3 ms·
The shovel:gold rush analogy usually works well for most types of businesses, but it seems that most software (particularly on the web) is sold as a platform of
by psawaya 17y ago
The shovel:gold rush analogy usually works well for most types of businesses, but it seems that most software (particularly on the web) is sold as a platform of some kind. The Unity engine, for example, seems like a really cool shovel that no one has bothered digging with.
- cellis 17y agoOff topic, I am an indie game dev who's checked out Unity,played with it, and -- after the initial euphoria wore off -- don't see much difference between it (with ~3% market share) and Shockwave (with ~30% market share). What are your thoughts?
- psawaya 17y agoNow that most home computers have are powerful enough, I definitely think that 3D in the web browser will get more popular, and that a standard will emerge. Director/Shockwave has been around for a while, and naturally has been adopted by more users. Unity is a lot more powerful, and includes a physics engine and shader support. I don't know how much Shockwave supports those things, if it does at all, but I'd imagine Unity is a lot more focused on advanced features. It's not the Source engine, but it's advanced enough to build stand alone and console games, with the web as one option for deployment. I think it boils down to how much users really want realistic physics and other high-end game features in a web game, and that's hard for me to say. There's also Google's O3D, which is also very powerful. Right now, though, it seems to be just an experimental Google Labs project, and not a real product.