Official: How Can We Serve You Better?

Angry Birds? Lol,
You talking about a company that can re-program the entire engine in the inside if they want
They create a lot of internal tools

However this titles are just 2D / 2D.5. Find me a 3D serious game please

 

Days, or perhaps a week. Not months. Always assuming nothing earthshakingly bad gets reported.

 

There's a number of Pro developers that own the Pro license and include the Unity splash screen anyway. The latest I saw was Hitman Go.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hitman-go/id731645633?mt=8

 

Awesome game, though there was discussion on other threads that you should improve the default splash screen and probably offer a few alternatives. While really simple and trivial, it seemed like a good idea. Hitman Go uses a white background, black logo clean splash screen. Offer at least white over black and black over white with minimalistic design.

That seemed the most reasonable request I've seen lately (it think it was from the Unity 5 annoucement thread) so I'd thought I'd at least pass it there.

 

Do any of them have the tool they created them with's logo plastered all over the first screen the player sees?

Ok, trying to be constructive, I could put up with the unity logo if it was maybe less than say an inch of screen space on the bottom left or right of the slash screen with the ability for us to have our own image behind it, so the splash screen shows our logo or game name etc plus the unity one overlaid discreetly at the bottom.

 

I don't really understand the stigma over the Unity splash. Unity's pretty accepted as a go-to engine for making games, it's not just used by bit players anymore.

Will people feel the same way when Unity 5 comes out with all-new awesomeness? I'd hope not - I mean, I've never heard of anyone not wanting to put an Epic splash in their Unreal-based game, so I assume this is purely a kudos/vanity thing?

Would having a selection of Splash screens make it more acceptable?

Edit: having just looked at it for the first time in a while, I admit it's a bit old now, it kind of looks like placeholder art (which it is, to Pro users, hence never really paid attention). Maybe if it was a bit sexier it wouldn't be such a big issue.

 

The splash is VERY important. It's the first thing the player will see. I think most of the players out there even don't know what Unity is but a splash screen should always give a first impression about the game. And having tons of crap games out there with that splash doesn't help either. I know guys who instantly deinstall a game now because of that splash. There is some kind of association between "cheap/crap" and that splash growing...

I can live with the free features but I instantly would pay for an optional splash screen removal!

 

On the outside it seems like things aren't moving that fast perhaps, but the reality is we have been working our butts off for many months on not only Unity 5 but a lot of other things that have been needing an upgrade for a while; long before Epic decided to join us serving your needs. But we can't just flip a switch and magically make everything available this second. It simply takes a bit of time.

 

I doubt I have ever seen a (PC) game WITHOUT an engine/some technology splashscreen.

 

Removing the splash screen doesn't make those crap games any better though. So you don't really win anything at that end.

For me the splash screen is no issue.

 

For you not, for me it IS a huge issue. You're right, it doesn't change the game itself but a nice splash is like the first thing a player notices. It's the same in real life. Look at a person, the first seconds are most important!

@kat0r: That's right. But having an engine/technology splash in the beginning is just awful.

 

It may seem that we're buying time, but we're not. 400 people working hard on a huge array of things and getting Unity 5 done while also adding new platforms like Xbox One, PS4, Vita, WiiU, etc. is simply not a trivial task. The timing of the email is coincidence.

And we very much hear you. I have a reasonable summary I keep updated on this thread and we're thankful for the quality feedback (and I'm sure Epic is too, haha ;-))

 

Lol, nice. You're doing a good job here! Keep it up!

 

Hypothetically speaking, would you stop downloading Unreal Engine games, or including Unreal Engine splash screens, because you played crap ones? (and you know there will be many crap UE4 games with Unreal Engine splash screens). Note that you have to credit UE4 regardless according to their EULA.

I agree what people see first sets the tone, but I've never heard of anyone closing a game down at the splash screen - once past that, it's up to you to keep them interested, regardless of what the boot-up screen looks like -- and with newer devices, the boot-up times can be reduced a lot with an empty scene + custom loading screen.

I know this won't rub for a lot of people, but of *all* the things that could be focussed on, I do think people tend to worry about the wrong ones... it seems like a bit of a red herring. Custom Splash does not make your game any less successful if it's worth playing.

 

That's quite honestly my understanding of the issue, and I nearly pointed out the various high-budget blockbuster titles that have an Unreal logo front and center myself.

I couldn't agree more. People buying your game couldn't care less what you made it in, they care if it's a good game. Keep in mind that the splash doesn't appear until after you've downloaded and opened it, which is by far more effort than sitting through 3 to 5 seconds of any splash screen.

 

Tell us who you are
We are a company with 3 business partners. Paul, me and another person. You can see our website here: http://zpay.com/. We have staff in USA, in multiple states, Singapore, Ukraine. There are multiple sales offices overseas - Germany (sales office), UK (sales office), Australia (sales office), France (sales office) and Hong Kong (sales office).

We do mostly business related products and applications, used world-wide. Customers include colleges, universities, small businesses, law firms, insurance corporations, multinational corporations, big banks, credit unions, auditing agencies, human resources, radio stations, TV stations, payroll agencies. They install solidly tested builds on their servers and machines, world-wide.

Our business model is based on long-term businesses (established 1983), good customer support, high-quality business apps and custom software development.


How could we serve you better here and stay in business? What business model works best for you?
The current Unity prices are not worth the price. You have to buy dozens of things on the asset store along with iOS Pro, Android Pro and Team license. That's more than $5,000 per user.

Since our company has two business partners, my other business partner invested in Xamarin and getting good results. He don't have to buy **any** thing else after the initial investment, $4,500 for OSX, Android and iOS per developer. His developers reported that they don't have to deal with a multitude of iOS AOT errors, stupid 'triangles' issues, a myriad of stupid GUI systems (each of them incompatible with each other), for business apps.

Also, he finds it easier to re-use licenses since you add and delete email addresses on Xamarin's website.


The nav mesh system don't work well on Mobile, the LOD don't do it fast enough, shadows are not working (all black), immensely long time for baking, errors on debugging, no database system compatible that works correctly on iOS.

Of which, the open-source community has taken a back-seat to the Asset Store. Json freeware that works without AOT errors on iOS? HTTP library that works correctly on iOS? SQLite C# that works correctly on iOS without crashing? All the open-source freeware has been changed to per-developer, on sale, on the asset store, which is disgusting and raises the prices further.


*Now, Unity Pro is essentially free or close to free on almost all platforms including consoles. Is this interesting to you?
Simple. Stop subsidizing the free-loaders. Give them a $10 subscription per month, similar to Epic, to do whatever they want.


*Is it the case where it simply takes longer and is harder to make 3D games so you end up posting more here in the forums compared to the 2D game makers? What kind of games are you making?

The problem seems to be the baking, occlusion culling and lighting. It takes ~ 30 to 45 minutes per scene. Now the modellers here try to be a bit smarter and place everything first, walk around the terrain first, fiddle it around, try to get final positions correct prior to baking.

The problem is pathfinding on a 2D GUI over a huge scene. Seems to be a known problem.


*Are the technical blogs really helpful? Should devs reduce their workload and spend more time on these forums answering questions?
I don't know. Is Unity C# hard to learn? Is 3D Max and Photoshop so hard to learn that job-candidates make very poor models and artwork?


One observation was non-English speakers were not able to understand any Unity training videos, and since Unity training videos were not updated 3.xx videos on the very important parts - Occlusion culling, best practices are only for 3.xx and not updated to 4.xx.


We did buy a certain video training site subscription and appalled it was for Unity 2.xx. As of writing this post, that site became subscription only with no indication of what version of Unity training it has. What shame.


There is every book on Unity here, so the staff here uses them. Since there are two lecturers here, skilled artists and developers, there is lot less troubles and issues.


There are no examples for LoadLevelAddictive, LoadLevelAsync (and the %), many demos are now paid assets on the asset store.


Where are the updated ShadowGun article. Do I have to hire a Shadow-gun employee to get updates to the tutorial and a few more light-weight techniques for mobile?


*The pricing has been discussed at length in these forums and we're up to date on the pros and cons of price, but what about preferences? Do you like subscriptions? How important is it for you to own software license?

Do we have to get a new GUI license for each employee? Do we have to get a SQLite license for each employee? Do we have to get a Json license because Unity serialisation has dozens of AOT errors on iOS? Do we have to get a UnityVS license because of broken debugging? Do you see where the costs are going to? Can UnityTech get a decent Mono license, so code compiles without so many run-time differences?

Any Unity price decrease will be an increase in components and libraries buying. Perhaps, the best thing is to get a correct, valid, 100% CLR compliance where it compiles and gives the same results as the latest Xamarin.iOS and Xamarin.Android.

Can you allow for non-skilled developers who are breaking into game development, to have a mixed Unity free license and Unity Pro environment?


*How is your development structured? Do you like frequent updates with the knowledge your game will work on numerous platforms but no ability to tweak the source? Or you prefer to have source and manage it all yourself?

The problem is how many work-arounds are needed:

- Networking is a mess. It works good for small, yet, for larger number of users, it is problematic. You have to use Photon Server, SmartFox, and these are completely different implementations than Unity Networking, so all the advantages of Unity Networking are gone. Do you get my point?


- Legacy and Shruiken is a mess. There are dozens of legacy particle effects and a handful of Shruken effects. This is idiotic where you use 5 legacy and the frame-rate slows down. On the other hand, Shruiken is very fast, no frame rate drop, but not compatible. What gives? Why not make a build that supports Shruken only and no legacy?


- Mecanim. This is newer, good for modeller - less work, less amount of setup time taken. But the behaviour states are not compatible with Photon Server, SmartFox. There is some guess work involved into set them up to be same on server and client. After some time, the whole thing breaks down and wrong animation states.


*What's your biggest problems getting your game done? Besides fixing bugs and getting better at communicating, what are the big issues you're facing?


The major issue we have, is fraud. Developers misrepresenting themselves as senior developers, senior artists, senior modellers on this forum. Ever since we've instituted mandatory testing, where we give mandatory coding tests, arts tests, modelling tests, we have seen fraud - stick drawings, very poor modelled, poor coding done. That includes mandatory checking on academic records for falsified degrees.

We've uncovered several instances of falsified academic records, non-existent work records. I have sent to Brett possibly the lowest C# test result score. That applicant scored the lowest score in the whole USA region, at the very bottom, asking for $100 per hour. I didn't see him after that.


I don't say what happens when someone uses non-licensed version of Unity, since we have excellent business relationships with UnityTech .


The bright spots, is that we're hiring good developers and artists, including certain artists who are on game-credits on AAA-listed games. Several artists were pleased that we do mandatory testing, since the previous company didn't allow them to mention anything they did earlier to be mentioned, and their portfolio was pretty bland. We do equal opportunity employment, so our job postings gets on the state job-banks, university, colleges and certain non-profits, which by law, are required to receive and re-post job ads to their members.


There are two ex-lecturers, one from a University and one at a college, both who joined us two months ago. We have less problems with workflow than before. One was teaching Game Design Development. The class of the 2014 will miss him. The other was teaching Autodesk 3D Max and Maya for students in the second year of college.

 

I'm a subscriber, so I don't have a horse in this race. However, there is no doubt that Unity has the reputation of being a "lesser" engine due to its heavy investment on mobile sector. You can take a look at the steam greenlight pages, and you'll find a derogatory comment about Unity without much effort, especially in games that specifically say they are made with UDK/UE4.

Meanwhile, Unreal has the opposite reputation, largely due to number of AAA games that used UE3, such as Batman, Mass Effect, Borderlands, and some due to the successful indie games that we've seen with it, such as Dungeon Defenders, Sanctum, Hawken.

Whether it is true or not, Unreal has the reputation of being a better engine, while Unity has the reputation of being a mobile engine. This isn't a matter of facts or truths, it is a matter of perception, and perceptions matter, sometimes more than the total value of your game.

I don't think it is fair to call it a wrong thing to worry about. Obviously, it matters to a lot of people in these forums, you can't just invalidate their opinion without knowing about their specifics first.

 

You can be as smart with a similar offering for us Unity users!

 

I can assure you it does make a difference in the eyes of a lot of players. It's the very first thing they see, the first impression. You can't get a more important thing IMO. And comparing the an Epic splash or watermark to the Unity one is well frankly no comparison. As I said before, one says hobbyist engine, the other says made with a AAA engine.

For unity to dispel that image they too would need some blockbuster AAA games made with Unity with a nice memorable logo. And all other arguments aside it must have an impact, I bought PRO just to get rid of it.

 

About problems with doing Gears of War in Unity:

I think performance is a problem. Especially if you need tons of plugins and stuff from the asset store to make it look like in UE4, that is not integrated into the core and adds a lot of additional overhead that it does not have if it is integrated into the core like in UE4.

And C++ is much faster by default than calling C# from C++. E.g. see this post in the Ogre3d forums by an experienced Unity developer, he evaluated multiple engines, it's about a RTS game and he wants 1500 units on screen with AI. Even without any code Unity was much slower than Esenthel engine even with the simpler scene than in Esenthel. Now add the AI. His final conclusion: if he does not want to make his life difficult he needs C++.
http://www.ogre3d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=79895#p501105
He is now back using Ogre3d after 3 years of Unity. He used Unity free, so maybe it would have been better with Pro, but I still think not good enough for something like the new Gears of War.

 

Chariots is correct, Unity does have a stigma attached to it. The general populous care little that Unity is based on a D3D or GL renderer like every other engine on the planet is. All they see is what gets released out of it and it's not surprising, lots of games I see use default Unity shaders and Unity default shaders look to me nothing more than base examples so do the post effects. I'd never use them in a actual game, they are good for a quick mock up but apart from that I'd never use anything Unity supplies out of the box.

BUT! If you're new, coming from CryEngine which has some of the best shaders and post I have ever seen in-built or coming from UE3 / UDK where material editors are available then it's not really surprising people are using the in-built stuff. For small teams making a suite of shaders is going to take forever, thankfully Unity 5.0 addresses this, also lighting!. Lighting (GI (Precomp or realtime) (Not beast ) etc.) in general is probably one of the most important contributing factors to a good looking "3D" game bar the actual artwork itself, I've used Enlighten and I know it is REALLY good!. So Unity 5.0 solves this problem..

@ TEO, UE4 is much quicker in some areas and much more painful in others, all engines have pros and cons and UE4 is definitely not exempt from this .One more issue with Lightmass and I swear down I will pull out there lighting and shadows system and port over a proper one. Then again it covers all basic tools to make A / AA / AAA games and Unity doesn't, also from my perspective UE4 has also been much more stable. C++ has been easy breazy no MM No GC, I spent the last twelve months with Unity so I've not touched it in a while.

 

These points are practically moot today with the release of C# native builds... http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2014/04/02/announcing-net-native-preview.aspx

 

Exactly! I don't understand why peoples do so much case of splash screens. I think is super OK to have a splash screen or a simple logo showing your tools/ads and appreciation to peoples who made that tools, even if you payed or not for it. But again, that's only my opinion.

This is only because of Unity free version, what you expect?

UT have contributed 500% for destroying his image with Unity free, by the games made with that. Evey single dude on this planet who had no idea whats about game development in general or not even knowing C# (no talking about C++ also, lol) did what he could with and thinking his making the next block buster.

There is also a HUGE difference between Unity free and Pro. Lighting, shadows, RT, etc. everything can look different. Try to ruin a scene and put it in Unity free for testing and see whats left.

About UE4: I really really DO NOT want to start a Unity vs UE4 discussion.

 

Yeah but that's .NET.

However, last I heard, Xamarin (current owners of Mono) and Microsoft created this initiative called .NET Foundation: seems the purpose is to make .NET more open-source friendly.

http://blog.xamarin.com/xamarin-and-the-.net-foundation/

I wonder if/where Unity can benefit from this.


----


Another topic I'd like to raise: is there anything that can be done about particular folder names having special significance to the Unity Editor? I don't think it's very intuitive, so much that I had to compile a list to make sure I know all of them: http://wiki.unity3d.com/index.php/Special_Folder_Names_in_your_Assets_Folder

It's also confusing for beginners about how to properly mix UnityScript and C# together in one project for example (although personally I discourage that practice).

I was thinking since folders have meta properties now, settings could be added to mark if the folder is like a "Resources" (imagine a checkbox that says "asset inside are always added to build").

And a dropdown box that says where the scripts inside that folder get compiled to: "Default", "First Pass" (i.e. "Standard Assets"), "Editor" (as if Editor an folder).

With that design, it's easier to make combinations, like if a folder is marked as both editor and resources, instead of having to have the special "Editor Default Resources" folder.

On the side of the scripting API, I don't think anything should get changed. I.e. Resources.Load() shouldn't need any changing.

For upgrading a current project, the update process would be: if a folder is named "Editor" the meta file for it will have its settings changed to make it act like before the upgrade, etc. So no need to worry about inadvertently making Asset Store plugins broken.

 

Maybe so, maybe not I've seen some decent looking games come out of free so I don't automatically write it off. As for the Unity / UE4 thing, this whole thread everything that is being mentioned here is because of Epic. It appears Unity is / are going all out for Unity 5.0 irrelevant of what Epic were doing maybe to the detriment of 4.X? I'm unsure, but nobody can deny Epic have changed the game slightly.

From a business standpoint, both Unreal and Unity are tools to get a job done / nothing more nothing less. As said before anything that gets in your way needs removing from the scenario. If you don't want to start a discussion, stop mentioning them!. It's not a case of X vs. X, it's a case of what YOU or I need to get the job done!.

 

Rename Free as Basic at $9.99/month (mobile add-ons included) with a basic Profiler without SplashScreen and you cut noise to 1/3 while getting on board motivated hobbyists and indies for the mobile segment. Not a bad deal, uh?

UT can even keep Free as a legit tool without formal publishing / deploying capability.

 

I own Unity Pro and have pre-ordered Unity 5. I'm working on 2 games at the moment and should be releasing one of them this month on Windows 8 and Windows 8 Phone. I purchased the pro license after several years of using the free license. Although I will use Unity for my projects through the 5.x cycle, I will only purchase the add-ons if I make enough revenue from my current projects to do so. Otherwise, I will move to Unreal Engine. The pricing model for Unreal is just too compelling and it was the only the significant amount of work done on my current projects that had me stick with Unity.

I would strongly recommend that Unity revise it's pricing model. I would happily support a subscription model that was competitive with that of Unreal Engine at the end of my 5.x lifecycle. In truth, I may just subscribe to Unreal just to play around with the tool ... $20 a month is a completely negligible amount for me. However, $1500 plus another $3000 for Android and iOS is not. I'm also very unhappy about the HTML 5 being yet another add on ... as when I pre-ordered Unity 5, I read it as a pro-feature rather than a separate product.

I personally feel that Unity should just remove the free version entirely and introduce a subscription model for Pro that is competitive with that of Unreal. They could, of course, have a purchase option as well but it should be more attractive. The cost of add-ons for iOS and Android and HTML 5 feels like gouging. The $1500 for the pro license should include all build option add ons.

 

Unity serialized data is MASSIVE! Even just 100 records creates a massively bloated file with full text descriptions for every instance of every class/field. My 5-10k worth of data bloats to a 250k-400k data file. With 10 of those, and a 50 Mb Mobile limit, I ended up writing my own binary write/read. Ugh.

Gigi

 

The splash screen here is a 1px black dot. Why?


On 20 different devices, Samsung, Acer, Sony, Winphones, iPad, iPhone, Android Tablets, the splash screen was:

- usually stretched out of proportions, looks bad no matter what.
- cropped or something missing from the image.
- looks like a postage stamp on iPad3 and latest Samsung devices.


After dealing with bad splash screens, the developer here made a build with 1px black dot splash stretched splash screen, then loads direct to game.


The implementation for Unity's splash screen is plain wrong and causes nothing but grief.

 

We're in the same boat! Must be the reason I always liked you Angry . Would be nice if Unity Sales had a process for Dual-users with 2 licenses - Pro Indie.

Gigi

 

If I could direct you to my previous post on this:

At least an example of what I want to accomplish, if it's possible and I'm just missing something, would be great.

 

First - I'm assuming English isn't your native language. I fixed what I could in this quote.

Second, no, Unity Free is not what is tarnishing Unity's reputation. People - like myself - who use Unity Free are not tarnishing Unity's reputation. As ShadowK has said, there are plenty of good Unity Free works.

The problem is that Unity is just not publicized by games pretty much at all. Most of the projects that use Unity don't show a splash screen like Unreal's 'Powered by Unreal Technology' screen; when you combine that with the fact that the Unreal Engine was already very well-known prior to Unity existing, a very interesting conclusion appears: perhaps to overcome Unreal's inherently strong position, a modern, visually-pleasing, 'Made in Unity' splash screen should be compulsory, so that when some blockbuster game made in Unity comes out, everyone knows where the awesomeness came from. I think the 'Powered by [Engine Developer] Technology' screen is one thing that UE4 can be argued to have done correctly, from a PR perspective. I think most developers, reviewers, and players couldn't be bothered, but, since a vocal minority are worried about perception...

As far as the quality of projects, now that UE4 has opened up more, we're going to start seeing shovelware that is powered by Unreal also. While I understand why you're critiquing the quality of stuff created with Unity, in about three months Unreal will have just as much shovelware, so the perception issue will be more, 'how many games created with [Engine] can you name off of the top of your head?' instead of, 'how much shovelware has one engine created?' (The answer - a lot, for both.)

Also, people who don't have a strong games background (like myself) are not the problem, and I think the vast, silent majority would gladly take more experience from wherever it may be found. Everyone was an amateur once, you included.

 

Couldn't you just use a second body mask for only the legs?

 

Thanks for grammar corrections, indeed English is not my native language.

 

No problem. Out of curiosity Teo, what games have you worked on?

 

Would that work, though? Since it involves hip movement, which seems to be the problem here - either the weapon controller keeps the hips locked and therefore my leg animation doesn't work properly, or my movement controller moves the hips and therefore my weapon animation doesn't work properly.

 

I'm not so sure about shovelware or should I say masses of poor quality games with UE4, that $19.00 as a Unity person has said isn't there because they need that $19.00. Tencent are after royalties more than anything and ruining your reputation isn't going to achieve that.

 

One example is NavMesh and Mechanim not being integrated as I think it could be. It takes a lot of work to integrate NavMesh pathfinding into mechanim`s root motion driven movement. I think it should be working out-of-a-box.

 

Did not have time to read through all 40 pages, here my comments. I run a small studio with 3 pro licenses, started with v2. I find Unity is expensive in the terms of the upgrades because

1. Features I do not need/does not work. Eg. DX 11, I do not need, yet I'm paying for them. Things I want, they don't get fixed since 2009 - 64 bit editor, multithread, terrain, nested prefab etc etc etc.

2. Features in Android/IOS Pro are not worth the price. Changing splash screen, hard shadow (again limited use). Things like IAP, gyroscope in Andriod, social networking, are limited and I have to use alot of third party plugins from AssetStore. They don't work well together, it causes integration conflicts, and these should be offical solution. I waste a lot of time integration thire party solutions, which fails if the developer goes away, and then we are stuck.

3. Bug reports take more than 6 months to be replied to. Previously we asked for a premium paid forum where we can have Unity engineer look at it. The only paid support is thousands of dollars, I don't need one to one support, just to ensure the bug is not on my side. See the number of unreplied questions in forums that are not answerable by community because it can only be answered by development team (which there is no answer).

4. Core Engine features have lot of issues, which aren't apparent until you go deeper. Just a few

- Physics uses the same layer as lighting, then in deferred lighting, we cannot have more than 4 layers to pixel lighting. Essentially making deferred lighting almost useless other than demos

- Find does not return guaranteed order. It can easily respect the order of gameobjects in hierarchy. Without it, implement memory pools and other integration that need an update order is more troublesome. Scipt Execution Order is bad hack.

- Lot of features that are problematic, and aren't getting resolved - Beast, NavMesh, Mecanim, multi thread etc.. and frankly, I have to pay upgrade to get them working, so I'm not too happy.

And many more

Some are really simple fixes, I just don't see them getting implement to make Unity more stable/robust but I see shiny new features that are broken. Assetstore should be about getting cool stuff to make games, not fixing Unity deficiencies. Assetstore also needs to protect buyers against fradulent, and informs us of updates. It's currently a pain to get updated packages in assetstore when there are lot of updates (like me)

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/194783-Buyers-Beware-All-Sales-Are-Final
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/195691-AssetStore-needs-improvements

Forgot to add who I am. 15 years programmer, threw out in house engine for Unity a couple of years ago, starting to regret a bit if things don't improve. Just go watch Unreal 4 editor videos of youtube, and marvel at the features I have to code in unity to do similar

 

Quick to throw the vocal minority card are we

 

To display powered by unreal logo at startup you have to sign trademark agreement with Epic, and more or less shovelware do not receive this right.

 

That's interesting; I thought that to distribute a game with Unreal, you had to credit Unreal Tech as part of the licensing terms. Doesn't that effectively prevent amateur/novice/shovelware creators to not distribute at all, or am I missing something?

If I'm not missing anything - and, I'm sure I am, but just in case I'm not - that means as an amateur, UE4 simply isn't an option, as I won't need to worry with that trademark agreement that they'll never grant. Yay Unity! ...But then, why is UE4 'opening up' better for indies, especially when an overwhelming majority of operations are small/amateur, and therefore unlikely to be allowed to distribute?

 

Better communication/ feedback on the issues reported to Unity. For example : http://issuetracker.unity3d.com/issues/run-in-background-does-not-work-for-fullscreen

If somebody from unity would keep an active roll in communicating with people on what is happening with bugs as game breaking as this one we would be comforted that Unity was acknowledging issues with the product - not that they are focusing elsewhere
I think some of the animosity towards Unity on these forums is due to lack of communication/ shared understanding of the issues with the product

Myles

 

When using subscription license you have to show 'some' (“[Product name] uses the Unreal® Engine. Unreal® is a trademark or registered trademark of Epic Games, Inc. in the United States of America and elsewhere”) line of text in game credits, but that's it. You can publish your game without any other reference to Unreal or Epic.

Epic is simply protecting other AAA customers about so called shovelware, that's good thing, not bad.

 

That's incorrect. You can't have more than 4 layers NOT lit by a light.

 

so if nothing wrong happens, we will be using 4.5 next week? I hope and pray that nothing bad happens, I've been waiting for 4.5 for so long.