Why Unity 5.0 is STILL a good deal

Yes

Can't wait until Crytek hits... more threads like this should be fun.

:roll:

 

Yeah i can't wait to try it out next month! I probably wouldn't try to make a game with it though maybe just use it as a renderer.

 

You'll all have to start being useful like making games instead of witlessly babbling about engine X that frankly, any seasoned developer would just evaluate themselves. People can think for themselves can't they? if not then strike me baffled

 

For some reason I just don't sense much excitement from people about Crytek.

 

Crytek

Isn't until May right? Still too many unknowns.

They haven't stated whether there will be source access or mobile targets. They have a mobile game but not sure if $10/m developers get mobile.

Some I've read don't like the workflow.

 

This is true.

 

Having used Crytek for years, our organization turned away from it due to unending complexities with the art-pipeline.

Gigi

 

Scripting in it doesn't feel flexible enough either. Not sure if Unity 5 will be able to match what Crytek offers visually, but that quality comes at the expense of being hobbled everywhere else.

 

Crytek's art pipeline and shader creation (or rather, lack thereof) make it a pain in the ass to use.

 

^ This.
Gigi

 

Whilst I agree the import pipeline is restricted and can be time consuming, there is also nothing difficult about it at all. If you've actually spend years with "CryEngine", it'll not be the art pipeline or shaders that put you off it. There's no reason to mention the shaders as they are generally better than most could ever make and plentiful, also Crytek notes you can't modify then before you use it.

Even with that said, I'd still never use it for production. It's nice to whip up lush landscapes and impress investors ..

 

I have a team of 5 working on pc.

1500 a yearish * 5 = 7500
Add in another 1000 for needed plugins from the asset store that I wouldn't need with unreal and I'm up to 8500

So I need to make a lot more then 95K to break even.

For me the money isn't really the deciding factor, its quality of engine. I really love a lot of things about Unity but I hope they make some good choices going forward. I'd like to see Unity focus on the fundamental issues with the engine as they seam to be chasing the AAA fancy feature ball while ignoring some fundamental problems with the engine.

-The entire .meta file architecture + source control is a bad combo. We dropped using Unity on another 30 person team I work on because it is a nightmare to use with a big team and source control

-3rd party plugins are basically a requirement. That or making your own versions for systems that should work out of the box. This causes issues with an inconsistent quality in code base, half supported assets, bugs etc...

-Tools are just not in the same league as Unreal. Unreal tools are harder to learn, but as a pro their is just no comparison.

-Systems are consistently released half baked with huge glaring holes often unable to scale to larger team demands. (mecanim didn't have events for how long? Where are nested prefabs?)

- Networking - unreal multi-player is much easier to implement out of the box.

-Source Code - I get access to unreal source now.

My company has invested so much time and money into unity it would be a shame to through it all away. That said even at five team members Unity isn't scaling well.

I really hope Unity focuses on a solid, scale-able, and accessible experience before chasing more features. If they do that I'm all in on Unity.

Thanks.

 

So the title of this topic is "Why Unity 5.0 is still a good deal". I've not read through all the posts so sorry if it's been said already but it seems people have things a bit "backwards" in my opinion and associate what they consider a "good deal" with a comparison of some fancy new product that has come out rather than does this product offer me and my business value (does it either make me money or save me money).

Does the cost of unity ($1.5k, $3k, or free) add value to YOU. Let's face it, for anybody who develops games for an income this tool saves hundreds of thousands in development time over doing everything from scratch. So it's simple, yes its a good deal. There might be a options for specific projects but it just means both are good deals.

For those who have invested in Unity Pro who are likely be those customers who are actively (or trying to) developing products to build an income. How about you compare the true cost for you to move over to another new shiny engine. Consider what you've already invested. Think about how long it may take you to become as good with that other engine as your are with Unity (1-3 months, probably longer?) then think about the lost productivity and revenue during that learning phase. If you're a company how much higher salary and expense do I have to hire people with those extra skills. It could really cost any pro (someone who does this for a living) many tens of thousands to migrate to another engine. For a hobbyist doesn't matter I guess.

PS... for those who want to develop for mobile and are looking at UE4. If you plan on releasing something over the next 6 months on android forget it. Their android support sucks bad right now.

Anyway, I hope people focus less on comparing engine features and compare their specific needs.

 

For our main project, it's not even worth consideration or comparison between the two. Unreal 4 has it nailed down and looks nothing short of amazing, I suppose it's nice Epic are branching out into the mobile sector but from what I've seen far UE4's not N00B friendly neither is it the most efficient engine in terms of performance.

UE4 is a AAA / AA / A sector engine at heart and that's what it's best at.. It seems both are trying to do a 180, Epic are trying to close in on the mobile market and Unity are trying to get their claws into the A / AA and AAA sector. Both have a hell of a long way to go..

I don't see it as anything more than the right tool for the right job.

 

Sure, but that's ignoring the context in which the decision is being made, which is a market in which other comparable options are available. People shouldn't compare using Unity only against starting from scratch, they should compare it against the other options available to them.

Applying your logic alone, Unity could have an old-school $100k+ per project license deal and it'd still be a no-brainer because it will save you more than that compared to using nothing.

People get upset when pharmaceutical companies use that logic. "300% better pain relief (than not taking painkillers)!"

I'm not at all suggesting it isn't a good deal, mind you.

 

Man speaks truth.

 

I'm entirely engine agnostic, but my code base is in C# and Unity Free does a good enough job for my little needs, which is why I'm here.It's going to be a use-case evaluation for the most part. I don't think cost will factor much into it - except to attract the newbs. I think that is a problem for Unity, but I've already said so many times so I won't repeat myself.

 

Epic announces PS4 / Xbox One development skus will cost their users no extra money. Does Unity devs have to pay extra for console skus?

 

I am amazed at the extreme passivity of UT, Could it be that all this does not concern them at all?
Official opinions or comments would be very welcome in this type of thread, Especially for those who still are not sure whether to go or keep going for Unity or not.

 

The only console platforms you don't have to pay for is Unity Wii U and Unity Xbox One, the rest cost money yeah (and it's per title basis). You can email Unity staff for price details.
[EDIT] Before getting Unity for such platforms you need to be an authorized Xbox / Sony developer. You already know that I guess.

 

Where does it say it's free ?
(it say it's available, but where it say it's free which would be a really good news)

 

Here Link.

 

wow xboxOne and ps4 for the subscription!!! that s a pretty good deal!

 

Can you at least read the post I linked? You need to be a licensed Microsoft/Sony developer before getting both of those UE4 platforms extensions which will be enabled by Epic upon verification so you can deploy to such platforms.
PS:I've already authorized mines btw.

 

Think I'll authorize mine too.

 

I switched from Unity to UE4. It's definitely worth it, being $20 per month also. The graphics are amazing, and I'm catching on with blueprint. I don't believe I'll ever come back to Unity. Also, you may disagree with me, but I feel as if Unity just doesn't have too good of a reputation. I have seen too many bad games come out with Unity. Anywho, just an opinion. I'll stick with UE4.

(Been using Unity for about a year and a half)

 

Just have to ask. And out of that year and a half, did you make a game? If not, then how do you think you are going to make a game in Unreal?
This by no means a attack or insult. Just wondering...

 

You'll probably be seeing some bad games and cookie-cutter type games made in UE4 being released more often, now that UE4 is now much more open to every type of developer(noob to pro), not that it's really a bad thing. Just helps explain why Unity would have less AAA games, plus Unity has really only just begun to step in the AA/AAA quality.

 

I'll stay for sure with Unity. Not sure how UE4 competes in the mobile sector but Unity is pretty nice there. I won't complain when UT introduces new price tags though.

 

It won't have less AAA games, it will have about the same AAA games but a lot more garbage games now that it's easier to use.
And keep in mind that UE4 is the tool that Epic uses for their AAA games.

 

I'm happy with the simple stuff I make haha. I know tablets are becoming more powerful, but who needs AAAAAAA graphics on a phone / tablet?

Also I must be misunderstanding something about graphics. How can UE have better graphics than Unity? Don't the graphics come from 3dsmax or blender or something?

 

?Unity AA/AAA quality games?

 

Yeah if unity's prices dont come down its going to the way of the dodo.

 

Yeah, I think graphics really mostly come from the artists, not the engine. I get that the engine plays some roles with, say, lighting, but I think it's mostly on the artists. I would never use 'Unreal has better graphics' as my reason for switching (especially since Unity 5 is going to close that gap when it comes to the engine's role in graphics). Basically, graphics and blueprint are all I saw of anything useful in Unreal. Blueprint is not for me, and the graphics argument is pretty poor in my opinion. Maybe people think Unreal just has a button that says 'activate AAA graphics' and, when pressed, the game will suddenly magically look amazing, regardless.

Speaking of the 'quality AAA games coming from Unreal', does that include Tappy Chicken?

 

Let's be real here, Tappy Chicken does play pretty well for a 2D game in terms of lighting and graphics. Also the fact that all of it (ALL OF IT) was made with Blueprints in a weekend is pretty impressive.

 

Unitys default shaders look bad, so unless you have a guy that specializes in shaders its going to look just as bad. Whereas i think unreal shaders look better by default. Unity should start really upping the default assets maybe buy eddies car thing and make it a standard asset or something. I bet most kids will use the defaults, so the better they are, the better the average unity game will be.

 

Is it? There's nothing to it. I know the presentation is nice and polished, but there's literally nothing complex or difficult there. I'd feel pretty slow if I couldn't get something similar going in a weekend in terms of functionality.

 

Uhhh what exactly about the default shaders looks bad? Can you elaborate with examples?

 

I think this game was made in a few days using the default shaders and lighting compare that to unitys.

 

I feel like it could easily be made in Unity's C# in a weekend as well... or was the impressive part the blueprint part?

 

What of it? Motion blur aside, there's nothing visually in that video that can't be done with vanilla Unity Pro.
It's an alright video but you haven't said exactly what about the default Unity shaders looks bad. Saying Unity looks bad and then showing a game from another engine isn't really an answer.

 

That's why Unity should think carefully on next payment model, and why they SHOULD put a bigger value on active customers. Once they lose them, will be very hard to bring them back.

 

Did you play it? It has leader boards and achievements integrated with google play/plus and app store and integration with ad providers. And it works as HTML5. You do that with vanilla Unity in one weekend? You are good.

 

Yes, to existing customers, the current model is to every two years ask them, "Are you absolutely sure you want another giant update with a load of new features and new bugs, or are you happy with the mature old version?", while other vendors are saying, "Better keep paying a tiny amount, you never know what awesome stuff comes out next month, trickled into your copy of the source code!".

Unity is objectively a better deal, but the process around it is 1970s IBM in a streaming social world (not that I particularly like such a world). I suspect they can earn more with a better model, and I hope they find it, because I want to see the product's continued improvement funded (I might seem to complain a lot, but that's because I think UT needs to drink less fanboy Koolaid and face their problems head-on now that they have real competition).

 

Yet again people a similar topic for your their own agendas of bitching, moaning and running unity down in general.

Guys, we know Unity's got things to fix. We know you don't like the price. You've said it, they've heard it. Bitching about it in *every thread* makes you look like some sort of sentient lemon.

 

If you're talking to me, I don't really care what you think of my lemony intellect any more than you care what I think of fanboys who twist problems into features ("meh, what's the alphabet for", etc., not from you). I'm not here to win a popularity contest, but rather to hear and discuss Unity, each other's game developments, and the industry in general.

BTW, look up "every" in the dictionary so you don't look like some sort of illiterate grapefruit, fearful of fruitiness as you appear to be.

 

Lemons are bitter. It's nothing to do with intellect. I also didn't mention anyone specifically. Thanks though

 

How can we know they've heard if there's no official answer on it?

 

Because I speak to Unity staff regularly, you can take or not take my word for it as a moderator. They've heard, and they are taking it seriously, all of it. If you want to engage them properly, email them as well. It does get read.

Any [Official] forum post will get read moreso, and those are the best places to feed back.

My official stance is: I love using Unity, I think it's a stronger product for game development than anything else out there - for people in my unique situation. I believe other products are stronger for other situations. If Unity wasn't the strongest product for my situation, I would not use it. I am not stupid enough to use a product that isn't an ideal fit for my purpose.

 

This is the first anyone from Unity has formally said about actually hearing what we have to say, it seems:

Hearing things from moderators is all well and good, but there have been countless times where moderators have told us things about how Unity functions internally, what's being planned, or even engine features that have been completely wrong. We need more than just moderator responses. We need Unity representative responses.