3 ms·

Except that we have releases of Adobe and Unity and things multiple times a year. Creatives value consistency but they also value ease of use. Improvements to U

Except that we have releases of Adobe and Unity and things multiple times a year. Creatives value consistency but they also value ease of use. Improvements to UX and workflow should be allowed to break the mold of "don't touch it if it works". What they don't do is dictate the release cycle. Many patches end up in committee to be pooled together (or paywalled) into a vX.N.0 patch released when the business decides to.

jibe 4y ago
Everyplace I've worked that's used Unity has locked into a version at the start, and only upgraded (other than minor versions/bug fixes) between projects. New projects today would use last years version. Adobe is less an issue because the new version of Photoshop isn't going to break your PSD.
- KronisLV 4y ago
  > Everyplace I've worked that's used Unity has locked into a version at the start, and only upgraded (other than minor versions/bug fixes) between projects. Having used Unity for a few years, this feels like the only sane approach. It might sometimes be possible to update a project or even follow the best practices with package updates, but in practice there's just too much brittle stuff that breaks (e.g. all of the materials in a project breaking and becoming invisible or other weird things, like scripts suddenly throwing plenty of runtime exceptions). Just pin to whatever the latest LTS version is and then conservatively update packages as necessary. Thankfully most games aren't too integrated with network solutions and don't have to worry about security related topics, like how a typical .NET or Spring Boot webapp would have to.