[HN Gopher] Unity merges with IronSource ___________________________________________________________________ Unity merges with IronSource Author : Luc Score : 325 points Date : 2022-07-13 11:03 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.unity.com) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.unity.com) | 999900000999 wrote: | Welp, glad I'm working on learning other engines now. | | I'll take another look at Godot when it hits 4.0 | TOMDM wrote: | The Godot 4 alpha builds are surprisingly stable for playing | around in, and feature wise pretty good too. | | Still not there for working on anything other than small toys | or concepts yet, but once it's done it'll be great. | 999900000999 wrote: | I didn't have a great time with Godot 3. I got stuck trying | to call a function on a different game object. Find node | didn't work. | | I'm hoping for Godot 4 to be a massive leap in quality/ ease | of use. I'm also playing with some lower level tools. | numlock86 wrote: | So this is the nail on the coffin? | inglor wrote: | Nit for @dang or OP - it's ironSource not IronSource | | (This comment is not an endorsement of the merger which I'm | personally not a fan of - we get an ad/installer company merging | with the biggest non-AAA game engine company which creates all | sort of problematic incentives) | wccrawford wrote: | I heard recently that most of Unity's money already comes from | Unity Ads, so this is just the natural extension of that. It's | sad, but that's our reality I guess. | pjmlp wrote: | That is what happens when the price of a whatevercinno is too | much to ask for a game. | zamalek wrote: | > an ad/installer company | | Seems like Unity isn't too proud of that either. I wasn't able | to figure out what ironSource do from the first few paragraphs | due to them dancing around the truth. | Luc wrote: | I used 'ironSource' when I posted. It must have been changed | some time after by a moderator. | giancarlostoro wrote: | > we get an ad/installer company merging with the biggest non- | AAA game engine company which creates all sort of problematic | incentives) | | Whatever pushes people closer to Godot. Seriously though, the | only thing I see that Unity has that Godot lacks is a rich | asset / resource store, with lots and lots of options for | whatever you want to build your game with. I would think the | maintainers could produce such a store to facilitate funding | the project and even provide their own offerings like code | snippets for specific game types and then keep 100% of those | proceeds (aside from payment vendor fees) towards the project. | | It's either that or someone, somewhere with free time and | energy builds their own and donates to Godot for every asset | bought. | | I really like Godot but I'm only a dev, I don't have time to | design my own graphics, I just want to code different ideas to | see how they go and go from there, I just want to download a | few assets and get cracking, and right now that is far easier | to do with Unity than it is with Godot it seems like. I think | Godot adopting a Unity importer might help significantly. | pixelbyindex wrote: | As someone who uses (has used?) GoDot, would you say it may | become to games what blender is to 3d modeling? It's such a | huge slowdown to move from something you know (unity) into | something new | paulryanrogers wrote: | Godot doesn't have the same platform support. So if you want | to publish to a console then Unity is still a better option. | bodge5000 wrote: | I can think of a few others, though I did move from Unity to | Godot and never looked back so clearly they're not deal | breakers (for me): | | - Doesn't handle 3D as well. Mostly optimisation stuff, | though also things like procedural sky/sun is weaker I find | with Godot than Unity. Though almost all of that are looking | to change with Godot 4. | | - As you mention asset store, but also just the size of the | community. Can't really blame Godot for this though, their | documentation is certainly very good which is about as much | as they can do. | | - GDScript is a great language, but I'm not a big fan of | using engine-specific languages, rather than a generic one | like C#. Of course it has its advantages, but it means you | also miss out on whatever package manager comes with the | language. Bindings remedy this, but they're not a simple out- | the-box experience. | | - Similar to above, GDScript and a lot of areas of the engine | feel more strongly orientated towards fast and easy dev time | rather than game performance. Its a personal choice so I | can't complain much, and again bindings can help, but out the | box GDScript of course isnt as fast as C# with ECS. | | Thats about all I can think of, and as I say I use, and | overall love, Godot so despite my complaints theres still | more going for it than against it (for me) | giancarlostoro wrote: | > but it means you also miss out on whatever package | manager comes with the language. | | I didn't even consider that! Good call out! | | > Similar to above, GDScript and a lot of areas of the | engine feel more strongly orientated towards fast and easy | dev time rather than game performance. | | Correct me if I'm wrong or way off, but isn't GDNative (or | whatever it might be called now) basically for those | moments where you need a little more beef, but don't want | to rebuild the entire engine, so you bring in Rust or D or | any other language you know and love and bridge it in | through GDNative? | bodge5000 wrote: | Yeh so the bindings with GDNative do absolutely help | performance, and I imagine Rust with Godot would be even | faster than Unity with C# (You can also use GDNative to | add ECS as well I believe), but out the box, and | therefore likely the direction Godot is heading in, seems | to favour workflow above performance. | | That being said, it could be a "grass is greener" issue. | There are plenty of engines that offer better performance | but a worse workflow, Unity for one, that I'm not using | and instead using Godot, and I guess bindings are as | close as reasonably feasible to getting the best of both | worlds, so I cant complain much. | tfigment wrote: | Stride probably has a better chance at being Unity compatible | being .NET and similar but it needs more polish to take on | Unity. I only recently heard of it as it was used in Distant | Worlds 2 but that game had an unfortunate launch and lots of | bugs/compatibility issues. | papruapap wrote: | prob is a matter of time before their force ads in the unity | free-tier, all roads lead to Rome, good news for Godot I guess. | Animats wrote: | _" This tighter integration between Unity's Create and Operate | means a more powerful flywheel and data feedback loop that | further supports creators' success and understanding of what's | working between gameplay, design and their monetization | efforts."_ | | Aargh. Now what, built-in NFTs? | | Ads in games have mostly been failures. You can sell items to | your users, but ads in games are a bad fit. Either they interrupt | gameplay, or they're ignored in-game product placement. This is | also true for "metaverse" systems. It's not clear there's any | role for "brands" in the metaverse. The systems which are | profitable don't have them. | otabdeveloper4 wrote: | > but ads in games are a bad fit | | Au contraire. Casual mobile games is the new television, and | ads on television is a _huge_ market. Or was a huge market; | that spend will now eventually flow towards personal devices, | a.k.a. mobile games. | w-j-w wrote: | mrguyorama wrote: | They're being more honest than you realize. In that quote they | are basically saying they want this to make it easier for you | to better target and milk the whales who play your stupid free- | to-play mobile game. "Gameplay" here is being used the same as | the gambling industry | huhtenberg wrote: | From Wikipedia: ironSource focuses on | developing technologies for app monetization and | distribution, with its core products focused on the app | economy. | spywaregorilla wrote: | > With ironSource, Unity will take the linear process of making | games and RT3D content and experiences and make it an | interconnected and interactive one - creating the opportunity to | innovate and improve at every step of the cycle. | | > What if that process was no longer "first create; then | monetize?" What if creators had an engine for live games that by | default enabled them to gain early indicators of success for | their games through user acquisition of their prototype, and gave | them a feedback loop to improve their games based on real player | interactions as early in the process as possible? | | Sounds like utter nonsense to me. Does anyone have an optimistic | take on what this is trying to say in a good direction? I'm | reading it as shipping more unfinished games, possibly with more | ads | the_lonely_road wrote: | Sounds like Steam early access with metics and feedback. Maybe | it's referencing social media campaign to measure interest | during the early prototype stage like star citizen has been | doing. | anttiharju wrote: | (Disclaimer I'm an intern at Unity but I don't think I know | anything more about the merger than what was in the article.) | | My thoughts go to musicians choosing what songs to finish and | publish by picking the ones whose short clips get popular on | TikTok. | | Not sure if these two are comparable though. | arminiusreturns wrote: | They want to turn their proprietary metaverse into a licensing | cash cow using creator labor, thats the play. Each engine is | doing their own version of the metaverse. | thsbrown wrote: | Couldn't be any more vague if they tried. | echelon wrote: | Watch Twitch. See VRChat and VTubers. Minecraft and Roblox. | | Games are going to turn into sandboxes and movies and full | creativity engines. | | Epic and Unity realize this and are ahead of the trend. | Microsoft and Meta get it too, it's just not been realized yet. | kaetemi wrote: | Ah, like open source games where development drags on forever, | and the player base is thinly spread out over time. | bdefore wrote: | Right? It disparages not putting profits first in the act of | creation, but doesn't explain how its offering solves this | problem. Instead it describes how to improve feedback loops. It | leaves as an exercise to the reader how user acquisition leads | to money. Filthy. | sempron64 wrote: | Some folks in this thread are characterizing this as a one-sided | acquisition but what I did not realize was that ironSource is a | public company | | ironSource ltd: mkt cap ~3bn Unity ltd: mkt cap 10bn | | This is an all-stock deal | https://seekingalpha.com/news/3856307-ironsource-surges-afte... | | Ironsource also has 30-50% the number of employees as Unity: | | https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ironsource | https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/unity-technologies | | So this definitely can be characterized as a merger. | thsbrown wrote: | Given that Unity and ironSource stock prices have both dropped | fairly substantially I wonder how that factors in to the deal | going through at this time. | | Does that make this a better deal for one vs the other? | | It says ironSource share will trade for ~10% of a Unity share. | Given that Unity is at around ~$33 a share and ironSource is | ~$3 a share was the attempt to just combine forces for the | benefit of both parties? | | Sorry if this is coming off as a dumb question, trying to | understand how this works to the benefit of disadvantage of | them both. | yywwbbn wrote: | Well Unity is paying a 70% premium over what Iron Source was | worth yesterday so it doesn't sound like such a great | decision financially. Also the absolute share price is not | really that relevant since companies hardly ever have the | same amount of shares. | telchior wrote: | To me this looks like typical ad industry consolidation. It's | part of the eternal circle of advertising: when a new ad | format shows up (radio, TV, web, mobile, etc) a zillion | little companies pop up. Twenty years later there are just a | handful of big players. | | Unity made the choice to get into ads quite a few years ago | when they acquired a company called Applifier. They ended up | doing really well in mobile ads. IronSource, similarly, has | done pretty well. But they're now competing with companies | like Google, Facebook and Apple who have way more weight to | throw around. At the least, if Unity had not done this | acquisition, it leaves IronSource to be acquired or merged | with someone else. | | You could say, why is Unity in the ad business at all? But | they're in way too deep to back out now. Ads are a huge chunk | of their revenue. Trying to gobble up smaller competitors | just makes sense in terms of trying to be one of the eventual | survivors. | Devasta wrote: | It'll be very interesting to see the impact on the games market 5 | years from now on this, no competant business is going to use | Unity for new projects after this. | bob1029 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | Unreal is definetly better than Unity in the 3D space but for | 2D it's still better to go with Unity | cyber_kinetist wrote: | 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 wrote: | > 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. | thsbrown wrote: | > 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. | | I see your point, but in a way I think this merger makes | sense to prioritize. I would argue the majority of their | user base is using the engine in its current form for | mobile development. Unfortunately Unity doesn't have a | golden goose like fortnight to draw revenue while they are | internally improving the engine. It stands to reason if | they can draw in more revenue from ads from their pre- | existing user base they have more money to keep them afloat | when times are tough while they continue engine | improvements. | | To be honest I don't like it. I would much rather they | double down on fixing the engine and solidifying | preexisting solutions. But I do think there might be a | method to their madness. | | You might be right though, it might just be boardroom | bullshit haha. I'm still holding out hope. And in the | meantime I'm going to diversify my engine knowledge. | squeaky-clean wrote: | 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. | throwuxiytayq wrote: | > For multiplayer there was the original UNet, then the | FPS Multiplayer Demo stack, then HLAPI/MLAPI, now we're | getting "Netcode for GameObjects". | | This doesn't seem like the correct timeline of events. | Anyway, if you want a clearer picture why they decided to | throw the packages away, I recommend reading the source | and/or trying to use them. For your reference: | https://github.com/needle-mirror/com.unity.multiplayer- | hlapi | | > 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. | | Uhhhh? The package is literally right there. It's one of | the very earliest ECS packages they published, I think. | They also reaffirmed that the package is in active | development internally. https://docs.unity3d.com/Packages | /com.unity.netcode@0.51/man... | | > There's stuff like buying Bolt and then depreciating it | months later for Unity Visual Scripting. | | Bolt _is_ Unity Visual Scripting. I really don 't know | what you find so offending here (maybe except Unity's | inability to develop their own tools in-house). | | > 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. | | I can't come up with a single example of this. Unity | occasionally has a tendency to develop a "vnext" tool | while still supporting a "legacy" tool, which seems great | for backwards compatibility (and for long-running | projects), but it just keeps confusing people endlessly. | I don't like Unity, but hell, I don't envy them for | constantly having to deal with this shit either. | Ksienrzycowy wrote: | 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. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | _> If you don't know ironSource, they bring a proven record of | helping creators focus on what creators do best - bringing great | apps and user experiences to life - while enabling business | expansion in the app economy. ironSource's suite of tools and | solutions provides the majority of the world's top games and many | of the leading non-gaming apps with the monetization, marketing, | analytics, and discovery capabilities they need to build and run | scalable app-based businesses._ | | I'm sorry. I must be dense. I still don't understand what | IronSource does. I thought, from the name, that it was like | Perforce, but that is obviously not correct. | Jensson wrote: | They run mobile game monetization, like micro transactions and | ads. There is a reason they don't want to be open about that, | everyone hates that and thinks it is toxic, but it generates a | ton of money. | cheschire wrote: | Right, which makes the condescending tone of "if you don't know | this company" even more egregious. They easily could've | rephrased that to talk about ironsource's strengths without | making a subconscious concession to the fact that 99% of their | audience has never heard of this company they are MERGING with, | not acquiring. | sigmoid10 wrote: | I mean, the phrasing might be needlessly contrived, but I | fully understood what the company does (despite never having | heard the name): Ad service and monetization. Granted, if | you're not the type of game/app developer that Unity targets, | you might not realize that this type of company even exists | or how important they have become in recent years. But the | quote perfectly describes what they do without going into | unnecessary details. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | I suspect that may be because you are familiar with the | context. | | I now know what they do, thanks to these comments, but that | blurb I quoted is almost the Platonic Ideal for "Marketing | Dross," and tells me exactly nothing, in many words. | sigmoid10 wrote: | At this point one my argue who Unity writes their blog | posts for. But then again if you simply filter out the | marketing speech, you'll end up with a pretty good, | simplified description: | | >If you don't know ironSource, they bring a proven record | of helping creators [...] bringing apps and user | experiences to life. ironSource's suite of tools and | solutions provides [...] apps with the monetization, | marketing, analytics, and discovery capabilities they | need to build and run scalable app-based businesses. | ChrisMarshallNY wrote: | Fair 'nuff, but I've spent most of my adult life, trying | to explain fairly arcane technical stuff to non-technical | people, so tend to use the vernacular. | | I'd probably say something like _" IronSource provides | infrastructure to help game distributors make money off | ads and measure the way their games are used."_ | | Maybe also followed by _" And they will make us FREAKIN' | RICH!"_ | dotancohen wrote: | Has any merger actually worked out well for the consumer? | Boeing / McDonnell Douglas, Chrysler / Daimler, HP / Compaq. | Are there any counterexamples? | throwaway889900 wrote: | There are a lot of mergers with B2B sales, not consumer | sales, that you don't hear about that have gone perfectly | fine. | mepian wrote: | Apple and NeXT is the only counterexample I can immediately | think of. | stemlord wrote: | >helping creators focus on what creators do best | | Every time | system16 wrote: | They're being deliberately vague. Adware and analytics. | ravivyas wrote: | Ironsource is an Ad mediation platform much like MoPub was and | is popular with Mobile Games. Their largest competitor being | Applovin. | | In addition they have their own ad network, and a game | publishing studio https://supersonic.com/ | | They recently also ventured into the App Analytics space. | ev1 wrote: | Is this the same supersonic as supersonicads? If it is, the | only time I have _ever_ seen them is basically convincing | children like me at the time to download malware in exchange | for $0.01 in free to play mobile game credits... | | The ads they served were absolute bottom of the barrel awful, | no legitimate brands, not even like clash of clans or | anything - half their 'offers' were lockscreen ad APKs that | installed themselves as unremovable device administrators | that would kill play store and settings if you tried to open | them. | | If you played F2P games, mobile games, korean free MMOs | probably starting from a few years ago, maybe half a decade | ago, you will likely eventually remember SupersonicAds, | Peanutlabs, Tapjoy (also purchased by ironsource), Matomy. | | Tapjoy (now IS) would not pay out even after you installed | the shitware: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press- | releases/2021/01/... | | SupersonicAds would collect IMEI, ESN, etc as long as they | could https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_event | s/122... + wrote code bad enough and delivered their loaders | over plaintext http to the point that google play was | blocking apps including their sdk at one point | ravivyas wrote: | Nope.. different. | | That being said .. many Mobile game ads are .. | questionable.. but work for the publishers because you can | trust humans to do shitty things. Check out | https://www.reddit.com/r/shittymobilegameads/ | shmatt wrote: | Different, but they also bought Supersonic Ads. I knew a | handful of their employees, it was a good company until | IronSource took over in 2015. Every single one tried to | pinch their nose and stay on at IronSource but left within | months | ev1 wrote: | so IS owns both "supersonic studios" and "supersonic | ads"? (though unsure if there is a difference anymore | since the latter redirects to supersonic.com) | Deukhoofd wrote: | They sell a platform for ads and analytics in games. | pixelbyindex wrote: | Does anyone have experience shipping monetized games that do not | rely on ads? Were any of these titles successful? What are your | monetization models? | | I, for one, hate ads. I will do anything to avoid using ads, but | I also need to put food on the table at some point. | throwawayzz39 wrote: | Multiplayer games can get way more revenue (like 10x) from in- | app purchases than ads, and ads are actually surprisingly | maintenance-heavy. | thsbrown wrote: | Definitely agree with the maintenance heavy. They are a | nightmare to test and maintain. | | Really hope they do something about making them easier to | integrate and debug overall. | badRNG wrote: | > Does anyone have experience shipping monetized games that do | not rely on ads? Were any of these titles successful? | | I don't think I've ever played a PC or console game that relied | on ads for revenue (nor would I ever.) | kroltan wrote: | I don't know if they _rely_ on it, but recent NBA 2K games | apparently have interstitial ads, even though it's a full- | price 60USD game with yearly releases already. | | Absolutely disgusting, I already doubt the value of yearly | releases, as you basically pay for an updated roster, but | this is just overreach. | thsbrown wrote: | Not exactly answering your question here, but I shipped a | mobile game worldwide about a year ago with both ads and | ability to unlock whole game via purchase to unlock. | | My ads are as unintrusive as I could implement (watching an ad | via button press to unlock a level). So far I have seen mostly | iOS users are willing to purchase the game while Android users | will heavily lean towards watching an ad to unlock a level. | From what I have read (and seen so far) it looks as though the | way I'm implementing ads is going to be highly unprofitable | | Additionally integrating ads in general was a huge pain in the | ass. I initially looked to Unity, then Admob, and finally | mediation of the two. Funnily enough at one point I looked at | mediation via ironsource along the way as I had heard their | Unity integration was pretty good. | | If your curious as to the exact monetization mechanisms you can | check them via my game below. | | [1] https://commandcenterearth.com | linuxftw wrote: | On mobile, the best model seems to be FTP with ads, then a | small amount ($5) to permanently remove ads. | | I don't develop games, but if I did, this would be a great | addition, if I could 1-click this workflow to drive revenue. | | This could also have quite the network effect on the ad network | itself. You're now able to say 'All Unity apps ship with this | network' yada yada. | | The dark pattern will be "All games now ship with ads, and | developers don't benefit from the ads" type stuff in order to | drive premium subscriptions from developers. That or instead of | the developer getting the 70% cut of the $5 'remove ads' | purchase, they're instead going to get 40% and Unity gets the | other 30%. I'm sure they'll figure out how to enforce | monetization. | munificent wrote: | I think the key problem is that attention is the only currency | that many children have access to. | | Many many many kids have mobile devices now, along with tons of | free time and a strong desire to play games. What they _don 't_ | often have is access to a credit card to purchase games or do | in-app purchases. I think that a big part of why so many games | lean on ads is because it's essentially the main currency that | kids have access to: their own time. | laurencei wrote: | They have a sub-title in their article "Redefining the game | engine - this is more than ads" | | Then they go on to say "Advertising has long been and we believe | will continue to be the economic engine for mobile games, driving | players into their games and driving revenue at scale" | | Then finally "It also reinforces our strong conviction in the | long-term strength and growth of the in-game advertising | business" | | Seems like they are just doubling down on the ads in games | mainstream... | ravivyas wrote: | They actually doubled down when they started building their own | Ads mediation platform after having an AdNetwork, but they | struggled to grow. Their targeting tool "Pinpointer" failed and | showed up on an earnings call. | birracerveza wrote: | It makes sense considering 99% of Android "games", whose | revenue models are entirely based on ads, are built on Unity. | nemacol wrote: | "driving players into their games" | | I don't know anyone that plays a game because of the ads that | are in it. I must be misunderstanding what they are saying? | RugnirViking wrote: | presumably they mean adverts elsewhere for the game they are | being driven to. Although of course if those other places are | also mobile games, there is a certain bizarre oroboros to the | whole idea... talk about zero-sum games, this is negative-sum | GrinningFool wrote: | It does seem to be a circle: games carry adverts. The | overwhelming majority of adverts is for more games. If you | get the advertised game, you're now seeing ads in that game | for more games... | | Mobile games are a weird, impossibly self-sustaining beast. | Developers (usually have to) dump money into advertising, | even as their own games are advertising the competition. | techdragon wrote: | Which as many people I've talked with about the mobile | game industry tell me... is a cold calculated game of | roulette, you burn money in adds trying to get enough | attention to yourself that some whales spend enough on in | game purchases to let the whole thing make some money... | it's a very "luck" driven market and they often are just | experimenting with for side projects, which is one of the | many less evil ways money flows into the mobile game | advertising ecosystem. | ratww wrote: | The "luck driven" part is definitely true for Unity's | whole niche. You can hear reports online of people | "hustling", trying to hit jackpot, leaving jobs in order | to spend a year doing random mobile in games to see what | sticks. | cyber_kinetist wrote: | There was a GDC talk telling a a story where two bored | indie game devs made an AI that churns out throwaway low- | quality slot machine games as a joke, but actually earned | much more money they they've expected (thousands of dollars | per day). They jokingly told that the reason for high CPU | numbers was their "anti-retention" model, where people get | so bored by their game that they would literally click ads | to escape into another game! | | That talk was hilarious, here's the link: | https://youtu.be/E8Lhqri8tZk | wongarsu wrote: | Free mobile games are full of ads for microtransaction-driven | mobile games. | bluescrn wrote: | The ads in smaller games push players away from those games, | while pushing ever more players into the F2P megahits that | are perpetually at the top of the store charts and still rake | in millions per day (and therefore have great big advertising | budgets). | | There's little point trying to enter the mobile game market | at this point. | paulryanrogers wrote: | Perhaps by making games ad supported where there otherwise | would've been pay first or subscription based | CobrastanJorji wrote: | I think the idea was to try and say "by hooking this into an ad | platform, you'll get useful analytics like adoption rates, even | if you're not serving ads," but the writer couldn't quite sell | themselves to it. | | I'm gonna guess there was a first draft of the doc that was | basically "this is only about ads," but then someone who | reviewed the doc said "this sounds terrible, explain how it's | more than just ads," so they added a "this isn't just about | ads" section and tried to come up with a list of bullet points, | but they had very limited success because it wasn't true. | yolo123 wrote: | For those who are considering other engines, try Godot Engine. | It's open source and free to use. https://godotengine.org/ | radiKal07 wrote: | No consoles support | klaussilveira wrote: | It does support consoles: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/lat | est/tutorials/platform/co... | | > In other words, there is no engine that is legally allowed | to distribute console export templates without requiring the | user to prove that they are a licensed console developer. | Doing so would violate the console manufacturer's NDA. | | Just not out in the public. | WillPostForFood wrote: | From the page you linked: | | _Console ports of Godot are offered by third-party | companies (which have ported Godot on their own)._ | | Maybe it is semantics but it Sounds more like no console | support. You pay a third party to port your game to | consoles. Perhaps those third parties have built support | into Godot, but as you said, it is not public, and not | accessible to you other than as a paid service. | techdragon wrote: | It's about commercial contracts and NDAs and that sort of | thing. You can't share the console SDKs, so you can't | ship the features with the rest of the code due to | contract reasons, so after your done, you share for a | nominal fee (because contract/business reasons) the | bindings between Godot and the console SDk, and then the | studio who wants their game on console still has to get | all the console SDk contract stuff done before they can | actually build and test a console version. | | I've looked into it with both Unreal, Unity, and a couple | random engines that advertised their explicit support for | various consoles... there is always some business | contract stuff with the console owner company before | you'll ever be able to compile for the console, and then | depending on the engine there is sometimes a deal you'll | have to cut with the company that built the console | specific code/middleware/port/shim/adapter/etc ... no | game engine ships out of the box with a "build for | XBox/Switch/PlayStation button" even in Unreal you'll | need the platform SDK installed and wired up which is | documented from the Unreal side, but not provided, you | have to get all the other half from the console vendor. | throwuxiytayq wrote: | ...no console support, then. | | > no game engine ships out of the box with a "build for | XBox/Switch/PlayStation button" | | Nobody's putting the bar this high. I just want console | support, I don't care much if I need to log in to | Nintendo's website to download it. I'll need to go there | to publish the game _either way_. | | > in Unreal you'll need the platform SDK installed and | wired up which is documented from the Unreal side, but | not provided, you have to get all the other half from the | console vendor. | | Sounds absolutely fantastic, can I get that for Godot? | ajdude wrote: | > no game engine ships out of the box with a "build for | XBox/Switch/PlayStation button" | | It looks like GameMaker Studio's Enterprise version does | this, albeit for 2d games (and it's $800/year). | | https://gamemaker.io/en/blog/export-with-gamemaker | | https://gamemaker.io/en/blog/nintendo-switch-now- | available | ThatPlayer wrote: | Sure but the lack of transparent pricing is not | appealing. As far as I can tell Unreal's Playstation/Xbox | support is free on the engine side once you sign the | console SDK stuff. Unity's comes with their Unity Pro | subscription, which has a known price. | | How much does the console Godot engine cost me? | datavirtue wrote: | There are other issues. By all means, try it out! | japhib wrote: | This, right after laying off HUNDREDS of staff ... | | Source: https://kotaku.com/unity-ironsource-merger-ad-tech- | layoffs-1... | taken_username wrote: | It seems acquisition and merger wave of failed SPACs is started. | I think we will see many of these in the upcoming months. | Schweigi wrote: | IronSource went public last year via SPAC at over $10B of | market cap. The merger or rather aquisition? happens now at | $4B. Definitely a big loss for many of the investors and most | likely a lot of the employees who couldn't get out fast enough. | phendrenad2 wrote: | Still, if you're going to catch a falling knife, best to do | so before it hits the floor. | drusepth wrote: | A falling knife has no handle. It's always best to catch | the knife after it's settled on the ground. ;) | stephc_int13 wrote: | Why is it adverstised as a merge and not an acquisition? | | ironSource is a much smaller company than Unity, if I am not | mistaken. | bigtones wrote: | They're just labelling it a merger for optics - it's absolutely | an acquisition with one party buying the other. | mmacvicarprett wrote: | As of today, unity is worth 10-12bi, Ironsrc intended to go | public at around 11bi last year, now they are being acquired | at 4.4bi. Ironsrc main competitor, AppLovin is worth 12bi. | Ironsrc 2021 revenue was 553m, Unity revenue was 1.1bi. | However, Ironsrc had a net income of 21m and Unity had a net | loss of 531m. Both hold around 0.7bi and 1bi in cash | respectively. | | So is Ironsrc much smaller? I do not think so. | thsbrown wrote: | I agree, however I'm curious what the incentive for calling | it a merge is? Is it part of the deal with ironSource? | | Do they, for some reason think that merge sounds better then | acquired? Because I'm in the camp that acquired would be more | appealing. | datavirtue wrote: | Merger sounds much better to the employees of Iron source. | techdragon wrote: | Does anyone there actually care about that... based on | the history behind the company (well documented by other | commentators on this story here) I can't imagine | management give a flying fuck about anything or anyone, | except the money. | Jasper_ wrote: | This whole press release was written for the executives | of both companies, maybe the shareholders, but certainly | not the employees, and definitely not the public. | psyc wrote: | The optics are atrocious for Unity. | kareemsabri wrote: | But a merger is a different thing. Can you just say you're a | merger if you're not _merging_ two entities to form a new | entity? | xg15 wrote: | Alright, "temporary challenges due to macroeconomic factors" will | definitely go on this year's bullshit shortlist. | drusepth wrote: | Been using Unity for almost 2 years. Had no wavering when Unreal | demoed lumen, metahumans, etc, nor when Unity doubled down on | mobile games (even though it's not my market). I've always liked | how Unity doesn't respond to what other engines are doing and | instead has just forged forward with what they've always worked | toward; it's always been ol' reliable in terms of functionality | and future. | | However, I don't know how to interpret this in any other way than | an exit plan for Unity. It's not an aquisition of ironSource, but | a merger; this alone is a big change, but the release itself | paints a clear picture of a complete reversal for unity: rather | than being a capable dev tool for all platforms + non-games, it | looks like they're now going to focus entirely on mobile and non- | game applications? That's finally enough for me to consider a new | engine (probably Unreal, maybe Godot). | | I'm not inherently against whatever this hand-wavy solution to | "first create; then monetize" is they're proposing, even though | it'll 100% result in more low-effort, highly-monetized games that | already plague the industry. I still have a lot of faith in Unity | as a company and a paradigm pivot like this _could_ result in | something new if they play their cards right but... this being a | merger puts a big question mark on what cards they 'll have left | to play when merging their deck with ironSource. | | In short: there's a small chance this news will be very good | long-term, but a high chance this news will turn out very bad for | the future of Unity and unity devs that don't want to work with | the kind of scammy monetization ironSource is known for. | throwawaycuriou wrote: | I don't recognize this company anymore. What a gibberish | announcement. Their game engine is hardly discussed. Apparently | the future is ads on mobile apps. | vvillena wrote: | Not the future. It's the present, and the reason behind this | acquisition. | | I agree, it's a bit sad to see. | thsbrown wrote: | As a game developer with a released mobile game made with | Unity I'll admit I had very mixed feelings about the news. | | On one end it makes me wonder if Unity has it's priorities | straight. On the other, I think there is definitely a lot of | room for improvement with their own ad solution. Not too | mention in order to fund any further improvements in the | engine Unity needs to make money. Given that they produce no | games of their own, it makes sense that they are expanding | and improving their suite of services in order to bring in | more revenue. | | At least that's my hope. Unity has been in a rocky place for | a while now (straddling the line between what it is and what | it wants to be) and I think news like this combined with the | layoffs can lead many to wonder if Unity is still committed | to making a world class game engine that can grow with them | for years to come. | Jensson wrote: | > Unity has been in a rocky place for a while now | (straddling the line between what it is and what it wants | to be) | | Yeah, they tried to compete with Unreal for some reason, | and of course they lost. And when doing so they made the | engine worse for small creators. For example it got a lot | slower after they changed the asset database in the 2019.3 | version, it feels horrible to use after that and just | creating a new project now takes minutes. | jayd16 wrote: | As a game dev and not a small creator I'd say Unity feels | far more consistent and bug free, both editor and | runtime. I can't say it's much faster but I wouldn't say | it's slower. | Jensson wrote: | I profiled this before and after the change using the | same code files, the asset reload time is definitely much | slower, and asset reloads also triggers a lot of times | unnecessarily, often it reloads assets once when you | select the editor window, and then it triggers another | reload when you hit play, and then it triggers another | reload when you end play, effectively reloading the code | three times every time you change anything and test. This | doesn't always happen, but it never happened before the | change for the same code, maybe you can work around it | but it isn't obvious what is causing it. The engine isn't | slower, but the editor is much slower. | | It might be that this improved some things for larger | teams, but for the projects I've worked on it was a huge | downgrade. Unity marketing said this change would speed | things up for large projects, but for small projects with | small assets and mostly code things got much much slower | than before, which was my point that when they try to | compete with unreal they are making the editor worse for | smaller creators. | | I'm not the only one experiencing problems, here is a | thread: | | https://forum.unity.com/threads/assetdatabase-v2-refresh- | sig... | | Wasn't fixed last time I checked. Might be fixed in some | beta release. | jayd16 wrote: | What do you mean by a reload, exactly? If the asset isn't | changed it won't be re-imported. If you're seeing | erroneous reimports, then that is something you can track | explicitly. | | If you're talking about code compiles or script reloads, | that's not really what the asset database deals with. | (Although you can script imports so its not entirely | unrelated). | | That said, they did a lot of work to allow you to handle | larger projects with (albeit manual) incremental | compilations with asmdefs and the like. | | I'm also pretty sure they also didn't add more code | reload points, they just added load bars for when they | did the code reloads. If you don't want the code to | refresh automatically, you can just turn it off. | Jensson wrote: | > If you're talking about code compiles or script | reloads, that's not really what the asset database deals | with. | | Editor profiler says the asset database v2's | AssetDatabase.Refresh calls a function named roughly | ~"reload all assemblies". That happens every time you add | an empty line to a default code file and at many other | times. This didn't happen before, and that is where it | spends most of its time. | | > That said, they did a lot of work to allow you to | handle larger projects with (albeit manual) incremental | compilations with asmdefs and the like. | | I haven't been able to work around this with asmdefs, if | you use an assembly then changing any file in it trigger | the above mentioned code reload. | | > I'm also pretty sure they also didn't add more code | reload points, they just added load bars for when they | did the code reloads. | | Editor is unresponsive for longer. I know they added more | bars, but it is hard to mistake an edit/play cycle taking | a second in 2019.1 and then taking 10 seconds in 2020.3 | in the same project. | | > If you don't want the code to refresh automatically, | you can just turn it off. | | I want things to reload automatically, disabling that is | not a fix. | Pulcinella wrote: | It feels like they tried to compete with Unreal in the | same way that Apple tries to enter gaming: very half- | hearted attempts that they think are very serious. With | Apple it's "hey look we are a serious gaming platform. | Look we have 3 new APIs just to support gaming and we | paid a AA/AAA developer to port their game eventually" | and with Unity it's "Hey we can compete with Unreal. Look | we even have new render pipelines with some of the | features Unreal has and we bought Weta for some reason. | Look we even put out a demo that barely works that we | will never update showing just how graphically advanced | Unity can be." They both think these meager attempts are | actually some great effort when it actually requires | large investments of time and money to get where they say | they want to go. E.g. Microsoft buying their way into the | console market with the original Xbox. Basically just | hemorrhaging money for an entire console generation so | they could finally compete the next generation with the | 360. | sorry_outta_gas wrote: | microsoft could afford it though | Narishma wrote: | And Apple can't? | chipotle_coyote wrote: | Apple's gaming "strategy" -- air quotes seem mandatory -- | continues to baffle me. It's as if every year or two they | put more pieces into place for a future that never comes. | | (I'll believe they're serious about gaming when they | release their own port of Vulkan.) | datalopers wrote: | IronSource is known for leveraging their ad network and | installers to distribute spam, malware, and adware bundlers. What | the fuck Unity. | | [1] https://www.benedelman.org/news-021815/ | | [2] https://blog.infostruction.com/2018/10/26/adware-empire- | iron... | moralestapia wrote: | >IronSource is known for leveraging their ad network and | installers to distribute spam, malware, and adware bundlers. | What the fuck Unity. | | Big company that makes money, wants to make even more money. Is | this a new thing for you? | returnInfinity wrote: | So its flash player all over again? | failrate wrote: | Oh, yeah, Unity is in the "PE folks are wearing your | organization as a skin suit" phase. | munificent wrote: | What an absolutely perfect turn of phrase. | edmcnulty101 wrote: | Thats funny | PoignardAzur wrote: | "PE folks"? | umeshunni wrote: | Private Equity | potatochup wrote: | Private Equity | kinnth wrote: | I'd say that's almost all mobile ad networks, as it's not the | network themselves but the ads. | | This is good for both companies as Irnsrc gets deeper down the | stack in terms of data and targeting and unity gets more spend | flowing into their systems increasing their efficiency. | | Too bad the IDFA issue is slowly killing all forms of | performance advertising. Unity should be looking to buy studios | akin to Unreal IMO. | bdefore wrote: | In the second link above, a Bing ad is presented to download | Chrome while describing a domain of "www.google.com" but when | clicked takes the user to googleonline2018.com ... maybe my | expectations are out of date, but how is that possible? The | otherwise excellent article doesn't explain. | | edit: was the second, not first link. this one: | https://blog.infostruction.com/2018/10/26/adware-empire-iron... | franga2000 wrote: | What do you mean by "describing"? If you mean the thingy in | the bottom of your screen when you hover over a link, this is | trivial to fake and Google itself is the largest user of this | "feature". In a Google search, right click a link and copy | it, then paste it somewhere. It will be a long ugly | google.com tracking URL, even though what your browser showed | you in the hover display was the link to the actual website. | AinderS wrote: | > the thingy in the bottom of your screen when you hover | over a link, this is trivial to fake | | Sounds like a security flaw. Why don't browsers patch it? | Liru wrote: | Because the company that most benefits from it existing | also makes the world's most used browser. | AinderS wrote: | What about other browsers? | franga2000 wrote: | Short of preventing JS from triggering redirects, I don't | see a way they could, and that's a pretty important | feature in modern web apps. | antiframe wrote: | I tested it in Firefox and Chrome. While they both | display a spoofed URL in the status bar when hovered, | they differ if you right-click the link. In Chrome, | nothing changes. In Firefox the status bar string changes | to the actual, not spoofed URL. | | At least in Firefox, one can check easily what the actual | URL is before clicking without having to copy-paste | elsewhere. | antiframe wrote: | Interesting. I had not known that. I tested it in Firefox | and Chrome. While they both display a spoofed URL in the | status bar when hovered, they differ if you right-click the | link. In Chrome, nothing changes. In Firefox the status bar | string changes to the actual, not spoofed URL. | | At least in Firefox, one can check easily what the actual | URL is before clicking without having to copy-paste | elsewhere. | kyle-rb wrote: | I'm seeing that Firefox behavior in Chrome. | | It seems to rewrite the link when it gets a mousedown | event. Once I right-click, or if I left-click and then | drag (to avoid an actual page navigation), the new | hovered URL is the google.com/<tracking> version. | | Also this only seems to apply to search ads/promoted | results. Organic search results don't get rewritten, and | copying and pasting a link address gives me the expected | destination URL. | bdefore wrote: | Sorry i misstated, it was the article at the second link | from post i responded to. first image of that post, under | where it says 'Get Chrome - Download Chrome Today' there is | a green text that shows www.google.com. I thought that was | enforced by the search engine and not able to be | manipulated. | | At the risk of insinuating too much, there is a concerning | incentive for Bing to provide corrupt links to Chrome. | kyle-rb wrote: | That definitely seems like a major flaw with Bing's | search ads. They should be either deriving that green | domain name, or verifying it matches the link, or at | least verifying that you own that domain. | | I can't find a current Bing search ad whose green domain | name doesn't match the domain of the destination of the | link. Hopefully they've fixed this by now. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Oh well, there's always Godot. | linspace wrote: | What a pity Epic is not publicly traded, I just checked if it | was possible to buy stock | JyB wrote: | > What the fuck Unity. | | Quite right | bdefore wrote: | Unity has learned all the wrong lessons. Their success was | largely from the verdant asset store and the asset developers | who augmented a creaky platform with wonderful and useful tools | to shorten development time. They never figured out how to | maintain sane compatibility for these tools version to version, | nor a way to sustain and compensate these authors. Which brings | us to today: a shady acquisition to sneak malware tech into | games while they continue to neglect the community that made | them who they are. | mordae wrote: | Good times for Godot, nice! | extrememacaroni wrote: | People keep bringing up Godot but there's no way around the | fact that it feels like some guy's homebrew engine through | and through, especially once you try to use the native C++ | side. But you don't really need to get that far to realize | how janky it is. You can't even delete assets that may or | may not be used in scenes without running into errors and | warnings that may be benign but eat away at your trust that | things will still work fine later down the line. | | The GUI tools are atrocious compared to Unity's and they | fail at the most important thing: make sure that when you | play the game the GUI looks exactly the same as in the | designer. There's also some weird jank with the GUI, where | you have to reload the scene to see some changes being | applied (like, imagine setting some property in, say, a | winform, and having to close and reopen the winform's | editor to see it actually having an effect, wtf) but I | don't think it's limited to the GUI, I forgot what those | were exactly. But there's no indication that you need to | reload the scene, you google the problem and the answer is | "reload the scene". | | There's a loooooooong way to go for Godot to reach Unity's | level. They'd have to essentially become the next Blender, | which I use as the benchmark for open source community | driven projects. | | Godot == Unity at home. | | The best thing about it is that you have access to the | source for free, so you can fix bugs yourself. "We may run | into issues three years down the line with the project but | at least we can fix them ourselves". How attractive this | sounds to you depends, I assume serious developers who want | to build large games for profit, will choose either Unity | or Unreal because they're expected to work better overall. | hesdeadjim wrote: | This * 1000. | | I'd love to meet a single person on this site who has | used Godot to ship a commercial game of any note. Ship a | Godot game on macOS 11+/iOS 13+/tvOS | 13+/PC/Linux/Switch/PS4/PS5/Xbox and then come tell me | how it went. Godot is basically completely unproven for a | game requiring this level of release support. | | I feel like a Unity apologist sometimes, but what options | are there? If your studio doesn't have high level | competency with Unreal, committing to a project using it | adds an immense amount of risk. | | This merger is a real kick in the gut for me, but I'm all | in with Unity and I can't afford to bet my studio on an | Unreal switch without _major_ partner financial support. | nrjames wrote: | Not a game, but my understanding is that the 3D elements | and renderings of traffic in the Tesla (and Tesla app) is | made with Godot. | [deleted] | omoikane wrote: | Maybe not the best example, but Sonic Colors had Godot in | it: | | https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/pi1ioo/son | ic_... | | https://twitter.com/falessandrelli/status/143385695747621 | 684... | SXX wrote: | For the time being Godot going to be PC-first game engine | and our 10-people studio dont have any issues building | for Windows/macOS/Linux. Test imports for web work | amazingly well, but we dont need it. | | Lack of console support is just limitation of what can be | done with open source code since even SDKs for consoles | are under NDA. I guess if you building project for | consoles then you have to look elsewhere. | | You are not wrong in any way. At the same time there are | plenty of small teams that can work with Godot and build | some fun games using it. | extrememacaroni wrote: | The lack of console support comes especially from the | fact that there's no company behind godot itself that can | become a licensed Nintendo developer for example. | | There are other companies that can port your godot games | to consoles and publish them, but in the stores the games | will be listed as theirs not yours. If you're an indie | without a publisher, that's probably not a big deal. | Although it would be if it were me, I'd want the game to | be listed under my own name, not someone else's, | especially if a player might start to avoid games | published by X because they played games they did not | like in the past. But if you're already backed by a | publisher, that will probably not fly. | SXX wrote: | I will just add a note about publishers: if your project | is not using Unreal / Unity most huge publishers just | wont be interested. It has nothing to do with Godot | console support or anything else about Godot itself. | | Basically all big publishers have their own pipeline and | in-house teams for porting / QA / certification and it's | all built around Unity or Unreal. So it's all about | market share. | | So yeah choosing Godot will certainly limit your options | in terms of what publishers might fund your project. | georgeecollins wrote: | I think all the reservations about Godot are valid, but | let me offer my perspective. In 1996-1997 I remember | meeting with Epic to evaluate their engine in develop for | a game a AAA game at Activision. I remember in the late | aughts (like 09?) being asked to evaluate Unity for a VC | that was considering investments and wondering how much | commercial developers would actually use it. | | These engines are all risky until they aren't. And Godot | certainly seems at the tipping point of adoption. Also, | all game engines have strengths and weaknesses so that | you would want to use Unity or Unreal in many particular | cases for a long time. But Godot also has some strengths, | not the least of which is that it is open source. | | The key thing I would watch is the transition to 4.0 and | Vulkan. That seems like a point at which they can either | pick up momentum or lose it. The SDK problem for consoles | can easily be solved by contractors / middleware if there | is enough good games to make it worth the time to bother. | boredtofears wrote: | What is it about the 4.0/vulkan transition that you view | as being important? | georgeecollins wrote: | I like the engine but I don't think it is super | competitive in 3d. For example, to use it on Quest you | have to use GLES2, which is missing a number of features. | Quest 2 is a mobile GPU, so you aren't going to be state | of the art but I have seen more games that seem to | squeeze more performance out using Unreal on that | platform. Hopefully the switch to Vulkan will help them | get better 3d performance on mobile gpus. | | There are a ton of changes in the works from Godot 3. to | 4. One of the biggest problems with Unity, in my | experience is compatibility as the engine moves forward | in versions. You always see projects that are stuck on | older versions of Unity because the team doesn't have the | time to make the changes so it works with the new | version. In general I haven't seen that as a big issue | for Godot. Code for old versions seems to run on new | versions. But I have never seen a jump as big as the one | to 4.0. The question I am wondering is will they be able | to make that many changes to the engine and have it be | reasonable to transition projects. | boredtofears wrote: | They can't be universally true can it? I know Hades is | built on a basically in-house engine, and I think it | released on all platforms simultaneously... then again | that studio might not even qualify as "indie" especially | now... are custom engines like that really that rare | nowadays? | Jensson wrote: | Supergiant games doesn't have a publisher, they publish | it themselves so they can do whatever they want. I don't | really consider them indie, to me "indie" is when the | people developing it are also the people funding | development, meaning people make choices without worrying | about what others opinions. | | As for self made engines, if you make it yourself then | that is a risk. If you make it in unity or unreal then | the publisher knows they can easily find people to help | you ship it if there are problems, but for a self made | engine it could be unsalvageable. | hesdeadjim wrote: | And don't get me wrong, I am 100% cheering Godot on long- | term. Same with the Bevy ECS. | | Options are great, it's just that the first adopters have | to pay the hardest price when they want to ship a game | using it. If I were doing the indie thing still, I'd | consider Godot. | CJefferson wrote: | Have you actually released a game using Godot? If so, can | you share a link? | SXX wrote: | Link is in my profile. Our game gonna be released this | year after ~3 years in development. It's fully funded by | a publisher and close to gold master. | | Feel free to ask whatever about development process :-) | dagmx wrote: | For what it's worth, Godot is actually used quite a bit | for gambling machine games. I've got a few friends who | work for companies in that space doing the art. | gg2222 wrote: | I second this opinion. As a (non-hobbyist) game | developer, I started my current game with Godot, but | after running into many issues including performance | which was the final dealbreaker, I decided to port the | whole game to Unity. | | Finally I could focus on developing the game rather than | running into engine related issues and limitations and | having access to all the time saving assets in the Asset | Store was (literally) game changing. Having the Asset | Store is a whole new world. And as a dev with funds, | paying for assets to save weeks of time was a no brainer. | | Back to Godot, yes deleting stuff in Godot is pretty | scary cause there is (or at least was) no way to know | what effects/errors it could cause. | | GUI system (at least last time I used it) was very | unfortunately not well designed making it extremely hard | to get consistent positionings. I feel it's so bad that | just using HTML+CSS would be better cause then it would | be possible to confidently put things and keep them where | you want to. | | And yes, overall as someone who has also used the C++ | side, it does feel like some guy's homebrew engine. I | felt things weren't as solidly designed as they could be. | And this is talking about foundational stuff. | | The C++ source code is really not modern C++ (or you | could call it anti-modern C++). | | I would not advise anyone to develop a game on it if your | livelihood depended on your game's success. | | Of course people can and will prove me wrong by still | powering through and creating a successful game with it, | but your time is better spent using a more mature engine | like Unity or Unreal. | | Even if you want to get your hands dirty and help fix | bugs or add features to the engine, there is no guarantee | that your PR will be merged. | | Game development is probably the most riskiest type of | software development already business-wise. No need to up | your risk. | | Of course if you are a hobby indie dev and do it just for | the enjoyment of building things, then no problem. | | As for Godot's future ... well it's been many, many | years, but if I understand correctly they're mainly still | working on 3D rendering features. There are tons of other | areas that are still the same with the same limitations | as they were years (5 years+) ago. I think with not so | solid foundation and the pace of development, it will | take many many years if ever to catch up to Unity. | | I do like the way Godot engine does some things and I do | hope for it's success as competition is always good. I | just don't have much faith in it from what I've seen. I | do hope I will be proven wrong though. | [deleted] | brundolf wrote: | > You can't even [common action] without running into | errors and warnings that may be benign but eat away at | your trust that things will still work fine later down | the line. | | To be fair, in my experience this is par for the course | in Unity too | noobermin wrote: | Caveat, this is a meta post. I'm not a gamedev (not | professionally at least), and don't have experience in | either. | | This reminds me of something I rant about often, linux | naysayers on HN. Because of them, I tried buying a | macbook in 2015 and had some of my most frustrating | experiences in my life, culminating in a talk for a | national conference I had to redo on a friends windows | laptop in half an hour because it failed to display on | the projector. Turns out the HN crowd who kept saying | "mac is unix like linux but better since it's not a | bazaar open source mess" aren't always right after all. | | People have some bad experiences with X product where X | product is often open source and being open source | explains the bad experiences. However, when Y product | also offers similar bad experiences (and even worse ones) | but they paper over it in their minds because "it just | happens" although it's probably just because they're used | to it. Repeat for photoshop and gimp (my SO is an | animator and adobe products crashing is a common | experience, as is redoing work in case a save was | forgotten), linux and mac, etc. | | Anyway, I'm not a gamedev, I just see a similar pattern | and it's hard not to notice. | entropicdrifter wrote: | As a Linux user on my daily drivers and a Mac user on my | work-issued machine, I agree with this sentiment | completely. Linux has weird issues a good amount of the | time if you're trying to do unusual stuff, but so do | Windows and Mac, and on those platforms you're less | equipped to pop the hood and fix the underlying issue. | sfteus wrote: | I have to agree with this. I moved off Windows into Linux | as a daily driver mainly due to issues with docker | support (pre WSL2, but even that had filesystem issues | the last time I tried to used it). I recently accepted a | new position that provided a Mac M1 and it's just a | generally frustrating experience comparatively. | Specifically, anything that involving keyboard directed | window management is either non-existent or flaky at | best, and a ton of functionality that it just | inconsistent with the rest of the OS / applications (why | is a separate fullscreen the default functionality, and | why can you no longer Alt-Tab + Cmd + Tilde to a window | that's been made fullscreen if you have a second non- | fullscreen window open?). | | Maybe my flow just isn't compatible with the OS (it feels | very visual + mouse oriented), but between a previous ~2 | year stint with another Mac-only job and these ~3 months, | about the only thing I have to say that's positive about | the OS is the spaces feature. | | And like you mentioned, even when I had an ambiguous | error on Linux, there was usually enough information to | find a similar enough problem online to at least narrow | down what I should investigate. | lostdog wrote: | Yeah, Mac's UI of spaces/desktops is so busted that it | usually takes me a couple tries to get the window I want. | I've also watched another user lose track of every window | that goes fullscreen. | light_hue_1 wrote: | I'm surprised you would say that Godot has more bugs than | Unity. Unity is an endless fountain of bugs that keeps on | giving when you least expect it. | | Godot does lack some features. But that depends entirely | on the kind of game you're aiming for. The 2D market like | RimWorld could easily move to Godot. | | On that note. UI skinning isn't a feature that's lacking | in Godot. https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorial | s/ui/gui_skin... If you easily implement that screenshot | what prevents anyone from matching any designer's dreams? | SXX wrote: | > The 2D market like RimWorld could easily move to Godot. | | I really all for Godot and our team have positive | experience with it, but I think that it's will be hard to | mantain game that is heavy on simulation with a lot of | moving parts. Might be Godot 4.x will get improved | profiler, but for now it's really lacking. | | So unless you move everything into C++ I dont think | you'll manage good performance in Dwarf-Fortress-like | simulation game. Though might be I overeastimate how much | simulation / physics game like RimWorld require. | entropicdrifter wrote: | Personally, as a professional programmer who's interested | in developing a Dwarf-Fortress-like sim game as a side | project, I've been keeping an eye on Bevy as an open- | source game engine that would likely have good | performance for a sim game with lots of moving parts. | Being a Rust-based ECS game engine lends itself to a lot | of potential for heavy parallelization, which you'd need | to maximize that sort of number crunching performance on | a modern CPU | Jensson wrote: | You can implement the heavy stuff in C++/Rust, compile it | to a dll and import it into whatever engine you want. The | hardest part about making a game like dwarf fortress is | to implement a good UI, making it run fast is much easier | and shouldn't be a priority when selecting engine. Game | engine performance is mostly about rendering and not your | custom simulation code. | Macha wrote: | I mean, there's rimworld for an example of "dwarf | fortress with better UI but slower simulation". | Commercially it's worked out for them, but I do find | myself wishing for the scale of DF when playing rimworld. | The new game UI does warn you away from even the larger | map sizes they do have implemented though. | Jensson wrote: | Rimworld implemented their simulation using unity | objects, if they wanted to increase scale they could | rewrite it to run the simulations in custom code and thus | run just as fast as dwarf fortress. Or faster if you | parallelize it well. Then they could just look at the | world state and render that every frame, which is super | cheap since its just a bunch of 2d objects and a bit of | text. | light_hue_1 wrote: | > I think that it's will be hard to mantain game that is | heavy on simulation with a lot of moving parts... C++ | | I don't see why that would be. Godot has bindings for all | sorts of languages including C#. Why would it be any | harder to write C# code with Godot bindings than C# code | with Unity bindings? | SXX wrote: | Problem is not to write GDScript or C# code in Godot, but | profiling and performance optimizations: toolset of the | engine is really lacking in this area so it's really hard | to find out what are major bottlenecks are and what is | eating most of frame time. | | Godot profiler for their "scripting" be it GDScript or C# | is a dumpster fire. If you have a lot of objects and non- | obvious performance drops it's really hard to find them. | | In case you use C++ you will be able to use mature | profilers for C++ projects like built-in one in Visual | Studio or Xcode, Valgrind on Linux or some 3rd-party | solution like Intel XE Studio. All of them are just | 10000% better than what Godot have at this moment. | light_hue_1 wrote: | > Godot profiler for their "scripting" be it GDScript or | C# is a dumpster fire. ... In case you use C++ you will | be able to use mature profilers | | Why couldn't you use your regular mature C# profiler like | you do anywhere else? It's officially supported. Both the | mono profiler and JetBrains work. | | > In case you use C++ you will be able to use mature | profilers for C++ projects like built-in one in Visual | Studio or Xcode, Valgrind on Linux or some 3rd-party | solution like Intel XE Studio. All of them are just | 10000% better than what Godot have at this moment. | | You can do exactly that right now. Use the C++ profiler | to find hotspots in Godot and the C# profiler to find | hotspots in your code. | SXX wrote: | I can easily answer both of your questions. Because I | obviously want to know how much time exactly game code | takes together: both engine and "scripting". Using weird | combinations of two different profilers is not a good day | to work on code. Both Unreal and Unity have proper usable | profilers and Godot doesnt. | | Also unfortunately our project is usingGDScript and there | is no profiler for it. | SXX wrote: | Okay I will share some of my own experience over almost 2 | years working with Godot / GDScript. We're building 2D | pixel art game for Steam. We're fully funded by publisher | and have a team of 10 people with 3 programmers. We have | around 100KLOC codebase with a lot of game mechanics. | | Primary downside of using Godot for commercial | development is lack of official console support. | Everything else will vary from project to project since | every game is different. Godot have bunch of weird | limitations, lack of proper virtual filesystem (e.g | boost::filesystem anyone?), really shitty profiler, some | weak UI / UX in editor some of which can be easily | compansated by using VSCode. | | At the same time I can certainly say that you can make | proper commercial game using Godot. Engine is stable, | performance is not the best, but okay. Will it work for | everyone? Probably not, but again it works for us. | | PS: I also glad to advertise few Godot projects that are | not mine, but I find them really enjoyable (check profile | if you curios about project I work on): | | https://store.steampowered.com/app/1637320/Dome_Keeper/ | | https://store.steampowered.com/app/1953670/Quetzal/ | uwuemu wrote: | > some weak UI / UX in editor some of which can be easily | compansated by using VSCode | | ?? | | What exactly can be compensated for with a code editor? | 75% of the value of a "modern engine" is in its tools... | with something like Unreal it may be close to 90%. Level | editors, object browsers, geometry editing, animation | editors, rigging, particle editors, material and UV | editors, physics/navigation/ai system and their | editors... the list goes on and on. Gameplay code is | something you'll either do in visual scripting (UE | blueprint) or in an external IDE. Any engine-level coding | will be done in an external C++ IDE (Visual Studio). | So... I can't imagine what exactly VSCode compensates | for? | cain wrote: | The limitations of Godot's in-engine text editor can be | compensated by a more powerful external editor: VScode, | emacs, vim, etc. An example would be the lack of | remappable keybindings: this can be overcome by using an | external editor. | EamonnMR wrote: | But the strength of Godit's native scripting is its | integration with the rest of the editor. Can the vscode | plugin match that? | | I find the Godot native editor annoying (and it lacks vi | keys!) amd clunky and long for multiple tabs but it | increases productivity enough that I wouldn't give it up. | cain wrote: | I can't speak to the strengths of the VScode plugin, but | if it's anything like the emacs gdscript plugin (which I | use with Spacemacs + vi keybindings), then the | integration is very tight. I get just as much completion | as I do in the in-engine editor, I can | run/debug/breakpoint etc. I've been using it for ~2 | years. | johnnyanmac wrote: | > I assume serious developers who want to build large | games for profit, will choose either Unity or Unreal | because they're expected to work better overall. | | they'd ultimately choose them because of support more | than jank, to be honest. They care less about the ability | to fix a bug 3 years down the line than the ability to | phone up engine experts they don't have to directly hire | to fix it for them. | | I'm assuming Godot doesn't have such support past | enthusiast forums. | hesdeadjim wrote: | Yep, I bought enterprise support for my studio for | exactly this reason. | | Great example: Apple updates Xcode to 14, which includes | some undocumented change to Clang that ends up completely | breaking Burst static initialization. Unity's fault? | Nope. But they fixed it quickly. When Godot breaks, glfh, | that's on you. | Pulcinella wrote: | Is this something that happened or an example of | something the could happen? I mainly target Apple's | platforms and while moves like this don't leave me | feeling confident about Unity, the acrimony and legal | battles between Apple and Epic (and Epic's level of | support for development on Max, especially ARM Mac)leaves | me feeling even less confident about switching to Unreal. | darkteflon wrote: | I think Epic's doing a pretty reasonable job of | distinguishing between Apple, and people that develop on | its engine on Apple machines. The 5.0.2 release, for | example, had loads of MacOS-specific fixes. There are | compromises versus developing on Windows, of course - you | lose hardware Lumen, for example. No native AS support | either yet, but it runs okay through Rosetta depending on | what you're doing. | [deleted] | hesdeadjim wrote: | Yep, real: https://forum.unity.com/threads/burst- | xcode-13-3-builds-for-... | adamrezich wrote: | but also, maybe it's a good time to try dropping the scene | graph/ECS way of doing things--there _are_ other ways to | make video games! | JoeyJoJoJr wrote: | I'm a big fan of immediate mode rendering. Unfortunately | not a lot of engines/tools/libraries support this way of | working. | nomel wrote: | > there are other ways to make video games! | | Any interesting, practical, examples? | adamrezich wrote: | I'm having trouble understanding the question--there's | plenty of open-source games that do not use ECS or a | Unity-style scene graph. this mode of thinking being the | default is relatively recent in the history of video game | development. if you've never tried something like that | before, PICO-8 might be a good starting point. this blog | post might also prove useful: | https://www.gamedev.net/blogs/entry/2265481-oop-is-dead- | long... | ensignavenger wrote: | Another option that is still young (young as an Open Source | project, but has a lot of historic development behind it) | is O3DE (https://www.o3de.org/) I think this has a lot of | potential if it gets enough attention and development. | fyrn- wrote: | sauntheninja wrote: | The compatibility between versions has always bit me when | trying to learn unity. I find a tutorial on a short game and | when I try to open that in Unity its incompatible with a | newer version and you have to then go browse unity forums for | an answer | BoorishBears wrote: | I'd argue the asset store was the beginning of the (very | slow) end. | | Before the asset store Unity's community was a hotbed of | openly shared innovation. | | The moment Unity gave people an easy way to slap together | what would have been a quick post to the forums with a | webplayer link, some code samples and a few paragraphs | explaining it... into a paid package that sells for $5... | that ended quickly. | | And the worst part is, the skillset to manage a paid library | is not the same one needed to develop some cool tech! There | are so _so_ many packages on the asset store that are | practically abandoned, or poorly suited for integration into | someone else 's codebase (some people have no issue with | warnings everywhere in their code for example...), or are | poorly documented, or will break on any platform that wasn't | the original dev's personal machine. The list goes on. | | - | | I don't have anything against indie game devs making money, I | know the struggle of slaving away at something and ending up | broke for your trouble... but I really wish the asset store | had been restricted to game assets like 3D models, sounds, | etc. | | It's not like people wouldn't be able to sell their code then | either. It's just before the asset store if you wanted to | create a paid distributed library, the inertia you'd have to | overcome was a pretty good filter against low-effort | attempts. There were still successful libraries that were | worked on full time and sold as products | SXX wrote: | You could guess how Unity will end up after John Riccitiello | became it's CEO. After all Electronic Arts was one of most | hated anti-consumer companies ever. | m463 wrote: | Unity is pretty screwed up too. | | GOG.com sells games that do not have DRM and are generally not | evil. | | But the unity games on the platform - they all phone home and | send back detailed telemetry on what you do in-game. (I also | know paradox games are a mess too) | | Thankfully the GOG terms allow you to install and run the games | offline without requiring these shenanigans to play your game. | | I'm not versed on all the multiplayer subtleties. | shmatt wrote: | I've interviewed IronSource employees who showed me their work. | I was pretty shocked at how purely evil the products intent was | (malware wrapped installers for popular Windows applications). | And this is in Israel, so you regularly interview people from | NSO and similar companies, but at least they can claim to be | part of "The War On Terror". | | IronSource doesn't even have that as an excuse | weatherlite wrote: | m3kw9 wrote: | Any relation to IronDome? | rmbyrro wrote: | Depending on who you ask, it's actually "war for terror" | jacooper wrote: | > And this is in Israel, so you regularly interview people | from NSO and similar companies, but at least they can claim | to be part of "The War On Terror". | | Help empowering the Apartheid occupation would be a more | accurate reason. | andrepd wrote: | > but at least they can claim to be part of "The War On | Terror". | | Can't decide if that makes it better or worse x) | golemiprague wrote: | Terror might not be the main issue in Israel these days as | it was for example around 2000 but it still happens and the | reason it doesn't happen as much is partly due to those | efforts. The main issue is that there are still entities in | the region openly claiming that they want to destroy the | country and turn it into another Arab country, most of the | military efforts are against this threat. There is no need | to judge it cynically as if we are talking now about the US | or some European country going half way across the world to | destroy some countries as part of the "war on terror". | stelonix wrote: | There are still entities in the region oppressed by the | Israel regime too, human beings whose land has been | taken, journalists, children, civilians in general | murdered by their army, a belligerent stance on their | neighbors, known nuclear weapons... The list could go on | and on, but there's no way to put Israel on some noble | pedestal, it's a powerful first world nuclear power | oppressing people on their doorsteps. | alternatetwo wrote: | Let's also not forget that the Mossad murdered an | innocent civilian by shooting him 13 times in front of | his pregnant wife in Norway: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair | throwaway894345 wrote: | Who are the angels in the region? Which other countries | in the region tolerate women, LGBT, and Jews? | mort96 wrote: | Well, at least it opens the possibility that the employee | _thinks_ they're fighting the good fight, even if they're | misguided. You can imagine the kind of person who thinks | they're making the world a better place by working on | technology to "fight terrorism". I don't think there exists | a single person who genuinely thinks they're making the | world a better place by installing malware onto innocent | users' computers to earn money; you know for a fact that | the employees who work on that stuff are morally bankrupt. | atwood22 wrote: | "Not only is this work evil, it also involves wasting 8 | trillion dollars and killing civilians" | progbits wrote: | Slightly off topic: in [2] the first screenshot showing | "download chrome" query in Bing - do I understand right that | the green "google.com" text is not the actual domain of the ad | link? | | I couldn't reproduce this, Bing no longer shows me ads | annotated that way. But that seems like a strange feature to | let the ad owner present custom domain name... | ev1 wrote: | You can usually pick what domain you want to show up there | when you buy an ad. It's common so you can use obnoxious | chains of tracking links redirecting into each other and not | show up as emjcd.com | progbits wrote: | Sure (I mean that is shady but whatever) but at least it | would seem logical to verify the redirect chain ends up on | that domain or better yet (since the redirects could change | later) only allow the domain if ownership has been verified | though DNS or similar. | | I simply don't see why I should be able to buy ad that | shows "google.com". | ouid wrote: | >That is shady but whatever | | This century's motto | ziml77 wrote: | That's fucking insane that it's allowed. | | But if the ability to override the domain is truly that | important, then there needs to be manual vetting of the | ad buyer and the target domain. I'm sure you could | automate it with signed TXT records, but I think there | should still be a human in the chain to at least double- | check everything. | sorry_outta_gas wrote: | thank the gods for godot and other projects | acomjean wrote: | I wouldn't bring gods into it and consider thanking all the | Godot contributors. | | Actually a lot of open source project and contributors need | our support. | yomkippur wrote: | Unreal Engine having a field day with this one. Honestly I'm | super disappointed in Unity and I regret having purchased so many | plugins on their store that I never even used. | | Soon we will only have Unreal Engine dominating the scene as | Unity essentially just signed their own demise. | zomglings wrote: | Guys relax, check the date, it's April... oh :( | neals wrote: | IronSource is pure evil. Godot is starting to look more and more | interesting ... | surmoi wrote: | I worked for too long on mobile games, ads mediation company | are indeed the worst, IronSource included. It's a nightmare to | work with their black box SDKs, and god knows what they do in | that, in addition to tracking and showing ads (do you know some | ads can take up more than 200MB ? That's sometimes more than | the game I worked on...) | | I hope this will incite more developers to look into open | source game engine such as Godot and find better way to | monetize games than ads. | bdefore wrote: | I feel like there's room to innovate on monetizing gaming | hobby projects without ads. And that Kickstarter and Early | Access have polluted the well by asking for a one-time | payment for an unknown final quality. | | I'd be more inclined for something more of Patreon | subscription model, with a game loop that had a very overt | 'Hey if you enjoyed this latest update, consider becoming a | supporter. If I get xxx supporters this month I'll keep | making more cool stuff' with a clear connection to what would | come. Regular monthly updates so long as monthly supporters | exceeded a certain number. | surmoi wrote: | I like this approach, I often thought of having it | integrated into a game directly. Players could browse and | select to sponsor from a few features I'd plan to integrate | and thus allow them to have some say on what they'd like to | see first as a community. | wokwokwok wrote: | This is an ad platform, like unity ads. | | https://developers.is.com/ironsource-mobile/unity/unity-plug... | Kye wrote: | This is going to be like what happened to SourceForge. | mathverse wrote: | There's so many israeli software companies I have never heard of. | It is truly a startup nation. | capableweb wrote: | Do you know particularly few Israeli companies compared to lets | say South African or Polish companies? Wouldn't that just mean | it's not a "startup nation" as if it was, you would have heard | about those companies? Your reasoning here seems backwards. | CharlesW wrote: | > _Do you know particularly few Israeli companies compared to | lets say South African or Polish companies?_ | | "Startup nation" has been a well-known nickname for Israel | for some time. On a per-capita basis, Israel excels at both | the number of startups created and the amount of capital that | they attract. | | "A striking conclusion is that on a per capita basis, capital | flows into Israel were a whopping 28 times more than those in | the U.S." -- https://www.inc.com/peter-cohan/why-israel- | drew-28-times-mor... | mathverse wrote: | Bad wording on my part but there's a lot of israeli companies | i have never heard of on top of THAT MANY i have. | | There's prominent israeli startups and unicorns you usually | know about like Wix or some old ones like (ICQ/Mirabilis) and | then there's a myriad of small ones you stumble upon because | they are in your domain area like logz.io. | | But then you hear about a company with like 1k employees and | you are like...wth. | keewee7 wrote: | They also have many hardware companies. It's almost an annual | thing that some megacorp buys an Israeli hardware or | semiconductor company. | | We used to have a good hardware startup ecosystem in Denmark | because former Giga employees had more money than they knew | what to do with after Intel bought Giga in 2000. However it | slowly burned out for some reason. Maybe the 2008 crisis had | something to do with it. | jakearmitage wrote: | If anyone is looking for a Unity alternative, the guys at rbfx | are doing a great job revamping the old Urho3D codebase: | https://github.com/rbfx/rbfx | | It has good C# scripting support, a nice editor and modern | rendering pipeline. | shadowgovt wrote: | Unity is the most popular game engine on Steam and has majority | share of the mobile game market. | | The fact that _they_ can 't survive two years of a pandemic | without losing hundreds of employees and accepting a merger is | indicative of the relative illness of the entire game tool | service industry. This is a decades-old company that didn't have | enough war-chest to float a few bad years. | | Given these market realities, one should not expect quality of | life in the games industry to improve without unionization or | government intervention. | thsbrown wrote: | This is just a guess but I think the main issue with unity is | that the majority of the games released with it float under | their 100,000 revenue target in order for them to get a piece | of the pie. | | I believe this is why they are rapidly expanding their backend | services and ads network in order to try to eke out profit in | other ways. | | [1] https://unity3d.com/unity/activation/personal | thaumasiotes wrote: | > I think the main issue with unity is that the majority of | the games released with it float under their 100,000 revenue | target | | Those games don't _cost_ them anything, though. You 'd have | to explain trouble in terms of games doing worse during the | last few years than they were historically, which is the | opposite of the truth. | thsbrown wrote: | I see your point and I think it's a good one, but could | them being a public company and their stock price | plummeting not also affect their bottom line? | | I genuinely am curious here, as I'm not well versed in how | a companies stock price can affect their internal | financials and ability to run the company without laying | people off . | thaumasiotes wrote: | > The fact that they can't survive two years of a pandemic | without losing hundreds of employees and accepting a merger is | indicative of the relative illness of the entire game tool | service industry. This is a decades-old company that didn't | have enough war-chest to float a few bad years. | | Bad years? I thought the pandemic was unusually _good_ for at- | home entertainment. | adoga wrote: | Worked for a mobile game company in 2020 and 2021. Can | confirm that 2020 was a very good year revenue wise, if not | dying off a little bit towards the end of 2021 | abbabon wrote: | I, for one, am happy for this merger / acquisition. | | As a mobile games developer, I feel that Unity as a _game engine_ | has lost its way in the last few years, and the recent | acquisitions reflect that. Instead of capitalizing on its merits | and strengths - an easy-to-bootstrap multi-platform engine which | is _perfect_ for mobile development - Unity has opted to try and | compete in the AAA /AAA-like market against Unreal. The recent | announcments and the features actually being delivered from Unity | support that strategic transition, and this leaves the engine in | a state of constant conflict with itself. | | Ask anyone who tried to integrate a 3rd party advertisment engine | into their game and you'll understand why including a 'default' | or an easy-to-bootstrap advertising and user-acquisition tool is | a good move. This will hopefully streamline what is nowadays a | less than ideal process. That is, if the merger will be | capitalized upon instead of just serving the stock owners. | bitwize wrote: | Maybe it's different now, but in the past I associated Unity | mobile games with my phone running very hot. | tomc1985 wrote: | Unity games run horribly on desktop.... how they think its | legit a good mobile engine is beyond me | | Like, Valheim runs like ass, all things considered. | Battletech takes up like 50gb for a game without more than a | couple of cutscenes and a camera that sits in the sky, and | takes forever to load. Graveyard Keeper -- a PIXEL ART 2d | game -- is for some reason made in Unity, and it takes way | too long to load a couple of megabytes worth of textures | Ace777 wrote: | By that same metric, you've got hollow knight, ori, | hearthstone and many more that are very good though. | porcc wrote: | Funny to think that the developers who haven't paid for the | ability to remove the splash screen are also the ones likely | to have optimized their games poorly | surmoi wrote: | That's because very often mobile games are not developed with | performances in mind or when they are, they'll use everything | the device can give, often pushing it into throttling mode, | because mobiles are not made to be run at sustain load for a | long time. | | Mobile is the most constrained platform to develop on if you | want to actually have an optimized game, especially when | supporting most Android devices. | bdefore wrote: | It's confounding to me. AAA/AA has always been an unhelpful | designation. Much of PC gaming's recent hallmarks have used | Unity to great success, for example Hollow Knight. Developers | used to proclaim their games were based on Unity almost akin to | a badge of honor. That honor is diluted by Unity's pursuit of | the indie mobile gaming space which is tarnished with | microtransactions and ads. | | Blockbuster titles may pull in more revenue. But they also can | fail spectacularly. Is there a financial window for a tightly | focused indie-game engine like Unity? I don't know. But it's | hard not to see Unity's arc rhyming with the story of other VC- | soaked growth-chasing operations. | techdragon wrote: | Unity was never that great of an engine and tooling. I've | only come across one extremely specific circumstance where it | was technically the superior choice. Where it gained | mindshare was its licensing deals before Unreal changed | theirs. It grew with the mobile gaming boom and in order to | keep growing they tried to grow to compete with the AAA/AA | engines (most of which are either Unreal, in house and studio | exclusive, or completely custom) and barely made it... I say | barely because based on my experience and the conversations | I've had, anyone who built a technically impressive game with | Unity has probably built 80% of it themselves because the | stuff that shipped with unity wasn't up to the job. Unity | survived because after a boom in developer mindshare courtesy | of mobile games, lots of familiar developers were available | to recruit for larger Unity projects where they got to spend | their time reimplementing more and more of the entire game | engine themselves on top of Unity because it didn't really | give anyone enough to build more than the simplest of games. | | I'm not saying it's broken or shit, it did deliver a working | engine. Just that the entire marketing hype and ecosystem | built on top of it was a technical house of cards held | together by the suffering of the developers using it. | | It's the MongoDB of game engines, "worse is better" ... | because we spent most of the money on marketing, because | marketing gets sales via our content marketplace before | people can really discover how bad it is, and by then they're | fighting the sunk cost fallacy of the money they spent in the | content store... just good old classic MBA "apathetic evil" | ... nothing special. | kensai wrote: | The future is also AR/VR applications, not only mobile games. | But I wonder how they will monetise those. | psyc wrote: | If it had been an acquisition, I wouldn't have given it much | thought. Maybe a pause, if I read some of the comments here | about IronSource's reputation. | | A MERGER sends an entirely different message. Two messages. | One, that unity is in dire straights, and two, that they've | lost their sense of direction completely, given who they merged | with. | hesdeadjim wrote: | Absolutely. A merger is terrifying. Who makes the calls now | on what teams get resources, what features get prioritized, | etc? | psyc wrote: | And TIL 'dire straits' is the correct usage, not a | stylization by the band like I always thought. Like | waterways. | yomkippur wrote: | A big reason why I stopped buying/playing mobile games was due | to the ads. I would be happy to just pay for a game and that'd | be the end of it but its driven a lot of people away from | mobile and towards PC gaming. | | You may be celebrating this but you are just going to end up | with less people watching your ads or downloading your game. | Ace777 wrote: | Unity dev here. I loathe mobile ad-driven games as well, but | unfortunately Mobile dev is a numbers game. There is a | gargantuan pool of regular joe-type people to whom ad-driven | games are normality. Power users like you or I rarely play | these things. | | It's all about optimizing the (user) funnel rather than the | fun. If you don't you're at odds with google/apple, the | platform operator, who usually promotes based on market | performance. | | So even if I were to make a fun mobile game where you have no | advertisement or a t least a way to nuke the adverts, there's | no customer base specifically looking for that, and if there | was my game would be buried under a mountain of shit and i'd | have to manually buy users ... so that 95% of them never buy | the ad-free option... | | Really the only option that prioritizes fun for mobile is | bringing in an external audience. | nurblieh wrote: | Press release tried so hard to not say "ads" that it's | conspicuous. | honkycat wrote: | So glad I ditched unity for unreal a year ago. | | Instead of chasing the ecs waterfalls they should have been | iterating on their product... Or actually shipped one of their | next gen features within a reasonable timeline. | lencastre wrote: | So no more updating of Unity's base platform right? | PedroBatista wrote: | It's the end of the road for Unity. ( at least what most of us | think Unity still is, but it's not ) | | The technology was always more or less "fine". Unreal Engine | didn't "kill" Unity and it will not in the future. | | For the better part of a decade, Unity tried to become not-sure- | what but way more than "just a game engine", and that's the | problem, I don't know exactly what and neither do they. | | To be clear, Unity is not "dead" and will not be dead for a | while, but the writing is on the wall with this "merger". | | I'm not sure how is Boeing and who is McDonnell Douglas but I | already wrote the off my mind. | stuckinhell wrote: | I don't think Unity will die until another Game engine adopts | something similar to C#. | | A lot of indie teams don't want to write c++. | brundolf wrote: | Godot uses C#, and supports some other languages too I think | SXX wrote: | Godot uses both C# and Python-like GDScript. And majority | of addons likely gonna be in GDScript. | jayd16 wrote: | C# is really nice but I think Unity's mobile story is | probably what keeps devs there over something like Unreal. | bluescrn wrote: | Unity's been killing itself with it's own fragmentation. | Instead of upgrading existing systems, they've been | replacing entire systems but never reaching a point of | being able to deprecate/remove an old system. | | So now there's 3 render pipelines, 3 UI systems, 3 physics | systems, 2 input systems, and so on. | | This makes it harder for new developers to get started, and | it breaks a lot of the content on the Asset Store. | | Just the HDRP/URP split alone is such a mess, with URP | feeling like the second-class system and missing important | features (while being the one designed to work on a wider | range of hardware). But HDRP is the render pipeline used | for shiny tech demos... | ratww wrote: | Yep, that's it. The engine used to be developer friendly, | now it's downright hostile due to fragmentation. Half of | it is deprecated, the other half is experimental and | feels second class. They keep piling stuff up, and | information is scattered. A modern project will have | three of four different ways of adding libraries or | third-party stuff. And the worst part: I might be totally | wrong, because they might have completely changed | everything since the last time I touched it. | pjmlp wrote: | Which is a bummer, given that since the XNA story, Microsoft | has decided to outsource to Unity the whole "how to do 3D in | .NET" story. | | Given that the DirectX team is quite anti anything but C++, | as shown by all attempts that eventually were killed (Managed | Direct X, XNA), Unity's death would mean most shops would | just move into C++. | | While C++20 is quite nice, it would be a pity if such | scenario would take place. | billconan wrote: | I'm kinda the opposite. I don't like to write C#. | | Unreal Engine's build system is also based on C# as I | remember. | tomwojcik wrote: | > Unity tried to become not-sure-what but way more than "just a | game engine", and that's the problem | | IIRC most of their revenue comes from Unity Ads, so they'd be | dead if it wasn't for this weird pivot. From the business POV, | not being "just a game engine" probably saved them. | dgb23 wrote: | Unity is arguably the most popular game engine and has a | large market place for plugins/extensions. It is almost | unbelievable that there isn't a viable strategy to expand and | refine the core product. My intuition here is that the | product was taken over by people who wanted fast, huge | financial growth, so they invested in what they saw as an | opportunity to do just that, while weakening the core product | and their image. | munificent wrote: | I think the key problem is that most game developers are | broke and most games are unsuccessful if they even ship. | | The "picks and shovels" business model where you build | tools for customers who use them in their own enterprises | can be very successful. But it does require those customers | to be successful in their enterprises. (Or you can rely on | customers to be willing to pay out of pocket at a loss | because it's a hobby, as with music instruments.) | | Without some kind of other monetization, Unity is | essentially selling picks and shovels to miners on a | mountain with almost no gold in it. | | To be clear, I don't think this justifies what Unity is | doing. But they are clearly trying to be a $$$$ business in | a $ market, and are willing to sell their souls to get the | extra $$$. | darzu wrote: | What? The video games is nearly a $200 billion dollar | industry[0] and Unity is one if the most popular engines, | if not the most. How is that a "mountain with no gold"? | | [0] | https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2022-05-05-video- | game... | chowells wrote: | There's lots of money, but it doesn't go to developers. | The big profits go to publishers. If you're selling tools | to developers, you'd better hope they're able to pass the | cost along to the publisher. If they can't, they're not | going to be able to pay anything significant for your | tools. | foobiekr wrote: | That may be true, but you just need to look at Unity's | financials to see what fraction of the games market flows | to them. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/U/key- | statistics?p=U | | It's not _terrible_ but it's not great. | munificent wrote: | There's a lot of money in games, yes, but much of that | flows into large game studios using their own engines and | the production costs are also high. | | Unity is primarily used by smaller game developers and | there is much less money available there. | pjmlp wrote: | Just like in any kind of arts, it might be worth | millions, but only for a selected few. | | There are plenty of street performers that can hardly | play the rent. | [deleted] | [deleted] | yywwbbn wrote: | However most users of Unity don't make very much money if | any at all. So unless they switch to a revenue share | based model (instead of fixed license pricing) $200 | billion is not that meaningful. | darzu wrote: | They could have hired less people and tried fewer risky non- | core investments. Plenty of tools-only companies survive well | indefinitely. | | They got greedy. The grow into a unicorn or die trying | mentally is cancer to good technology. | georgeecollins wrote: | >> IIRC most of their revenue comes from Unity Ads | | This was and is a really interesting business for them and I | still think it is a great way for them to grow. | | Unity is so entrenched in the game business that if they were | seriously worried about profitability they could just raise | their prices and curtail investment and they would have a | solid business. Like many unicorns they have been favoring | growth. But at their core they have a solid product that | people who make a lot of money depend on. Yes, 99% of game | developer make zero or less, but its a huge industry and some | very profitable developers / publishers use Unity | extensively. | PedroBatista wrote: | > From the business POV, not being "just a game engine" | probably saved them. | | I agree, but if they were a "game engine and everything | around games" instead of spreading focus and recourses all | over what they have been trying to do, my guess is they would | be in a very good position now. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-13 23:00 UTC)