to be the next Adobe for 3D content. Weta tools and perhaps some of the other acquisitions almost certainly will ship in some kind of Adobe style subscription, likely separate from Unity license.

 

I don't know about wanting to be the next Adobe in the sense of creating content, but they clearly want to be the company that people go to for realtime visualization which is the strength of game engines.

Wikipedia says it's now up to more than 7.7K. Which makes sense as ironSource had more than 1.1K employees.

 

You don't spend $1.625 Billion on Weta Digital and not expect to be heavily involved in offline rendering.

 

Weta's Manuka renderer is first and foremost a realtime renderer. It's capable of being used offline but that's not the intended purpose of it. Unity acquiring Weta means they now have access to a highly advanced renderer, the technology behind the renderer, and all of the engineering staff that made that technology.

https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/manuka-weta-digitals-new-renderer/

I'm not just typing these posts up with information pulled out of thin air (though I do use the chatbot for some initial research before I dive into the actual research). I'm looking into what these companies offer and I'm not seeing the negative impact that so many in this thread have dreamt up.

 

Given the track record of Unity purchases of companies and assets, i do believe they'd integrate the tech from Weta
Also given how Weta gave some know-how to sidefx, just months before Unity bought it makes me think that the Weta purchase was all about IP, with its profitability as a 'bonus'.

Except that, apart from the use of Weta's IP for HDRP path tracing (for ex.), or the Weta staff 'consultancy', i fail to see how Weta's tools would be ported to Unity, or made to work with Unity like speedtree for ex., nor how much time that would take

 

There is this toolset that involves placing words and symbols between magic brackets in specific formations that can be used to do this. It is generically known as code. HTH.

 

Not forgetting about the context, would help you understand that we're talking about heavy lifting tools for cinematography, with their own architecture, especially like odin or tissue... or the other kind of simulation tools

They're designed for a different use case, so i think Unity will limit itself to putting in place a compatible workflow between the Unity engine and Weta tools, the portfolio of products grows, that's why some people fear a Unity "Adobefication"

I'm also not being negative... like i said i'm sure the Unity engine would benefit from this,
Just saying that the fears of some might not be unjustified

 

Hi. Been involved with digital sfx and cinematics since 1999... used to do editing and physical props, latex work prior. I currently make very few games and alot of high end applications, incorporation of AI tools, tools to assist character animators, NLP, inference and grammar engines. Weta has the brainpower. Do not estimate their skillset by yours or assume you know what codebase and framework the tools you mentioned incorporate. I suspect that no matter what yer gonna fall back to this...your standard routine indie position. These tools can be redesigned. That is what code does..but of course you know that and will continue to ignore it to bolster your griping.

 

So what? We're talking about people who've developed industry leading technology in their domain. Why would we assume that someone who is cluey enough to do that is somehow not able to figure out where their existing skills and experience apply and where new skills or research are required? We're not even talking about hugely disparate domains, in the grand scheme of things.

Lets not pigeonhole people by assuming that they can only ever do what they've already done, or by assuming that what they're known for is the only thing they've done.

 

Just be careful you don't buy too much into the "Adobefication". Like I mentioned earlier Unity isn't just acquiring tools here. Unity is acquiring technology and expertise. If said experts can't integrate their technology into other tools they're not much of an expert.

 

You quoted the wrong person there, @Ryiah.

 

Whoops. Fixed it.

 

Admit it or not weta's products and IP are in Unity's portfolio of products, it's a fact...

That's what i said too... Did you really read what i wrote?

I mean that's pretty obvious... i think you know what i mean by "designed for a different use case"
If you didnt understand it means that they do roughly the same thing, but for different purposes, meaning that the tools' architecture
is geared for HQ cinematography specifically, in the real-time world we need toned-down HQ in order to even function

Didn't say that, so it's your assumption about what i'm "assuming"

You seem to be unaware about the complexity of "the code" that there is behind a button.. one can't simply "redesign or integrate", also we're not talking about of a website here, it's industry standard heavy lifting tools..

Also it's not only about the capability of doing so, it's also about product managment, the Unity engine's managers have to go through heavy decision making before integrating anything, weighting the pros / cons

---

Like i'm not even a critic of Unity, i'm just neutral and want to see things for what thy are/could be. Why are y'all being so defensive, and someone is even demeaning..

Again i'm gonna repeat myself, i think the Unity engine will benefit from Weta teams(skillset, know-how), ip and products... but i do recognize
- that it might take years and years, if managment is even on board
- that there is a PROBABILITY of Unity's new products portfolio turning into a money making machine with a corporate aspect

I'm also not worried personally as it doesn't affect me, heck i might even see only the positive side effects.. but there's people who fear this outcome

 

I do, it's just irrelevant. Per your previous sentence, Unity are acquiring expertise, and that expertise is almost certainly capable of making real time stuff, and you say you're not assuming otherwise.

I very much doubt that Ryiah is suffering any such lack of awareness. It's a matter of perspective. One perspective is indeed that this stuff is hard and complicated, and nobody seems to be disagreeing. Another perspective is that, despite that, that the company in question has a track record of successful similar work, so they may well be in a great position to do it again, even if it has to be a bit different and will take some time.

 

I ruled that out from the beginning... said Unity engine will benefit from the know-how and IP,
what is "designed for a different use case" are the tools.., integrating/porting the tools is a different thing.. come on..

Let's see if i can phrase it another way:
The people who fear Adobefication are not confident in Unity integrating/porting weta's tools, because it's more likely that Unity only ensures a compatible workflow (between these tools and Unity), because:
- the process is a massive feat
- the process might be greatly impacted by management (and in some cases rightfully so)
- because of the image they have on Unity as a functioning company based on their experience with the Unity engine

Yeah.. i said that multiple times..

 

I really am not sure what you are trying to argue anymore. Are you just here to argue for the point of argueing?


We get it, you have strong opinions that you cannot substantiate in anyway. Time to stop beating this dead horse and stop derailing my thread further.

 

Sorry, i just have to correct (explain) when someone puts other words in my mouth

And about the thread @s_schoener pretty much said it all