UE4 3k price drop and democratization

Well the mans been at it 20 years, so I'd of thought he'd know how things work by now..

UE4 is a 3D engine and I agree about your statements on rendering, it is nothing short of amazing (Bar CryEngine . But all in all the cost of an engine when producing a polished 3D game and releasing it is the last concern on the planet. One staff member alone will cost you more than 30 copies of Unity pro and you only get that staff member for a year. What about analytics and promotion? 18K a month is chump change when you start taking on staff and marketing.

It comes down to this, it's very rare to see someone succeed on a shoestring. If you have a chance of competing in Unreal's focus market again the last of your worries is the price of the engine itself. But the most important part of all, use something that allows you to get a game out there, it's no use talking about the merits of either unless you can get to the finishing line with a competitive product. This doesn't apply to hobbyists, but for people who want a career or looking to make one in games... It's expensive, cruel and time consuming..

No offence but 36 games in four years is way too many, I know reputation and promotion is great and all but quality over quantity and they would fair much better. Take this comment with a pinch of salt, I work in an entirely different market to you it seems.

 

Got to agree with zombiegorilla there. It was two million registered users on June 9th 2013, which had doubled from about the same time the year before, with a then count of 400,000 'active' users per month. So by now it should have swelled to an even greater amount. UT will no doubt have a very good idea of who is running Unity and Unity Pro, but won't be in a hurry to share that knowledge as it's key business info. Everything else is just a wild guess.

I have to say that I really like Unity, but there are a few things that always pop into my mind when I start getting too warm and fuzzy about it. The first, is that from a project management point of view, you have to manage your risks and one of the biggest areas of risk is managing the risks of flaws in third party software. As we saw from the recent 'Rust' episode, there were problems when their vendor was unable to respond as the Rust dev team thought they should have (I'm not taking sides here). It's also worth pointing out that Unity is a third party to you, but they themselves use software supplied by a third party.

How much can you rely on Unity Technologies or their third party suppliers (some of whom may have a hostile relationship with them) to correct deficiencies in their code in a timely manner. Would you bet your game's future on it?

I've seen people say that they don't need the source code, but I have yet to see anyone talk of managing risks, or contingency plans in case UT can't (or won't) come up with a solution to a game stopper. I have however heard of lots of people submitting bug logs that go down the back of the sofa. If you have the source you can at least inspect the code and correct security defects / logic errors if you have to (though agreed it's not something that should be down to you). How would you cope if, with quite a lot of dev work done, you came upon a flaw that stopped you being able to progress and you could not get a bug fix? Something that didn't show up in testing due to some code scaling issue.

Obviously there are the usual other things, like lack of communication / feedback, features being announced and not delivered (with no explanation other than 'it's not ready'), having to upgrade for bug fixes, documentation is lacking in some areas, known outstanding bugs, old architecture, 32-bit blah blah etcetera, but these have been mentioned before. I just thought I'd post about managing the risks of a third party supplier as I haven't yet seen it discussed and it's pertinent to having access to the source code and being able to step into your code.

I also like the 'pay to publish' idea, as that would give people access to the more powerful features of Unity and be able to develop without (as a hobbyist) risking too much. At the moment and this is a gross oversimplification, but the broad feeling I get is that with the current structure it seems like Unity wants your money and isn't generally interested in you after they have your money. Whereas Epic are in it with you, as they only profit when you do, are providing a lot of resources, bug fixes and are responsive to the user base.

Finally, 'democracy' comes from the greek word 'demos' meaing 'the people' and 'kratos' meaning power. I think that giving the source code of a game engine to the people, so they can make their own changes, empowers them more than relying on a closed box that people can only 'vote' on which features they'd like next (which then seems to be ignored) from what I can see.

A lot of Unity staffers are excellent when engaged with, the moderators are tolerant and do what can be a thankless task well and the Unity trainer's live streams are excellent. It's not the staff, it's the people at the (silent) helm.

 

Mandou bem alfredbaudisch. Moramos na mesma cidade e fomos trocar infos aqui.... Concordo plenamente com sua colocação. Quando Unity saiu com proposta de assinatura achei que ia ser um ótimo negócio para desenvolvedor indie. Sempre usei Unity Free. Tive a infelicidade de comprar Addon Android pra Unity Free e logo em seguida o pessoal da Unity liberou Android free, imagine minha INDIEgnação.. Voltando ao modelo de negocio de assinatura Unity, pensei que seria um ótimo com uma assinatura decente com os Addons, eu tenho certeza que se esse valor fosse mais adequado, haveria uma grande mudança de free pra pro usuarios. Mas a ganancia fala mais alto por isso temos $225,00 mensais ou $4.500,00 licença, pra poder ter Unity pro e Addons. Ja falei e repito Adobe tem toda sua suite por $50,00. Eu queria entender a matematica usada pelo pessoal da Unity. E outro detalhe tem muitas outras coisa que precisamos correr para Asset Store pra comprar se querermos realizar algo mais em nosso projeto, com isso essa conta sobe um pouco mais.

Eu sempre defendi e defendo Unity, tem uma ótima comunidade e uma curva de aprendizado perfeita. Usei Epic quando era UDK Developer Kit, desisti rápido pois tinha uma curva de aprendizado cabeluda. Mas agora com UE4.1, com esse preço aonde vce tem uma gama de recursos pro já no primeiro momento, assinatura de $19,00 doleta. SE estou dizendo SE algo que eu fizer alcaçar mais de 3K, não me importo nem um pouco com os 5%. Ou seja se eles estão ganhando é sinal que tambem estou ganhando, e claro usando uma ferramenta de ponta.

Sei que tem muito Kamikaze aqui que defende, mas pra mim o modelo de negocio Unity Pro tende a balançar.

 

Bit late to the discussion, but this quote from hippo pretty much says it all.

If you're doing this (developing games) as your primary business, or you're serious about making it your primary business, then it should be clear to you that the time/education investment in switching to UE4 far outweighs (by magnitudes) the idea of making $3000 from your development efforts.

Even if you weren't already an established Unity user (and I have to assume everyone is, because they're on the Unity forums) and you were coming at this discussion fresh, it would be far from simple to make a decision between the engines. With an existing Unity investment (financial and educational), it's really a no-brainer.

Put it this way, having signed up to the UE4 subscription and worked with UE4 for about 3 solid days, I quickly came to the conclusion that I wouldn't make the switch even if UE4 were completely free AND had zero royalties. The learning investment is simply too costly, and there is nothing lacking in Unity that justifies making that investment in UE4.

I'd also like to point out that making a decision on engines, or tools in general, should never come down to a single statement like "It's got better graphics" (which seems to be the argument most people are presenting for UE4). That statement is nonsense and doesn't even mean anything. Unless you're just doing this as a hobby or for a bit of fun, you need to be thinking about a LOT more when considering your toolset and workflow, and optimising your efficiency with those tools.

If you're a Unity user and you haven't yet had a success, then switching to UE4 is not going to bring you a success. You're far better off sticking with what you know and continuing to work on your games and hone your craft, than to introduce a new roadblock (i.e. the UE4 learning curve) into your process. Unity (free) has everything you need to make a profitable game. If you haven't made one, it's not the engine that's your problem.

 

You need to stop generalizing, from my perspective everything you said is complete rubbish. To others it's probably makes sense, so how did you magically get around ram limitations and bugs with the editor making the terrain system unusable? Did you whip up your own 64-bit editor? How much time did you spend on water shaders and post effects? If you say "asset store" then price just keeps creeping up and up, even if you have the money it's a bit hit and miss! It's not a valid point!! How much time did you spend on replacing Beast and Umbra because they wasn't up to the task at hand? Exporting the terrain to beast just made the editor fall over, Lightmapping would be left days at a time!. How did you sort out garbage collection as a whole? How exactly did you fix the physx bugs?

What about Matinee and Particle effects in UE4? What about APEX? What about Blueprints and material editor for your artists? As much as we like to believe we are not in it for the graphics, it's what vastly helps a game sell, there is a sense of security knowing you have the tech demo's and the only person holding you back is yourself.

How many bugs did you come across that your end users would slate you for, but it's in the hands of a middle-ware company so there is little you can do?

Another thing, just because you don't find it that simple it doesn't mean others don't.

As much as I love Unity and respect it's rapid development and ease of use in many areas, you have to ask yourself when you'll be spending more time prettying up the house and fighting it than releasing a game!.. Time is money, so there are plenty of reasons to switch and it all depends on the users project and there NEEDS. It's not black and white, one can't simply assume.

What I will agree on is the motivation for the cost of the engine, I can see the flawed logic in it. The mobile segment generally don't have the same amount of funding as the 3D market, because you need tools / teams and marketing. Why does the pro mobile addons cost more when the segment is generally less funded? Also if you fail hard and there is a good chance that people will, it's less to swallow.

As it stands in my mind at the moment, Unity 4 PRO! Does not compare, so it doesn't make sense to pay extra cash for little reason! I'm on subs with Unity so I'll not be going anywhere (for a while) I will be eagerly waiting the arrival of Unity 5..

 

Epic gives you their awesome tools at your fingertips, to a fair price IMO.

But that being said, you still need a lot manpower and a high budget, to take a real advantage of Unreal. To be honest I was also quite blinded by Epic's shiny tech demos, a month ago.
But there is no magic "make a awesome AAA game" button.
And the apartment demo for example took two of Epic's senior artists two full months to complete. As awesome that looks, it also shows how much it takes to make such graphics. And that is just a single room with no gameplay.

There is a reason why the largest part of small indie shops stick to simple graphical styles, like 8bit, 2d, voxel etc. It's something in their range, me included.
For indie games, gameplay and art style is king. And Unity is still the better option for those kind of games.

That being said, I think UT gotta really improve a lot things. Be it how certain things are managed, their opaqueness, the slow bug fixing, the price etc.
This competition is good and gives UT the opportunity to show, how much they actually care about their userbase and the democratization of game development. Because this phrase became a bit hollow in the past years IMO.

And if I would be in ShadowKind's shoes, working on a large game, I wouldn't use Unity either. But I'm just a one man band. So...

 

Exactly why do the graphics look so much better on the Unreal engine compared to Unity? My normal output using unity is pretty poor I admit. But my latest game I put a bit more effort into the textures and materials and it did look a lot nicer. But it was a huge effort. UE seems to achieve better results out of the box. Surely this is something Unity could do to or am I missing something?

My 2p's worth on the issue is the cost difference between the 2 engines is far too great to just ignore so I am going to try out UE for the next game and save a few bucks because at the moment it feels like UT is robbing me blind with all the continual compulsory upgrades i have to pay for.

 

A big part of that comes from Unreal's post FX that looks simply better than Unity's default FX. HDR Bloom, Tonemapping, TXAA, motion blur, eye adaption etc.. The other thing are the GPU particles. And Epic's artists...

 

Plus the default shader pipeline and lighting, you can add a simple constant to add a more shiny look to the scene.. Great for wet looking caves, it's early days but I'll share. This is the beginning of a caves scene we are putting together... Having to bake lightmass constantly is a little painful..

Our main outdoorsy scene, too bad to actually show at the moment because it's a test bench is around 24KM X 24KM they are releasing a new tool to help with large or largeish worlds which does automatic Async etc.

BTW, yes we do still use Unity.. Just not for this project ..

 

Hi nipoco,

Those artists spent much of their time working out techniques that developers can now use in their own projects, so that's not exactly indicative of a standard UE4 workflow.

The subway fight scene in this video was put together by two developers in Matinee (Epic's cinematic's tool) in a day, which includes them creating their own mocap data. Fast forward to 12:00:

[video=youtube_share;9hwhH7upYFE]http://youtu.be/9hwhH7upYFE?t=11

How long would something like this have taken in Unity? And which third party tools might have been required?

So the comparison is not exactly cut and dry. While not everyone has a need for fancy cinematics (definitely one of UE4's strengths), I think workflow comparisons between the two engines really boil down to a project's needs (multiplied by one's willingness and time to learn a new way of working).

Exactly. The ability to quickly receive bug fixes (or fix them yourself) is something that won't soon be available in Unity unless UT chooses to make a stripped down source available to the end user in some affordable way. That can be a huge time saver for some projects.

Cheers,
-D

 

Um, whoah, it's easy to see why the Desktop crowd jumped ship at UT for UE4. The end scene was impressive in looks as you said but the important thing you didn't mention was the behavior trees like was posted by AngryAnt yesterday in the Unity Blog. That's what I need and that's what the demonstrator is using that makes BluePrint so easy to use.

I'm going to have to try it but I don't think the UE4 editor is going to run on an i5/Intel HD with 4GB RAM. :-(

Maybe it will later, as they add mobile publishing, but this is a definite download this week to try.

 

Indeed you can put such scene together in a day with Unreal Engine if you are experienced enough. I have no doubts about that.

And making such a cinematic scene in UE4 will also takes less effort than doing the same in Unity. I absolutely agree with that. For bigger projects UE4's workflow and tools give Unity a run for it's money.

However, it takes months to create the art assets for such a small scene. Alone one character takes around one month, according to Epic's artists during a demonstration at the Pixologic GDC booth.
And that is what I meant. It's simply not in the range of the average indie shop to create games with such a cutting edge visual style. But that's exactly what UE4 is made for. It's a bit over engineered for simple games, as you can see on the Tappy Chicken example.
And it does not scale that well to simpler projects in most cases. You can use UE4 for simple and small games too. Yes it works. But I do think that Unity is a more streamlined for such tasks, despite Unity's known issues.

I know there are some well funded indie projects out there that actually can take advantage of engines like Unreal or Cry. Like Star Citizen. But that's not the norm.
And like Steve said, the steep learning curve doesn't justifies the possibilities of UE4, which I can't utilize anyways, due to my limited scope as one man band. Not to mention the beefy hardware it requires, to run the Unreal editor properly.

Just my two pennies.

 

I love you too. That infraction I never took seriously, but I *knew* it would tickle you a LOT. I mean one point that expires in a day or so? hahah

 

You've mis-read: a game developed in 5 days *will* make more than 3k if done right. How long it takes to make it is unknown. In any case, yes I can make shovelware and make a brilliant living from it. I don't want to make shovelware, but that's my back up plan should everything go tits up with our assault on the higher leagues.

 

Clearly this meant everything else was in place. It would take a day in Ogre, Blitz3D, Unity, anything. You can take your pick from maya, max, anything to get mo cap data going, then play it back.

So it took a day to move a camera and switch cameras. Cool! If it took longer I'd be shocked. But that demo took months. Gotta take the blinkers off at some point.

 

Ah, lacking ~0.5GHz on the CPU the reasonable modern non-integrated GPU for UE4, back to the Asset Store.

 

Hi Hippo,

Of course the level elements were already created, just as they would be in your own game. My understanding (from their Twitch stream) was that the time frame above was the time they took making the characters, animations, and adding the cut scene itself, not creating all the assets.

The tool makes synchronizing events of all types (animation, effects, trigger events, proximity events, lighting events, material changes, whatever) with camera movement (manually, via a spline, graph, etc.) simple. It's somewhat reminiscent of Flash in that way. And it includes variable fades and other camera effects. To my knowledge, creating anything of the sort with Unity, or Ogre or Blitz3D for that matter, would be a "trifle" more difficult, while certainly lacking the same visual fidelity.

Cheers,
-D

 

If you take basic rendering/postFX out of the picture completely the elephant in the room is still the fact that UE has a number of tools builtin to the core that are 3rd party assets in U4/U5. That is the real problem I have with paying for U5 Pro at this point.

1) Networking uLink or better
2) Shaderforge or better builtin
3) Antares/Playmaker or better builtin
4) TerrainComposer and RTP3 or better builtin
5) Skyshop or better builtin(presumably U5 addresses)
6) Behavior trees such as Behave 2 or better builtin
7) Asset/level streaming builtin(better than asset bundles)
8) uSequencer or better builtin

I get the above or better as a hobbyist for $20/mo with UE, this is what Unity needs to compete with for me(this is a pricing discussion thread right?). Having purchased a great deal of the assets above I can say they are in many cases HARDER to use than the builtin UE tools, and they have the downside of not being "core" and fully integrated. I have a feeling Unity *will* integrate the above list eventually, but if it's at same pace I have seen over last couple years...no thanks.

It's not all one sided, my list on UE's side is shorter but still exists. Mainly GUI and mobile related as has been previously discussed, and at least is being talked about by their devs and the timeline to fix most of the major issues is in weeks/months, not years.

 

Pretty much this, then add the rendering / post and particle effects back on. If we want to compare value it has to be blow for blow, let's pretend for a second that both UE4 and U5 cost's $75.00 a month. With the above from Tiggus what would you go for if you wasn't tied into Unity for any reason?

 

From someone that had a commercial made after him - the guy that searched the end of the internet; from someone who was the target of an advertisement - abacus programmer wanted. . .it is UE4 (5,6,. . .).

We've invested quite a bit into the Unity ecosystem, both time and money, but mainly time, and after encountering one issue after another, we've been left with little more than grin and bear it. And to hear that Unity 5 is more that what we already contribute is a little disappointing. More importantly though, the push for Unity 5 is surely taking resources away from fixing issues that impact us today.

We're a little fortunate since we can work on any environment, and in fact UE4 is tailored more to our strengths where as Unity is to our weaknesses.

 

Plus Epic is crowd sourcing, which means bugs are likely to be fixed much more quickly and new content/tools added with regular updates. I imagine by the time Unity has a built in GUI editor that's worth using, UE4 will already have 30+ new features at the same $20/mo sub price. Unity will require that you purchase another license, which is going to be $4500 for the same amount of platforms.

You can argue for Unity until you're blue in the face, but they are incredibly slow to fix/update anything and require another full purchase with every full revision.

I like Unity, but it needs more than a few die hard users in a forum to compete.

 

Of the two million Unity users registered, I doubt that the majority are doing it as their main business. It's in UT’s interest to court lots of app developers, rather than pay attention to a handful of AAA developers with much larger budgets, as they will only get a few more dollars out of them for multi seat licenses. Their market is the masses, not the professionals.

For most hobbyists, time is more freely available than money (but no less precious).

You could say the same about coming up through university with an education path that chose UE4. I hear anecdotal evidence that educational establishments are switching from Unity to UE4, which will have an impact on the student’s future choice of engine.

Every educational license picked up for UE4 is a double blow for UT. They lose the revenue from the license and down the line they lose the revenue from the new developer, who when faced with the choice of using an engine they were trained on that costs $20, or an unfamiliar engine that has many known issues for $1500 (or potentially $6000 for all licenses if they charge $1500 for WebGL), it is indeed a 'no-brainer' which one they will choose. Every $20 Epic gets, Unity Technologies doesn't get at least $1500 for a commercial user and possibly up to $6000.

It’s not always a case of one engine or another though. You can use Unity to prototype in and then transfer the ideas to another (possibly more fiddly) custom engine, using Unity's ease of use as an asset. I believe CCP use Unity for prototyping ideas / new equipment. They spoke about it a couple of years ago and also last year they had an occulus rift demo of Eve in Unity. They don't need all the capacity to handle tens of thousands of users, so they obviously find Unity easier to prototype in than their own engine.

 

I said this many times, Unity makes money with these assets that otherwise, if they invested time and money would not do.
basically they earn money by NOT implementing these features. A dream for UT, a perverse model for users.
The problem is that nothing prevents them keep doing this, and I honestly this generates a lot of mistrust.

 

Wouldn't them having it in Pro be more enticing for people considering Pro and make their engine an even bigger competitor?

 

That's right, I think so. But evidently for UT not .
If you look at the list of assets, all of these are very sold.

 

Something people may want to consider here is virtualization - Unity 3D (as of 4.3.4 F1) works in a VM (using esxi 4.x here) and I can develop remotely and things work smoothly, no problems.

Neither UE4 nor CE3 even install in the same environment.

For me that's a problem as I am in the office much of the day and it's nice to try things out at lunch using my VM. I could also see folks staging VM based workstations for contracting work, it's what I'm considering myself for my next project.

 

Yes, dozens of pages of forum will not change this fact : We all love Unity, but the business model of UT is in great danger.

 

Yes I have to decide if I want to spend $200 on another asset or $20 and see if UE4 will run on my PC even if my PC lacks slightly in requirements. The asset isn't the most important for me to release a simple game in a month but it is important to me to make that simple game something worthwhile in a year. Visually, I don't intend to compete with big studios so I won't be wondering why my PC cant' recreate that video posted here earlier; but if I replace my PC in the future I could, except to expert eyes. Seeing even that 2 minutes of Blueprint is enough for me to admit it's mobile that is keeping me. The assets most of them I can port to UE4 when needed.

 

Very true.

 

Every time I come to this forum this thread is No. 1 and has been for days. Surely there's nothing more to be discussed here especially when no-one is backing up claims they are making. Someone been in the forums for 7 months, has no links to a website, making all sorts of claims about how bad Unity is. How does this help anyone? Whenever a user comes to these forums and looks here all that is seen are posts attacking Unity and propping up UE4. On a Unity forum. It just muddies the waters and possibly draws people away. Everyone knows about UE4, if people what to know more let them go and research it. Any other forum would've kiledl this thread off days ago. I can only assume the moderators have it in for Unity as well.

 

@sicga123:

here's the good
- Unity's editor is fairly decent
-the Asset Store is fun to watch

here's the bad
- Unity's design prevented us from using basic classes; ended up reworking everything to ScriptableObjects, which has it's own problems
- cloth physics goes out of view and get culled from then on; vote on it
- load times on Fire TV is over 3 minutes; once it took over 5
- sprites don't work on ES 3.0; had to find a fix myself
- less but annoying, shader's are awkward; cannot drop in HLSL, or GLSL without modifying

There were others but I didn't dwell on them, just moved on.org

The load time is a gating item, and if we don't resolve it by Friday, we're moving on.org (to UE4)

 

If Unity had already stated "we are doing X" to address the concerns of their users your point might be valid. How can you not expect rampant speculation and concern however when such a big issue remains unresponded to? Also, it is one thread(moderators have crushed all others), I'm pretty sure ONE thread is not over the top for discussing other engines. In fact if you look at CryEngine forums there are similar threads.

 

Well then find a video of someone using the Unity Editor that is as smooth as the UE4 video of that man using the UE4 editor a few posts back.

 

Thanks, I want a lightweight good looking cartoon environment, Unity UE4 can both do that, but the extras UE4 brings out of the box are more requirements of a game engine when you think a bit about easily scaling complexity, size, or visual realism, especially the complexity part.

 

Let me add something about Scalability! UE4 is made for non-linear workflow scalable games. For instance you create a small prototype with, you can quickly add new features. Need larger streamable worlds? Fine, turn on World browser, is an automatic streaming system that handles everything for you, automatically (async load/unload, entity, zone management, actors, resources balancing, memory management, pooling system, what's not). Need to add multiplayer support on top of that? Well it's already there, make your actors network replicable with only few macro decorations (or with few BPs nodes) and set which functions/variables will be handled by the server/client, tada, your game just got multiplayer support! Need to add more players (local or over the network)? No problem, can be done within seconds (no kidding, withing seconds yes). People talk about Unity flexibility but do you guys really know how flexible, powerful and scalable UE4 is? I'm pretty sure you guys have to redo almost everything when starting new projects in Unity, most of the time you create a game you cannot scale it later on, you have to create something new from scratch. That's not the case with UE4 games. Plus the fact that third party Unity assets doesn't communicated well with other assets, in UE4 everything works well together, you got a basic game framework for all your game types needs. I think the part that will take you longer to master is obviously the art-pipeline in the Editor (how to import and setup meshes, materials, etc), but once you got all your stuff in it's just pankakes!
Lastly, there's a coming 2D system in UE4.2 (already available through github) called Paper2D, which will let you create 2D games and interfaces very easily, including 2D interfaces on your 3D world (being rendered into textures).

 

Out of interest: What exactly are you thinking of here in UE4 terms? Yes I can arrange landscapes in a grid in UE4, but TC does more than that. Similarly, the landscape material uses height-based blending similar to RTP, but RTP has more than that. Not questioning your statement, just wondering.

 

Sure, it is not a one to one comparison for sure as TC/RTP have about a billion and one features. I listed those assets since they are generally considered best of breed for terrain work in Unity and offer some critical enhancements. Specifically I am thinking about a few very common requests for Unity terrain such as the ability to make paths/roads easily in terrain(UE spline tool), caves/holes, terrain slicing/stitching, landscape materials that allow heightblended layers, etc.

 

Until Unity at least addresses the community in some official capacity whether it be an announcement of changes/no changes or we're heard you and are considering options then I think its a valid point to keep going.

 

Yes, until I saw that video that the Route66 guy posted I didn't realize that UE4 could do actor behaviours. I've always been more interested in making the characters as actors more than as objects in my games but until I saw AngryAnt's blog post I didn't realize there is already an efficient way to do this type of game design then to code it one's self. The rest is icing on the cake to me, well except UE4 really needs to extend to mobile.

 

Exactly. We all love Unity, even with its faults. But we need to hear an official announcement from Unity in response to the UE4 $19/month subscription. Until Unity officially responds, these threads will continue to be the most popular on the forum.

 

Given the price and all the great features in UE4, I don't see how Unity can sit back and just do nothing. A major Design Software company contacted me pitching there software. When I said can I break the payment it up over a short period, they responded with sure send up a PO and lets get you started tonight. Unity is wonderful but UT has gotten too comfortable and the community and UT standing will diminish if they don't change. The sad thing is EPIC seems to have learned from watching UT. I hear old ladies at the Grocery Store talking about UE4. It is all the rave! LOL!!!

 

Interesting thing with Paper2D. I didn't know that.
Right now I don't think UE4 is quite there, when it comes to smaller games and 2D. But of course that might change. I definitely monitor UE4's development and learn it in my free time.

 

They are eventually* getting there and really quite fast. Look at how many goodness v4.1 have (in just one month) plus the shiny ones coming in v4.2!

 

Why everybody forget that with UE4 sub you can pay 19$ only once then cancel subscription but continue using full engine! With Unity when subscription expires you cant use pro features but with UE4 you only cant download new engine version! Its really big difference.

So if I want to create games for ios and android with good graphics I should pay 3000$+3000$+3000$ for Unity or 20$ for UE4, and 5% from my revenue and to pass over 9000$ Unity's price my revenue should be... 180000$

For example as indie developer Im released this game while it is not bad my revenue from ads is 0.6$.

 

They haven't forgot but they are adding new features so fast you'll be left without very useful features it you don't keep up your subscription. Maybe it's wise to start and stop and learn Blueprint first and then subscribe later if the addition of new features is as fast as it is now. You also get support with the sub don't forget which is most of that $19 I'm sure. They're more interested in the potential 5% of the small minority big selling games mostly for the rest of the company although $19 * 500,000 is nothing to turn your nose up at which is what they'll liable to have subscribing regularly if they structure their asset store and new features smartly: like say release one Blueprint Code Asset and one Art Asset per month to subscribers. This is the usual subscription model where you dangle a monthly carrot to keep interest.

 

Yes and it is just another stone thrown in Unity because updates here are coming really slowly)

 

On top of that, there are developments of a C# implementation for Unreal:
https://forums.unrealengine.com/sho...ngs-for-Unreal-4&p=12237&viewfull=1#post12237

 

I wonder if they actually read that here?

According to David Helgason's profile, it's been 4 weeks since the last time he was here.

 

https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?3958-Scripting-Language-extensions-via-plugins - and then there are the general scripting language extensions they seem to be adding as well (Lua is given as the example in the thread).

 

It's a double edge sword, they have to keep adding features and fixing bugs really fast, otherwise people will simply unsubscribe till they finally have a fix or interesting feature. Oh wait! Forget about the fixes, some of them can now fix those bugs by themselves!