A thought on Unity 2.5 licensing

News & General Discussion
1

I am pretty new around here, apart from watching the forums and finding out as much I can about unity, I haven’t yet been using the software as we are waiting for the windows version (Unity 2.5).

Does anyone know if the Windows Indie license will allow you to develop for windows (and not for mac), like the Mac version allows you to develop for mac (and not for windows).

Would seem kind of silly to be developing on Windows and only be able to publish to the Mac, I really can’t see them doing that.

Anyhow as someone who has been looking at the licensing etc and researching a number of threads on the topic what to people think of this idea:

  • Windows or Mac Indie version allows you to develop for both Windows/Mac, has the same current feature restrictions, maybe increase the price by $50 (leave the same if possible :)).

  • Windows or Mac PRO version, include the Asset Server Client as part of the PRO version, keep the PRO price the same.

This would allow there to still be enough difference between Indie/Pro for Pro to be worth the extra dollars, would solve the new issue that will appear with the windows IDE, and will make people happy about the Asset Server Client.

From what I have been reading, many seem to think the ASC is severely over priced (it doesn’t even have versioning - something which you can get for free in some svn apps)

Anyhow, not sure if anyone will agree but it seems reasonable to me :smile:

2

This is the information regarding builds in 2.5 which has been officially released on the forum so far:

  • Indie on both platforms will be able to build for both platforms
  • Indie builds will include a splash screen - just like the standard iPhone builds.
  • Indie webplayers will have the same logo as always - only it will disappear after a while rather than staying there permanently.

Edit:
I also seem to remember someone talking about asset server getting an update. Not sure if its just a minor bugfix, but you might just get the features you’re missing for it.

3

I’ve been looking all over for this information but couldn’t find it!

Thanks! That is great news… Might be able to convince our team to use unity yet!

I don’t suppose they have indicated any date or month, we can only wait so long for it. Even if they said before May 2009 or something would be enough.

Actually I think I’ve seen Q1 2009 mentioned, but I’m not sure if that is official?

4

Hi - and a warm welcome to you!!! :wink:

Yes. Windows Indie will allow to develop for Windows but there will be a splash screen, AFAIK (this has been discussed here before - but I don’t have time to look for it right now).

While I’m a happy solo-developer and asset server user, I don’t think that this would be an ideal solution for most people. Not everyone who wants to use Pro needs the asset server, and I don’t see how the price could be reduced in that way. So I think it’s more fair to have the asset server as an add-on for those who need / want it.

Um … I guess there’s some sort of misunderstanding here. The asset server is a version control system, so of course it has versioning.

Sunny regards,
Jashan

5

Hehe, Emil, I guess I need to type faster or write shorter :wink:

6

Features are only part of the problem, the steep Per Seat price and the fact it can’t be used with Indie are the main issues.

I’m surprised it is restricted to the Pro version, but I guess they think it might force people to upgrade!

7

Yes.

You could always write sales@unity3d.com to see if you can get some special deal in place. Who knows?

8

Well, in my opinion, Unity Pro is almost ridiculously cheap for what you get in terms of how this tool speeds up the game development process. That doesn’t mean everyone can easily afford it - but it’s simply an incredible value for the money.

Unity Indie is “almost free” from that perspective. And it’s natural that this comes with a few limitations. If you don’t want those limitations you should probably consider getting Pro.

That’s a bit like saying a Ford having certain limitations compared to a Ferrari is forcing people to upgrade. It’s two different kinds of cars with different price tags, just like Unity Indie is a different application from Unity Pro - with different price tags (one could argue about comparing this in that way but I guess it illustrates the point well enough).

What everyone needs to decide for themselves is whether they want the feature-set of Indie - or the feature-set of Pro; and if the latter is the case whether they can afford it (and the feature-set includes the option of being able to add the asset server client license; or the Unity iPhone advanced publishing option).

What UT has to decide is what they want to offer in Indie, and what they want to offer in Pro :wink:

Sunny regards,
Jashan

9

I must have really misunderstood some of the posts, or maybe they were old - I’m sure they said it didn’t have version, oh well!

Would the Asset Control work with the Indie version? I would imagine it is quite separate to the other disabled features that Pro comes with (and to my understanding the installed indie software just contains a disabled pro).

Anyway even with a discount I’d imagine it would be out of my price range, $500 in total would be too much at the moment let alone 500 per seat even if it did work with indie!

As long as there is some way a bunch of us can work on a project at once with the indie seats then that is good enough.

10

No, that wouldn’t work.

From that perspective, it’s obviously a steep price since you also have to add the price difference between Indie and Pro. On the other hand, while the other limitations of Indie compared to Pro are “hard limitations” (you simply cannot do certain things in your game), not having the asset server can be worked around (even if it will be significantly slowing down your process).

I would say, in a small team, this is quite possible. You just need to make sure you set up a proper workflow. You could use subversion for version controlling code and assets and use asset packages to send back and forth prefabs and the like. Every once in a while, you could probably copy the whole project from one “authoritative seat” to all the others to make sure everything is perfectly synchronized.

This is obviously not ideal - but it’ll save you a couple of thousands of dollars and should work “well enough”. I’m sure that even working in that way, you’ll end up loving Unity :wink:

11

Sounds good enough to me! :smile:

One question I do have actually. I believe one license allows you to install on 2 machines. We were considering the Torque TGEA license, and one great thing I noticed is that artists etc do not need to purchase a license, but can still place things in your mission etc.

How does that work with Unity? I don’t suppose I can run my 2 machine license and they can occasionally add a couple of models on one of the machines? It is a per-machine license I believe?

12

The license is one seat - two machines. So when 2.5 hits you could have an install on a windows machine and on an OS X machine. I think the two installs are primarily used for stationary computer vs. laptop atm.

13

Well… here are my thoughts on the licensing. I’ll start with asset server, since you mention it. I think asset server should be included, because the fact that unity breaks the ability to use normal source control is a big negative in my book. I’ve always used SVN for my projects, but with Unity, I’m forced to use nothing or pay extra. Or UT should keep the licensing for Asset Server price, and play nicely and update the way the assets work so that we can use a SCM of our choice. It seems anti-competitive to me. I love the Unity product. It’s amazing, but UT does have this way of hiding the negative details on it’s website. It should say somewhere that UT does not work well with any known SCM products. Just like it would have been nice to show a sample of the hideous iPhone Basic splash screen. Although it was effective in motivating me to update, so it’s working.

Here is the other issue I’ve ran into. I’m working on a project with an artist. I’ll be doin g all the programming and putting together of assets. He uses maya, not a problem because Unity imports maya directly. Well, not without Maya installed on your machine. Although on the website it’s not listed as one of the formats that requires the apps built in exporter. So if we really wanted to import the.ma format as listed on the website, my art artist would need a copy of Unity or I would need a copy of maya (yea… use fbx… but I paid for the ability to import maya). I also think it’s an advantage for an artist to be able to test out their assets in Unity, because sometimes they just don’t work right. So it would be nice to have an Artists Edition that doesn’t build, and costs less than $3k (I’m talking about iPhone here).

14

Here’s an “official” reply from me, duplicating some information already provided:

As of the Unity 2.5 release Unity Indie will allow developers to create executables for both Mac and Windows (from either Mac or Windows).

I think not, we’re simply not going to do any of those as we feel that the Indie/Pro feature and price delta are appropriate as they are now.

We have said repeatedly that it will be out within the next couple of months, we do not have an exact date to offer though.

Your choice of words belies your attitude, it’s not to “force” you to upgrade, it’s to encourage you to do so. We have feature deltas as an incentive for folks to step up to the full product, and even at the full Pro price it’s an incredible deal given the power and capability being offered (not to mention the fact that there are no per-title fees and whatnot).

For individual sales that’s just not going to happen. If folks buy in volume (many licenses, typically 10+) then we may consider special discounts/deals.

No, the Unity Asset Server is only compatible with Unity Pro (by adding on an Asset Server Client license).

Unity is licensed on a per-developer basis, so each person using Unity to create content needs their own license. With that in mind, each of those developers can install Unity on two machines (work/home, desktop/laptop, etc.). Artists can provide you assets without requiring Unity itself, but if they’re going to enter the app to do any work inside of it then technically they need their own license.

FWIW, our approach to source control is a two stage process. The first is mostly done and that’s the implementation of our own, built-in solution. The second stage which is on the to-do list (not coming in 2.5 though) is to provide the necessary hooks for 3rd party tools so folks can use whatever source control solution they like (SVN, Perforce, whatever). So it’s not that we’re trying to be exclusionary by design.

Our website does need updating in that regard and we’re preparing those updates for the coming 2.5 launch.

15

Yea I somehow got the impression that the poster was talking for a larger team. Possibly I was just too focused on outposting Jashan :wink:

16

Thanks for the Info, all sounds reasonable to me!

One more question - I’m not the modeler, but I assume its possible to export from maya into fbx or the required format somehow?

This way they can give me the models and I don’t need maya on the same machine.

I would assume this means it would probably work nicer with svn as well?

17

Yes and yes.

18

I would like to ask if when 2.5 is out will be possible to develop on Mac/Pc for the same project, my mate programmer doesn´t want to buy a mac

for example: develop the code on unity indie pc and then integrate that code on unity iphone mac (me)

there is restrictions for that? is technically possible?

thanks

19

RMB: Yes that should be possible.

20

thanks for the fast reply :smile: