Are you tired of saying "sorry, that isn't available in the free version"?

News & General Discussion
1

Then
Unity 2.6.1, free vs pro. Ok so the free one had a lot missing, but that was ok, not such a big deal, the difference wasn’t TOO great. People adapted, the divide was small, no harm done and everyone had fun.

Now
Unity 3.x free vs pro. Really now, come on. The differences in what isn’t available or entirely crippled in the free version is lets face it, taking the piss. What indie developer is going to chose Unity free over one of the other alternatives out there? I know the whole point of the free version is to draw people in so they pay for the pro version, but this time there’s such a difference between the two, and so much isn’t available on the free one, not to mention it has a watermark slapped on as a final kick in the teeth. That don’t you think it’ll just drive people away? Developers who perhaps can’t afford to go pro right now, but would have otherwise spent time learning it, turned away due to lack of features, learn something else and with all that time invested doing so, probably wont come back.

This isn’t some request to give the free version more features, quite the opposite in fact… Maybe it’s time to let the free version go? It’s almost painful to watch users on the free one struggling to do the most basic of things because of them being crippled or unavailable. I can’t honestly see them enjoying themselves at all, can you? Aren’t people tired of posters turning up, asking why this and that can’t be done, only to have to reply with “nope, can’t do it on the free one” and then the resulting “awww no fair” comments wanting shadows n shit. I know this stuff went on with earlier versions, as I say, it wasn’t so bad then. But it sure looks to be creating a pretty big them vs us scenario between the pro users and the free users now, and I’m sure as updates come out and time goes on, that’s just going to get worse.

Lets be honest. It’s practically useless beyond being a half baked demo (which thanks to the 30 day pro trial which does show all the new features and abilities, and the fact the free version is missing so much, makes it pointless as a half baked demo version at that). Nobody in their right mind is going to settle for the free one to actually create anything serious with, not when they can just go use one of the many other applications out there that are either also free, or far cheaper than Unity Pro yet offer just the same, or more. Really, frustration will drive Unity free users away to more attractive offers.

Then there’s the indie developers out there who are providing scripts, shaders, new features etc. Left with a choice, put all their effort into a better version that’s pro only and get bombarded with questions and emails as to why it doesn’t work right for lil Jimmy using his free version, or cripple their own work so the free version users get something too.

The free version is quickly becoming like the retarded little brother, you gotta be nice to him even when he starts drooling and pisses his pants while you’re getting a table at the Texas Roadhouse, but really deep down inside, you wish he’d fall down the stairs into the basement and go away. Yes, it was a nice idea making a free version, it did I’m sure, bring in quite a few users who went on to go pro with 2.6.1, myself included, and I’ll probably go pro with Unity 3 too, but not because of the free version, but because of the 30 day trial, that actually let me see what the thing is like. If I’d been left with the free one, safe to say I’d be using UDK now. The amount of things missing now in Unity 3 free, is just too much and it simply can’t compete with well… anything, except maybe Gamemaker, but even then it would be a close call.

So what do you think? Keep Unity free going in the hopes some poor s.o.b can find a use for it, or should they (the devs) accept it just isn’t working out and dump its ass via text while it’s busking in its shadowless none bounced unoccluded watermarked no seamless loading lack of render to texture limited forward rendered subway.

2

The free version is excellent. For anyone needing free tools for game development, they would be wise to use this. This is an extremely powerful tool, even free, and if it doesn’t suit your needs, find a different game engine that has all the features of Unity free and a few more, see if its free. I would bet $19.99, that this is the most powerful and simple game engine around for its cost($0).

That being said, I wouldn’t mind a halfway price for the product, say $750 giving a few more features.

Edit: Now that I read entire your post, I believe you must be absolutely out of your mind.

3

NOOoo don’t listen to him! The free version is all I’ve got!

4

Eh?? They can learn to script, how to set up physics, practice level design, make FPS and RPG games… Boo frakking hoo…they don’t have shadows or screen efx. I played with 2.6 without shadows for three or four months (found it in January of this year) and my work and future vision got funding and am now the CEO of a company with a large sum backing me. I then bought Unity Pro. I still ain’t turned on shadows or used screen efx. I would say your post is not well measured in thought processes or you are stuck with an idea that good shadows or sfx make or break a game editor environment. Not so… All the game mechanics can be scripted right out of the box. The SDK for the most part, outside of art asset stuff like render targets, are available to all. Unity is just dandy how it is. Want pro? Prove your chops with free and freelance it or concept something with it and get backing. This is business. Treat it as such and you will succeed and have fun while yer at it.

Best Regards
BTH

5

The free version is a pretty capable game engine in its own right.

One thing it does do is teach aspiring devs how to “cheat” in effects. Sure, there are things you can’t do with the free version. But you could fake it. And sometimes, that actually ends up running more efficiently than if you had that particular feature.

6

Some people forget that U2 originally wasn’t designed to have a free one.
It has a $199 and a $1499 license

with the move to free with 2.6, the feature delta basically became laughable between free and pro, as a pro user you somehow felt like not being treated seriously sometimes as all we got is shadows and render textures. As asset server licensee I got another punch by seeing VCS becoming a pro feature instead of an AS licensee only one.

now with U3, there is at least reasonable enough feature delta to make sure that freeriders keep in mind that they are indeed not paying anything for what they get (which is aside of the tech the exact same stuff as those who payed, same support, same board, same resources, same example projects). They even got all the new productivity stuff like snap to surface, the further enhanced editor capabilities (which are still not crippled in free, although such stuff is normally the first thing to cripple for the low cost licenses, the “productivity features”).
the current feature delta, which will likely grow further as more of umbra and beast gets integrated, at least gives free users a good reason to upgrade.
With U2, the only reason was shadow and postfx … not very tempting for most as neither is required to create great games especially for web and mac

The purpose of the free unity is rather trivial: create an interesting game, make some money, buy pro OR create a rather interesting concept, get funding, buy pro, finish and release it.

its not “create a great looking game with a pro team paying $0 for the technology that enabled you to do so”

7

I’ll be honest and say I can’t take your post seriously with wild hyperbole like that.

Er, no? How often does that actually happen?

–Eric

8

I think its once every few days.

9

Thankfully, it’s not up to mob rule, they determine their own product usage and features.
The company’s stated desire is to allow free use of Unity so anyone can use it,
which is both generous and wise for many reasons.

10

I think some of you missed the point but that’s cool, was just curious :slight_smile: Also this as explained in the original post, isn’t some thread about me wanting more features in the free version. I already have 2.6.1 pro and can get U3 pro if and when I want (I’m using the trial for now and in no rush to buy as I’ve still a few weeks left on it), I’ve nothing better to spend my money on. So it’s nothing to do with jealousy for the pro features. I could go out and buy City Engine tomorrow if I felt like it (but that would be silly). I simply think the free version offers so little that it’s usefulness is highly limited, and as a method of attracting new users, the gap between free and pro has widened with U3 to the point where many will simply pass it by.

Sure, you can say it can be used to learn this and that, but everything looks prettier and easier from higher up doesn’t it? When you’re back in that position, looking up from the bottom at all the features you don’t have. It’s not quite so attractive for a new user.

Out of interest, how many of you are actually still using the free version?

11

I’m using the free version atm… clearly it’s not as good as having the Pro version… but while my team starts up and tries to find our niche… Free certainly is not an evil alternative. The watermark is only for a few seconds… and while that imo is the most painful of the shortcomings of Free… it will definitely allow my team to develop some creativity. Not all games have to look like CoD modern warfare or Crysis etc. In fact indie games rarely do.

I do see an increasing delta between Unity free and Pro… but I’m not paying yet… so I can’t complain I suppose :stuck_out_tongue:

12

I am.

13

Why can’t they have a system like UDK where you get all the features but they get a royalty?

14

The problem is if the gap does not widen, the same thing as with U2 will happen: the freeriders will remain freeriders, helping the technologies future rather little.
Also it was rather clear that freebies won’t get the $110k / title technology. They already got more than I expected due to the direct shadow lightmapping from beast. Would have expected that neither part becomes available.
In addition they got the tree editor too so its not like anything fundamental is missing.
The only really hurting thing missing is VCS support and thats for good reason as we know, you can take it for granted that otherwise many would ignore the Pro upgrade requirement beyond $100k yearly turnaround without it ie when they could work reasonable with a team without the pro upgrade
Also I doubt that people will pass by cause either they go to UDK and realize that their 2 man dream is rather unrealistic with their artist background or they end with something else where they realize that editor expansion and productive workflow aren’t present.
The only real alternative for most to unity is shiva as it covers a similar range, but shiva lacks on the editor scriptability and shader end (as you can’t inject own custom shaders at all basically) which means that the technology can not grow.
Actually until Shiva 1.9 it does not even accept plugins, something unity pro had for years (like custom shaders and editor scriptability too)

It has its pro over unity as well naturally but at the time unless you have 2+ real programmers on your team not just hacky kiddos, Unity will win any comparision hands down, even the free one, when it comes to freedom, productivity and project required editor customization

15

The best thing about the free version is making ten times better games than people with pro because whether you spent 1 million or nothing on your game engine matters squat in the end.

Also, most pro features I would probably not use even if I did have pro.

16

indeed, being restricted drives creativity on how to overcome problems in an appealing way … and not rarely in a more performant than if you could just missuse some feature

17

Its the opposite. The freeriders have helped the technologies future of Unity enourmous. Unity development became a big boost, it really started growing AFTER the Indie version became free. Not before. Which shows that your argument is wrong. The free users were and are a BIG win for Unity. Not little. And they are of course no ballast, are not as evil as you try to tell us here. Unity would never be where it is when there wouldnt have been the free version and the free users.

Also freeriders helps other users. Also freeriders writes tutorials. Also freeriders helps to make the app more known. Also freeriders reports bugs and helps to improve the app. And every finished game, even from a freerider, is an advertising for the app. And it can be a freerider that becomes a musician, a graphics artist, a leveldesigner, etc. for a commercial Unity title.

There should of course be a difference between the Free and Pro version. It should be big enough that nobody of the Pro users have the feeling to waste its money, compared to the Free users. And i am totally green with comfort restrictions. Like the lightmapping stuff. Or stuff that just professionals really needs anyways. Like all the network stuff. Or removing the engine logo.

And i would be fine that i am not allowed to sell my app before i own the Pro. That is the only restriction that really would make sense, you earn money with Unity, then pay for it. And that would honestly be the only reason why i would ever think of buying the Pro. Which will never happen, because i am a hobbyist, and i stay a hobbyist. I make long enough hobby games to know that i will never earn a dime with my games. Means the Pro is out of reach anyways, because it costs too much for my hobbyists budget. And that is the case with 95% of all Unity Free users.

You are of course right. We “freeriders” get something free, so we dont really have a right to complain. But i feel like the thread opener, that the current limits in U3 are a bit too limiting. The limits are by feeling bigger than in 2.6. Its balance goes into wrong directions. I am very unhappy with restrictions at basic features that makes a game that is made with Untiy free look ugly. Then i don`t need a free version at all, and my time with Unity is wasted. I think of switching to UDK therefore. Hey, realtime shadow, here i am!

18

Right free users are a win to unity as a brand.
But they deliver exactly $0 to pay developers to add new features, do bugfixing, hiring the support staff they burn through (most pro users here will agree that the freeriders are a major problem because we paying users go through the same support queue as the 100k freebies, meaning we have the same several day waiting time …), as such they are entitled for what they get not what they would like.

and no, selling prevention is the very single delta that makes no sense for two reasons:

  1. they can’t afford an army of lawyers to sue anyone breaking it, thats just bullocks
  2. if you can’t sell your game you can’t make money and thus can’t afford pro → could be hardly any less usefull
  3. it would mean that the webplayer build option would have to vanish as not using commercially means no usage in any way that allows you spreading the word on your company.

also games done in unity free don’t look ugly, at least not unless you have the same talent for art as I have :wink:
But thats why I’m a programmer and no artist, I can’t justify the pain I would cause with my art :wink:

With UDK you will get shadows, right.
At the time though you also get 10-100 times larger production times to reach the same target.
Is that really what you are looking for as hobbiest?

also the minimum requirements of UDK especially the editor are in the range of what Unity 3 requires for deferred

19

To Quote Chris Brogan - “Nobody asked Hemingway what pencil he used”.

Yet he still wrote great books.

Do you care what ratchet/spanner a mechanic uses to fix your car?

If you don’t like the free version - then buy the full version.

20

A truck driver doesn`t get a truck for free neither. First he has to invest money into a truck.

With having Unity Free, you could at least develop your game up to the point where it is ready for sale. And then even in the same quality when the Free wouldn`t be this limited. Which can convince publishers to invest money. Tadaa. Here comes your money to buy Unity Pro. Or do it like UDK: pay a royalty AFTER you have earned your money. Seems to work pretty fine for them by the way. Without an army of lawyers :wink:

I don`t see a reason why it should vanish. There is no Pro or Free Webplayer. Just a free plugin that needs to stay available and free to become a web standard. And Unity is at a good way here :slight_smile:

Again. The facts says the opposite. Unity has GROWN very big AFTER Unity went free. Before that Unity was trapped in the same marketing trap than the other 3D solutions. You forget the advertising factor. Your calculation is wrong therefore. You bash the free users for no reason. They bring in fact lots of money. Not directly of course. But reality has shown that the amount that can be earned indirectly is enourmous :slight_smile:

Is not longer possible with Unity Free because of the limits. So what? :wink:

I heard that there is not really a big difference. The workflow is a bit more complicated. But i`m happy to pay this price when i can reach the goal that i cannot reach with Unity anymore. But first lemme try UDK for a while. Then i can say more :slight_smile: