Wow, a proprietary quasi monopoly changes their business model into something extremely exploitative and hostile. I am totally surprised! Shocked even! Blimey!
Seriously, why spend years of your life learning to work with some technology that can at anytime be made instantly obsolete or impractical to use when some random asshole you don’t know decides something dumb. If there’s a FOSS alternative, always prefer that.
I looked into it briefly after hearing this news and saw people talking about Godot. It’s for 2D and 3D multi-platform games and you can use C#, C++ and others. Sounds pretty cool
The other cool kid on the block right now is bevy. It’s less of an engine for people who just want something to write their game in, though, but more of a framework for people looking to write their own engine. There’s practically nothing you can’t customise or replace in that thing, it’s built to be both flexible and performant.
Unity’s current CEO is an ex-exec from EA. but at least it looks like in 2021 they got around to replacing the CFO from 2015, who was previously also an EA ex-exec that was hired as such the year after the CEO was brought on board from EA. The hirings coincided with many rapid, scummy changes to their subscriptions and dev support. I expect many lies yesterday, today, tomorrow, and beyond as they now focus on squeezing their non-subbed devs
I only just googled them, but they do look quite different. I assume some are specialised in 2D games, platformers or role playing or mobile games. Godot seems to be the most sophisticated engine and supports 2D as well as 3D.
Haven’t tried any of those other ones you mentioned, but i can vouch for Godot, it’s pretty amazing (granted, i’m not a professional developer, but Godot has worked great for my hobby projects)
I may get downvoted to hell for this, but besides the shady business practices, Unity sucks as a game engine. You can just feel the engine eating resources for no good reason and the gfx don’t come close to UE5.
Oh, I don’t think anybody will disagree that Unity is completely unoptimized and barebones compared to Unreal. It is also hard to learn and confusing compared to Godot.
There used to be a huge amount of people that wanted exactly something easier to learn than Unreal and more featureful than Godot. But those two improved in a way that this niche may not even exist anymore. Anyway, currently Unity has that unbeatable marketplace, and I really don’t know if there’s a good enough replacement somewhere, but I don’t see any other reason to use it.
(But then, I’m not really a game developer. I’ve used those here or there, for fun.)
Not quite. Unity isn’t poorly optimized, but it’s not great either. Unity also is very easy to learn, hence the number of really shit games put out from it.
Source: have been using Unity for the past 10 years
From a hobbyist dev who dabbled with Unity for several years: The worst part about the engine imo is the fragmentation of the entire ecosystem.
There are three major rendering pipelines (HDRP, URP, Legacy), each with their own specific quirks, configurations and dependencies, which are entirely incompatible with eachother.
Foundational packages (input handling, networking etc.) change/break way too often or have been deprecated for years without replacement (uNet) and rely on 3d party packages.
And don’t even start with the documentation for any of the above. Multiple times have I found documentation for a rendering callback or ShaderLab parameter claiming it would be compatible with URP only to find that the documentation was supposed to be for HRDP.
“We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms.”
Estimating how many copies you sold based on your own ‘data models’ which is impossible to track? Isn’t that like a giant red flag for laundering money?
Yeah I don’t understand how that works. Will that even stand up to a lawsuit? Wouldn’t they have to give up stuff in discovery if a game company sues to find how they were billed?
I think it’s crazy that they want to write invoices based on estimations. Why didn’t I ever do that? “Oh yeah, I estimate that I worked about um… 2 weeks on that feature.”
This whole thing is absurd and overcomplicated - they could have just copied Unreal and slightly undercut them.
It isn't too complicated, but for example, a game which made $2 million in gross revenue would owe Epic Games $50,000, because it would pay 5 percent of $1 million, keeping the first million entirely—minus whatever other fees are owed, such as Steam's cut.
There should also absolutely have been a grandfather clause for games already released.
I get Unity needs to make money. They've never been profitable. But they've seriously overcomplicated the whole thing and gotten people angry at them.
They announced a new business model effective next year. It’s plastered all over the net, just look up “Unity news” and you’ll get a ton of hits on it. Lots of coverage on YouTube as well.
Godot is a good example of a free and well-developed open source game engine. It’ll probably see a sharp rise in adoption following this controversy from Unity.
We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs.
Someone tell them they can achieve the latter much more effectively if they simply charge once FOR EACH COPY SOLD.
Hmmm… but then what about humble bundle sales or freemium games? Maybe the charge should change depending on the price of the game…
OH WAIT THAT’S REVENUE SHARE. Seriusly this whole thing is just an attempt at taking more money than devs would be willing to pay, by using a model without an up front percentage.
Add comment