4 ms·

Not sure what to think about this. I was hoping unity would be the way for the indie studio to build AAA experiences (and indeed it seems to have already achie

Not sure what to think about this. I was hoping unity would be the way for the indie studio to build AAA experiences (and indeed it seems to have already achieved that in some areas), but this kind of merger makes me skeptical about the long-term viability of that vision. I do currently hold a long position in Unity, but this whole thing is starting to feel a bit yucky to me. Between Godot, UE, and the vast unknown of undeveloped engines, I think I need to re-evaluate my strategy.

RugnirViking 4y ago
I can recommend godot. Got into it last weekend and compared to unity it runs like a dream. No freezing for seconds every time you make a change to a script
- grapeskin 4y ago
  I really wish I weren't years into a major Unity project, because I'd love to make the leap. Every single time I see Unity in the news these days, I simply think "oh god, not again."
- mordae 4y ago
  While a Godot fan, there are some serious rough edges all over the place. Godot 4 finally solves the insane widget sizing/positioning hell, but is still itself super unstable (scenes corrupted between alpha releases) and buggy (scenes broken on clean import). It's going to take at least another year for it to stabilize and be close to production. Meanwhile, the 3.x branch is simply lacking features. It's OK for 2D, though. If you can stomach the UI widget hell.
thsbrown 4y ago
My feelings exactly. Lately I feel like Unity is getting wrecked by Unreal. I consistently look at Unreal acquisitions and developments and think, wow they are adding immense value to game developers / designers there. I have held off on migrating over, given that (from what I have read), I agree with Unity's long term vision (move to .net, package manager, rendering pipelines, UI toolkit, dots). The real question for me though is if they are going to pull it off, or get derailed along the way.
- radiKal07 4y ago
  Unreal is definetly better than Unity in the 3D space but for 2D it's still better to go with Unity
  - cyber_kinetist 4y ago
    For 2D you still have some other options though. GameMaker, even with all its faults, still gives indie devs plenty of room to make good games. And there’s also the route of using more barebone frameworks like MonoGame or actually make your own little game engine in C++ or C#. (You’ll be surprised how many 2D indie games were created in this way!)
- bob1029 4y ago
  > I agree with Unity's long term vision (move to .net, package manager, rendering pipelines, UI toolkit, dots). The real question for me though is if they are going to pull it off, or get derailed along the way. I've had more time to think about this. Unity effectively has a golden goose of an ecosystem right now and they're about to murder it with boardroom bullshit. How much energy was spent on this merger that could have been redirected to doubling-down on the tech stack? Multiplayer could really use some more attention, IMO. It's definitely not too late for them to correct course, but I've seen this path so many times I do not reserve any hope. I took a loss on my entire Unity position this morning to get out from under any future bad decisions.
  - squeaky-clean 4y ago
    The real issue IMO isn't that they aren't doubling down on the tech stack or paying attention to multiplayer. It's that are doing that but have gone full Google and kill these projects after they enter alpha or beta. For multiplayer there was the original UNet, then the FPS Multiplayer Demo stack, then HLAPI/MLAPI, now we're getting "Netcode for GameObjects". That also means their new tech stack rewrite for ECS won't get multiplayer support until they release "Netcode for ECS" at some later date. There's stuff like buying Bolt and then depreciating it months later for Unity Visual Scripting. It's like they have a ton of teams working on rewriting the engine but none of them communicate and often find out they've been rewriting the same feature as another team.
Ksienrzycowy 4y ago
The only "AAA Experience" you can squeeze out of Unity is hardware requirements for your game. Use Unity and you have guaranteed worse performance than AAA titles for the next 10 years at least.

RugnirViking 4y ago

I can recommend godot. Got into it last weekend and compared to unity it runs like a dream. No freezing for seconds every time you make a change to a script

grapeskin 4y ago
I really wish I weren't years into a major Unity project, because I'd love to make the leap. Every single time I see Unity in the news these days, I simply think "oh god, not again."
mordae 4y ago
While a Godot fan, there are some serious rough edges all over the place. Godot 4 finally solves the insane widget sizing/positioning hell, but is still itself super unstable (scenes corrupted between alpha releases) and buggy (scenes broken on clean import). It's going to take at least another year for it to stabilize and be close to production. Meanwhile, the 3.x branch is simply lacking features. It's OK for 2D, though. If you can stomach the UI widget hell.

thsbrown 4y ago

My feelings exactly. Lately I feel like Unity is getting wrecked by Unreal. I consistently look at Unreal acquisitions and developments and think, wow they are adding immense value to game developers / designers there. I have held off on migrating over, given that (from what I have read), I agree with Unity's long term vision (move to .net, package manager, rendering pipelines, UI toolkit, dots). The real question for me though is if they are going to pull it off, or get derailed along the way.

radiKal07 4y ago
Unreal is definetly better than Unity in the 3D space but for 2D it's still better to go with Unity
- cyber_kinetist 4y ago
  For 2D you still have some other options though. GameMaker, even with all its faults, still gives indie devs plenty of room to make good games. And there’s also the route of using more barebone frameworks like MonoGame or actually make your own little game engine in C++ or C#. (You’ll be surprised how many 2D indie games were created in this way!)
bob1029 4y ago
> I agree with Unity's long term vision (move to .net, package manager, rendering pipelines, UI toolkit, dots). The real question for me though is if they are going to pull it off, or get derailed along the way. I've had more time to think about this. Unity effectively has a golden goose of an ecosystem right now and they're about to murder it with boardroom bullshit. How much energy was spent on this merger that could have been redirected to doubling-down on the tech stack? Multiplayer could really use some more attention, IMO. It's definitely not too late for them to correct course, but I've seen this path so many times I do not reserve any hope. I took a loss on my entire Unity position this morning to get out from under any future bad decisions.
- squeaky-clean 4y ago
  The real issue IMO isn't that they aren't doubling down on the tech stack or paying attention to multiplayer. It's that are doing that but have gone full Google and kill these projects after they enter alpha or beta. For multiplayer there was the original UNet, then the FPS Multiplayer Demo stack, then HLAPI/MLAPI, now we're getting "Netcode for GameObjects". That also means their new tech stack rewrite for ECS won't get multiplayer support until they release "Netcode for ECS" at some later date. There's stuff like buying Bolt and then depreciating it months later for Unity Visual Scripting. It's like they have a ton of teams working on rewriting the engine but none of them communicate and often find out they've been rewriting the same feature as another team.

Ksienrzycowy 4y ago

The only "AAA Experience" you can squeeze out of Unity is hardware requirements for your game. Use Unity and you have guaranteed worse performance than AAA titles for the next 10 years at least.