Official: How Can We Serve You Better?

I'm glad I was wrong. Thanks Imre!

So, I guess a good takeaway is for Unity Tech to do something similar with Unity. I, for one, wouldn't mind adding a line of text crediting Unity Tech for their engine; given the amount of work they've put into it, I think they should be referenced at the very least.

 

Certainly! I'm going a bit out of order here, because some answers are longer than others.

When it initially launched, I honestly don't know how anybody thought it was ready. Animation events, for example, are such a critical feature for doing non-trivial work with animation, and they were completely unsupported at launch. When I heard about the (pro only, btw) "workaround" to use additional curves to encode events, I literally laughed out loud. There are so many issues with that as a solution, not least of which is the fact that how well they work is framerate-dependent.

Now to address these two together...

I'm not sure you understood the API I'm asking for. I certainly want the ability to create statemachines, at runtime, from dynamically selected content. In that sense, maybe the "asset creation API" is something I ALSO want. But the real API I want is very different...

At a high level, character animation systems are responsible for two things:

1. Scheduling and time-keeping
   • What's the current time on this clip?
   • When should I start the next clip?
   • How far into this transition am I?
   • Etc.
2. Pose generation
   • Posing operations - evaluate clip at time, blend children, layered blend, etc.
   • Usually represented logically as a tree

Mecanim currently addresses both of these things. I know nothing about it's pose generation runtime, although I'm assuming it's decent and extensible. The scheduling and time-keeping portion IS exposed to users, and I find it quite insufficient. It has a number of deficiencies...

1. No real support for precise synchronization across multiple actors
2. No support for dynamic content selection
   • I'm not talking about blend spaces - I'm talking about a node in a statemachine that dynamically selects a clip
3. ONLY has support for active statemachines
4. No good support for other scheduling styles - sequences, etc.
5. No good support for transitioning/branching between multiple statemachines
6. Etc.

The API that I want is direct access to the posing system. Ideally, I would like to be able to write something like...

Code (csharp):

1.  
2. public override PoseNode OnPose(PoseTree poseTree)
3. {
4.     // Upper body layer
5.     ClipNode c0 = poseTree.Create<ClipNode>(clipAsset0, clip0Time);
6.     ClipNode c1 = poseTree.Create<ClipNode>(clipAsset1, clip1Time);
7.     BlendNode b = poseTree.Create<BlendNode>(c0, c1, weight);
8.     b.AddChild(c0);
9.     b.AddChild(c1);
10.  
11.     // Base layer
12.     ClipNode c2 = poseTree.Create<ClipNode>(clipAsset2, clip2Time);
13.  
14.     // Layered composite
15.     LayersNode l = poseTree.Create<LayersNode>();
16.     l.AddLayer(10000, c2);
17.     l.AddLayer(20000, b, upperBodyMaskAsset);
18.  
19.     return l;
20. }
21.  

...and I want the existing Animator component to implement its posing in terms of this structure, so that if I override OnPose, I can take the pose result of a statemachine and embed it within a more complicated posing tree of my own design. Note that all node allocations are handled by the tree object, to allow for efficient linear allocation on the native backend without necessarily creating garbage.

If I had this API I could build my own scheduling and timekeeping system in C#, where I could address frame-accurate synchronization between multiple actors, etc. I could build animation systems based on sequencing, rather than active state machines. I could do anything I want, basically, and the API that Unity needs to support would be extremely well-defined. Allowing for a "ScriptNode" that allows me to implement a posing node in C# (at the expense of performance) would really seal the deal.

 

I like to reply again:

1. Released Systems: I agree with that UT very often releases half baked systems. Sometimes it makes me wonder why they thought something is ready. Additionally to the game breaking bugs I like to add one : http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/204638-Disappearing-Mecanim-Character
Not cool if your 32 enemys just disappear when you turn the camera away from them (and stay invisible for the rest of the game).

2. Asset Store: What I am wondering is why UT doesn't integrate some very fundamental/ helpful tools. For example a Shader Editor: Tim C. has build in his free time Strumpy Shader Editor, but apparently developing stoped from him. Why hasn't UT supported his employee, integrated and further maintained it? It does have a strange taste, to know that UT could (properly) earn money by the store and thus hadn't cared for this.

3. Unity Vs. Unreal Engine: Unity's greatest strength is currently the easy workflow. But Unity has to beware from UE. I saw a lot of things that I actually liked in UE (for example outline selection, basic but much more pleasant, than to see the wireframe of the model ). It has a feel of 'professionalism', which I can't say so to Unity. I think UT should make sure that the core functions work, instead of shipping some nice visuals to bait new customers.

4. Aftermath: Well currently it looks like Epic is beating UT to the ground, and I must say I find it very satisfiying. I had a feeling UT became over the years more and more greedier:

I think it shows best how a potentional customer is treated by UT and how it is not very community friendly. Which is sad.

 

exactly. these small pieces of work make it look more professional, like the Auto-LOD Generator , APEX Support, i heard from an official member of UT that APEX will not be internally available even with PhysX 3.3 , WHY??? these pieces of UE make it more and more valuable, like the Material Editor, Unity should bring ShaderForge to the core, i know that having ShaderForge in the Store gains unity %30 of the asset, but why not try to make it core-feature and bring more customers for Unity Pro??

 

I run a small game development company. We are professionals, have shipped product using Unity and have been successful enough to expand and remain profitable. Much of that is thanks to Unity. However, we may not stick around, and for what it is worth, here is why:

- Communication. Unity used to be quite good at communication. This is not the case anymore, especially when it comes to forum/answers/issues presence and perceived activity. While other devs can often help, some issues really need your input and/or to get fixed and all too often that does not happen.

- Bug reports / fixes. It often takes a while to get feedback on a bug report. Which can be problematic. Even more problematic is the fact that you release versions too seldom. Given the power of version control these days it should be possible for you to have a schedule for small patches.

- "Feature creep". I often get the impression that you are spreading yourselves too thin. Multiplatform support is good. New features are obviously welcome as well.
However, older things need to be maintained as well. How old is the current terrain system for example? What is happening with garbage collection and a more modern mono? Etc. Etc.
Unity does not feel very focused, and to add to this feeling certain things that should be part of the core have to be solved using third party libraries which more often than not (sadly) cannot be relied on without some major fixing. In short: priorities seem to be wrong and focus seems to be on the new shiny stuff rather than making sure the core is solid and professional.

- The pricing model in general is complex and not clear enough. To professionally publish for iOS there are a lot of modules to license per seat. Sometimes it is hard to understand which modules one really does need. Team license for example - marketed as a solution for version control, when in reality you do need an external solution for that. The cache server is the benefit. Premium support model has a varying (and currently unlisted) price. Etc.

Sorry, I am running out of time so apologies if the post is a bit unfocused. All in all, Unreal does seem very appealing right now and had we not been in the middle of a project I would have evaluated it with quite serious intent. I hope you manage to correct the course as we have been using Unity for a long time and when it, and you, are good it is a very good place to be. But, alas, lately that has not really been the case.

Good luck!

 

(Apologies if I repeat prior comments - too many posts to read through)

Long time Unity Free dabbler, but in January started working on a small game with another person. Our expectations are low, it's more of a "what do we have to lose" situation. Our goal was to purchase Pro and iOS Pro near the end, but between us $6k is quite a gamble...so we did move to "that" engine. Plus, some key limitations to navigation between free and pro rather pushed that decision.

But U3D, I still love it, wish I could use it since it's been over a decade since I used C++ and my butt is getting handed to me right now. Now, I don't want to go into a this or that comparison, since all I intend to do is provide some friendly feedback.

Not long ago your pricing was indeed fantastic, but you know how things go, they change. I am confident things with U3D will change to, you've always been competitive and you will again. Now for people in a position like I and my partner are in, consider the decision making process from the outside. We make choices based on what we perceive the capabilities of a system can produce, not so much how it actually works. Then we make a price comparison based on our funding and amount of money willing to lose. We also take into consideration any feature above and beyond our scope and weigh those potential future uses. In doing so, the add-on licenses do grow...

So, not a rant, nor a criticism really here, just plain feedback and unfortunate timing when we had to decide. Look forward to possibly getting back into this system on our next project. (Fingers crossed that there will be a next project)

P.S. If I may make a random recommendation, for years I've thought how nice it would be to work Unity into my business programming (day job). Seems to me there might be quite an angle for app developers comfortable with Unity or new developers looking for a single engine to rule them all. A robust library of 2D controls could be rather unique in this new engine landscape...

 

The thing is that average gamers (read: the majority of your customers) have no understanding of game development at all.
They know nothing about the inner workings of the various engines, just how the finished products play/look like. Their knowledge is superficial at best. When the UE4/U5/CE announcements were made a lot of them were like: "Unity is dead now, because look at those graphics!"
Some time ago when this space shooter announced that it will use UE4 instead of Unity, you could read comments like "I can't believe this was made in Unity; It looks so good."
Unity Free hurts the overall image of Unity, period.

That being said, I disagree with people who have proposed to get rid of it.
For a developer being able to get to know a tool without having to pay in advance, is really great. Depending on your individual situation, buying an engine before knowing for sure that you'll like it might not be an option. And let's face it: Those trial versions you can use for a month or so, don't cut it.

I think (and it's really just my opinion) that you should purchase licenses for publishing instead of the engine itself.
Get Unity Pro for free but have the builds restricted. Something like having watermarks and having them hard-coded to exit after 5 minutes.
Otherwise your build would be restricted to the Free-featureset. It would be the same for free users in the end (bar the profiler, but IMO it should be in Free in the first place considering the GC).
However, you could work on your game with the whole power of Unity, but to release it you'd need a license.

 

A lot of people have suggested Unity make a game to make sure everyone at Unity understands the issues we all see. I think it would be a distraction, but maybe you could get a lot of the benefits by having the whole company participate in a game jam. Have everyone from David Halgason to the receptionist break up into teams and make something for a few days. Offer some prizes and make it fun. Then get everyone together for a post mortem to talk about the pain points and what can be improved.

 

Thing is and I dislike saying this, I've seen good looking games in Unity and I've played some well made games. But never have I seen anything come close to the likes of Crysis 3 in Unity. I ask myself why? I could go on about my background here, but it's irrelevant because there is always somebody out there better and bigger than yourself. So it seems odd to me that it hasn't happened yet.. (Or is it?)

If I was going to finish off our engine and market a tech demo, I'd go all out show everything it is capable of and gamers would see that it's not the engine and make sure developers knew what they could do with enough time and / or resources, give them faith in possibilities. As you say end users don't care how it's made or what with, they just play games and if they associate games with 2005 graphics and a Unity logo plus they can't find anything proving otherwise then there is an issue.

It's like car manufacturers, they make a blazing hot edition that probably most people won't buy. It's too thirsty and it'll cost a fortune to run, but it's what sells their junior / entry lines.

It's not Unity free at the heart of the problem IMO, from what I've seen Unity 5.0 will rectify this but it's too early to tell.

 

I agree with most of what you wrote, but not the above.
Unity Free is a problem as the strategy of Free is not suitable for a game engine developer IMHO, IF their aim is to empower their paying customers to release top notch games.

The current situation is that I would seriously wager that 99% of unity users (people who have downloaded the engine and posted on the forum or answers at least once) have not made money with it. I would also wager that the vast majority of users have not paid for the engine. I would guess that those users also outweigh paying customers in their burden on (unpaid) support resources.

Which leaves us with the situation that it certainly looks like UT is trying to hunt user numbers (for an exit?) rather than support paying customers. I do hope I am wrong, but it looks as if market share and user count is where it is at right now. Which means we will continue to get shiny new features (some half implemented) rather than a bug free, polished foundation that we can build on and rely on.

Sorry for the negativity, but they did ask.

 

How about addressing biggest elephant in the room and top-voted suggestion?
http://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/platforms-unity-editor-for-linu

 

Hello, I am hobbyist. Hoping to create a career out of developing games.

-- In regards to Pro features, I think most of them are questionable to make it worth it other than the sake of performance.
-- As for royalty scheme, I would be against it if Unity adopted a royalty scheme but it might work for other developers.
-- Extended pro licences, wouldn't be bad but I think thirty (30) days is decent enough.
-- Watermark and pay on publishing, again more options, but not favorable to me.
-- No ad-based editor. Please.
-- I am hobbyist developer, I used to be a freelancer and more serious but I lost my free honestly.
-- As for console licences, that is VERY interesting.
-- 3D games are harder in my opinion as I was used to the Legecy animation when Mecanim came out. And can be quite difficult 3D artist to work/find within' the forums.
-- I am making 2D games, mainly on the Android platform.
-- I am in Louisville, Kentucky of the US
-- If anything I thing Unity should have a first-party tool that allows for monetizing for Google, Abmob and GameAds. So you can integrate ads in the Editor without third party tools. Something like this would interest me.
-- The developers I think should work on the engine and that other people should be dedicated to the forums but its just a thought.
-- I prefer to own my software licences: but also in the case of data issues like HD errors or corruption that we can obtain Pro again with verification of course.
-- I prefer Unity to keep its source code closed. Less builds to maintain and less confusion.

 

Now that UE4 is accessible by hobby developers, the Epic splash screen could change in perception.

There are a lot of weak games with the Unity splash screen. That is understandable as Unity have democratised game development, which means there are many users who lack experience, and it is hard to do something great first time. A splash screen just about the tool associates you with people's experience of that tool, and the worst experience is often the one most remembered.

I would rather the splash screen be an introduction to my games, and fit in with my art style. It is currently the only thing I need from Pro for my current project. Which makes Pro very expensive.

 

Quite a few post have people saying things like everything will be better in Unity5. What is the basis for this confidence? Why would the cycle change from what just happened from 3 to 4? By this I mean features added but not complete and so relatively un usable in a game or at the very least leave you working out workarounds etc. Then they expect you to pay for the next major version number to fix the things introduced in the prior version. This is my number one gripe.
I primarily release to IOS so have the 2 Pro licences one for the editor and one for the add-on, games released in 3.5.7 for IOS have needed updates which Unity would no longer release fixes for to maintain them on IOS. This forced me to pay to upgrade to 4, not for any new shiny features but just to keep the ones I had already paid for working on the platform I paid Pro for. I think if you pay for a feature say the ability to publish to IOS then it should be supported for years, 5 to 7 at least the same as Microsoft do. just like people that bought 4 for navmesh, do they now have to pay to upgrade to 5 just so they can actually use it properly in a game? (I just picked on IOS and navmesh as examples, you can replace those technologies with any number of other examples)

 

People are capable of learning from mistakes and improving...

For some things, it's understandable if it's buggy. But they may figure: it's better to release some of this now (in a non-buggy state) than not release any of it. At least it gives people something to work with, and we can add more to it later on.

I am not in a position where the 'incomplete' features have given me any trouble, though, so I can't speak much for it.

 

I think the average gamer's opinion about Unity is not because of Free version shovelware but because of common performance problems in Unity games. There are a lot of Unity specific performance gotchas that developers do not always account for and you end up with releases like M&MX that run terribly while looking dated. Since it was released from a major studio (Ubisoft) the assumption is the problem is Unity. I know I've certainly seen that opinion enough in comment threads.

I know there are some games on the horizon using Unity in a more ambitious way that may change this stigma, but I can't think of a single released large scale Unity game (e.g. not something like Thomas Was Alone, Hearthstone, etc) that wasn't extremely problematic. Hopefully Pillars of Eternity, Rust, the Richard Garriot game, Wasteland 2, etc all turn out well and the perception might change.

 

The game I'm making right now is suffering significantly from Unity's performance problems. But I'm aware that many of the upcoming changes are going to fix that problem and make it perform quite well.

I'm looking forward to those updates. I think they'll be quite good for the performance of Unity games in general.

 

Anybody who thinks that a linux editor is the best investment of UT's time, given the large list of other issues in this thread, should relax, take a long sip of black generic brand coffee from their FSF mug, and use something like Ogre while condemning those whose data isn't "free".

Honestly, Linux development is not worth it at this point - it's so niche as to be ridiculous. Linux DEPLOYMENT is worth it, but only because of Steam Machines.

 

https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/unreal-engine-4-and-linux ahem

 

Well, I personally don't hold 2 licenses in the technical sense. The company I work for holds the Pro license, and I hold the free one.

 

I am a single developer with an existing successful 3D Unity-based product on Steam, iOS, and Android. I happily bought Unity 3 Pro back when I started development, for the features (shadows and Profiler mostly). At the time, I was only thinking Desktop. By the time it came to iOS/Android deployment time, the non-Pro functionality was perfectly adequate there and the boot logo doesn't bother me (or rather, the existence of a logo doesn't bother me, I don't understand why you have to make your own forced advertising so ugly people want to pay to be rid of it).

Unity's object model and simple general-purpose design is far better for my needs and preferences than the more "game engine cut out of our last AAA game" flavour of other engines, so my default preference is to stay with Unity.

However, over the years I have become disheartened by Unity.

Bugs are the biggest problem. I lost more than I gained in upgrading to Unity 4 - Cloth became more broken to the point where I had to cut it from my game, for example. I'm told it's finally fixed for 4.5, but that feels more like being mocked than getting a bug fixed that I reported over a year ago. Ironically, I feel that part of the problem is that you don't make a great big game to test all the features of Unity (sorry but clearly your unit tests are missing the mark by a long way, more giving you a false sense of infallibility than actually finding bugs). Every feature added to Unity seems to follow this same trajectory:

1. Pre-announced with great fanfare
2. Delivered with bugs and missing features from what was promoted
3. Slowly fixed over the next year
4. Slowly declines over the next years
5. Gets called "legacy" for a while
6. Gets replaced by something pre-announced with great fanfare...
7. Goto 1
8. or you just give up and leave it to someone on the Asset Store.

This leaves features actually usable for a few months in between, to be combined with other features that are elsewhere in the cycle.

I'm not talking obscure stuff here, but fundamental features like Joysticks (at stage 5), Terrain (5), GUI (6), Cloth (4), Forward Rendering (4), PhysX (6), Mechanim (2), GI (1), Beast (6), Occlusion Culling (second cycle, at 3 now), Input Manager ( 8 ).

I believe the only hope of getting out from this problem is to make the source available. Not open source of course, but the same model that Epic has. We don't necessarily need the source to the 3rdparty libraries you link against, if that's a problem. As Epic has found, there are plenty of smart people out here that will send you fixes, but it's also useful for us to educate ourselves. eg. I have a physics bug that is probably from something I'm doing but I can't get much info because it just bombs out deep down in your code, not mine; let me see that code and I can probably fix my problem, fix your problem, or make a workaround.

I'm happy with either the current system or a royalties system (though note that I wouldn't buy mobile Pro licenses to double or triple my costs - that is just plain silly). It's been said that David had some problem with royalties because people might cheat.

Have a little faith in us.

 

I've seen that. I think that a LOT of people care about DEPLOYING to linux, for game server processes and (again) Steam Machine support. I also think, however, that the number of people who will actually use Linux as a primary DEVELOPMENT platform is quite small.

I'm not saying it can't be done, and I'm not saying other people aren't doing it. I'm saying it's not a worthwhile investment right now, given the long list of fundamental features Unity needs to work on. Features that directly enable better shipping products based on the engine, rather than supporting an additional, incredibly niche, development platform.

 

Where's the 'Like' button when you need it?

 

This is a great idea. I would have been able to add Cloth to the character model then say "hey, Unity, Cloth doesn't work: see". They'd have two options: rip out the feature and hope no-one notices, or fix it pronto. This would be far superior to having to cut down your game to a minimal reportable case.

 

Been discussed to death many times, and there are far more important things on UT's plate to address than an editor for a minority developer platform.

 

I just recently suited up as a one man indie after sufficient self studies. I get to work on my projects in the weekends inside Unity Free.

This, what Teila is mentioning is one of the main reasons keeping me from buying Pro right now.
It'd be like shooting myself in the foot if I would get Unity 4 Pro, just as 5 is around the corner.

I would end up spending like what, 2100 dollars/euros to get the Unity 5 Pro license? I'll just be patient and wait I guess.
Since I can't seem to find a Unity 5 pre-order page for Unity Free users anywhere on the product pages.
(I don't know if this is a region based thing with me being from Belgium and all)

This should work right? I don't have Unity 4 Pro, so I'd like to Pre-Order 5 and get my hands on 4 Pro now ?



*clicks Find my price*



Yeah I didn't think so......


Thank you for taking the time to hear us out at least

Jacob

 

Jacob that is only if you have Unity 4 pro. You have to go to the store and either subscription or buy full. https://store.unity3d.com

 

Why ..... WHAT ?!!
I'm so confused now.

Then shouldn't it read something like this:
Want to Pre-Order Unity 5 ? Then Get Unity 4 Today !

Wow that is just so confusing....
Because reading it as it is, I get the idea I'd be getting Unity 4 by Pre-Ordering Unity 5.

See my point ?

Edit: Either way.... it seems like I'm gonna have to wait lol

 

I don't buy that. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I and many others WOULD use Linux if the tools were available . Seriously, I would use my laptop %100 of the time in Ubuntu if I had Unity on it, since I use it for off-site development almost exclusively.

I'd also point out that Unity supports OSX, which has only a small fraction of the OS market share, and despite that, I'd wager it's a substantial part of Unity's market, so I don't believe there is a correlation between OS market share and potential sales for Unity.

 

Sorry but removing the screenshots from my post examples of broken ass unity pro post processing features looks super shady like you're trying to hide what you don't want hear.

in this sea of people who use unity for free and want the pro features for free maybe it was a mistake a bug in the forums ?

I spent the weekend on the bloom and Lens flare value tweaking in unity and it looks like something closer to unreal 3. Still long long ways off the ease of unreal 4 and the quality

This is not the first time shady action have happened

David was caught at a GDC panel saying angry birds used unity when it didn't and someone called him on it that looked bad

but this was supposed to be a discussion on making unity better clearly just a magnet to keep the rebels in the same place

Good luck

I'm out

 

Bad Piggies *does* use Unity, so I'm willing to bet that David misspoke rather than intentionally shady behavior.

 

Linux editor is cool and all, but really now, it should be the least of UT's concern atm.

 

But you use Unity anyway. You wouldn't be a new customer, you'd be an existing customer who had an additional option. And as nice as that is, it doesn't increase Unity's income.

 

Images being unreliable has been a problem on the forum for a while now, so this might not be what you think it is.

 

I'm pretty sure that's the case. Isn't the confusion coming from people doing upgrades? Otherwise I'm confused too! (I haven't looked at the pricing page though.)

 

Question, is it usual for Unity hand out a pre-order a long time before release date?

 

From vague memory, generally ~6 months, but generally the pre-order is the same price as the current license and immediately grants you a current license. So I interpret it that you buy a license when you buy a license, and if you happen to do that between a major version's announcement and its release then that major version is included in your license.

That's assuming that I'm correct in my last post, though.

 

"Fool me once."

I preordered Unity 4, now I do not trust UT to deliver. Given their track record on .0 releases, having a preorder discount just further encourages them to hype their functionality and avoid details. EmoSaru mentioned the job queue hoping it will be in the runtime not just the editor - but rest assured, it'll be only in the editor and it won't be as useful as you might imagine and you'll have to turn it off to get various Asset Store plugins to work, etc., etc., etc.

 

Maybe never know he just went silent instead of correcting himself and saying rovio uses unity and it's archived for all time in GDC Europe vault
But I gave him the benefit of the doubt but the engine and this one way discussion with exception of Aras and a couple of others most have retreated to their bunker and removing screenshots is just nails in my frustration in the lack of traction over 4.x cycle issues

 

Maybe but getting all my replies to post mod blocked on Friday after posting makes me wonder , but maybe it yet another thing UT has that's got bugs in it

 

Per the whole Linux side discussion, as it relates to Unity priorities and other engine options, this was posted in the UE4 blog today:

https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/unreal-engine-4-and-linux

 

Yep... the wonders of open source.

 

LOL, don't forget - works best if your develop something like perl on the government dime because your government job was a gift to keep the employment rate low. It's not like that actually have anything for you to do.

 

What are YOU using for your input manager?

 

That's wupped me. You mind PMing me with an working example? Thanks.

 

I've always been surprised that Unity didn't require such a thing.

 

No, I think he's saying to use UE4 you are not required to show the splash screen, in fact you can't show the splash screen, unless Epic approve. You can still publish you game that uses the UE4 engine without the splash screen though.

 

I'm not sure if this is true. I saw multiple indie games publish their Steam numbers long before SteamBox and stuff. And they all had much better numbers for Linux than for Mac.
That's maybe because Steam for Linux was new then, and each Linux Game blog or site would review every single one because there were so few. But still, the numbers from the examples I know clearly beat the Mac numbers on Steam.

 

Makes sense. They've positioned themselves to be associated with the high end titles, where Unity have positioned themselves to be associated with the low end ones.

 

Stop subsidizing the free loaders and watch the asset store dry up as they move to UE4. Honestly I think some folk want Unity Free gone for no other reason than to reduce competition.