UNITY, you are losing so many new devs to UE4 due to Oculus support

Except this is no longer really the case - Unity Free users make Unity money through the Asset Store (30% of all sales). Hard to say how the revenue compares to pro license sales, but millions of free users are a very large market... and Asset Store customers are invested in Unity, leading to more pro license purchases down the line... It also seems like Unity negotiates deals with platform holders (Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony) to help finance development. It's not hard to imagine Oculus Rift joining those ranks with Facebook's deep pockets... could be a nice win-win scenario for everyone...

 

people didn't try to deploy their game to android. They will be VERY surprised when their game can't run even on latest tablet pc or best result will be black screen with some white spots. I spent two weeks on UE4 (lost time) instead of trying to deploy the sample projectat once - I didn't waste so muct time with UE4
but, UE4 is awesome editor, blueprints are also awesome, but it's nothing in compare with Unity's gorgeous support of all major mobile platforms. Unity is only choice for mobile development.

 

If you get allow Oculus developers to use Unity Free, some percentage of them should end up buying Unity Pro for the other Pro features. I suppose the optimal solution would be Oculus support without enabling full RenderTexture support - but sounds like that is not feasible.

 

While it was some time ago, Unity have stated that the Asset Store is a very small portion of their income and not enough to survive on.

You're right that there are other options like partnering, but it doesn't change the fact that some balance does need to be struck somewhere. Otherwise it's the death of the golden goose.

 

Too late. It already has.

You know, if Unity starts handing out the major pro features, it becomes more of a charity and not a business.

 

Don't forget a free user is still valuable, and not just because of potential revenue, they also generate content, mindshare, etc. A user you don't have is worth nothing, a user who goes to a competitor is worse, particularly if they recommend other potential customers (or existing customers) away from your product.

I can very easily see the whole community of VR shifting towards a certain technology and the technology the pick will become more and more entrenched as more knowledge (samples, tutorials, demos, etc) becomes available.

 

They could just add support for the rift directly in the engine, that way you could use it in free without rendertextures and plugin support.

 

Ultimately, this is the right answer.

DK2 is a real faff to use with Unity at the moment as you have to use extended desktop mode, which introduces enough problems that I just put mine back in it's box after a day of screwing my face up.

Unity needs to support OR's Direct Mode to really enable hassle-free VR development. The Game viewport isn't appropriate in this context; it goes against the grain of what Unity is all about.

 

Unity needs a lot of things. What it does not need is to invest in a product that hasn't proven itself capable of being successful. Especially if those asking for support are unwilling to buy licenses.

Those of you who really want better Rift support, vote with your wallet.

 

this is my problem at the moment. i had a project in dk1 and everything worked like it should. i had to bring it to dk2 and it is a mess.
new project in ue4 with dk2 and no problem at all. concerning oculus rift, i will start new projects in ue4 right now until the problems with dk2 are sorted out.

 

I'm not a Free user.

If Unity restricted itself only to proven technologies, we'd have a lot less features and options than we do at the moment. To move forward a platform (being VR) needs support from the outside too.

 

I wasn't necessary referring to any individual specifically, aside from the OP who definitely stated he was. The point is that asking for Unity to invest time and money only to give away features is not going to garner any real attention from Unity.

Also I found the link to that post I mentioned earlier where the developer, Graham to be precise, asked how many copies would be purchased.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/still-no-plans-for-linux-editor-support.227828/#post-1517543

 

You know you want to lock the thread and be all like "You shall not post!" dontcha.

I think this is probably the best thing to do, internally support Rift or VR as a whole.... Eventually.. There are already 3 growing HMD peripherals from major companies with a very unclear roadmap for vr in general so if there ever was a moving target - its this one. At this point in time it doesn't make sense to do it (unless they're just best of pals), but down the line once things are more stable it would probably be the way to go if they so choose to do so, but maybe they want to make it a paid target platform extension, who knows, it doesn't seem like that is where its going but its possible I suppose. Depends on what happens with VR in the next couple of years.

They have some specific support, such as the "Optimize for Rift" build option, so clearly there is interest in making things fit nice and tight.

 

I think the Unity Team is going to really surprise us with the Unity 5 free version features in response to the competition, and I'm convinced render textures will be included. Would be a smart move on their part - there's enough features in the Pro version without them to warrant the purchase i.e. dynamic GI.

 

Just going to have to wait and see...

 

Hey all! So I posted on the Oculus forums and received an overwhelming response from people who were forced into UE4 because of the pricing model / policy. This is a decent representative sample of the Oculus serious and hobbyist dev community.

http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2gitmt/question_from_unity_employee_to_me_how_many_new/

This has reached the top upvoted spot on the Oculus subreddit which is a very busy subreddit and if you read through the responses, you can really get a feeling for how many people this is affecting, and again, this is just a small sample of people who browse the Oculus subreddit, who actually saw this post and who felt strongly enough about it to respond.

 

And how many dev. Don't respond to forums etc simply because they are too busy working?
You could say the same about the unity forums. But this is nothing to the actual amount of people that use it.
And if you have been around long enough you'll start seeing the same names constantly.
Nice that you did it but take it the a pound of salt there.

 

Nothing new or suprising, many people that already put money buygin Occulus won't put 1500$ , specially all amateurs that don't know if their idea game will work and sell. 20$ remains the lowest and safest investment for these people.

A good answer among all responses from that link :

I understand why Unity don't invest more money on Occulus or make it standard in PRo and free versions as this is a niche system only, like the WII console in it's times with it's movement detection or Kinect on Xbone one that is a really secondary optionnal system now. The majority of people wanted great games not Kinect.

 

They also don't know if the Rift will be successful. Yet they were willing to invest hundreds of dollars into one.

My favorite responses so far have been those who complain about costs because they are students while completely failing to realize that student licenses can be purchased at a very big discount.

The first link is for a watermarked non-commercial license at $99 and the second is non-watermarked commercial at $650.

http://www.studica.com/us/en/unity/unity-pro-5-game-development-student-license/u5pro-2014-cs.html

http://www.studica.com/us/en/unity/...-software-student-commercial/u5-100135-1.html

 

I'm coming up on the end of my Unity Pro subscription, and I won't be renewing. Unity is too expensive for what you get and, lets face it, Unreal has Unity beat hands down in a few areas, most importantly the pricing plan. Oculus rift support is another, as is visual fidelity in general.

Where Unity really shines is in the ecosystem Unity has set up with the legions of developers. The community making tutorials and answering questions. The asset store. All of the apps and games being built with the platform everyday. Unreal doesn't have anything close to Unity in this arena, yet. But that is changing, and that change is felt the most when Unity users go over to the other side.

On a personal note, I recently wanted to add a team license to my unity subscription, which I'm already paying $75 a month for. In order to alter a subscription with Unity, you have to renew said subscription. The website wanted to renew my subscription at the original $75, plus another $20 for the team license, for another year. $95 a month, for a year. This was confusing, considering the advertisements I'd seen for $40 a month subscription for Unity 5. I contacted sales, they confirmed the price in email. This was the middle of last month.

That is insane.

Listen, I like Unity fine. It is absolutely a breeze to work with. I understand why so many of you are defending the platform.

However, until you all, along with whoever is calling the shots at Unity, decide to pull your heads out of the sand, nothing is going to get fixed.

The first step in solving a problem is recognizing it for what it is.

 

Your condescending tone does your argument no good.

 

Please everyone, stop comparing the two products. This is simply about Unity indie version not supporting the Oculus rift, and to a lesser extent, the pricing structure for Unity. not Unity vs the competition. I want Unity to succeed in all areas possible, and that's why I am pushing this so hard.

 

But why? I'd care about the staff at Unity having a good job to go to in the event Unity eventually failed. But Unity as a product means little, use whatever gets the job done. The only loyality you have is to whatever tool achieves what you're after..

If Unity end up loosing out in the OR arena, so be it. It's their decision to make and I'd be highly suprised if they are blind to what's happening around them.

 

Lold at the guy saying the rift has to 'prove' it will be successful. It was created by a twenty year old kid in his basement and a few years later bought out for $2 billion (with a B). Not to mention they've sold what like 100,000 dev kits?

 

I would hope in this modern age of technology that a student of computer sciences would be capable of using Google.

Funding and developer interest does not prove a product will be successful. Virtual reality has been attempted in the past by multiple sources. Sometimes even by large companies. It hasn't been very successful.

Anyone remember the Virtual Boy by Nintendo? It was cheaper than the Rift and sold 770,000 units. Yet it was considered a commercial failure.

Keep in mind that a developer can more easily justify an expensive gadget if it has a good chance of paying for itself in additional sales, but a consumer will not make money off the device.

As a developer I would be tempted to get a kit if it becomes a success, but as a consumer I will not spend $350 on a toy.

He's definitely talented according to Wikipedia's statements, but you make it sound like he was a broke kid working with almost no money. Yet according to Wikipedia his computer cost him tens of thousands of dollars. It further mentions him having a large collection of virtual reality headsets and other devices related.

 

Yup, "dev kits". But I wonder how many "gamers kits" they will sell when the time will come. Maybe it will be a success (as in "success for the people the develop content for it", and not just for the ones that created it and sold it to Facebook), maybe not. Too soon to tell.

 

Most Occulus are hobbyst using it and trying to make some game notr all are small ocmpany targetting a game. Another point is that only some few games propose the Occulus support , and main of the time the Occulus is only an option as they are aware majority of desktop users uses a screen instead.
There are some commercial or advertisment projects with occulus, but it's not the majority.

That's right, people have two major solutions, take the one you can afford and doing the job for you.

 

You all have your head in the sand if you really think Oculus (and the like) isn't going to at least have some impact on gaming when the consumer model drops. As if it hasn't already with 100,000 units sold.

/s Please, talk to me some more like I'm an idiot. That will totally get your point across. /s

 

I do not think you're an idiot, I simply feel that you are not being realistic. At least two sets of statistics have been given but they vary too much to be considered accurate. Without sources we only have your word on the matter. So you are asking us to gamble on the success of it.

You're also being unfair to Unity Technologies. Features take time and money to implement. You cannot expect them to invest too heavily into a technology that has yet to even make it to market.

If you want to develop with the Rift at this time, your best bet is going to be Unreal 4.

 

I was completely fair, but maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

My major gripe is Unity's pricing policy, which is outrageous.

Though it doesn't hurt that Unreal looks fantastic, right out of the box.

 

And we go full circle yet again. Congrats.

 

I don't understand why this thread is going to be closed shortly...

 

Only if you make less than $30,000 per platform per developer. Once you hit that point the UE4 royalties become more expensive. Paying $1,500 per platform with no royalties is a steal for an indie developer.

Licensing costs are usually not the most expensive aspect of game development though.

Unity 4 cannot compete, but Unity 5 might very well stand a chance.

 

Yes, that's right. We're all millionaire success stories. I completely forgot.

 

I am about to switch to UE4 for the same reasons that people listed here. I've been using Unity to develop VR environments in the research lab that I work in; but now that I have a DK2 (which I may end up using in my research) the decision was quite easy. I also convinced the university to get 35-50 licenses of UE4 because of the pricing scheme - UE4 is free while Unity most certainly would cost lots of $$$. I know that professors in the CS department strongly dislike Unity because of this pricing scheme (universities these days dont have lots of spending money available)

[EDIT] To be clear I actually think Unity3d is better suited for introducing new people (non-developers) to game development in general. However if you are a student that is interested in developing some oculus rift compatible games or interactive installations, then the cost of a Unity license is relatively steep. What I see is that students gladly accept a steeper learning curve (of the UE4 editor and the C++ programming language) if it means that they can actually afford a license that allows them to develop games or interactive installations (for the Oculus Rift).

 

Instead of closing the thread, maybe Unity devs should respond to it. Its not like closing the thread will change our minds or end the discussion, which will just continue to take place on reddit.

 

Let Unity deal with occulus , if they don't put lot of support this is because there are some good reasons. No need to bother them with Occulus, UT5 is the most awaited thing in first place, occulus is really secondary.

I don't see the need to come on Unity forums and ask :
"Please Unity bring us strong occulus support"
Did you started it already as you don't need occulus to make a 3D game ?
There is Unity and UE4 main choices, if you have the money buy Unity that is easy to program, if you don't have money take UE4 and learn blueprints at least.

Yes UT5 will compete , but price won't compete for people not having 1500$ or not able to put 600$ in upgrades for thoos owning PRo already.
These are two great tools , and using them , UE4 is going for other baking system for lightening , lightening, and UT5 won't be perfect neither.

Even if it have some success, simple desktops are the what people uses the most, not all people will want to put on their head big glasses and be tired after using them one hour.

 

I'll repeat what I said earlier. If they are willing to invest $350 into technology that has yet to prove whether or not consumers will buy it, then they can save up and invest in Unity Pro.

Not like you need Unity Pro to develop a game. You can begin development in Unity Free and switch later.

 

350$ is not comparable to 1500$, i could afford some software like 400$ one or two times, but it's the maximum i consider like many people as pure amateur indie.
There are pure users also , just playing games with it not developping, for them it's like buying some gaming console.

 

It is simple but yet people seem to always wage a little grass is greener theme.
Like ue4? Use it! Want to use vr and don't want unity fine.
Like unity? Use it!
We all know the features and what is/isn't in there.
All this energy could be used to be productive and helpful not belittling one and raising the other.
I could careless what the hell you use to make the games you want to make. Just go do it already!

 

Well the fledgeling VR marketplace is still some way off in the future, but you might have noticed that some great looking VR games have moved over to EU4 like EVE Valkyrie.

There appears to be very little money in VR at the moment, unless you are doing presentation, promotional or contract work. Also Unity 4.x seems to be lacking in features and possibly VR performance* when compared to UE4, that's before we consider the price for a team of developers.

I agree with the OP this is a fledgeling market and the more VR games and demos that Unity can provide at launch the better for business. After all the go to game engine could be the engine to power the next generation of VR 'Browsers' or become the VR Driver for the Matrix.

*VR games draw everything twice so put more stress on the game engines performance.

 

Thus why I stated that they can save up over time while building the initial prototypes in Unity Free. You don't need fancy visuals to experiment around with gameplay concepts.

 

Uhm, Kinect anyone? That was the next big thing a while ago, so much that Microsoft developed the new Xbox around it and devs were eagerly making Kinect games, even with a lot of investement. Then the game world realized that, after all, nobody cared about the damn Kinect, MS made an alternate no-Kinect Xbox version, and some devs who had invested big money in developing Kinect games were screwed. This doesn't mean Oculus will follow a similar path, just that as of now it's mostly devs that like it and can afford it, so who knows. Gamers are a different beast. Back to the sand now.

 

Being able to look around in 3D space is cool, but I think people will get more out of a sixense stem. A combination of both is ideal of course, but the stem is a little more awesome and little less expensive. I'm talking about just the hands of course, the full body capture would be $600.

Now the thread has 2 derail options, UE4 vs Unity3D and Oculus vs Sixense STEM ;D

 

As a developer tool, Unity would be missing the boat if they waited for the consumer version to ship before they started supporting the Rift. Luckily, Unity hasn't been ignoring the Rift. I would bet that giving out 4 month free pro trials with every DK1 is largely responsible for the large percentage of Rift developers using Unity. Developing for the DK1 with Unity was a breeze. Most of the current challenges are related to the large SDK and hardware changes with the DK2 and likely will be fixed in the future.

While Unity has had a great head start with the rift they do face a major challenge with UE4. When my 5 months of free trials were up (4 from DK1, 1 from Unity), I had to think long and hard about spending $75/month to continue. I made the decision that I had made enough progress and that the Rift had such incredible potential in my field, that it was worthwhile to take the risk of investing $75/month to continue. If UE4 was available, there is little doubt in my mind that I would have gone with that instead. Unity may still have been the better long term decision but $20 is much less risk. The question for Unity is whether there are enough people who are going to choose UE4 over Unity to justify putting out a free version with rift support.

 

I'm sure the Rift will be a success, just like the Virtual Boy, the Atari Jaguar and the Lynx. Because we all know that new technologies never, ever fail in the gaming market.

It would be best if UT just abandoned all other platforms, right now. Once the Rift is out, nobody will play normal PC games anymore, anyway.

And while we're on it, they should just make Unity Pro free. They could get so many new subscribers with a move like that!!1!

 

Pretty hard to test a prototype for the Rift without actually being able to display it on one.

And yes, it matters. I've done development for deployment to the Rift before I had my unit in hands. It's not easy.

But I wouldn't expect any less from you on this thread, you're obviously here solely to troll and post nonsense replies.

God this community is awful. Are you truly that braindead?

Yes, obviously hardware from 2014 == Virtual Boy. Not.

This community is full of toxic fanboys that are holding Unity back from improving. It's so much nicer in a community not full of doucher fanboys, who can actually take feedback about the engine without resorting to braindead nonsense posts like these.

 

Only if your game is developed solely for use with the Rift. I cannot imagine very many developers will do so. It is too risky.

I love Unreal 4 more so than Unity. I keep Unity around solely because performance and support for mobile platforms is superior.

 

All threads about :
"Unity look at that feature UE4 has for low price"
"You are loosing all clients because ....'
Are simply people that like Unity or they wouldn't post here , and that can't afford Unity Pro asking UT Free to have main Pro features. I would say to them : stop asking more , this won't happen , buy the Pro and if you can't try UE4.

People here are just like any community, we are happy with what we have, many people knows what engine can do or can't do and what are the prices.

About improvments , Unity is improving a lot , perhaps not in your direction (i mean Occulus), if you watched the Keynote you could hear that Unity is also preparing the future with TV support and with Intel hardware , i doubt UE4 going so wide.
They improved as offering Beta access to 4.6 and promising lot more responsive
bug correction and some user vote to vote for priority bugs.

So stop talking non sense, they made a choice with Occulus, they perhaps will focus more on Occulus in the future who knows, but today this is as it is , could you be happy or not with commuinty responses.
The most anticiped feature is not Occulus but UT5 new graphcis features mainly.

The grass is different , not better as performance depends on what hardware you target, if you use 2D or 3D , what game type you are making. Issues exists in each engine also.
I would say to many people stop reading numbers of users on X or Y engine, test them, take the tool having what you need , and make your game.