Unity 3D is Missing a Trick - Here's Why.

reetings all,
I get a horrible sinking suspicion that the Unity tech team has put 3D development features on the back-burner more and more.
I came to this realisation with the latest release of the program (4.3.x) as it improved apon 2D elements while changing almost nothing in the 3D department.
Now I know that the UT can't add everything at once, they have to pick and choose on what to expand, but take a long hard look at the "more 3D development centric" features in Unity.. See what I mean?
The terrain engine is half a decade out of date, native shaders are... ugh, vegetation is iffy to say the least, in-house character animation is simply not there, lighting looks like arse without major tweaking and furnishing and the current set of image effects don't come close to what we're seeing in other engines... The list literally goes on and on.

Sure, you've read a hundred thousand posts like this: "waah wah, unity is getting old and decrepit" but its gotten to the repugnant point now that most "3D" developers are piling so many addons and third-party tools, to make sure they aren't laughed out of Steam Greenlight, that theres almost nothing left of the original features!

Why that matters:

More and more innovative users are turning to engines like Cry and UDK as they simply offer more "crunch". Unity is quickly getting a reputation as an "engine for mobile games" (which I heard with amazement on a YouTube video).
If anyone on the UT is reading this then by all means get this post on a keynote immediately! You guys have every idea whats going on (how could you not, you a big team of bright people) but it obviously takes a lowly artist like myself to encourage change.

Up the "ooph"

Put some serious effort into waking this incredible engine a competitor again. Games like The Forest are proof of my points. Developers want to use this amazing engine, we love its accessibility and small pipeline (I've said it before: We're all plumbers here with Unity), but why should The Forest have to use Amplify Motion and skin shaders made by industrious technical artists to achieve anything "pretty" at all?

• Improve your terrain engine.
• Improve your shader engine.
• Improve the raw power (don't ask me how but myriads of other engines manage it).
• Work on a 64bit version of Unity for gods sake!
• The performance hit suffered by realtime shadows is unacceptable, fix it.
• Begin work on more in-house tools such a road-river splines, character animation, perhaps an integrated art tool?
• Please, please work on your particle systems, they are lack-lustre and ugly at times.
• Native volumetric object support! Think of the explosions, fog, clouds and so on we could make with that!

My little list of demands is absolute in my mind, yet I don't even have a damsel to toss under a train of you refuse but please, at least give hope that we wont be forced to layer tools over and over until we're broke and the game runs like a lame dog.


Let the flame-war begin. (Because as we know, opinions happen. Thats what this is. Thats what makes an argument just that. This is why I posted here, to listen to arguments and allow everyone with an input based on well formed opinion to speak them).





Edit #1

If the UT is withholding features intentionally so as not to put out their partners (such as Mixamo) who are
benefiting from the gap through the asset store, then its the most disgusting business model i've ever seen
(and I saw the WarZ debacle). Progress should never be withheld for the sake of indirect revenue. It would be
like saying: "We'll take this sum now and we'll worry about the future of this company later. Muwhahah!"​

Check out my other articles ​

▌ ► Visual Effect Over Saturation in Modern Games - When Will it Stop?
▌ ► Unity 3D is Missing a Trick - Here's Why.
▌ ► On The Future of Video Games - There is hope! (Euclideon, Star Citizen Beyond)
▌ ► Modular Approach to Video Game Design Content Addition.
▌
▌

 

This wont happen, Look on the asset store, there are hundreds of solutions of what you might be looking for if not they are in development by seperate individuals/studios as we speak.

It is like this so other individuals/studios have a chance to develop for unity too.

And that last part.... disgusting? Giving Developers more ways to make money is disgusting? To be honest I did not read all of your post but i know a dumb opinion when i see one, stop being narrow minded and think of this profession/hobby and others in it as a whole not just your self.

Im sure unity will add more amazing features in unity 5 but til then focus more on your project and not unitys future because many other have came through with unity and made outstanding games. What is stopping you?

 

I know exactly where you're coming from. I was fairly cautious about posting this but the topic is one worth bringing up.
Unity has the potential to become a viable option again although 4.3 would have been considered "current" in 2010. Now its not a bad engine, its easily the best (for reasons I have already outlined) but thats hard to show potential studio developers and publishers with the current state of things.

I did not say that the potential for developers to utilise the asset store as a market is "disgusting", I said that the practise of withholding vital features in order for those who need them to buy from other developers (adding to the $1,500 cost of potential I might add) is disgusting. It is in every way one of the most short-sighted things they could do and I hope they aren't!

I am an artist and a BA. Not a game developer.


Also please read a post completely before forming the appropriate opinion-based response. It is in fact a bad practise to do what you have just done there.

 

Its no secret that Unity is a half baked Engine, complimented by hundreds of flaky bolt ons from the asset store to maximise its feature set. Nevertheless, its still arguably the most simple engine to work with for smallish projects. They have made it pretty clear they aren't trying to compete with cutting edge features, so I guess just get used to that and adjust your expectations.

 

It's exactly what I think. They make way more money from the store revenue, rather than putting some features into Unity by default and selling a pro license once.
It get's a annoying behavior of UT to let solve others Unity's technical limits.

I've tried to calculate what it would cost to come close to UKD's toolset and visuals in Unity. Stuff like Scaleform, FaceFX, Simplygon, better screen FX, APEX cloth (Unity's skinned cloth are buggy since years and dated btw.), area lights, IBL, Blueprint/Kismet, Speedtree, a node based material editor etc. That all ships in UDK free of charge.
If you want that in Unity, you have to shell out $1800 worth of third-party add-ons, on top of the $1500 pro license. And still you wouldn't get the same stuff.

Not to mention that you rely on those third party developers, who are often one man bands. If they gets sick, or has no further interest to update, or support their add on and you're screwed. That is stuff I saw already several times
The different add ons also don't work together in most cases. Everyone does his own thing, which leads to a non unified and sometimes cumbersome workflow.

I see a lot folks acting like the store is a god sent gift. I don't see it that way. The idea itself is good, but the execution however is not IMO. Especially if it affects Unity's development.

Personally I use Unity at the moment, because there is no viable alternative, when it comes to the ease of use. SHiva, Torque, C4, Leadwerks are almost death, or have major flaws. Bigger than Unity's.
Cryengine has a too strict asset pipeline build around Max (I'm a Maya/Blender guy) and UDK as it is right now has a cumbersome workflow.

I really wait for UDK4 and hope it let me jump from the Unity ship. I really don't need 2D tools, mobile stuff, or a store with stock models, and lens flares that cost $75...

 

Its true, to achieve any kind of wow factor you're looking a half a grand and a lot of fiddling but thats no real excuse. The company is a large one. They are not restricted by game publishers and they certainly aren't restricted by user variety and multitude.

These should mean a more solid progression from one "generation" to another. No one goes into this engine expecting a Witcher 3 but it doesn't bode well the Unity Technologies relies on developers to support a flaccid and decrepit 3D branch. It's not a bad thing for the developers, they gain renown, knowledge (I was one of these developers) and a little money on the side but for a multinational corporation to be so dependant makes me and may others a little concerned for the wellbeing of it.
Much like an old person with the insistence that they "don't need the nurses help" but actually can't look after themselves any more.

 

It was all a good argument up to:

Which makes you sound like a troll, and completely devalues what would have been a strong and decisive push for betterment and a good discussion starter. You should stick to facts instead of conjecture and heresy when creating a valid argument. That's made it invalid due to the preposterous behaviour.

So while I think there is tremendous room for improvement, I don't think shouting LOL, asking for a flame war and babbling about imagined facts is helping anyone.

 

While this is true, he still has a point.

 

BA == Bullshit Artist?

 

Agreed, Its 1.00 am and I haven't slept since late the night before last (writing a piece, painting a dog with human teeth and arguing my points here don't help). No trolling intended obviously and thats an unfortunate side effect of me getting very passionate about a company that I believe might be on the rocks if we cant point it out to them.

 

I like to think so . But no, Business analyst. I'm not a trained professional but lets just say I dropped into enough lectures to pass as one in a job interview.

 

Thats very interesting, hats off to you. If ever you fancy a Skype meeting involving calculators, the internet and legal technicalities then please hit me up. Looking into the financial aspect of CryEngine, UDK and Chromes features while contrasting them to Unity's should be interesting and eye opening..

 

Yeah I agree, I'm only posting cos I care about some of the points you made. I think there's room for Unity to push that bit more. I think it needs a bit of a firm focus. A lot of energy has been spent on chasing what customers want though. Customers repeatedly asked for 2D. This took too long but it's here now. They're still asking for a gui solution too. Frankly, its things like gui and 2d that the asset store is absolutely perfect for, so Unity can focus on important issues like physics, garbage collection and next gen techniques.

Overall I think Unity is slowly but surely getting there. It's not like they'll have to do navmesh work again. Or add DX11 support again. Their team afaik is working on boosting mac graphics quality up to DX11 at the moment. They'll have to do all that work thanks to mavericks. Unity has in fact been incredibly busy - just not on things you and I might be asking for. But for every post moaning, there's x number people not commenting but perfectly happy.

I'm in the boat of encouraging and slightly nagging Unity as opposed to pitchforks and torches though. I get listened to by Unity, along with everyone else, our voices are heard if we make ourselves sound clear as unified developers.

We really don't want captain clueless charging in and making a S***storm about how it doesn't look 100% identical to crysis, what we need is the community to identify exactly the most important things and bring those to Unity's notice.

Best way to influence Unity is to push the boundaries of what is possible now - so if your demo or game looks really good, they're more likely to listen and take on board what you're saying.

 

Pro customers shouldn't have to rely on third party asset's to have a complete up to date feature set, as it stands at the moment nothings a real issue. But with the dawn of the next gen and future releases getting to where they are, it can't remain as is for a large amount of time.

It all depends on where there main focus is, there's a massive mobile and 2D market for Unity. Whereas there seems little in the way of teams trying to create high fidelity advanced titles. Whether or not this is because they decided CryEngine or Unreal was the tool for them I'm unsure, from an informed guess it seems that not that many teams are doing anything with CryEngine and from experience there are specific reasons. There is quite a lot of users with UDK, but not an extensive amount of titles working there way through.

It probably rings true, for the amount of work vs. profit the asset store is a no brainer for a company. I think Unity should publish a roadmap, they don't have to give specific timelines so people jump up and down if they are late. But it would be nice to see where they want to take it, then people can see if the upcoming feature sets is right for there project instead of hoping it will be.

Epic have had an eagle eye on Unity and from press releases Epic only seem concerned with Unity.. So imagine the slick easy to use Unity API and the power / feature set of Unreal Engine..

Unreal 4 is something Unity should be concerned with, unless it's never going to be there plans to expand in that market.

 

Your points are valid. As are those of everyone who posts here yet we all have a very different set of needs and demands for our individual projects.
Remember that I am not a game developer, take everything I say with a pinch of salt. I'm an artist. This means my expectations are very different from yours or @Nipoco's or anyone else's. What I am commenting on is based on what I see. Unfortunately what I see is a company relying more and more on independent developers to uphold, update and improve their own technical limitations.
This is not always a bad thing in most areas. For instance nobody expects Unity to provide a free 3D warehouse or shader lab (yet to some extent they do).
It is a bad thing however when a company makes a conscious decision to neglect an area of potential because "Oh don't worry, ____'s got us covered".

The UT is just as inexperienced as you might think though, they are in unchartered waters here. No other game engine has had to contend with a user base as large us this one. Nor however has it had the great benefit and trump-card of the Asset Store. Mixed blessing I suppose.

Just to be clear. I have no intention of pitchforking anyone. I simply want to raise my concerns here with the ambition of the community constantly giving their opinions and perhaps a member of the UT giving us their view on the matter.

 

I am confused. You say it is both dated and the best? If it is hard to show potential studio/publishers its potential, what are you comparing it to? You seem to be implying that it is lagging behind its competitors and doesn't fit your needs? Why not just use an engine that fits your needs better?

Unity is constantly growing and improving, and it dominates the mobile market (which is huge and growing), how is this a bad thing?

 

Couldn't agree more to your "Roadmap" point. A plan for the future would go a long way to placating those who demand certain features. The issue here is people will be immediately upset when something or another is dropped for practical reasons or not. I think a roadmap is a great way forward as long as it's not too specific. Something like: "Work will start soon on a 64 bit version although we cant say when it will be ready or for who". Then an ideal thing would be if they would keep us informed about progress in that department. Such as: "Last week we took steps toward windows support in 64 bit although the same for OSX is still some months off. Does anyone have any suggestion on how to..." and so on.

I believe transparency would be an excellent policy in progress as of now. It helps us have faith that work is ongoing and you never know, on occasion some of us may have suggestions which help greatly?

 

By dated I mean its features are lagging seriously behind it's competitors yes, but by "best" I mean there is a reason so many developers use Unity. For the free and open workflow. For the accessibility. For the support found in these forums. As I say, for the plumbing.

If Unity wasn't brimming with potential then we wouldn't all be here. Some of us yes but not all. It's my concern (and should be yours as well as everyones) that that full potential is realised.

 

They have done a roadmap before only to be bitched and moaned by people when things didn't happen as it was said.
We do not work as part of the Unity team so we have no clue what is being worked on, investigated or progressing. To make assumptions about what they are doing is wrong and makes an ass out of you.
As hippo and others have stated, the engine is moving forward, they have many things going to help improve it. Other areas have more attention than others but as was said, push it to the limit and show what can be done than explain what could make it better. Don't come and post about how Unity sucks and needs x, y, and z to make it better without proving what you have done to push the envelope.
And Unity said before the asset store that you think is making Unity millions isn't. Unity stated it themselves in the past. It is additional revenue Not their main source of income.

 

Again, valid. As I explained I'm not here to "bitch and moan" neither did I say "Unity sucks". If these were my beliefs then why the hell am I here using this engine and talking to you about it? There are plenty of others, I've used many of them. Both during work and for my own enjoyment.

 

Agree with lots of points.

One of the biggest problems is, that UT does not have a clear public roadmap. Not even a rough one.
When I saw their blog post about a visual material editor ages ago, I got really excited. Now time has passed with nothing happened, instead that someone else is now filling that gap with a third party add-on. Again...

So far what I've seen from Unreal4, it can be a big leap in the direction of Unity's nice workflow (e.g. Blueprint seems really capable. Now you can finally use those scripts globally unlike Kismet).
Not sure if UT is really concerned about UDK. Their main customer base is mobile developers. And that's what keeping Unity back from being truly next-gen in terms of power. Of course, that is something most indies don't worry about since they don't have the resources to make triple A grade games.

On the other hand "indie" doesn't necessarily mean retro pixel 2D Platformer. Some smaller teams can make games that don't need to hide behind big studio productions, like Strike Vector, or Hawken.

 

Exactly, I can understand why Unity are reluctant to give out details in way of a roadmap. But as you say, it's all in the phrasing.. They don't have to commit to exact dates or even any dates at all. It literally could be over the next year we are working on X, this may continue on past X date.

I have thought a couple of times these third party asset's are generally made by one person or a really small team in a relatively short amount of time.. So why can't a large amount of people at Unity do the same? Or even buy them out and implement some of the advanced features?

I like Unity, I think it is the best thing I've ever seen in the Indie market and they don't have to try and re-invent the wheel like CryTek try to do every 10 minutes, just keep up to date and let us know what they have planned. Then it's all down to us..!

 

I'm not saying you are.
All I am saying is to push it and show what can be done and then explain based on what you have that can improve it. By stating things without any proof so to speak is just making waves. By showing and then bringing it to the table with points will show Unity what can be done to improve speaks a lot louder.

 

Sorry to break the flow of moot here but just to clear up: I'm not here to whinge about the features Unity SHOULD have (plenty of people do that already) and I'm sorry if thats what came across in "My little letter of demands". I should clarify that those were things I would LIKE to see, not ones that "must" be in the engine.
While its fair to say that Unity is progressing (and it is to some extent) I'm genuinely worried about the direction of Unity Technologies.

 

If anyone is interested in undertaking the project then an idea might be to look into the methods that Unity use to achieve, for example, real-time shadows. We could then contrast them with others from the industry (mindful of UOIPR laws) and look for ways in which they could be better undertaken.
Then take our findings to Unity.

Of course this is a monstrously large undertaking and no doupt the knowhow of every developer on these forums (yes even the kids, they have the right just as much as you or I) to analyse all aspects of the current Unity systems and advise on them. Interesting concept though.

 

Yep very much true, CryTek are an Indie Whatever that term actually means nowadays! Epic are making huge strides for smaller Indie's in more ways than one can discuss.

It's going to be interesting in the future, Epic have there head's screwed on the right way. It's not just an engine choice, it's becoming a goals / workflow and financial choice which is how it should be.

For a medium to large Indie, how much revenue does it add to Unity's cashflow? A fair bit I imagine and that revenue is nothing compared to brand power of names.. If you had the likes of Rockstar games published all over your front page, you're bound to get more interest. More interest equals more sales, more sales equals more asset store sales..

It's a continuous cycle, that would be hard to ignore.

 

Profoundly agree. Its that very question "why can a student or industry veteran create X or Y when Unity cant and hasn't in 3 years?" that gets me so often. The practical man or woman might point out compatibility or optimisation issues but those can be ironed out with the help of the dev who made it. This may require the lubrication of a tidy sum but then again it might not.

 

@Superpig

End of the day this is a business / client relationship, a lot of users here purchased Unity Pro. Whilst it doesn't give us the right to demand anything and we knew what Unity was all about before we bought it (Hopefully), with the pay as you go model especially it helps to give some light on the situation. If Unity hit a bump in the road after a previous roadmap, then find a different way to communicate whether it be to your paid / paying crowd only.. One thing in business that's worse than communication, is no communication.

Unity is a in a lucky position where people actually care about it's development, which isn't a bad position to be in. I'm not complaining, many of us have the option and financial backing to move to other engines with full source. But we don't want to, because we enjoy Unity and it's an empowering experience..

As for request's, look in the asset store and see what people are doing. You have the likes of

Volumetric water systems
Node based shader editors to name a few
A massive array of terrain tools

Which aren't the top of the priority tree but nice to haves.

Then take a note of the competition:

Scalable Data clustered algorithmic streaming
Real time dynamic GI, (also on the asset store)
LPV, IRV, RLR, SSDO and better post AA like CMAA
TOD (On asset store as well)
Image based lighting

If you guys are really feeling fancy, try an eye adaptation system..

In-built shader's are nice, they speed up development time but there not essential.. I as I'm sure many people would be very happy to have a skin subsurface scattering shader, eye shader (CryEngine one is freaky) I also wouldn't say no to a terrain shader with POM and BOM displacement inc. Height Bias.

Thanks for the update on the 64-Bit editor, it's made my week.!

 

Super Pig..

You know what pisses me off? Your overly didactic attitude here.

I'm aware of their Ninjacamp.

But seriously, if you're not certain about the features that make it into the engine in a specific time frame, then simply don't tease people with that.
It's natural that it raises expectations and hopes, even with a disclaimer.
People expected the new GUI in 3.5 even they did not promise it. But then I wouldn't call it a Roadmap.

Now we are on 4.3 several GUI add-ons later and still no GUI system that is up to date. If people moan about that, well guess whose fault that is?

And your opinion is not worth the read because your'e not a "Power User" with connections to UT employees? Talking about "Democratizing game development"

This is a commercial software, with businesses depending on it (fortunately not mine), and not a Mickey Mouse Fun Club.

 

Well I agree with the pig. I don't see how you find his comment insulting because he is talking in an open handed manner to whoever might be listening. I don't think he's targeting you.

But, I don't think listening to people is a democracy, or ever has been a democracy, or they'd probably still support software rendering, cause so much money to be wasted, and fold the company. I think you've got this idea that the world is black and white and it's us and them, when in reality it's just a bunch of people working for Unity, who have human like traits, a sensible degree of freedom and a limited amount of time. If you put 2 and 2 together, that means they are doing their best to listen to signals instead of noise in the time they have.

It's probably better they listen to people with a track record of releasing polished titles, or know what they're talking about, for obvious reasons. Just because in a soccer match someone in the crowd can kick a ball, it doesn't mean they should listen to him.

 

All I can say about all this non-sense here is... Unity is fine.
If, big IF Epic releases a UDK based off of unreal 4 with all its improvements and unlocking options to build for OSX and Linux(Steam OS) while Unity is still the same... Than THAT will be the day to worry 'cause they will be able to keep only exclusive for mobile projects tied to Unity.

 

Not any smart businesses if they are depending on features that are betting their business on a feature that doesn't exist or hasn't been announced. It's like starting a flying rental car business then getting pissed at Ford for not releasing flying cars yet.

Sure a better GUI (or whatever) would be awesome and would certainly cut down on dev time, but the reality is that there are tons of successful companies/studios/individuals making great games without it, and without Unity. Any company entirely dependent on a single tool, or waiting for that tool's producer to provide something they aren't capable of, will always be behind their competition. Game development has always been about creative solutions. Some will complain about/depend/wait for other to create tools and end up the bottom of the market and/or out of business. Others will leverage existing tools/build tools/find creative solutions and focus on the games and stand a chance at success.

---

It's great to point out what things folks would like to see come to Unity (though pretty ignorant to assume UT isn't*already aware of it). But to get all pissy/whiney/demanding won't help you build a game. If someone is waiting on Unity (or any tool) to solve their problems, It's safe to say they probably aren't ever going to actually ship a game anyway. If you have a computer, you have everything you need to build virtually any game you want. Software tools will just make it faster/easier.

 

I would go one further and and say that Unity is fantastic. Especially compared to other commercial options.

 

@ Bruno

Two things, one who says we can't get a hold of Unreal 4 engine (Not UDK)? Two what's wrong with getting news about the feature pipeline to make informed decisions? Every project needs or want's different tools, it all depends on what you're working on. Not everyone develop's for mobile, a lot of features requested here wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to mobile app creators..

I made the statement, what Unity is as of the moment is fine. No issues, but as tech is ever evolving it'll be interesting to see what path Unity follows.

That's it.

 

You know and statements like that are the problem.

Unity is not fine, in some aspects. If you don't raise concerns about some issues they don't change it at all.

I've been using Unity since the mac only days. And I always was pleased with it. But in some areas it's not that great. There are bugs for example that are persistent since years.
And while I think that the Asset Store is a good idea in general, I don't think its purpose should be to buy add-ons that fix Unity's shortcomings. I have no problem to buy something that does a specific task, that not everyone needs. But a GUI, or proper visual scripting? Come on.

Just saying Unity is fine, won't improve it.

btw. You already can deploy games for OSX with UDK... Not sure what Linux is for, since it has almost no market share...

 

Ok I gotta agree.

Still, the all is fine and dandy attitude of some people here is getting on my nerves. Guess I will stay out of this forum over the holidays and let my heated head cool down

Happy Holidays! I'm out.

 

Uhumm... UT gets way more money from Asset Store?! Seriously?
I highly doubt it. Majority of the Asset Store developers can't even feed themselve with their meager income from Asset Store - I think on average most Asset Developers get less $100 a month. Even the top selling Asset Store developer at most they get $70,000 a year (I think the NGUI guy) - and that's just barely paid for the salary of himself. And let's not forget - Asset Store only takes the 30%! I am guessing Asset Store earns no more than $50,000 a year at most (30% of $166,666). That can barely cover for the cost and salary of ONE Unity programmer. By comparison UT only need to sell 34 copies Unity Pro or 11 copies of Unity Pro + iOS Pro + Android Pro (which is normally the case for majority of commercial developers) to match that dollar value.

UT is at minimum selling more than 200 copies of Unity Pro + iOS Pro + Android Pro a month (I think there are about 100 UT employees now - or maybe more - assuming the average salary is $50,000 USD per annum, then that's $5 million dollars for the salary already, add in the cost of running multiple offices - around $2 million a year for medium size office in city in developed country - at minimum UT needs to be selling 150 copies of Unity Pro + iOS Pro + Android Pro a month to break even).

Unity Asset Store is what sells Unity - but it will never be able to be the main income for Unity in the foreseeable future (just like App Store and Apple).

 

TheDuckOnQuack seems to be OK. At least he knows what he's talking about.


I've had to do degree verification of prospecting candidates as they can buy certificates on-line instead of doing a 3 year degree course.

 

@I am da bawss,


Why don't you talk the opposite way round -


How can customers of UT reduce development costs? It costs lot for employers to hire and then license a boat-load of licenses just for 1 employee to use Unity to get all the effects. If you have a team of developers, then it costs even more.


Can UT build-in or give away for free NGUI or SpeedTree or better GC or free copy of Marmoset or free copy of Player Maker for visual scripting so that customers gets better cost-savings and good-looking games at less effort?

 

I think UT is in unfortunate position of being "too popular" - now everyone has a different ideas of what Unity should be. This is the classic case of "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth" - and now everyone demands UT to include features cater to their own private interest that drives Unity in all sorts of different directions.

Let's put it this way, CryEngine or UDK never try to be a "generalist" engine like Unity - and nobody has EVER bitching about CryEngine or UDK don't do 2D, or does this or that. Epic and Crytek is in an envyable position that they don't really need to listen to developers - they don't rely on engine licensing to sustain their business because they got their mega selling game titles and this engine licensing is just their side business. So of course their attitude is "take it or leave it" and most users are grateful to even get to use it!

Unity's problem is rooted at its focus - its own income stream - it has to cater to various interest parties and lowest common denominators - this effectively spread Unity's resources and efforts very very thin and UT is in danger of following the steps of Stonetrip (Shiva 3D) being unfocus, underfunded, spreading too thin and eventually going belly up.

 

Uh, lots of people complain about these engines, ESPECIALLY CryEngine, considering its current shader situation.

 

What it all comes down to, is the cost issue - and cost is always limited. Unity is currently "Jack of all trades, master of none". Everyone is bitching about it cannot be a match to the likes of Unreal Engine or CryEngine, but both of these engines never tried to be like Unity. It is like comparing the Datsun to the Formula F1.

Of course UT can probably strike some deals with PlayMaker or Marmoset guys to either buy them out, or absorb the cost of licensing their extensions and give it away for free as built-in extensions. But that will inevitably decrease their bottom line as Unity's sole income stream comes from licensing to developers - so that means they have to pass down that cost somehow to the end user, which means, they will have to raise the price of Unity. There is no 2 ways about it. Unlike Unreal or CryEngine where they can absorb those cost themselves because their income stream come mainly from the games they are selling. So either UT follow their competitor - find another income stream by becoming a game developer themselve (as oppose to engine developer - but also carries the risk of their game not being a hit), or they do what they doing now - focusing on the core feature sets and offload the rest to the Asset Store.

 

Have they ever bitching about UDK or CryEngine not able to do 2D?

 

Wait, I thought Unity was THE leading engine currently? I hate UDK's model (can't sell a game unless you shell out the money for all the licenses, at least with Unity you don't have to buy the licenses until you make at least a certain amount of profits).

Is it really that bad that you have to use external tools in order to achieve some things? Name one engine that you don't have to do that with. Every engine out there is less impressive than the other in certain areas, and rely on plugins/external tools in order to "fill the gaps", one could say.

I think Unity is pretty great. It makes a lot of things ridiculously easy, and I love it. However, that being said I can definitely agree with some of the points being brought up. It definitely should be a 64-bit application (if it's not already).

 

I think you might have that backwards?

 

No, no I don't.

With UDK, you can't sell anything you make with the free version because you have to then buy a commercial license (for each individual platform - yuck!). With Unity, you don't have to buy licenses/Unity Pro until after you earn $100k in profits after 1 fiscal year. Source. Therefore, Unity is better for me right now, because I don't expect to make nearly that much in 2 years, let alone one!

 

I thought UDK just had like a $99 fee, and then a royalty share after a certain threshold? I'll have to look into it again. I probably have my wires crossed.

 

Actually, yeah, especially with UDK making a lot of inroads into mobile.

This is correct. The threshold is something like $75,000.

 

This is essentially why they have the store. UT knew they'd be spread thin on features, so they try to offload some of that to outside developers. Also, the store is a good testing ground to see where demand lies, since it is otherwise quite difficult to predict developer behavior.

Unfortunately, as someone mentioned, a lot of the stuff on the store is kinda half-baked. It can take a lot of time to get all your tools in working order. But I would say store assets are getting better over time.

They can't really, at least with some of those packages, since they have a lot of opinions tied to them. Some people love NGui, and some people hate it. Same goes for PM. Sometimes a store package will help you in one project, but totally get in your way for another.

This is quite different from most things in the Unity core, which are more neutral and stable.