• azenyr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Not a good idea to leave Unreal Engine without decent competitors. Other universal engines are too small to compete with UE.

      • MrMcGasion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 years ago

        Honestly, Unreal has been in a different league ever since Epic started dumping Fortnite money into it. That’s probably why Unity tried to start charging more, because they’ve been falling behind for the past few years and can’t afford to keep up. Not that I think it’s good to leave Epic/Unreal without decent competition, but I’m more inclined to blame Fortnite for the downfall of Unity than the indie devs Unity just scared off with their desperate cash-grab.

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          Unreal has been in a different league basically since its inception. Compare the original Unreal engine to its contemporaries like Quake or Half Life and it’s amazing what they could do, if you had a box that could run it.

          The difference between Unreal and Unity is Unreal has a sustainable viable business model (I think I’ve come to the conclusion that there are no “sustainable” business models under capitalism, what with demanding infinite growth and lal that). Epic Games develops their own games; the development of Unreal Engine has pulled its weight as a component of Fortnite and such. Same thing with Valve; I don’t think they ever bothered to charge for developing a game in the Source engine because they made their money for engine development through Half Life 2, Portal, TF2, Left 4 Dead etc.

          Unity on the other hand doesn’t make and sell games, so they have to either directly charge developers (which they both do and don’t) or they operate their own adware nonsense. And neither of those revenue streams are enough. Which means they don’t have a viable business model. So they pull a stunt like this to hasten their inevitable bankruptcy.

          • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Having used the Unreal engine, I’m actually surprised it’s not more popular than Unity.

            I’m leaning towards people saw Unity as “the scrappy underdog” to Epic. When really, Unreal engine fought like hell to get to where it is.

          • tias@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Yeah I was a game programmer in the early 2000s. Unreal made my jaw drop back then already. They’ve always been state of the art (although arguably CryEngine had the lead for a while), long before Unity came around. As you might remember, it started out in 1998 as the game Unreal (and then Unreal Tournament) which was a kickass first-person shooter. It has been around for 25 years now.

            Unreal is now also selling their engine to Hollywood productions that want to replace green screen with real-time effects for the actors to play against. It’s impressive stuff, and I bet they’re going rake in tons of money through that channel as well. Unity is just not in the same ballpark.

            That said, there’s room for Unity if they’re willing to find a business model where they don’t compete head-on with Unreal. As the article indicates there is (was) a strong community providing tons of cheap or free-of-charge assets, and it’s been very appreciated among indie devs for these reasons. Unity excels in support for mobile and web platforms. They don’t need to make their engine support all the latest cool technology. They just need good developer relations and tools that make it easy to turn cool ideas into fun games. The fact that they squandered their biggest asset (the community) shows that the leadership does not comprehend Unity’s value proposition. It is being lead by fucking morons.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m sure the person responsible for the change is going to be feeling devastated as they buy back all the stocks for fractions of what they paid.

  • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Good. The terrible marketing team who made this decision is still there, and they still want this end result. They just learned they need to approach that goal more slowly.

    • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s times like this I wish we did things more like china. The one person who is actually responsible for this change is going to get a huge payout, but the same can’t be said for everyone else at the company whose lives are going to be completely thrown off from the incoming layoffs.

  • Radioactive Radio@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    Nah, they’ll go back. If it’s one thing I’ve learned from Greedy companies doing dumb shit. People will always go back to trust them again.

  • Anonymousllama@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    If the changes were launched this way, being tied to a new version in 2024 then this would have been a perfectly fair approach, you could stick with 2022 / 23 LTS for your projects and only if you want ‘new’ features would you pick up 2024 LTS and agree to the new terms.

    I’ve honestly not seen much difference between major versions e.g. 2021 - 2022 LTS, so unless these new versions come out with amazing new features, devs can still stick to these old reliable versions.

    It’s much better overall but the way they’ve handled this has been shithouse

  • echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think they will lose some already established studios that can afford to retool and reskill on another engine. But I think the vast vast majority of current unity developers are breathing a sigh of relief that they /dont/ need to reskill or retool on another engine.

    Unity is still on shaky ground, but they have been since they went public. They need revenue, and their big ad revenue plan got ruined by dastardly apple protecting users’ privacy. Couple that with an upstart and promising engine following in Blenders footsteps. In five years, they might have lost every hand they had left to play. Irregardless of the missteps of the last week.

    • micka190@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Every indie dev I’m following on YouTube has basically made a “My thoughts on the situation”-type videos where they talk about how they’ve “won against Unity” despite Unity basically doing a textbook of the “Door in the face” technique to pass changes that would’ve been unpopular before this whole mess.

      Edit: Fixed typo.

      • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Claiming it’s “door in the face” is a little crazy here. If this is where they wanted to be, the “bait” changes could have been much much less bad than they were, and they still could’ve walked back to this.

        Hell, they could have announced a 10% revenue split and it would’ve looked much better than what they pitched. And they could still walk back to 2.5% and looked like heroes. And it wouldn’t have lost them nearly as much trust. Nor made them look as bad.

        If this was what they were trying to do, they’d have to have been even dumber to have made it this bad.

        I’m more willing to bet they’re just fucking stupid. Or that a few people on the board had this as a fucking moronic idea, and the rest managed to take back control after it went totally sideways.

        But claiming that it’s a door in the face requires them to be evil enough to do it, stupid enough to not realize they’re overdoing it, crazy enough to think it’d work, etc. It seems way too contrived.

      • JonEFive@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        As soon as I heard Unity was back pedaling, I thought “there’s part 2 of the plan”

        1: release abusive payment scheme to see just how much push back they get. If push back is minimal or losses are acceptable, end here and enjoy the profit.

        2: if push back is strong, implement the actual payment policy that is still a significant increase, but less significant than the one above. And wait until the controversy blows over, which it will.

        Yes, lots of developers will leave, lots of developers will choose a different engine for their new games, but there are a ton that will decide that it isn’t feasible to switch engines and plenty that will just eat the added cost. The thing that remains to be seen is just how much damage Unity has done in terms of new projects choosing other engines over theirs.

  • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    They fucked themselves like WotC (Wizards of the Coast) did with the OGL (Open Gaming Licensing) changes.