Personal edition vs pro

That may explain why my school had so many Apple IIs.

 

Yes, but some of us did grow up eventually and get PCs.

 

It's not about directly converting customers all the time, though. Getting users is useful even if they're not paying directly. Here's a couple of scenarios:
- User gets hired to do software/game development. Their employer then purchases a license on their behalf.
- A company is hiring a bunch of people for a project. Often the choice of software will be based on what available hires are most familiar with.

 

Windows is using the same logic for windows 10. They don't want confusion to have windows 9 produced in 2015 and windows 95 produced before 2000

Interesting.

That was already an issue Slaughtering grounds, anyone?

My only complaint is the fan volume. Other than that, my new and first PC is performing much better.

 

@Tomnnn you could be suprised... at first glance this doesnt make sense too except buzz word you know 10 is higher than 9 but i read someday this might be due to compatibility issue in very old code... see what if we wrote SystemVersion.startwith ("Windows 9"). See what i try to say? In poor goverment w95 windows might still be used and elsewhere updating important software is out of the question

 

Imo I find the delineation a bit passive aggressive to be honest. UT goes out of their way to make both versions functionally identical, but then want to make sure any *end* users know, without a doubt, that what was created, was created by a perception of a lesser version.

If it was a trial version, then I get it. But like this?

Want that in the splash screen? Cool, do it for the editor on load. Why should the *end* users really care except for the potential negative connotation?

The fact that someone earlier said that he didn't think it was that 'harsh' simply makes my point..

whether you like it or not, it carries a potential negative connotation.. please don't piss on me and tell me it's rain...

 

Im not sure that they mean it to be harsh. Although it is entirely possible that they want their name to quit being associated with crappy games, and the 'personal edition' is a way of throwing the developer under the bus instead of them (which is fine, the developer of crap games should be the one under the bus). But ultimately, I just think that people have different connotations of the word. I get that some people don't think it is awkwardly or negatively phrased. I can't argue their perception, it is theirs. But the fact that so many of us developers see it as awkwardly worded for various reasons means that a significant amount of customers will as well. I personally don't care if customers know that I didn't pay for Unity. But I don't want them thinking I'm illegally using a personal edition commercially because that degrades consumer confidence. And I also don't want them thinking that my game is some personal project whose sales I don't depend on to eat. I think every single developer here wants to have to buy pro. Not because of any feature, but because it means we are making good money. It makes it harder to get to that point when a non-zero number of customers think you are ripping off an engine and another non-zero number think that you are just some guy in his basement making games on the weekends.

 

I'm familiar with this possibility. It was the conclusion most of us reached here. The only alternative theory going around at school is that windows wanted to make the "because 7 8 9" joke.

@Marionette , @HemiMG If any ill will arises over this... will someone say, "Now it's personal!"? Because UT can reply, "Yes, yes it is."

 

This whole thing just seems like a bit of a marketing blunder to be honest. I think Unity will remove it from the splash screen judging by the amount of backlash over such a tiny detail.

On the features page it's pretty clear there are no differences between Personal and Pro as far as the end user (player) is concerned so why tell them? It's like the rumored "Pro"-forum badge only directed at the wrong people. If you want to distinguish between the different versions do it where it could matter, for the developers. The players don't care. They get the exact same game whether it's made with Personal or Pro.

 

Shrug. I see it as version shaming. Plain and simple. And it's a small sticking point with me. Why not have the words "this developer did not pay for additional services"?

Because that isn't the point of it no matter how innocent or innocuous it was meant to be. Or not.

If the goal is to 'get the word out' then made with unity should be more than enough. I personally would wear *that* badge with pride. This one? Not so much.

Edit: and while we're talking about this, imagine this wording:

Made with Unity
personal edition
(It's questionable whether or not this developer has made anything of consequence or at all, or ever will, but you're welcome to try this offering even though he decided to not to take advantage of our online services or dark skin for his editor)

 

If the context was 'Team' vs 'Personal', maybe it would be less confusing.

 

The reason I think of this as a marketing blunder rather than an act of passive aggressiveness or version shaming or any of the other reasons you guys have put fourth is that I think Unity's goal with this was to make the players aware of the fact that this particular, awesome looking game was made with the free version of Unity and that they can make a similar game themselves for free if they just go and download Unity.

If it said "Made with Unity" then players could end up thinking: "This game looks amazing. There's no way it's made with the free version of Unity, it's probably made with the most expensive version, the version I can never afford.".

It's more or less the only logical reason I can think of. And it's not a very good reason in my opinion. Especially considering how negative some of the developers seem to take it.

 

ok, then explain the main differences between the two versions. anyone who has ever done anything with unity already knows about the free version and anyone who didn't, soon found out when they went to the download link. so how is this a 'look at the awesomeness of what i made with the free version' thing when they are functionally the same now?

 

@Marionette them being functionally the same does actually make sense for avoiding some kind of label. Most of the pro features have nothing to do with the finished product now except for the splash screen.

 

to be honest, if not shaming, then what's the point of even delineating between versions to the *end* user? why should it really matter whether I, or anyone else, paid for additional services during development, to the *end* user? suppose i *could* afford the pro version, but since i don't know how well my offering would do, i make the prudent choice (in my case) to use the non-pro version for now, and then once i see how well it's doing decide to upgrade? so what splash do my users see now? even though nothing might've changed in the actual offering?

it just feels like yet another potential hoop for indies to jump through with any end user's preconceived notions, and this time it feels like for no apparent reason.. at least before, there were major differences, for example, when you ran up their offering and there were no shadows, you at least knew why.

it feels like a paradigm shift to me. it was about licensing the engine AND the editor, now it feels like a shift towards additional online services. and if so, cool. but if i choose not to avail myself of those services and i've made less than 100k, it just feels like a thinly veiled derogatory comment.

made with Unity. or Powered by Unity.

boom. done. why not?

why cast dispersions by denoting the 'personal' edition?

if UT wants to keep track of who's publishing what by the splash screen, how exactly does that help? they'd still need to do their diligence to find out if someone has infringed the license right? here's another thing. the implication of the licensing 'personal' OR 'pro' users have with unity. which to be honest, is no one's business except the parties involved.

honestly, i dunno why it bothers me so much, but it does.

and lemme snip something in the bud right now before someone lay's the ole snarky "until you actually make something of (our perceived) worth, it shouldn't matter to you" comment on me, i don't like being guilted into anything. and i'm not alone in this thinking.

imo, the additional wording is unneeded, and i find it a tad insulting. shrug.

 

agreed

 

in the first part of your statement, you actually made my point for me, without seemingly knowing that you did. you just associated the words 'personal edition' to crappy games. which begs the question: why should anyone be thrown under the bus for the version they use? crappy games are crappy games. it doesn't matter the version that you use to make a crappy game, right? or does it?

lastly, what's wrong with being a guy in his basement making games on the weekend? the infinity engine was made by the same kind of guy you are talking about. so was the engine for minecraft that MS just spent literally billions on, buying the IP.

 

There is really no such thing as the "Personal Edition". It is a meaningless label. There is only one Unity now.

Pro should be called the "Corporate-Funded Additional Services EXECUTIVE CLASS" as again, it is not a different version of the software at all, just premium services and freebies.... We all ride on the same plane and get out the same door at the same airport, just some people get bigger seats and free booze for the ride. We all know how this works. Why the shame Unity? Why label people with lower incomes by pretending the version you offer them is somehow different?

Policies are at odds here.

 

How about Unity: Peasant Edition. Unity: Noble Edition.

Feels like that is what is happening these days. I had hoped that was over.

Just go back to Free, please.

 

or just how about "made with unity'? why should it even matter now what version it was made with? i have no problem with a splash screen. like i've said before, i'd be *proud* to display it. i have a problem with the connotation of the new text beneath.

 

You're completely impervious to humour, aren't you?

 

I don't think I made your point for you, I think I made my point for me and we just happen to have the same point. Customers already associate Unity with crappy games because the free version is the only one that shows the splash and so many crappy games are put out by people who no nothing about game development. It isn't the engine's fault, but the engine gets the blame. Putting "personal edition", I think could be Unity's way of saying "Hey, this product was made by someone who isn't professional. Don't judge our engine on their work." I'm not saying that I agree with them doing that. I'm just saying that could be why they did it. My point really has nothing to do with what version they use. Just user's perception of Unity based on their only (known) exposure to the engine coming from the lower quality games. Keep in mind I'm still using the free version. I'm not insulting myself here. You can make great games with Unity free. That just isn't the case for a lot of games made with it, and it isn't the perception that users have. Without the Unity splash, the developer is the only one thrown under the bus, so the version become irrelevant.

Nothing is wrong with it.

 

hehe not at all

was talking about this line: "Just go back to Free, please"

 

Maybe they can make the splash screen pink, just to really drive home the 'personal' aspect of the license! ;-)

If it's any comfort, I'll still be here in the pleb forum with you while the nobles are off laughing at us in their super special area.

 

Pro users should bling up their avatars in anticipation.

Warning: Don't do this. It's douchy.

 

I am such a pleb!

I was being funny, Marionette. I know Free is a pariah here.

 

And you will be so welcome here in our dirty little yard, HemiMG.

Actually, I think they only have a filter. I would pay extra to filter out the Nobles though!

No really, I love you guys! Don't hate me.

 

i agree, we're on the same page, however it's not the splash i have a problem with, it's the new text and the perceived connotations therein vs. the good/bad that UT get from it. how exactly does UT benefit from it? like i said, crappy games come in all sizes and flavors.. it matters not, which version was used..

 

Not only that, but it is not like people can't figure out what games are crappy. You really think Unity would cut their own throats by insinuating that people can't make good games with the free version? That would be rather cynical, wouldn't it be and not good for business.

I think they just blundered.

 

If that was the case, Unity would be better off forcing users not to use the splash screen.

 

absolutely, but i think this just exacerbates things a little for me. i was hoping for the core to be looked at more in this version either with a new mono (which to be honest i thought the announcement was, since we already knew 5 was coming out).

i don't fully understand how folks can look past some real flaws to drive their new features. namely, an almost what, *7* year old mono? older?

granted, the eye candy is freakin' cool, and now we have all of that in the 'non' pro version, but tbh, i was hoping for more core stuff to be addressed too. like the ability to *decide* if i wanted to use doubles internally or not. or just use the latest 4.5 .net stuff. etc etc

 

No no no. You've got it backwards. The nobles aren't the douches. The plebs are. We are the ones using the Summer's Eve edition after all. ;-)

I dunno. I just said it was possible. There are great games made with Unity free, so in my version of their thought process they are just separating the individual developer a bit more rather than making a distinction between the versions. Like saying, "hey, this guy is an amateur".

 

same

 

Well, there's always the good games made with the personal edition that they are going to want their name on.

 

Wow, you are right! We are the ones who smell fresh and new!

I see what you mean about the separation, but it just seems like it hurts Unity more than helps them. They are competing with other free or almost free versions. That is why they made the Personal Edition. They wanted to make it free to everyone so individuals and small teams could make better games. By stigmatizing us prior to even making such a game, it sort of hurts them as much, if not more than us.

Their success depends on our success. They need us to prove to the world that we can make great games with Unity, even the free version. Tough to wrap my head around any suggestion that Unity did this to hurt us. Most of us would buy pro if we could but we can't, and we will make up the bulk of the Unity users, more now than ever.

 

LOL rather than associating their logo with punishment, they should FEATURE the logo by making it exclusive: it only shows in Pro, with strict usage guidelines about pointsize text and background color.... Then customers would PAY EXTRA to get to use it.

 

That is what they do with UE4. Yikes, I said a bad word!

 

I tried to enable the profiler for the web player build, but it says the pro version for that platform is needed.
What is that? The professional edition?
I guess this is another difference between personal and pro which seems way more significant than the splash screen to me.

 

That's usually how branding works, I think. You want to have control over what your logo is placed on. But I think they consider it more of a marketing tool than a branding tool.

 

imo close everything is better than 'personal' even 'free' is better. i understand that unity want to split brands for better reputation over the world but in that case use 'indie edition' or 'free edition' or 'vanilla edition' or so....

 

For the record, I don't think they intentionally meant to hurt us. Anymore than they intentionally meant to upset the women. I don't know exactly what their motivation was. But the notion that it was so people would say "Hey this great game was made with the free version of Unity" doesn't really make sense in my head. If that was their goal, then it would say "Unity Free." And the Unity splash screen has never been associated with "Wow! I can't wait to try that!" so much as it's been associated with "Unity games suck!" So I really don't know why they did it. No explanation really seems to make much sense.

 

Honestly, I believe they thought Personal was better than Free based on remarks in the forums. I remember seeing in the Unity 5 beta thread people complained about a new splash screen with the word Free on it for some mobile apps. I wonder it was changed to Personal to be more accepted.

Problem is they didn't ask the rest of us about it. Most, if not all, of the Beta testers were Pro users already.

 

the other end of the spectrum is this: when looking for an engine to license while i was at Ping, we went to austin and the engine conference they had there. we talked to crysis, but one of the big turn offs (besides the enormous licensing fees) was that they wanted to check out our projects before release before they would finalize the license deal.. other companies have done that too.

actually, that was the first time i ever saw Unity. it was mac only back then, and i even said as much "if you made a windows version you would take over the genre" because at that time, there was little to nothing that was as easy, performant and beautiful as that editor was.

point is this: *any* time you have the [insert company here] involve themselves to such a level as to determine or judge your end product, other than the software they themselves provide? it's a warning sign to me..

 

Hmmmmm.
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/wh...-the-personal-editions-eula-section-5.307054/

 

hmmm.. is right. i understand what it is they're doing. they're putting licensing auditing into the eula, however, some of it seems a bit too far imo.. dunno, i'll have to read the whole thing.

back in the day, we used to refer to the eula as the 'scare page'.. only back then, there weren't many precedents or IP lawsuits going on.. it just didn't carry the same weight as it does today.. today, if you don't read the eula, and let's face, who actually reads the whole thing or understands all of it?; you could be setting yourself up for all kinds of litigation etc.. i've seen all kinds of things that were snuck into them..

 

Isn't that sort of weird? Wouldn't most license violations be illegal licenses that don't care about the EULA? Reminds of EA when the put stuff in to catch violators but really only harmed the legal folks.

 

Regarding the comment about personal edition being associated with crappy games:

Unity no longer requires pro to use plugins. What's that mean? Greenlighting your crap game now only costs $100 instead of $1600. If the slaughtering grounds was greenlit and sold... this could open the floodgates of crap onto steam.

That being said, if anything, require pro for Steam only or something, because I swear I'll totally flip out if I need pro to virtually wave my arms around via STEM.

 

check this out: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/10-ridiculous-eula-clauses-agreed/

 

for example, any c/c++ dll 'plugin' used from unity, could only be done so with pro.. .net asseblies were ok between the two versions, just not native dlls..

 

Gestapo raids demanding I present my papers.... Wasn't this suppose to be something we were all looking forward to?