REAL cost: Unity vs UDK: Small Team, iPhone, PC/Mac Release + Android?

Please correct me where I'm wrong.

Team of 5:
1. Level Designer/Textures/Materials
2. Artist/GUI/Materials/Usability/Marketing
3. Programmer and knowledge base/development guru
4. Modeler/Animator/Renderer/UVW texturing
5. Boss, producer, nuisance and designer/dreamer/tester

Unity
((Unity Pro + iPhone Pro + Android) x 5) + Asset Server = $23,000 USD

UDK
$99 Publication License + 25% --- AFTER first $5000

Assuming all of the team have their own equipment and software for individual content creation (needed with either scenario)

Let's make a game: Boss/Producer/Dreamer think's he's got the idea/concept to make a modestly successful game:

Game goes out at current above average retail of $1.99 on iTunes
---------------------------
Sales Scenario 1.
Game sells 10k Units on iTunes @ $1.99 : take home = $1.40 == $14,000
Game sells 2k Units on Steam @ $4.99 : take home = $3.50 === $7,000
Game sells 2k Units on Android @ $0.99 : take home = $0.80 ===$1600

Total Income on Unity = $22,600
Total Income on UDK = $21,000

Under Unity Licensing this is a loss of $400
Under UDK Licensing this is a profit of $16,900
----------------------------------
Sales Scenario 2.
Game sells 25k Units on iTunes @ $1.99 : take home = $1.40 == $35,000
Game sells 5k Units on Steam @ $4.99 : take home = $3.50 === $17,500
Game sells 5k Units on Android @ $0.99 : take home = $0.80 ===$4000

Total Income on Unity = $56,500
Total Income on UDK = $52,500

Under Unity Licensing this is a profit of $33,500
Under UDK Licensing this is a profit of $40,525
----------------------------------
Sales Scenario 3.
Game sells 50k Units on iTunes @ $1.99 : take home = $1.40 == $70,000
Game sells 10k Units on Steam @ $4.99 : take home = $3.50 === $35,000
Game sells 10k Units on Android @ $0.99 : take home = $0.80 ===$8000

Total Income on Unity = $113,000
Total Income on UDK = $105,000

Under Unity Licensing this is a profit of $90,000
Under UDK Licensing this is a profit of $80,000
----------------------------------
Sales Scenario 4.
Game sells 100k Units on iTunes @ $1.99 : take home = $1.40 == $140,000
Game sells 20k Units on Steam @ $4.99 : take home = $3.50 === $70,000
Game sells 20k Units on Android @ $0.99 : take home = $0.80 ===$16,000

Total Income on Unity = $226,000
Total Income on UDK = $210,000

Under Unity Licensing this is a profit of $203,000
Under UDK Licensing this is a profit of $163,650
____________________

At what point do you think using UDK and Unreal technology becomes a marketing tool in it's own right?

At what point do you think using Unity becomes detrimental to sales on something like Steam and iPhone?

And how many sales do you think your games going to make?

 

Well I think the projections would make me ask questions about what I was spending up front.
For example, you are spending $7500 on five(!) Unity Android licenses when only the most optimistic projection would show any significant profit on that. Not sure that makes commercial sense.

Furthermore, the calculations are based on this being the one and only game that you publish with Unity.. for the second and all subsequent releases in the same major release bracket, those licensing costs would be 0. And they would be half that even for the first game if you had licensed the last major Unity release.

 

Commercial sense is not always direct. If we were to use Unity and NOT take advantage of the Android facility that would be a misstep based on the potential there. These are VERY loose projections/predictions with really no idea what reality will come. However the fact that something might work on Android, get pirated a LOT (as it will on that platform) may lead to increased sales of a "full screen" version on Steam... so it's both a real cost and commercial decision and a marketing decision to pay for Android.

I've left out future games and productions. Simply because that's way too complex for this calculation. Then you've gotta figure in the intangibles. Starting with basic stuff.... like what benefit does use and familiarity with UDK/Unreal for the individuals of the team provide to their career options over getting good at Unity? And that's a factor NOBODY wants to talk about if they're on the Unity side of the fence.

AND I've left out the increase in license costings that occur with Unity once you go over $100,000 revenue, since I don't know what they are... but they're there... earn more than $100k and you're in for a whole different class of licensing with Unity (read: more expensive!!!) So that kind of mutes your point about future productions, as they'll come under this teams income....

 

That only counts for Unity Free, afaik.

 

Did you really need to start a new thread? Jeesh...

As I said in the other thread, for a team, such as you describe, where there's only one coder / developer you would really only need to buy one Unity license. That's like buying everyone copies of Photoshop and Max when only the respective artists need it. Now in a 1 or 2 man team where everyone does everything, that's another story. But for larger teams where there is clear job segregation, then buying the extra licenses is a needless expense.

 

The licensing requirement is that if you earn more than $100,000 a year you need to get a Pro license ($1,500). So if you have a Pro license you make a kajillion bucks and not pay Unity Tech a penny more.

 

I don't think there's complete job segregation in a small team like this. eg Level designer is going to need to test his levels for performance, visual quality, requirements etc across the platforms... there's not going to be somebody to do that for him. This is the same for the animator/modeler and the GUI/look/feel guy. The segregation comes when you've got a project manager with a guy sitting next to him ensuring that everything works, that's another license and two folks who don't actually contribute to production other than comment/critique and process.

 

I disagree, but then again some of how you've separated job assignments makes no sense to me either.

 

I think that making projections, even loose ones is a great idea. Using different scenarios like this you can see what's the minimum you need to do to break even, to make it worth your while, and to make it a real success.

I think using unknowns and intangibles without estimated value to offset large dollar sums in your projections is the top of a very slippery slope.

 

I actually disagree with a great many points here. The assertion that iPhone is a no-brainer to develop for and that most developers will need to develop for it to make money... That one I highly disagree with. Most indie developers simply don't go multiplatform, and if they're just starting out and want to make the most money, they choose PC as their platform, not a cell phone most people don't have.

And FIVE Unity licenses? That's unnecessary, even if you have a five-man team. At most, you might need 2 licenses, if the programmer wants one and the level designer wants one. Nobody else needs to be poking around in Unity, as all of their work can be done outside of Unity.

Your sales figures I disagree with too (even keeping in mind they're just guesses). I can't imagine a single instance where iPhone sales would outnumber Steam sales 5 to 1, unless you've got a game that was specifically designed for the iPhone and its PC counterpart was buggy, broken, and not fun.

And you might have been confused on this point, but unless you're making more than $100,000 per year, developing with Unity is free. Sure, you're "limited" to the PC and Mac while working with the free version, but the PC gamer base is massive and I hardly consider that a limitation. When I think of playing games, I think of my computer long before I think of the iPhone (not to mention I don't personally know anyone who owns one as it's hardly the most impressive option if you want a smart phone these days). There are something in the neighborhood of 20 million Steam users. If you make a well thought out, decently polished PC game in one of a half-dozen of the more popular genres and publish on Steam, I can't imagine making only 2,000 sales, especially at a $5 or even $10 figure, unless there is something seriously wrong with the game.

Even Psychonauts sold five times more than that after launch and at a much higher price point, and that was keeping in mind that nobody even knew the game existed and could only be bought as physical copies at first. It's a totally different story if you can publish with Steam and get that front-page access to millions of users on the day your game releases, even if it's just for one day.

I know two people personally who have published indie titles on Steam, both of them in agreement that the first 5,000-10,000 sales pretty much make themselves regardless of anything, even the quality of your game (not that I would ever recommend that people make large batches of bad games, as that's a terrible practice ).

Your proposed spending model is unrealistic for anyone but a hefty-sized development company, or for an indie developer who is not very good at managing their money and priorities and is trying to do everything at once. My one-man development costs have so far been $0 on Unity, $0 on C# 2010 to do all my programming, $0 on all the various open-source and freeware (but still very good quality) modeling, painting, and animating softwares, I record my own sound effects, and I have two friends I can go to when I need good music as a personal favor. All I had to do was make some smart choices and not overindulge on thousand-dollar software I really didn't need to do the job, and have a few personal connections for the music. *Shrug*

I'm looking at a total development cost of $0 for anything I ever make with Unity, at least until I decide to upgrade to Pro features or if I start making more than $100,000 a year (but if I do that, paying a measly $1,500 for Unity Pro will no longer be a problem... in fact, the first $1,500 I make with my Unity game, personally, will be going towards a Pro license).

None of this is meant as a personal thing against you, I'm just stating my point of view and what I know to be true and maybe even trying to uplift your spirits, since you seem to have a pretty dismal outlook of what it costs to develop a game using Unity!

 

@JasonB Let me ask you this... how much have you personally spent on Steam games? How much do you know of others spending on Steam? Now, purely anecdotally, how much do you think the "mugs" that you know with iPhones have spent in the app store?

 

Well said Jason.

I've worked with a hefty sized development company or two and can tell you that they pinch their pennies as much as anyone, and the bigger they are the more they pinch. If I managed a team and told my boss that everyone on my team needed copies of the development engine (and assuming we paid for each license) I'd be unemployed muy rapido.

 

@bigkahuna the job segregation is based on the team I have available and what they're good at. I'm not running a human resources department where I can pick and choose talent, then organize them in ideal categories, I've found a wonderful group of guys that want to work towards game production independence. The fact that they're all well acquainted and fully aware of each others skill sets removes the need for a lot of oversight and control issues.

Cost of creating a team equally qualified and experienced, with rudimentary segregation based on "ideals" and subsequent management of that team might lead to team creation and management costs equal to the total cost of production... thereby doubling production costs instantly.

 

@bigkahuna

I guess it depends who you work for. lol

I won't name names, but some big developers think nothing of spending thousands of dollars on something that accomplishes absolutely nothing (new DRM that gets cracked a month later!).

So big guys definitely still throw their money away, at least from what I can see looking in. I bet you anything that most of the penny pinching you see comes in the way of things that would make your job as a developer easier. We can't have that.

 

@JasonB - Yeah, I know companies like that too. But there's no way I'd run my business like that!

 

OK, I'm new here, so I'm a bit confused.

Couldn't the above hypothetical team get 5 licenses of Unity Pro, and then just one license of iOS Pro and one of Android Pro? I guess I thought that the iOS Pro and Android Pro licenses were just for publishing to those platforms and that everything else, up to the publishing part, could be done with Unity Pro.

As I said, I'm new here, so please someone set me straight if I'm delusional.

 

As an artist, for me to NOT be able to test on target platform would be a waste of everyone's time. I can't tell you how many times something "ran or looked fine" on the PC, then when it got to the PS3/360/PSP it was different or had issues. It's annoying to build, run and test other people stuff when you're working. I don't want to be that bottleneck, and I don't want people waiting to hear the results. If not the $1200 unity then the $300 version is fine. Just get them to test on the target platform, otherwise you can't verify that it's done.

If you're developing on PC, as long as each artist has the same shader sets approved for the game, then the free version is fine, just make sure they have the latest scripts if needed. That's free, and that's a $$ saver. But if you're using heavy pro features and the artwork uses these features, then it starts to get into that "You need the same version" territory.

Other than that, interesting thread.

 

dissidently, to make it more fair, you need to subtract the cost of :

- 5 x Android license (because UDK can't support it yet)
- Asset Server (not sure if UDK has this, but if UDK doesn't support Asset server to be fair we need to subtract the cost in Unity side too)

* And also probably remove the Android sales for now to be a fair comparison.

 

@Lamont et al - My point is that whether you buy 5 licenses for a 5 member team or 1 license is a matter of choice. If you decide you want every member of the team to have it on his/her computer you certainly can, but it's not required nor mandated by the Unity license. Teams have released titles with only one person doing the coding. The UDK license and the 25% royalty is mandatory and there isn't any way of lowering that cost.

 

@ bigkahuna: Ok. so the programmer's going to do all the testing of materials, scenes, textures, objects, physics, shaders, lighting, shadows, rendering etc? and report back to those creating this content about what's going on with each platform due for publication, and he's supposed to finish the game sometime?

I think the man hours lost in this cycle will be more than the cost of the 4 extra licenses. If it ever gets to completion this way... I can't imagine one person willing to manage, administrate, test, control and produce everything at a 5 team standard through that one bottleneck of himself. It's too much for one person unless you reduce expectations to a one man production.

Not to mention, you, the programmer and license holder getting sick means a bottle neck challenge. You deciding there's something better to do as your main priority, EVERYTHING slows down. Making one guy the point, like that, in a small team, it's not right. not done. not going to happen. Everyone must be replaceable in order to assure completion. It's not cut throat, it's just common sense. The OBJECTIVE is the purpose. It's work in production, not a spiritual journey to Bells Beach or Point Magoo.

 

Up until a few years ago, that would have been your only choice as "artist friendly" game dev engines pretty much didn't exist. My point is that your comparison isn't fair in that you are claiming your choices are mandatory, whereas they are not. It's up to you whether you buy 5 licenses for your 5 man team. It's not dictated to you by the Unity license. Nor are there any "rules" on how games should or shouldn't be developed. However, the 25% royalty to Epic is mandatory, no way to get around it.

Take for instance a team that starts with an artist and a coder. They buy one license of Unity and build a sufficiently successful game that they want to add to the team and grow. The UDK royalty makes this process so much more difficult as their likelihood of making a profit is pretty much squashed from the beginning.

If UDK's licensing were more like Unity's then you'd have a solid argument. Otherwise, it's just not a winning proposition for many indy game developers IMO. But prove me wrong. Show me a list of small indy developers who are making a living using the UDK. I've asked here and also on the UDK forums. I've yet to get an answer.

 

I'm not sure I understand your question. Or point about not making a profit when "suffering" under a 25% commission structure to UDK.

Starting with the basics. As I understand it, UDK is a little older than 1 year. In that time they've spent a lot of time on refining what it is that UDK does, added ENORMOUS features via things like Scaleform etc and increasingly documenting all that it can do. Up until last week there was no way to make something on UDK for iPhone.

You mention small Indy developers all the time, like they're one man or two man teams. From the outset I've been talking about a 5 man team. This could, and very likely will grow during our production. That's budgeted in. I have space and budget for at least an audio engineer, a second programmer, a highly skilled graphic artist and a web production crew to make a marketing platform. I probably don't fit the bill of "small" Indy developer as you seem to be describing it.

Also very important, I want to do this as FAST AS POSSIBLE. This is not a lifestyle choice. I want to develop, complete and market a game. A very specific game with a very specific market.

There's also no point in time when I've claimed "mandatory". But if you look at what I'm trying to achieve, how I'm trying to achieve it and how I'd like to best use the human's I have available to me, there's noway having 4/5's of the team wondering how their contribution works at the higher end feature set of Unity Pro and Unity iOS pro is going to be efficient. It simply isn't. They need to be self sufficient in their ability to create content, features and components.

It should also be pointed out, NONE of us are physically in the same place. We're scattered across the globe. Something like an asset server running with the meta features pointed out in another post would be essential to this project. That means EVERYONE on pro.

Sure, you can make something at the scale you're talking about. But we're going beyond the two man or one man team.

Personally, 25% to me, is cheap. I simply have to factor that into the marketing, price point, production quality, sales methods etc.

If I go down the Unity road, I've gotta make different decisions with regards the same issues. Starting with production quality. The big question being, do I want my artists working at Unity Pro quality or Unity Free quality? It's inherent to every point made that the choice in this case is Unity Pro quality as a minimum benchmark.

 

Unity licensing demands that if you're team is using pro at all, they're all using it so that Pro/free split is a moot point.

Naturally a percentage model is going to have advantages over a one time license for a single, low income project with no follow up. Excluding any other startup costs exaggerates that effect in the numbers. The numbers still favor Unity however except for in the most pessimistic end of the projections (the end where the game brings in about $4k per person - ie. you'd have to question it's viability in the first place).

I think the thing is that you seem to have made the decisions already, which is fine, but the thread implies real cost of Unity vs UDK where as much of it is imagined or or costed on a somewhat skewed set of parameters. Some of the decisions like licensing everything for everyone are down to you and your team and naturally, nobody else can say what's right there. But other places you seem to have made decisions or allowances which don't seem clear-cut or objective.

For example - the notion that 25% is cheap in the case of UDK. Whereas spending $7500 to get $1600 back on Unity might make sense.

Or that the fact that you might get an unknown number of extra sales simply by virtue of using UDK is significant. Whereas the fact that you will have zero licensing costs on your second and all subsequent projects with Unity is not.

These are cases of ignoring real numbers that support Unity while using unknowns to backup UDK costing - seems at odds with the thread title and original post.

 

Alric: All valid points. And you're right. I'm skewed in favor of UDK. Not least because of the image quality... something I didn't dare bring up, simply because it's something many consider subjective. I don't see it anywhere nearly as subjectively as others. To my eyes there's no comparison between the visual qualities of UDK and Unity. UDK is in another league visually.

Then there's particles, an important consideration for my game. Again, UDK is an entirely different league.

There's Kismet. Probably one of the most insightful pieces of game engine creation ever. It's thorough link between artists/designers and programmers, to my knowledge, is unique.

Unity is, from scratch, a programming environment with a visual development tool at the front end. UDK feels more like a front end to a highly developed engine with script access to a huge range of built in classes and a range of wonderful tools for visual effects and object manipulation/engagement and interaction. It helps that UDK makes sense to me. I'm not going to hide that.

I wanted to love Unity. And in many ways, do. It amazes me that such a thing exists. But it's a visual tool for programmers rather than a set of tools for a set of underlying game mechanics. And that's a huge difference. One that heavily skews my knowledge base and view of the world to UDK.

The point of my initial post was simply Gossip. In my world, what are the real costs of doing a UDK/Unity comparison. It exists in complete isolation from many other realities of production.

But it does highlight, clearly, that the costs of that 25% are not exorbitant as many would have us believe. For the benefits of that cost, I'm more than happy to pay it. BEFORE considering Unity. Having taken the time to do some due diligence on Unity as a development platform, I'm happy to say that UDK is the better choice, for me, and the cost differential is nothing to write home about.

It's just Gossip. Filed in Gossip. I found it an interesting exercise, not only to try learning Unity, but to then balance out it's REAL costs in my isolated example. I hope it creates gossip. But thanks, you're right on just about every point. Especially that I'm skewed.

btw, not ALL subsequent releases on Unity will have zero licensing costs. There's gonna come an upgrade cost at some stage... and it wouldn't surprise me to see Unity head towards an interesting set of relationships with Union that see EVERYONE contributing to Union with their productions in subsequent releases of Unity. There you go... something else to gossip about.

 

You're right but even with a major version release, your costs would still be halved for first (upgrade), and zero for subsequent.

There's no doubting the quality of UDK and no shortage of good reasons to choose it. I think it's worth having that clarity that the main factor is an engine preference rather than the pricing model as everyone who looks at it will have a different set of circumstances.

More gossip to throw in to the ring then. How much do your long-term goals factor in?
For example. You touched on the merits of UDK for career options. Which may be a bigger factor for a team with aspirations to a career in commercial game production but less so to pro-indies.
Top end graphics features likewise, might be less important to serial indies whereas maximization of profits from multiple small game releases is more important. On the other hand, minimization of risk with a percentage model is more appealing to those where the project is a stepping stone rather than a breadwinner. But this is all speculation (and yes it's been discussed to death but I like this thread as it's more specific than the monster ones).

With a real project and a real preference, where do you fit in?

 

All this talk about licensing is good and well, the talk about revenue is good and well. What doesn't seem to be coming up enough is usability for your team. Frankly, if my team has a lot of experience with UDK and Unreal mods, then I would go with that and if the game is successful, then I would just have to pay the royalties. We shouldn't pretend both engines are equal in technology and appropriate for all markets on equal terms.

For example, if I am interested in a PC game with graphics, there is no contest here. UDK wins this hands down. If our chosen approach is to hit multiple platforms, particularly mobile, I would probably go with Unity.

 

I only have one point to make... What about the income from a second game in each scenario...?

 

@Alric (always think of Black Adder when I see your name, "Baldrick!")

Not sure I do fit in. Never made a mod. Never made a game.

Earlier this year was doing research on how best develop 2 commercial visualization apps I've had in my head for a while. And this year I restructured my life to pursue passions rather than "work" with the ultimate goal of making them into reality. Came across info on Scaleform implemented in UDK and Unreal. Read more. Got more intrigued. Read more, had a little play. Went back to wandering around the world aimlessly for a few months.

Then an idea for a language learning game/tool hit me, specifically for my daughter, more generally for anyone trying to learn a language or multiple languages. Spent some time learning about language and learning and children's responses to visual/audio interactive edutainment (think most people call these things games, without realising the importance of play or how much kids learn from it)

Once the idea for the educational game/tool idea was verified as being valid, I started researching UDK. Spent October and November "in it". Came across a team of guys keen to help make my vision a reality. They STRONGLY "suggested" Unity. I jumped out of UDK and downloaded Unity. My Trial expires right on the New Year. I dug in. Loved it. For the first two weeks. Then I realised a lot of the limitations and spent the last two weeks testing theories, busting myths and breaking down what's really going on. Not just in the Unity Engine, but where I see them headed as a company and platform.

Specifically because I'm going to push this team of guys back to UDK (which they left early 2010, after getting frustrated with it) I'm considering the implications for their greater lives/careers options after working with me on my visions. And I'm going to use this as encouragement to rediscover UDK and get them through their "dip".

Not as justification, but as general info/gossip, I've got significant experience with other "creative" endeavors and the inevitable breakdowns in relationships, changes in life, direction and ideals that folks make throughout any production period. I'd rather, when/if they walk away, they do so with some transferrable UDK skills than Unity. I'm thinking for them. It's rude, wrong and politically incorrect in the modern world of "every choice is the right choice". But I'm old enough to be a stick in the mud.

Ultimately, you're profoundly right again. It's my future PURELY for profit, PURELY commercial visualization application plans that influence the decision process more than anything. They could be done without the wonderful Scaleform, but I wouldn't wish that process on anyone.

And it doesn't hurt that the language learning game/tool is focused on Japanese, Chinese and English. Meaning I'm going to need thousands of characters renderable, rather than the 26 of English. Unity's fonts are fast and light, but VERY clunky. Scaleform as a texture is an entirely different magic for large character set fonts.

 

You seemed so biased for UDK why did you even ask this? Seems like just a reason to bash on Unity to unity users to me. You pretty much said you think visually, unity is bogus and nothing more than a visual programming engine. It just seems like some trollin'

"They STRONGLY "suggested" Unity."

"I'm going to push this team of guys back to UDK (which they left early 2010, after getting frustrated with it) I'm considering the implications for their greater lives/careers options after working with me on my visions. I'm thinking for them. It's rude, wrong and politically incorrect in the modern world of "every choice is the right choice". But I'm old enough to be a stick in the mud."

Your right, that is rude. Every choice is NOT the right choice, but everyone should be free to make their own choices. You just explained why this whole topic is null and void. You will do what you think if right regardless of what others tell you or think.

Bam, credibility lost, everyone has been debating with someone who was biased and set in his ways from the start. Seems like a giant waste of time to me.

 

Well everyone's biased to some degree aren't they. But perhaps biased and practical is a better platform for discussion than biased and hypothetical (or dreamland!) - which is what Unity/UDK threads usually revolve around.

 

I just think the arguments are always so biased to one side it's like fighting with a brickwall, all you get are bloody knuckles.

 

Alright, so basically... if your project strictly:

1) would require 5 o more SETS of EVERY SINGLE license unity has to offer
2) is about making 1 single game and then quit
3) you don't expect to make much money out of it

Then dissidently is right... UDK license would be more suitable

any other scenario? unity license is recommendable

But seriously, if you're going to buy ALL the licenses to EVERYONE, not just the coders? but the artists and level designers as well?... and the whole time you're uncertain about the market??? no way! ...
AND this is applied only to the 1st game you release, after that you can keep making profit, and after some point that % from epic will start hurting! So if you ask me, unity license is more convenient for a team of gamedevs.

 

@TheLlama: Your premise is wrong: I didn't ask a question along the lines of "UDK or Unity?". I made an observation about licensing costs.

Then asked these 3 questions:

At what point do you think using UDK and Unreal technology becomes a marketing tool in it's own right?
At what point do you think using Unity becomes detrimental to sales on something like Steam and iPhone?
And how many sales do you think your games going to make?

The first two questions are pertinent to me. The third to you.

So the topic is an observation of costs in my isolated little example. With some very vague questions, that I actually wouldn't mind discussing with anyone willing to think about them. Make of it what you will. I'm not asking for a debate, but welcome it on any subject.

"Your right, that is rude. Every choice is NOT the right choice, but everyone should be free to make their own choices." -- You've completely proved my point. Post-Modern secularism reigns supreme. On a subconscious level as well as conscious. Blah!

Did I have any credibility to begin with? This is in the GOSSIP section of an online forum FFS!

 

To anyone thinking that YOU don't NEED 5 full licenses for the kind of production discussed in my initial price comparison: You're wrong. I do/would need them, both under the terms of Unity's License, my desired production rate/objective and the nature of the teams structure and talents.

If you're wondering what my point is... it's simple. I'm attempting to debunk the myth that the UDK 25% cost is in someway onerous. I don't think it is, at all. And in my circumstance it's likely even less so that yours.

However there's 2 things that I really would like to discuss.

1. What's the inherent marketing value of using UDK over Unity, and at what point would this kick in with regards sales volume/public perception/size of production? It occurs to me that this does exist, but I'm completely unqualified to even comment on when/where/how this would/could happen. Anyone got any ideas?

2. Is Unity "democratizing the game making process" anymore than UDK? How? Why?

 

@ dogzerx : I believe artists, level designers and other content contributors should not live in isolation from the ecosystem of their production contributions. I believe that they are all, in their way, artists/creatives once past the mediocrity and milling buffer zone. I believe that in order for me to get the most from their abilities and talents they need the ability to test and contribute within the future ecosystem that is the game. I believe any other scenario relegates them to sweatshop labor.

But more importantly, I believe allowing them to work "in the engine" at production quality leads to VASTLY better quality production at VASTLY improved rates of production whilst freeing up my programmer to actually program.

Anyone wanna debate this? Bring it.

 

I don't want to debate that because I agree with you in that sense! Of course it's better if the artist has direct access to the engine.

But, for those who know the game market... they probably are able to make enough profit to make buying the licenses worth. And after certain point it's better to have paid unity licenses than keep paying a % of the all the profit!

But, here is my point...
Your debate is aimed towards the ones that don't know much about the market (like me lol). But for those people spending 20 grand right away in unity licenses is kind of... well... insane, they'd be better off with UDK.... in the short run!

In the long run, having done everything in UDK will lead to a certain % loss in the profit, for ever! While having bought unity licenses will free you from that problem.

I don't know about you, but I would rather stick with unity free... not start any big teams... and when I'm ready I'll buy my own unity pro license!

 

Have you examined your opinions through any lens but the one that serves your own personal bias?

Are you so insulated in your bubble of self-love that you don't understand the differences or scenarios people are trying to explain or perhaps why yours is ridiculous?

Does your cloud of smugness obscure your ability to see that your opinion may only be right in some cases?

When you start thinking before you type and reading before you post, perhaps I'll debate with you about why your proposed "working in engine" "theory" is completely inane. Or that maybe you're just trying to waste an utterly colossal amount of money on a disorganized venture for a "modestly successful game."

But in short only 1 and 3 need pro copies, everyone else can do without. Including 5!
Brought!

Confused yet, entertained by you and your thoughts,
TheLlama


----------------


Wait?! you've never made a mod and never made a game; yet you claim to know that UDK is the skill people need to make it in the industry. You effectively don't know what your talking about. You, an unexperienced "dreamer" are about to give advice to other people with most likely more knowledge on the subject then you'll ever have? You sound like the UDK preacher, you should work for Epic's marketing team!

You sir are out of bullets. I believe you'll find them all in your foot.

 

@Llama good stuff.

Not exactly what I was referring to in terms of a debate. But thoroughly entertaining.

 

If you cant survive the first game dev, dont event hink about on the second one. ^^

 

You cant have free and pro versions on your company/team. Otherwise you are breaking Unity license terms.

 

Stunned by my logic, it happens often. Your vision will return in a few hours.

 

@tatoforever I wasn't implying anyone would have the free version. It's not against the rules to show off the current build to other team members. 2,4 and 5 don't need copies at all; free or pro.

 

Unity license is perfect if your team is tiny or just one man-team and small projects. But what about a 10+ developers team, willing to publish on PC, iPhone and Android?
Upfront cost for 10 licenses, Unity Pro, iPhone Pro and Android Pro = 45000. Plus, 10 iMacs (if your mates dont have any mac).
Unity licenses = 45000$(without taxes).
10 Macs = 15000+ $ (including taxes).
Total upfront cost for that project = 60000$.
Lets say, you managed to create a game within a Year, by the time you finish the game Unity4 will be around the corner, which means more upfront cost if you want to stay up to date with Unity engine/tools.
I would like to see your publisher's face when you spit him out that you need such amount of money to even start the project. He may spit out the money, but it means less royalties share for you.
Other that that, if you can afford creating profitable games (at least two within each Unity version) you are provably on the road but..
What about you spit out all that upfront money and your game doesn't sell as expected? Even worse, the game is a total failure?

 

I have some doubts of having an artist/designer without a copy of Unity. You are talking about showing your build to the marketing team i guess?
Its against the rules to have one pro and basic(or free) version within the same company/team.
Also, you cant have iPhone basic(or even free) versions if your (you or your company/team) last fiscal year turnover was more than 100 000$. Like i said, its perfect for small-tiny teams (less than 5 members) with quick tiny projects, once you start to grow and earn money, you'll have to buy all pro-licenses. Theres no way to skip that.

 

@TheLlama illogic might be more like it. You've ignored some of the important premises associated with this "discussion" in favor of your own viewpoint.

 

Publishing-wise:
For me, Upfront costs are pretty crucial if you are looking for a publisher and still want to keep a higher % split with your publisher.
The more they put on your upfront/developement cost, the less % revenu you'll have from them.

One last question, what would you do if Unity gives you the same license (upfront-cost) model as UDK?
I would like to know your thoughts about it.

 

Why would I do this? Why should I do this?

No, frankly I don't understand the scenarios people are trying to present... is it
a) that I should lie about how many I have in my team and use cracks?
b) misrepresent how much my company makes to avoid full licensing?
c) reduce the capacity of my teams production and ease of iteration via restricting their access to Unity Pro features?
d) some combination of the above?
e) go to a single man small production and spend the next 3 years of my life making everything myself, likely never complete and go back to the "real world"?
f) realize that I'm not seeing things as I should, and until I preach the Unity way I'm clueless
g) accept verbatim that others I've never met or discussed said project with know my situation better than I know it myself?

YES! It's right in my case. Which, so far, seems to be the only case we're discussing. At least the only case that's in anyway been presented. Feel free to layout your situation/case, then we can discuss that. Or any other scenario.

What? You expect everyone to know how their goodies from content creation tools are going to work in Unity? And then make a magical leap to know how it's going to work in this production in this engine? Where's that part of the manual?

And where's the colossal amount of money?

Please explain!?

If you say so.

 

@tatoforever why do the artists or designers need the game engine? The artist work primarily in exterior tools, they cannot approve their own artwork, that is for the producer/boss to do, so in the end why do they need it? Again only the programmer and level designer would need it. The producer can in turn give feedback to the artists and level designers by seeing daily builds if they are working in different parts of the world. Or even screenshots from the artists from Maya.

I've done it before on a almost 50 artist team, I personally lead a 20-man team in this very situation, it's not hard, I can't fathom why anyone would argue in favor of spending more money than needed to simply outfit someone with an unneeded copy of the engine. I worked with almost 50 artists and only two dev-kits to test on and we never missed a deadline. I seriously can't understand why everyone is arguing that EVERYONE needs a copy, it's totally bogus.

If everyone needs a copy your running your company badly and your managing your resources poorly. Very few instances call for everyone to have a copy.

Again, I never said anyone should use pro AND free versions at the same time. I'm well away of the license agreement. I'm saying only 2 people need a pro version.

THE OTHERS CAN GO WITHOUT COPIES OF UNITY.

Then you can make as much money as you want. And hell if your making more than 100.000 a year and your team is growing, you can afford some extra copies of unity pro.

@dissidently Define your premises with one sentence each and I'll answer them all. But your major plugs so far have only been to further your own bias and toot your horn. You know nothing about game development and yet you trot around like you know everything and you expect me to take you seriously? You yourself said I shouldn't give you any credibility. Your holier than thou attitude just disgusts me. And I speak out when things disgust me, unlike most people these days.

You keep plugin' away at your guns for much longer and you won't have any foot left to stick in your mouth.

 

Your post just above mine only proves my point about your attitude.

Because the point of a discussion is to expanded one's knowledge. What your saying is that, in fact this, is just an argument.

e) so this isn't the real world for you? It is to the rest of us... and until you see it that way your nothing but a dreamer.
f) I support competition but perhaps I'm just as bias as you only for Unity, but in such a case my bias is wrong, so only yours is right? Sounds hypocritical if you ask me.
g) You don't know anything about game development to begin with since you been wandering the world dreaming up the next big game idea so why shouldn't others with actual experience know more. After all some people here are even more old sticks in the mud than you.

You avoided my "disorganized venture for a "modestly successful game." comment, did I strike to close to your week spot for massive damage?

Yes, external tools give you 85-90 percent of the final look, the tweaking is done later. Besides it's the boss/producers job to approve or disapprove so what does it matter to see it in engine before hand, and if they need to make changes it will be done in the external tools again.

See my comments to tatoforever.

don't be so bitter, this is fun~

 

@tatoforever If Unity were to do the same license scenario as UDK, ie tail end 25% of revenue, I'm not sure it impacts the decision making process too much. To be frank, the upfront costs of licensing aren't the factor I'm considering most. They're almost trivial compared to other factors in production costs, time, energy, quality etc.

What's interesting to me is how many sales are required before the 25% becomes an issue in terms of income. It's high.

The other thing, which remains completely unseen and unknown, at what point do the revenues I'm creating for Epic make them take a look at ways to help me with future projects or refine the current one? This is something Unity is NEVER going to consider using their current model. I buy their licenses, they've made their money... there's no incentive for them to help me after that, beyond wanting me to expand my team and buy more licenses.

At any rate of sales up to 100k units, the differences are marginal. And once you're earning more than $250k revenue from a game, there's other considerations I'd imagine come into play much more than 25% tail enders.
1. How to make a sequel?
2. How to improve the existing product in meaningful ways to further increase sales, since it's obviously got appeal.
3. How to develop the relationship with those that can help with the two above.... (keep in mind you can get extra help from Unity's core team, but you've gotta pay for it, above and beyond your license::: http://www.unity-studios.com/ :::

Let's get crazy hypothetical. Imagine the game generates $1million in revenue on existing platforms (ie PC, iPhone)
Which company do you think is going to help me more to port it to PS3 and Xbox and get through the license process with Sony and Microsoft? Epic's in for 25% and already made $250k from me.
Unity's made less than $23k and doesn't yet know how much I've made from the game...

There's a MASSIVE advantage to topping up the coffers of Epic if you're successful... ie they're gonna know you're successful and reach out to see if they can help you become more so... mutual self interest is a WONDERFUL thing. But that's all crazy big number talk.

Back to real world numbers and the real world in general. What I save in upfront costs I can spend on talent, meaning my tail end is hopefully bigger and better. So everybody wins in tail end deals. I think you'll see Unity move to this scenario sooner rather than later with their pro versions. It makes sense for both developers and Unity... wouldn't surprise me if this is how they deal with their bigger customers already.