Search Unity

Official: How Can We Serve You Better?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by bibbinator, May 14, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MattRix

    MattRix

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Posts:
    99
    It's great that the bug I mentioned was finally fixed yesterday (http://issuetracker.unity3d.com/iss...-for-the-first-time-also-launches-adb-dot-exe), but just to be clear, my point wasn't about that specific issue... It's about that fact that there was a bug reported in version 4.3.0f4, which means back around Nov 2013, and now the fix was just released yesterday. That's over half of a year just to fix a single bug!
     
  2. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,680
    One of the areas where I think game development is difficult is in how to get certain things to happen at a certain time or in a certain sequence or when certain conditions are met. There is so much emphasis placed on `space`, ie this object goes here, that goes there, this is how it's laid out, this is the level design, here are the models etc... but in terms of time, time doesn't really kick in until you hit `play`. When you're in develop mode, editing the scene, it's like time is frozen and yet, what you really want in your game - the game experience - is this progression of flow and change and logic and movement, with pacing and scheduling and, well, `timing`.

    So as soon as you go out of edit mode and can't `develop` any more, you're now in a whole new world which has the passage of time and (usually) changes to space are limited. So development = changes to space, playback = changes to time? ... So for me at least it becomes quite a hard question - how do I get this thing to happen then that thing then that thing, and then it turns into separate animation editors and logic and scripting and so on to try to assemble this organic sequence of gameplay, and that just seems too hard and complicated, and the whole `time is frozen` way of trying to create `experiences in time` becomes very removed and unintuitive.

    So to really get to grips with how to make stuff happen when you want it to, it'd be great to have a really cool timeline editor which allows you to build basic programming logic into it that happens over time, kind of like a visual programming thing, and similar to the cutscene timeline tools, but where it's able to span the whole length of the game, to cue up level loading and pathways through the whole game, to also implement logic things like conditions and branches and nested loops etc... to handle menu screens and cutscenes and in-game animations and character AI etc..

    So then I could say like, ok, I want this sequence (animation?) to happen, then be followed by this logic being triggered, then when something else happens this other animation occurs, then the pathway changes, then the state modifies and unlocks a door, then there's this animation, then certain things are spawned/certain animations are triggered etc, then certain AI logic kicks in... but instead of all these separate pieces, do it all within one visual `time flow` tool. Then it's more like editing video, in a way, but more interactive and dynamic. And then you should be able to of course go forward/back in time to a position in `actual gameplay`, ie to EDIT TIME, and move through the gameplay and adjust what happens via the timeline system... I guess kind of like `bullet time` being able to scrub the gameplay.

    For me I think that would be so much easier than what has to happen now (typically lots of scripts and animation clips and so on) to try to build an experience.
     
  3. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,810
    I agree.

    As much as I like the asset store, I have spent the last day trying to get something I paid for to install properly. I constantly have conflicts between assets and I waste hours reading forum posts and waiting for replies to questions (although most developers are fantastic at getting back to me when they can do so).

    Basically, I am patching free to give me some of the things I need to do the things I need to do with my game using assets from the store. Hours are spent fixing things. I feel like I am trying to play an EA game!

    We are committed to Unity mostly because of an upcoming asset which we have invested in. But that asset looks like it may not be exactly what we wanted it to be. If UE4 becomes move viable for us, we too will have to move. We will gladly pay the $228 a year for UE4 and would pay more. We don't want something for free. What we want is to have a chance to develop our game without having to spend $100's of dollars on assets, many that turn out not working together or not doing the job for us. Actually, I would imagine that we would be halfway to a pro license now if not for the wasted money on assets, much of of it my fault for not understanding how things work here.

    A better pricing structure, maybe a watermarked copy, an Indie tier that allows you to pay $500 for a non-commercial Pro copy with a chance to upgrade in the future, a subscription that is affordable ($50 a month maybe?), or even a Free version with the ability actually publish a game. I don't care about the fancy shaders but I do care about optimization.

    Actually, I don't think Unity should give developers a free version of Unity Pro. I think even $19 a month is too low. But I do think there needs to be a way to break the barrier for some of us. Giving us Platforms for free isn't going to help because not all of us are developing on platforms and it does not change the price at all for the rest of us.

    Of course, it could be that Unity wants to focus on the small independent companies rather than the hobbyists and the students. That is fine...just tell us, okay? :) I am sure many of us will never get to the point of publishing a game, but I bet the hobbyist who are posting on this thread have a better chance than most. We care at least.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  4. Archania

    Archania

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Posts:
    1,662
    If I remember right (given the mind isn't what it use to be lol) thought they had it in an update and thought they got it but users still had issues. I know for me it is a hit and miss with that issue.
    But hopefully they got it now worked out correctly.
     
  5. superpig

    superpig

    Quis aedificabit ipsos aedificatores? Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Posts:
    4,250
    Well, this is why they've changed things to have this 'sustained engineering team' I think - clearly the approach they were taking before wasn't working out, and the half-year taken to fix that bug was symptomatic of it. So they've already implemented a fix for their broken processes; the question now is whether that fix is sufficient/effective.
     
  6. GiusCo

    GiusCo

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Posts:
    405
    Lurker and hobbyist since 2009, now using Unity for simple and small themed edutainment games (modding and assembling templates bought from the Asset Store).

    In my humble opinion, you have two problems at UT at this stage:

    - Free is not perceived for what it really is, mostly because you chose to democratise the arena. In fact, people just want all games done, all skins done, all in-app ready prototypes and one simple "MAKE GAME" button to ship and further inundate the low-end market. You started this, you may need stopping this.

    - Pro + iOS + Android + seats + asset server + what else is expensive because other engines are now starting eating into your Semi-Pro and Pro market. Despite expectations, people still complain because of half-baked products, bugs and so on.

    That said, I really think you need to ship a clean cut and fully polished Unity 5 in order to justify both charging for Free again (to give it a value, say $9.99/month subscription and get rid of this sense of entitlement for free, more and more for free) and keep Pro users satisfied (lowering the price is an option in the case the product is not going to be up to your own announcements and competition). Good luck.
     
  7. ZachHoefler

    ZachHoefler

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2014
    Posts:
    1
    I've been using Unity regularly for the past 2.5 years or so. First as a student, and now doing the indie start-up thing =]

    My dream feature would be some way to support user-created content (you know, game mods) with Unity. Right now, to do that, you'd have to build your own level editor, which removes like 90% of the "niceness" that Unity provides.

    The built-in Input system really needs to be extended so that you can configure input from an options menu in-game. You're stuck building an abstraction on top of Unity's abstraction just to actually be able to change input in-game. (Or there's some unintuitive way to do it that I've yet to see anyone point out online) Given how old the system is, though, I can imagine it's probably fairly difficult to change (woo, legacy code!).

    Unity works very, very well as a general engine, but some genres are very difficult to work with in Unity. Real-time strategy games are a great example of something you just can't easily do in Unity: different networking paradigm, can't do user-generated content, probably have to layer your own update system on top of Unity's built-in stuff because it's not designed to handle updating components on hundreds of units constantly, etc. Basically, you end up fighting with Unity rather than working with it. Other genres are beautifully painless (e.g. platformers). Source code access, perhaps gated behind a subscription, would be one way to mitigate this. One could argue "just use a different engine," but it's not like there are a ton of commercial-quality engines out there to cover every niche, so instead it comes down to "what's the best option that we can also modify heavily to fit our needs".

    Also, thanks for all the hard work on a great piece of software to work with =]
     
  8. Aras

    Aras

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    4,550
    So yes, you're thinking in terms of "geometry modeling", i.e. having a mesh with vertices, faces, face normals, connectivity, edges, perhaps smoothing groups, etc. Unity does not do that (as well as all other game engines, I think).

    Unity primarily imports meshes for rendering. For that, the only thing that exists (and is needed) is vertex data and triangle indices. Vertex data is split as soon as anything in the vertex is different (normals, UVs, colors etc.). Face normals? Does not exist. Connectivity? Does not exist. Smoothing groups? Does not exist. Or rather, they do exist as a concept, but they are not imported, calculated nor stored by Unity anywhere.

    If you want to have meshes for "modeling purposes" (half-edges and whatnot), you'll have to build that system yourself.
     
  9. Aras

    Aras

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    4,550
    Sounds like what you actually want here is occlusion queries (that can return just how many pixels were rendered for some object). We don't support them right now, but if we did implement them... I think that might be a better solution to your case.
     
  10. Willster

    Willster

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Posts:
    95

    I would be in favour of this. People seem to be arguing against certain license options in favour of others, but they are not mutually exclusive, e.g. you can have subscription, outright buy and rental all offered at the same time. I am in favour of the 'pay to publish' method, free to develop option. Developing with a watermark that says 'development license, not for commercial sale' would be acceptable. However, there's no reason why Unity can't offer all of the following licenses, to suit each developer:

    1. Pay to publish, watermark on development, upgrade when you want to sell / publish your product.
    2. Buy outright, up front cost, allowing those who need to to claim it as a capital expenditure for tax purposes to do so.
    3. Offset Buy (subscription) for x months. You pay the cost of the license over the course of the term and at the end you own it. Effectively an 0% interest option. You would be tied in to the term and full payment
    4. Rent. Substantially reduced cost to the subscription, except you never own it. Can cancel at any time, but stops working if you unsubscribe.

    Just a few ideas. Each individual / company is free to choose what suits them. Could even have a royalty option if they feel so inclinded.

    Oh and to the people saying people would abuse the system, well, don't treat your customer as if they will engage in criminal behaviour. We all know ways to not pay that are easier, if we were so inclined.
     
  11. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    One thing I do like about the .meta files is that it's almost entirely transparent. I am sloppy about moving files/directories and in the end, Unity cleans up after me. Please don't move them to a new directory - what a bother SVN commits would be!

    Gigi
     
  12. TheDMan

    TheDMan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Posts:
    201
    If it existed and worked equally as well as the Windows/OSX versions and stable I would definitely use it.


    In a way I kind of agree with you because its been what 9 weeks since UE4 came out on the scene publicly so they should have opened this thread the day after not 9 weeks later. I am wondering if anyone in Unity has made any decision whatsoever regarding pricing in 9 weeks or not? If not, then that is poor decision making efficiency.

    Or is this like you said, a way to delay decision on pricing by distracting users with other issues.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  13. shkar-noori

    shkar-noori

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Posts:
    833
    @Aras are we going to get a Decal System? Deffered Decals or Mesh-Based Decals? any of them?
     
  14. Willster

    Willster

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2012
    Posts:
    95
    Just a quick one here, but with an editable poly, as each vertex has knowledge of what it is connected to and what are the edges, a cube will have 8 vertices as an editable poly. If you convert it to an Editable Mesh, then it will have 14 vertices, as each triangle only knows that it was made from the previous two vertices supplied and the one it just got. This is the way that most game engines store objects. With a triangle fan, or triangle strip, then you need three vertices for the first triangle, then one vertex for each subsequent triangle. So, for a cube, first triangle is three vertices and the remaining eleven need one, or 3+11 = 14 vertices.

    Try applying an Editable Mesh modifier to a cube and see how many vertices you get in Max (or whatever you use).
     
  15. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Arkon warned about cherry-picking. As an example, more people have suggested the subscription price is wrong than those who have asked for Pro features to be free/watermarked. As another example, only one or two folks suggested providing 'discounts for multiple add-ons', whereas, dozens have requested that ALL add-ins be included with the Pro license.

    I suggest updating the summary list with these:
    * Reduce the subscription cost significantly
    * Shuriken - finish documentation, full API for editor features, and updates (ex. 2D)
    * Include all add-ons with the Pro purchase.

    Keeping things honest ;),
    Gigi.
     
  16. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    Not to me. Mac/Windows is a pretty diverse solution.
    Gigi
     
  17. Ebkac

    Ebkac

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    62
    I am hobbyist with aspirations of becoming am amateur someday and making enough on my games to break even on what I have invested in books, tutorials, assets and licenses.

    I have a few thoughts on pricing to throw out there.

    Make it simpler. Desktop, Mobile, Web. Free versions for all that continue the trend of holding back Pro level features and include watermarks either at the start like now or even overlaid forever while playing.

    Reward people who buy Desktop Pro with discounts for buying the other Pro versions. First Pro add-on is X price, but second Pro add-on is X price but with Y discount. Third Pro add-on is X price with Y discount and Z discount.

    Subscriptions are awesome for a software company as it levels out your revenue stream so you can budget better. That is the big reason why Adobe and Microsoft are going that direction. I have worked in IT my entire life so we call it "maintenance" in my world and it is how I do all my systems. I don't want to pay for upgrades, I want it built into my support contracts. Unity subscriptions should include premium forums and e-mail support and all future upgrades of the software. Basically what I'm saying is add more value to the subscription model that goes beyond just all future upgrades. Maybe give a subscription holder X amount of Asset Store credit per month as another bonus.

    The big problem with the pricing is not the price, but context of who is buying it. Coming from an IT career, I can tell everyone who is on these forums reading this that Unity is extremely cheap for what it does. VERY cheap. For a medium to large sized company, the price isn't even a rounding error for the value it brings. However coming from a hobbyist perspective it feels super expensive. So the free versions are there for the hobbyist or small studio and paid versions are there for those who have a budget and can buy it. Frankly, I think the free version is "too good" and you give away too much with it and needs to hold more back to push people into actually buying your product.

    My thoughts on features.


    Roadmap is important. Again, coming from my IT background, "not" knowing what is coming in the next version is frustrating. I understand you have heavy competition and don't want to reveal everything but that can be kept for the next, next version. However the version coming out should have features spelled out so we know what is coming and where to focus our time on. It is VERY common for a major feature to get delayed even though it was on the roadmap for this coming version. Seriously, if it isn't baked and ready, just tell users that it isn't going to make it and is pushed back to the next release.

    Make licensing the free versions of everything to a school or lab environment easier. I am doing several sessions at a summer camp on game development with Unity and getting it all working is proving to be annoying with registering everything. Clarke Summer Academy

    Become a sponsor of the Blender Foundation and develop a relationship with Ton on making the Blender/Unity pipeline amazing. 3DSMax and Maya may be the current masters of the universe but Blender is the future.

    Buy ProBuilder or hire the developers like you did the NGUI guy and integrate it deep into Unity. I've known the SixBySeven crew for a long time and they are serious about making a great product.

    Create hotkeys that will let us switch layouts in Unity quickly. I have a bunch of layouts depending on what I am doing and it can be a painful to swap between them.

    I know there is an asset store item that allows us to create Humanoid based animations using bones inside Unity but this is a feature that should be native. Allow us to access the bones of a rig and create animations from inside Unity.

    New input manager please!

    You make an amazing product and I hope you continue to grow and thrive as a company.

    Thank you for all that you do for game developers big and small.
     
  18. Grungi_Ankhfire

    Grungi_Ankhfire

    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Posts:
    5
    I mentioned it, and it would be tremendous! For now I am still switching back and forth between Windows and Linux (Windows basically only for Unity...) So, well, technically I could continue dual-booting and all that jazz, and I'm sticking with it because I love using Unity, but a Linux editor would drastically improve my productivity.

    The thing is that this thread is basically followed by people already using Unity, so, in that regard, the Linux version cannot really be a "must-have" feature, since everyone already has access to Unity. I know that the lack of Linux editor pushed back my adoption of Unity for several months, and I would have opted for another engine if I had found one with full Linux support. But that's only my 2 cents on that issue :)
     
  19. tboney

    tboney

    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    Posts:
    1
    People are fully aware of that. UT have often spoken about AAA, but where are these AAA level titles of which they speak? It's always in the next version apparently. Heck, the Unity name itself appears to be so low in some peoples' minds they want it removed from games actually made with Unity. That's gotta hurt. Have you seen the twelvety billion logos in a AAA title loading screen?

    Look at UT's showcase page, randomly clicking on this supposed list of the best of the best made with Unity results in "coming soon" or kickstarter pages. Seriously?! A showcase should be something out there in the wild that stands above the crowd, strutting its funky stuff with Bee Gees music in time with the gait, not this bloody vaporware with a bit of nice artwork.

    In this thread alone, we've seen UT employees get defensive and argue with customers, admit there are too many bugs to fix, spout FUD against Epic's ability to manage their opened UE4 (get real), and that's not counting the plethora of pleas from customers saying "please fix your bugs!".

    If UT was on the stock market, would you buy the stock today? If you were a hobbyist or student staring out today (i.e. the future skill base and general rah-rah supporter), would you chose Unity over UE4 (or Cry)? The fact "professional" outfits are bitching over a measly $4500, not even a couple of weeks salary for a pro-developer (in the West), says that UT's product is mostly used in low end mass market low margin products. You simply cannot milk that market for long (although I've come across far worse pricing models for significantly less), which is why they royalty option probably won't work for UT.

    As for the costs, UT is a business. Once they killed the mediocre opposition it was clear prices would rise and continue to do so. That's the same for *all* successful businesses: kill the oppo, squeeze what's left. Alas, Epic F***ed that plan up. There may well be good from all of this once the dust settles. Regular small point releases might replace the months of waiting for bug fixing, and bugs might be taken a little more seriously.

    Personally speaking, UT needs a free or thereabouts option, it simply isn't good enough for pro-only shops. There might be 12-18 months buffer, but UE4 is already raising uncomfortable question for UT, just wait until the current in-development projects are done... GG2?

    Free is where their users are coming from. Remember, the first hit is always free. The trouble with the free version is that it is crippleware, and that should anyone bother to complete and release something (which happens a lot), it's got a massive Unity logo coming up on something that isn't representative of what could have been done. This can only tarnish the Unity brand. It would make sense to free up a dead-end version, something that's "here it is but you're on your own!". What's better, giving out the full "Pro" suite for 3.5 or a crippled 4.x? Which creates the better product image in app stores for UT? (keeping the powered by logo, of course).

    UT should also take bugs seriously, these broken parts of the product that aren't fixed cost others time and money. Are your developers so bad at design and coding Unity can't fix things? Or is it all a bullshit code dump and try to con the customer into buying yet another version with the lure of AAA (yawn)? Genuine bugs mind you, not planks that don't know what they're doing. If you get a real bug report that is reproducible, it should be fix asap. Source access may help here, but I if the code is so bad developers admit things can't be fixed, how embarrassing would it be if the code got out in the wild? Does UT have internal metrics for bug reports and who's fault they are? Bonuses for the least, firing for the worst? I have never worked at a site where a bug wasn't top priority

    UT has to up their game with tutorials and docs (the latter appears to be in hand already - time will tell, promises for the future - as usual). Epic have changed the game here, keep up or look crap basically. It doesn't even have to cost UT money, just create a system where people can vote upsey or downy imaginary Internet points. Winner at the end of the year gets a free subscription to new version X, team dinner with UT, and a slap up dinner at Mrs Miggin's Pie Shoppe. E.g. look at your 2D tutorial, look at that artwork. It's terrible, hardly showing off a product, it's more like a Blue Peter competition winner!

    UT appears to be chasing all platforms, when from the outside it looks like there are only 3 players (consoles are a world unto themselves and whiners bitching about pro pricing certainly aren't getting anywhere near dev kits for a console). If $fringe_platform wants UT output, they should pay UT to incorporate it and all associated costs. Mobile users want iOS and Android, not dead end tripe for BB and win-mobe. Free Wii-U for nintendo devs? Who paid for that? Even the big N can't sell it these days. Who the hell paid to be an N dev yet wants Wii U free in Unity? Web player support for free? Tiny market, few want it beyond click-bait crapware seeing as it needs yet another sodding plug-in. Flash is conspicuous by its absence, it wasn't that long ago UT were fanfarring it from the tallest building on the highest peak. I guess reality threw down the buggy flashplayer and smote its ruin upon the mountainside?

    My background: Developer since 1986, freelance since '97, covering mainframe down to embedded. Yup, I'm an old fart (sans beard). And I hope UT weather the storm to keep UE, Cry and Jonny-Newcomer on their toes. I suspect UT with be bigger and strong in 18 months, that or have had massive lay-offs and wondering WTF went wrong. 18 month ain't long, tick tock tick tock. Asset store numbers will predict it all, Mystic Meg said so.

    That's my rant done, I'll fly by in a few months. Good luck UT Co. Tips hat and raises beer to Will Goldstone as I read his Essentials.
     
  20. Obsurveyor

    Obsurveyor

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Posts:
    276
    It's not "geometry modeling" it's just mathematical geometry. I don't know why you guys are fighting so hard against computer science here. You're focused only on the rendering perspective and that's a very narrow viewpoint. I'm saying there are real world uses of the mesh geometry, that if exposed through some kind of API, could have real world application. I don't want to have meshes for "modeling purposes" I want to have meshes for mathematical purposes!

    I'm not doing occlusion queries in the traditional sense though so even if you offered it, it probably wouldn't suit my purposes, so no, I don't "actually want" occlusion queries. I actually want to leverage the data Unity is already importing, mangling and then throwing away, to perform an occlusion-like operation for in-game response. I don't want to write my own importer for every file format Unity supports, from the ground up, just to do this. Ironically, if you already provided this data, someone else could already be offering an occlusion query system as an asset(not what I'm working on).
     
  21. Archania

    Archania

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Posts:
    1,662
    And yet all those people making the crappy games can't use the free version and make something decent, think all of a sudden that Unreal is going to make it all better. So nice graphics, S***ty ass game play. But guess that is ok cause they used unreal. Give me a break. Most of it is people not fully understanding how to make a game in the first place. Plus they automatically think they are some awesome ceo of a game studio yet they don't have a clue nor a legal company.
    Unity sees what is happening. They aren't stupid but yet lets cut off their feet to match the pricing and have thwm go under. Ya works great. Try running a company that can't meet payroll. Not going to last very long.
    The tools aren't going to make an awesome game for you. You better sit down and work at it which a lot of people don't do. This giveme attitude with no working involved is very sad.
    But enough. You are right. The bugs need to get fixed and improvements overall which it sounds like they are working on. If not then unity won't exist. Business is business. Wither improve and swim with the big boys or get drowned.
     
  22. the_motionblur

    the_motionblur

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Posts:
    1,736
    Not that I want to be nitpicky here but have you ever considered that other engines and/or licenses may actually *require* games to display the logos in the beginning? Dispalying logos is not always just an ego-thing developers can do at their own leisure or beacuse they think it's cool. Sure it's not a black and white area. Some may want to show an engine or tech logo because it's marketable.Yet I think you might have a biased view on things, here.

    Personally I'd be proud to display the Unity Logo on startup but on the other hand I dislike logo displays that cannot be skipped. So there's just a few minor considerations on logo display.

    Hey - ever wondered why a few logos can be skipped and others can't? ;)

    And regarding the quality discrepancy between games with the UE logo and Unity's Logo ... Epic has only now opened up to a new market. Give it some time until there will be entry-level or even pretty bad games displaying the UE logo on startup. If you open to the masses you will attract everybody. With all pros and cos. You post still somehow only seemed to weigh in the cons.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  23. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    2,606
    I hear what you are saying, but it is fair to compare what Unity is offering to what Epic is offering. Hobbyists are switching to UE4 in droves, because $19/month + 5% royalties for a full Pro version is the perfect price point for hobbyists. If Unity wants to retain those users, then Unity will match the pricing and terms that Epic announced on March 19. Note: I am not saying change their entire pricing model. Unity can keep all of their existing payment options, and merely add another Pro subscription option.

    Adding a $19/month + 5% royalty subscription plan would actually increase revenues. Users who are already paying $1500 for perpetual licenses have already said they hate royalties, so it is obvious that the $19/month + 5% royalty plan won't hurt those sales. The only thing adding a $19/month + 5% royalty plan will do is give tens of thousands of hobbyists the ability to pay Unity $19/month instead of Epic. It will generate millions of dollars in additional revenue for Unity.
     
  24. bibbinator

    bibbinator

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Posts:
    507
    @Gigiwoo

    Next update I post I'll modify the language again, but note that the "Shuriken" comment is the particle system already covered in the summary and that I already modified the add-ons cost.
     
  25. Noisecrime

    Noisecrime

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Posts:
    1,531
    Not me, in fact I rely on their visibility in explorer ( set Windows to show hidden files) as a sanity check for when i'm about to delete the library folder in order to transmit projects to other developers on the team. Without seeing them i'd get much more stressed.
     
  26. Noisecrime

    Noisecrime

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Posts:
    1,531
    Why are you so surprised that an engine based around realtime rendering only imports and uses the data it needs?

    Again I appreciate you feel a need for this data, but the number of people that need it is absolutely minuscule compared to the number of users Unity has, it just doesn't make sense for them to write whole new classes and maintain copies of this data just for a few people.

    Honestly in the time you've taken to pursue this in this thread you could have written an obj importer, though as you are actually needing additional data such as edgelists and triangle adjacency, you might be better off writing a dedicated exporter for your modelling program of choice to a simple format that you could load in, instead of trying to rebuild that data in Unity from the basic mesh data.
     
  27. AndrewGrayGames

    AndrewGrayGames

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Posts:
    3,823
    So it's been a couple of days since I posted in here, but I have a question: what problems were the Shuriken particle system supposed to solve?

    On my last project, I started off intending to purely use Shuriken, as it was a newer, better-presented, and possibly better particle framework. About six month into The Hero's Journey I went through and changed all my particle systems back to Legacy Particles, because they could do more things than Shuriken (for instance, a 'black hole' effect is doable in legacy particles; you can't do such a thing in Shuriken.)

    As much as I thought that the better-skinned UI for working with Shuriken particles was a step in the right direction, I was amazed to find that the Shuriken editor interface was actually worse, because it was harder to find options that I wanted to work with; when I converted to Legacy Particles, all of the options are right there, immediately (though, broken up across three different components), and the Legacy system exposes more and better options.

    I'm really puzzled. I'm sure there was a reason to add a particle system that can do less than the old particle system, and present it worse, but the meaning of it all evades me.
     
  28. superpig

    superpig

    Quis aedificabit ipsos aedificatores? Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Posts:
    4,250
    Not a lot of complexity, though, surely? If you don't find the .meta file via the current file name, you just repeat the check with the alternative file name. All change is work and carries risk, I know, but unless I'm missing something this doesn't look like a high-impact change to me.

    That's more compelling. But is this really going to happen more than once in the lifetime of a project? Setting up source control is one of the first things people do, no?

    I like the overall approach of .meta files. It does make it more complex when I'm trying to stage things in git (have to add extra steps to filter out .meta files often). But on the flipside I've been able to build some very useful tools that operate on the .meta files directly (e.g. accessing asset labels from within an AssetPostprocessor, letting me use the labels to store 'import options' for an asset).

    More significant from my POV though is how they impact workflow for artists; with my students I've basically had to ban any changelist submissions via P4V because they keep missing the .meta updates, which are then performed on other people's machines and lead very quickly to changelist pollution and merge conflicts... I did try raising this via the SCC users mailing list, but didn't get any reply. A worked example of how we're supposed to prevent the metas from getting out of sync with assets in source control would be very welcome - which P4 triggers to set up, etc.
     
  29. Lyje

    Lyje

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2013
    Posts:
    139
    You admit yourself at the end that it's about reality, not what would be nice, but you still seem to devote most of your post to saying "Why can't the world just give UT more money?".

    I'd also make a note that, as I've read it, the majority of people in this thread aren't saying "we want more for less" as you seem to imply, they're saying "we want to use Unity, here are the things that make that feasible for us rather than being forced to jump ship".
     
  30. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,680
    So does anyone think Unity should branch out and become more of a games publisher/promoter?
     
  31. Hikiko66

    Hikiko66

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    Posts:
    988
    Here are some ideas for a pricing model (only)

    1-Free version (as we have now)
    2-Pro trial (watermarked, unlimited timeframe)
    3-Pro (current threshold for mandatory license reduced to $25000, price reduction, all separate pro licenses consolidated into the standard pro license)
    4-A license is no longer fixed to a major point release. It spans a year from the day you buy it, persistent access to the last unity version released within the year your license spans
    5-Lower priced subscriptions, but still more expensive than a pro license, locked in for one year, persistent access to the last unity version released within the year your subscription spans


    I don't understand the argument for getting rid of the free version. It attracts beginners, and many others also use free. Free users also spend money on the asset store and contribute to the forums. They are potential pro users as well. I think unity would struggle to sell if it didn't offer a free version.

    The unlimited timeframe watermark trial is intended to convert these free users. Given an unlimited trial, people are able to experiment with pro features, and integrate them into their projects. It's very likely that conversion rates will increase drastically, as people compare their projects in free to their projects in pro and decide that they can't just "go back to the way things were", because they like the results too much. As it is now, I think the 1 month trial is often wasted too quickly. People use it before they know what they are doing, they don't have anywhere near enough time to play with most of the features, so pro is not able to become "indispensable" to them. The unlimited timeframe watermark trial would also allow unity to get a better foothold in educational institutions.

    Mandatory license threshold reduction is to partly offset price reduction, although price reduction would conversely increase the pro user population at the same time. Changing the pro license to span a year instead of a major update would also offset price reduction. Consolidation of the pro licenses into a single license is needed for the "year license" change, as well as competitors already offering the same. Collaboration, at the very least (the team license) should never have cost anything extra, and should rather have been encouraged.

    License changes are to draw unity away from feature filled major point releases. A major point release no longer needs to be full of cool features to entice buyers, those can be spread out evenly as they are developed. Spanning the license to a user specific time frame means unity can't possibly be accused of holding features back for profit, because they would have no incentive to do so, to the contrary in fact, and there would be no universal frame in which they would be able to do so.

    Most people don't like to pay or deal with royalties, and most people prefer to pay a flat once off rate rather than a monthly subscription if they can.
    UE4 has a great offering in spite of those points, not because of them.
    I feel unity should be offering something different, and not take epics pricing model on by offering something similar, but instead offer something different.

    The ability to unsubscribe at anytime works for epics model.
    You can't allow that for unity in this proposed model, given the fact that the unlimited watermark trial would allow pro development for free, you cannot afford to allow free users to subscribe, build, and unsubscribe. Subscription must continue to be locked to a year cycle, and would actually just be a payment plan for the new proposed standard license. They are effectively both subscription plans that span a year. Either you pay it all in one go at a reduced price, or you pay a little more a month at a time.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  32. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    My products take about 12 weeks, on average. And after hundreds of hours of work, Apple might approve it, along with 600 other products. With so much competition, I can no longer settle for 'being good'. I must constantly push to make better products, understand my customers even more, and lower costs/dev-time. As an underdog, Unity put the squeeze on UE4 and Crytech, and now, they are squeezing back. As painful as it is, this competition is good for everyone.

    Keep looking and I'm confident, you will find ways for both MORE communication and LOWER prices.

    Gigi
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  33. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,177
    - Free - I disagree with the rational that people want a click be done. Unity's Learn section has mostly done away with those type queries in the forum. Besides that's already available with competitive mobile app publishing design tools and with Unity and competitors if you're not too embarrassed to do that. Those example projects are free to use. Don't mistake being able to create a game without being a kernel engineer, computer scientist, or a physicist with the attitude of one that wants to publish a bunch of Flappy Birds clones to the app stores. They can already and are already doing that. If someone, and I say this without having the skills myself, can create excellent art and has excellent ideals for games then Unity COTS is still an impediment to their creating a game or work of art. An functional app, that isn't entertainment, although Unity would be used presumably to introduce an element of entertain to the app, well that's a different story and would take some coding.
     
  34. freakdave

    freakdave

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Posts:
    78
    I do not like the idea to pay for a full license with a large sum.
    Unity should introduce a plan which should give us the possibility to pay the license within e.g. 6 or 12 months.
    Starting with the first payment, Unity could introduce a watermark.
    After the 12 months (when you bought it), the watermark would go away.
     
  35. Corbal

    Corbal

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16
    Hey, I might be one of these free users you're barking at.
    As a 3D artist I am able to make something decent with Unity free. Actually I don't consider my scenes to be "decent enough", but that's what people's feedback keep telling me.

    Still, I KNOW for a fact that some of the UE features would help me to get quicker a better looking product. And these are not in Unity free :
    • Real-time shadow (for any light)
    • Baked light bounces
    • Area light and emissive texture as light source
    • Post-process effect
    • Visual material editor
    • ... and so on.
    Yep, most of these features are available in Unity Pro, and I hope I'll be able to buy pro license(s) at some point.
    Because I can't afford it for now, Pro features do not have any impact on my workflow.

    I'm not looking for some sort of "make a AAA" button, I'm not even trying to acheive something realistic.
    I know exactly what I could use and how this would impact my workflow as well as the end result.

    And nope, I don't believe that Unity should give away everything for free. They're not a charity company. They have to get paid for their work. And they have to be able to keep developping their engine in order to stay competitive.

    This thread is about what could possibly help Unity users (both Pro and free) developp and ship games, stuff for the Asset Store and so on.
    It's pretty obvious that successful users tend to have more money to spend on Unity license and asset store.

    But heh, sure keep the condescending posts, laugh at newbies doing crappy games.
    It most certainly is the best way to improve the mood of the community and to get new users on the Unity ship, Isn't it ?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2014
  36. Hesham

    Hesham

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Posts:
    146

    $50 - $75 (Desktop + Mobile), make it non canelable, but would prefer it otherwise.
     
  37. Gigiwoo

    Gigiwoo

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Posts:
    2,981
    No. The "Good to Great" authors described that great companies have a hedgehog focus that: 1) Is something they are passionate about, 2) can be the best in the world at, and 3) makes them money. Unity's hedgehog is 'democratizing game development'. That what drives them to create this thread and respond to UE4, not fear of losing sales or market shift.

    Gigi
     
  38. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,177
    Free isn't crippled their are plenty that have dropped their day jobs, and not just with supplying Asset Store packages for Unity Free, but with published games, and now work with Unity full time.

    Dropping Free would be like taking the golden goose over to UE4 and giving it too them.
     
  39. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,177
    I don't care about the splash screen except how having to set it is two different places is confusing. And I know from the couple of times I've published to iOS the splash screen is a hassle.

    I'd like to see a Free splash screen that the Unity splash screen is a transparently over-imposed on the free splash screen, it they don't supply it's a black background and vice versa for Pro.
     
  40. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,177
    One thing that is minor but that EveryPlay asset - if anyone has ever watched a Blender tutorial often you'll see screen keys so such a thing would be nice to produce Unity tutorials. If one could use a Everyplay style Unity Editor add-on to record a Unity Editor session maybe you will get 'easier sharing' of problems and solutions on Unity Answers and give Unity Editor sessions easier blogging potential. Some people are loath to speak or record because of their voice or ambient noise in the environment.

    For Pro, sub with Watermark or Royalty is OK but please no watermark on Free.
     
  41. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    2,606
    Honestly, I love the idea of making sure everybody in the Unity ecosystem has the same access to tools/technology. But trying to come up with a one size fits all single price model won't work. There are currently three different groups of people in the Unity ecosystem: hobbyists that won't pay anything, hobbyists that want to pay something, and professional users. Unity needs to add a subscription ($19/month + 5%) to retain the hobbyists that want to pay something.

    If Unity tries to come up with a one-size-fits-all price, that compromise will likely still end up too high for hobbyists that want to pay $19/month, and would only serve to decrease revenues from existing professional users. For example, some people have talked about subscriptions at anywhere from $25 to $150 per month with no royalties. The problem with those ideas is that hobbyists will just move to UE4 and existing Unity Pro users will pay less than they do now, so Unity would have less revenues. The net effect of trying to find a fair one-size-fits-all price point is pretty bleak.

    What Unity really needs to do is just simply add a new subscription plan for $19/month + 5% royalties. It would be a full Unity Pro license as far a technology and features go, but the 5% royalties would effectively restrict it to only hobbyists. And if a hobbyist did manage to create a smash hit, then the hobbyist would choose to buy a perpetual license of Unity Pro for $1500 to escape the 5% royalties. That would mean even more money for Unity.
     
  42. superpig

    superpig

    Quis aedificabit ipsos aedificatores? Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Posts:
    4,250
    For me: no, it is not.

    But this demonstrates another shortcoming of the way the Feedback site works: you don't distinguish between the requests of active users and the requests of one-off visitors from the distant past. Get your DBAs to give you another view of the data: count only votes from users who've posted on the forum (or Answers) at least 5 times within the past six months. Then see which feedback items are most-requested…

    (hint: it's probably goat support)
     
  43. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,177
    No, but a generic GNU one would be if Unity was open sourced.
     
  44. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    I think they should be a game engine developer.
     
  45. goat

    goat

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Posts:
    5,177
    Yes, upgrade cycles is why I decided to gather the toolbox of Asset Store products before even considering saving for Unity Pro and the add-ons. Even now, I've realized, it I did buy them, it'd be a one time thing so I may as well not buy them.

    A subscription along the lines of UE4 is a different story. As I don't have cable or satellite television with monthly subscription prices for 20% commercials and mostly repeats that are laughable ludicrous at starting prices at $50 for a line-up of infomercial channels, a Unity subscription for $20 a month would actually be a value added addition to my budget. Cheaper even than the crummy adsl and phone service here at a supposedly discounted $60 a month.
     
  46. smd863

    smd863

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Posts:
    293
    You don't need to lock anyone into a yearly subscription. That's what the whole point of royalties. You can allow free users to subscribe, unsubscribe, and build their app because that's what the royalty pays for. The $19 for month is just a token fee to keep your account active and to get access to the current updates. The actual cost of the subscription is when you start paying royalties after you public--whether your subscriptions are active or not.

    To avoid the royalties on any released products you need to upgrade all of your legal entity's licenses (active or inactive subs) to the royalty-free license.
     
  47. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,311
    One thing I like about UE4's pricing and subscription model is what they say in their marketing blurb: "We succeed when you succeed." Relying on royalties for their income means they rely on users actually publishing games that sell. Allowing you to pay $20 once and keep the license forever, only resubscribing if they make a change you want, means that they need to push out useful updates every month in order to keep collecting subscription revenue.

    Unity's model seems to almost be the opposite. The subscription's one-year lock-in is like a cellular plan's lock-in, basically sending the message "We know there's no way you would willingly stay with us for a whole year, so we have to force you to." The monthly value of a Unity subscription is mostly worthless since actual updates are so infrequent; it's more like a crappy payment plan for those who can't afford the full price up front, but even that is a bad deal because you don't even get to keep the license. Users are better off getting a business loan at 20% interest because you pay less and get to keep the license.
     
  48. Corbal

    Corbal

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16
    As a free user-hoobyist-wannabepro-whatever, I absolutely agree with this !
    I think that a cheap sub fee / royalties / buy-the-license-when-ready-to-avoid-royalties would be an awesome solution.

    And that would actually be much better than UE4 pricing model : I might be wrong but I don't think one can skip the UE4 5% royalties with just $1500. Add-ons pricing would still need some adjustement in my opinion tho.
     
  49. makeshiftwings

    makeshiftwings

    Joined:
    May 28, 2011
    Posts:
    3,311
    No.

    Actually, let me rephrase:

    Hell no.

    Wait, no, let me rephrase:

    The only possible thing worse than this would be if they literally replaced their entire staff with clones of Hitler while integrating Skynet into Mono.
     
  50. pigzlz

    pigzlz

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2010
    Posts:
    78
    Isn't http://www.unitygames.com/ a step in this direction?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
unityunity