A Pro license with new advanced bundles ?

News & General Discussion
1

Hello,

edit for the sake of peace : this is not a you-have-to-do-that thread, this is just a lightly hearted discussion from random thoughts.

So, with the growing amount of frameworks, addons, and external services that quickly appeared for iPhone devs, this just made me realize something :

Actually, the crossplatform Indie vs. Pro frontier is not that clear, because too thin. This has been stated by a consistent number of customers over a lot of threads posts, judging by all the requests to have Pro features in Indie.

So I saw a new approach possiblity (and maybe it’s already in the works at Unity, according to the recent scoreloop thread) :

  • Indie : everything that is actually in Pro version.
    Without the forced splash screen (it could turn into an option, as some will still want to promote Unity).
    Would turn it in a very powerful tool, easily customizable with everybody’s own framework and assrts.

  • Pro : Indie + custom bundles. Custom bundles would be a gamedev best friend, consisting in several vital tools.
    These could be :
    a character manager (to support avatar systems and multiple skinnings/bones behaviours),
    a social network system (scoreloop thread in iPhone forum),
    an advanced sound manager (echoes, EQ, etc),
    an achievement system (like XBLive achievements),
    an advanced benchmarking/auditing tool (to trace precise objects, values, perfs, etc),
    an advanced 2D graphics manager,
    and whatever your imagination would guess about a gamedev needs …

  • and if we don’t change the Pro / Indie packages, a possibility to purchase these bundles separately.

Why ? Because of 2 reasons :

  1. in my humble opinion, what makes the difference between 2 pricetags for a gamebuilding engine should not include the game production process, but only the tool itself.
    Actually, if a gamedev got a good idea and makes tons of money thanks to it, he got to pay a tax for having success, after having purchased the tool. Personally I’m ok with it for the moment, as the Pro license is not that expensive.
    But it’s not very logical :slight_smile:
    And for cartesian people, it would seem unfair, like if Unity would say “hey, you got some creative production talent, but that’s thanks to us !”.
    Which means the business model in itself got some bias.

  2. When you look over Unifycommunity.com, most of the scripts are basic functions, like 2D management, cross-skinning management, and stuff. And when you look at the forums requests, you can see these functions are the most queried.
    So it’s a good thing to let customers build an additional framework, as it tightens links between each others. But in the end, I don’t think this is the most optimized pattern : actually, we got 2 choices. Build those functions from scratch, or adapt this custom framework to our game. In those 2 cases, it’s an open door to leaks and bad code architecture. If Unity was offering such tools natively, wouldn’t everybody’s own framework look much clearer ? :slight_smile:
    Plus the fact that it would save a lot of FPS due to native compiling optimization.

So to resume, Indie would let the choice to build our own tools. Pro would offer a native and highly optimized version of those tools, which would save a lot of time and ingame performance (unless we’re all genius on crack).

Maxxon is working like that with Cinema 4D, and it’s great. You pick a pack, or just the core, or just what you need.

A lot of creative tool companies adopted this business model (reminds me of Adobe with Creative Suite, too). I think it fits best with the variety in this massive creative market.

Well, just my thoughts after a Thursday lunch :stuck_out_tongue:

Cheers

(p.s : all those edits are for typo, sorry for that :roll: )

2

Personally I think that Unity is too cheap.

Maybe they should keep Indie as is, and Pro as is, and sell additional feature packs on top?

I’m sure UT will do whatever is right for their continued success which is far more important to me than if some people can’t afford to buy what they want at the current price levels.

3

Are you serious? So your theory here is that the thing that is making UT money (Pro licenses) should be given away for cheap so they would lose that entire revenue stream? Sure more people may buy the new Indy version, but not enough to make up for the huge price lowering.

Then, they could sell these additional packs (which have not been created) for the Pro license. Basically UT will have to take a load of developers off whatever they are doing, fixing bugs, adding other new things, etc and instead they will have to work on these expansion packs. Or are you postulating that they should hire more developers and pay who knows how much money to develop these expansions? While lowering the price for everything else? I don’t see how that makes any kind of sense - apart from the fact that buyers want to spend as little as possible on things.

Do you really think there is enough value in these theoretical expansions that folks would want to pay $2000 for them?

If they developed expansions like that, what not just sell them as they are, or even include them in the existing Indy or Pro bundles?

4

I agree with Ader
The Indie version definitely is too cheap for what it offers, yet UT is happy with offering it at that price.

Commonly cheap engines in that price range come with capped / annoying / producting impacting workflow restrictions to make the expensive license more appealing (or seen differently: hobbiests don’t need to be productive, they do it for fun, if they would do it professionally they would be able to rate productivity in $$$)

Realistically especially the art import pipeline aspect, the .net assembly expandability of the tech, the webdeploy and editor expandability/build scripts could easily be seen as a Pro feature (I’m not aware of any other technology in that price range with this capabilities, not even anywhere near it) but thanks to UT they aren’t.

In Unity, mainly “professional engine features” are missing that are (with a few expections) not even of interest to hobbiests, so to the majority of the users (user = someone who uses it, not someone who whines because engine X has something Unity indie does not offer) will hardly have something to complain or to miss that would make them want to upgrade.

There are people that might agree to this and people that won’t.
The later either will have to find “greener grass” or scale back their expecations to a realistic level. Either the engine visual features and alike or the workflow, expandability and editor at <= $1000++
Both together combined with the powerfull and very well scaling technology of Unity just won’t happen.

5

Well, sorry gentlemen if I shocked you, but my considerations were taking in account the Indie + iPhone bundle, which is 1200 € and 3000 € …

A lot of defenders tend to forget that :wink:

In fact, I never intended to mean a Pro version at a cheap price (even if 1200 € is not cheap for a starting Indie).

The logic behind my pricing proposition was that if you add the actual Pro version + iPhone Advanced + an average 500 € per bundle (the average bundle pricing for softwares like cinema 4D) … with let’s say 5 bundles if you want to have a max value … that would be an average 6000 € for pro, 2600 for Indie.

It’s just unafordable for some developer that doesn’t know Unity yet.

So I couldn’t see any other model to promote those bundles.

And overall, the idea behind that topic wasn’t to focus on Pro being Indie pricing, but just adding bundles. And everybody seems to be ok with that proposition for now, so I’m glad at the end :roll:

P.S : one other mark of comparison for some tool pricing is Adobe Flash. Actually, Flash can do whatever Unity is doing (except it’s 2D instead of 3D, and if we add custom frameworks), and it’s 836 €. But I don’t want to start a pricing war, this is just to make things “relative”. :slight_smile:

Cheers

6

definitely not getting involved in this thread still cleaning up the explosion debry from the last time I brought the subject up… :wink:

7

Lastly, every software got to step up over time, without raising its price at each update to prevent from a final 3M dollars product that nobody would buy (Unreal Engine anyone ?).
This is just to keep the pace against other products. I’m not saying Unity is not stepping up (funny that I got to do that precision as I’m sure it keeps me from a public flamewar), but that bundle thing would be a good added value in that direction.

On top of that, you can clearly expect that kind of bundle tools from other products in upcoming monthes or years. It’s simply logical progression in production, just like 3D tools did years ago.
And there would always be one of them below the 3000 € bar.
As we can find some advanced 3D modeling softwares for 500 … oh wait for free. :slight_smile:

8

I have a completely different opinion.

In my opinion all those little things like postporcess effects and render to texture should all be in the indie version too. That’s something that everybody needs and doesn’t distinguish the hobbiest, indie or pro. I would also leave the watermark inside, I’ve got no problem with it.

What I would prefer is to lower the barrier where you HAVE to buy the pro. Someone who earns $100,000 shouldn’t have any problems with buying the pro version. IMHO I could see the barrier at $50,000 or even $25,000.

But letting every Unity user have all essential graphics power would help achieving this goal.

Only what is really pro, like plugins in c++, are special database api and so on, should be reserved to the pro version.

Sure, many more people would buy the indie version at first, but on the other hand, many more people would update to the pro version if the finances allows it. So in the end it’s only a stretched tresspassing from Indie to Pro.

Unfortunately I can’t update to the pro now, even though I could really use those postprocessing effects. Having these post-effetcs and render to textures combined with a lower update to pro barrier would allow me to use what I need now and be able to update to pro faster.

only my 2 cents :slight_smile:

9

Like release Unity 2.0 and lowering the price of Indie by 20-25%.
Like adding Wii publishing support.
Like adding iPhone publishing support.
Like adding a Windows editor.
(not to mention all the new features introduced in the various updates along the way)

I know you said “I’m not saying Unity is not stepping up”, but whenever someone says that sort of thing, to me they really are trying to say that very thing and are using the disclaimer as a safety shield. You wouldn’t be here with this whole post or be using the “stepping up” phrase if you didn’t feel that we weren’t doing enough. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

As to our pricing, we offer an incredible tool at an incredible price. We’ve nearly shot ourselves in the foot by even offering Indie Without the Indie option I doubt anyone would ever think that Unity Pro is overpriced given what you get for your money. But suddenly there’s this cheaper thing (80+% cheaper) and now that becomes the measuring stick we get compared against. “Give us more at that lower price!” It’s a double-edged sword for sure, once you offer so much of the tool at a lower price (via Indie) people take that inch and want a mile. I can’t blame folks for wanting though… :slight_smile:

We feel confident in our license structure as it is. Over time we’ll continue to evaluate things and adjust as needed. We’ll constantly look at the Indie vs. Pro value proposition and do what we can to ensure that customers buying those licenses feel that they get something worth the price. We do that today. We’ll do that tomorrow. We’ll do that in perpetuity.

Repeat the whole discussion above in the context of Unity iPhone as well… (we feel it’s fair and compelling, we’ll keep an eye on things and adjust as needed, etc.)

10

I swear Higgy, I never felt like Unity didn’t give enough, really, I mean it :roll:

I made that thread just after my daily “thought-about-something”, and I found that bundle philosophy would be a cool feature.

And I really couldn’t find another “reasonable” pricing to introduce this addon principle.
(Me iz just a developar)
That stepup thing was a possible logical follow-up of all the stepups you enumerated above :slight_smile:

Nothing more, nothing less, believe me :slight_smile:

As it is, I already planned to buy the pro version when my game will be near completion, and froze the funds for that.

This topic is only a suggestion, but I couldn’t find its place should have been in Wish List, as subject is too sensible to be a “wish”.

Take it more like a coffee-machine light discussion ! :wink:

/coffee toss mode
/take cover

11

NM

12

That would be the only grass-is-greener effect I had felt. Actually, as Preludian said, as the main gamedev I have to buy Pro version if I want to release something more than a bedroom hobby product … something that’s heavy enough to stand a chance in that overcrowded damn appstore. And I’m not a pro, not a studio, have not sold 100000+ parts, and 3000 € is more than a year cash saving for the average middleclass.

That’s why I would have found more logical to bring third party tools, but essential ones, in the higher priced model.

But once again, I’m not an economist, and moreover, I’m not even a part of Unity team, so I could never be taken seriously with price propositions.

Was just taking your actual 2 licenses, and integrating a bundle concept into it without changing the global package.

13

But I did already, hence the blinky and two smilies. :slight_smile: ← look! there’s another! :stuck_out_tongue:

I think we should raise the price and remove features!

(I kid of course!)

14

A smiley war ?!

I won’t underestimate the power of the smiley, I promise !

Also :

Because including them in Indie AND Pro would be exactly the same as passing the old Pro to Indie and putting bundles into the new Pro :stuck_out_tongue:
(and that’s precisely the point which brought me to my first post conclusion).

Selling them separately could be cool, I have to admit. But I’m afraid that above 300 € per bundle, only too few Indies could have the remaining funds, and studio wouldn’t buy it as they would already have developped their own framework.

15

No you don’t
Unity Iphone Advanced doesn’t add much thats a base requirement to get the app on the store.
There are enough examples of users here that funded their (Pro and) Advanced upgrade through their released Indie + Basic iPhone games.
After all, occlusion culling is available to all Unity iPhone licenses for example.

If you feel that you need such a highly polished app that it requires Advanced, you likely won’t have a problem buying it too as you have 1-3 more people on your team working on the game to be even able to create the visuals etc required for this “polished dream”. Its not like you will be able to do that on your own, at least not within any reasonable amount of time for an iPhone Project.

The alternatively always naturally is to write an own tech.
Benefit: its geared exactly towards what you need thus lightweight and potentially highly efficient.
Drawback: you first have to write it, have to optimize it yourself, have to maintain it and if your requirements change, modify it.

For 2D games, Unity for example is no requirement, as Cocos2D does this job stunningly good.
For 3D games, Unity potentially is your best bet of all options, as UT has people who know what they do and how to optimize it, not hobbiests with some basic knowledge on OpenGL ES development like other iPhone Engine developers.

16

Well, maybe have I misunderstood some Pro advantages then, but for example my game can’t live without multiplayer. And WWW form is clearly not viable for its current features.

Anyway, please forget all that pricing thing, I just wanted to bring attention to a “pro” bundle philosophy :slight_smile:

17

On the iphone its definitely no standard feature required.
I’ve about 3 multiplayer games of over 50 and aside from galcon, none of that is really fun to play (DinoSmash is kind of a worst case example, even on WiFi its not pleasant to play it online)

You must never forget that you will have to have a few hundred to a few thousand dollar in your backhand if you want to go multiplayer as you need dedicated servers doing that. Hosting a multiplayer session on the iphone is between unrealistic and stupid, as a 400mhz already has the hell to work with its own data, without interpolating and managing remotes.

18

But you see, you’ve now clearly changed the original statement that was being responded to, which was:

Ok, so you want multiplayer on the iPhone so you need sockets, in that case Pro/Advanced is required. But there is a TON of room between “bedroom hobby product” and a specific case in which you need specific Pro/Advanced-only features. The Indie/Basic product is plenty capable of top-quality games as a whole. With that in mind, specific feature needs may drive you and your particular game differently. :slight_smile:

19

In fact, I’m forced to use socketing, because it’s a fighting game, where every milisecond lag has an impact on the gaming experience.

Even for 1 versus 1 battles :slight_smile:

One other thing about Pro needed : build size stripping. We got to reduce every single possible bit of code for iPhone, as FPS can dramatically fall down from Kbytes to Kbytes of overhead.

Yeah, I didn’t choose the easiest game genre to developp, I admit :slight_smile:

Though, except turn by turn games, how an online multiplayer game could support a clean gaming experience with post/get transactions ? (especially with 3G overlag)
And today, everything is about online gaming and social networks, isn’t it ? :wink:

edit : I’m not saying a game is not good without online multiplayer, but that’s nearly a minimum feature in order to stay competitive.

edit 2 : Oh crap why did I talk about the differences between Pro and Indie … :lol:
Changing title for the sake of zenitude.

20

Unity Networking is RakNet which is UDP too.
Its just not present on the iPhone Advanced yet.

As a matter of facts, it was originally not even planned to make WWW available to Basic, but UT decided to allow that to Basic licensees as online highscores and social networking aspects are a vital part even for iPhone games

Only in very specific genres.
As mentioned, I’ve 50 games and only about 3 of them have multiplayer.
For example none of the TD games has it, nor do the RPGs have it, nor do the time management games have it nor Flight Control / ATC 4 / Harbor Master
I could continue with that for a while as the only ones that have it from my games are galcon, dinosmasher and i think Real Racing has it.

I would actually go that far to say that pure online focused games on the iphone basically are crap.
They just aren’t any real fun due to the lantecy and the missing performance (or developer incapability to work within the constraints within multiplayer mode). DinoSmasher is the best worst example for this.

iPhone gaming, as any mobile gaming, is primarily about jumping in, have fun, jump out.
Not jump in, do 90 other things, look for a match, potentially have a chance to play after all, jump out.
A game that targets at that has pretty good chances to flop unless there is something unique about it or you are just the first of its kind.