Chances are next Nintendo console will still run on a mobile chip and this is what Epic say about mobile in Lumen context:
EDIT: Although, perhaps Steam Deck and its brethren might’ve changed things with chips closer to laptop variants. The battery life is still poor on these though. So Nintendo could still opt for a mobile chip just for that since most gaming in Japan happens on the go. And even if they develop some kind of Steam Deck’ish APU, it’s unlikely to run Lumen and Nanite well.
Unironically, I might use some of this…hahahah
Thanks, this makes it clear they don’t even bother to optimize it even for the most popular desktop video cards. The reason to use Unity is that they actually do decently optimized features, unlike that company that develops everything to look good in marketing and that’s it. There must be a reason why I haven’t played a single UE game with stable 60 fps.
Speaking of which here’s the Steam Deck running the Matrix Awakens demo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5i3wnPBylo
What hardware have you been running that has a popular desktop card but can’t hit 60 FPS?
With generally choppy performance and drops to single digit frames per second.
I should probably point out that what we can do framerate wise right now (as in this moment in time) with X hardware is sort of irrelevant when AI exists. Even just DLSS can make a crazy difference. The industry has been focused on hardware based increases in performance for a long time but with AI being all the rage and more use cases beyond generative AI coming more and more commonplace, I predict we will see increases in performance driven by the software side of things more and more as time goes on.
So Lumen not on mobile right now, but who knows in the future right? Also mobiles right now are like some laptops from a couple of years ago, the tech moves quickly.
All I am saying is the engine doesnt matter, what should matter is:
If you are getting sick of unity and want to try something else to get away from it, then really it doesnt matter about which engine is good of what. I got sick of unity and that led me to unreal, and for a while that was great. I now work almost solely in XR and so I have again had to shift back.
It’s a technical showcase running on integrated graphics. 
Speaking of which Digital Foundry discovered the latest Zelda game is not only using FSR but dynamically adjusting the degree of it depending on the scene and how you move around the world.
Digital Foundry Tech Review
One major downside to Unity right now is that we don’t have much in the way of upscalers. URP is limited to spatial upscaling (FSR 1) which is much less effective and much lower quality compared to temporal upscaling (FSR 2 and DLSS 2). HDRP is limited to just DLSS 2 (and I think there’s a crappy in-house one).
Unreal Engine 5 has multiple upscaling options available to it including a solid in-house one, and they will be getting access soon to DLSS 3 which generates complete frames in-between rendered frames almost doubling frame rate albeit with some artifacts and higher latency.
https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-to-release-dlss-3-unreal-engine-5-2-plugin-soon
Digital Foundry DLSS 3 Analysis
Have you seen Unity sales model? The entire business model is setup in a way where they are rewarded for you taking as long as possible and struggle as hard as possible to make a project.
Unreal makes money when you make money. Unity makes money when you take long and struggle. Very expensive support, 100k I think to ask for fixes on the source code etc. Fill up lacking features with asset store purchases. I think freelancers have to pay 5k a year if they work for a larger company. You pay for seats even for build servers. Seats are more expensive than the build machines themselves.
Everything is setup in a way where they don’t have incentive for you to succeed.
Epic game store only takes 12%, Unreal 5% only if you are successful.
Epic literally dosn’t make money if you don’t succeed.
Because they can afford to and because they have to attract content producers from bigger stores and bigger engines since they joined late in the game. The rates are not smaller than industry standard because of their good hearts or something, it’s a user acquisition strategy.
Epic were a 1st party game developer long before Unreal became publicly available with several huge IPs and a long history of AAA licensing. And they have Tencent and Fortnite fuck you money, so income from the engine is not as important.
Unity Technologies do not have any alternate revenue streams from game development and the engine is not licensed by AAA with one or two exceptions so it’s kinda an apples to oranges comparison really. All game engine companies are not created equal even if the products do similar things.
On top of that, asset store brings in very little money for Unity, it’s barely on the map. Their intent is not for you to struggle for a long time, their intent is to lock you into the Unity ecosystem to keep monetizing you with services including some of the expensive ones you’ve already mentioned. Ol’ boy Rich in the recent earnings call said they don’t expect large growth in licensing revenue going forward, so they’re focusing on services, particularly AI services they’ve been cooking behind the scenes for some years now that’ll be monetized by usage rather than subscription.
I mean does it matter why they are doing it?
I assume the motivations behind the decisions Unity and Unreal makes are similar, but the end result is one gives developers and pretty decent deal for the engine and the other tries to push its terrible extraneous services on people (and then rug pull them and price hike, see cloudbuild / devops as a recent example).
In the context of portraying Epic as some friendly neighborhood company that is here to help all game developers it does matter. The decent deal they’re offering is more of a consequence of circumstance rather than goodwill and care for the wider gamedev community. A good deal does not mean Epic is good.
The great leader of Godot sect in their recent GDC presentation mentioned that modern game engines are not profitable without services being built on top of them because maintaining and developing a modern engine is incredibly expensive and those expenses rise every year with new tech advancements. They announced their own upcoming online services, paid enterprise support and subscription based availability of console binaries. The source of the claim seems credible as I haven’t developed a game engine from scratch so I don’t know how expensive it is or isn’t. Epic is in a very unique position where they don’t have to do this due to Fortnite/other first party titles and AAA licensing subsidizing engine development.
I just don’t subscribe to this idea that Unity want us to struggle, while Epic wants us to succeed based on their monetization models. It’s a very shallow interpretation that falls on its face. If you look at Unity’s monetization, they also gain from people succeeding - the more successful you are, the more you have to pay Unity. It’s in their best interests for users to be successful (and also use their services). I ascribe Unity’s problems to incompetence rather than malicious intent. Although, perhaps greed from moneysuits on top also plays a role.
Yes, but was the message you were replying to implying that Epic is good or something?
Cool, that is something for someone who makes an engine to care about, I don’t care about it.
No, I disagree with this, Unity’s model is successful when you try to make a game for years, if you are successful or not is not of any consequence to them. (Unless you are making ad-ridden mobile apps, in which case you should release as many as possible). This is just they way they have set up their business models and does not mean anything about them being “good” or whatever.
Yeah guess why they “can’t afford it” - because they have awfully inefficient and slow pipelines, causing them to be not competitive in features nor stability. Then they think they have to offer inferior services at inferior prices, which drives more customers away, making them less able to afford staying competitive.
Unity had all the resources, manpower, talent and time in the world to make an engine to compete in the big leagues. They did not expect Unreal to make such big leaps and thought they could keep on going on their terrible processes and minimum viable “features by checklist” for a long time with no consequences.
If we report something now to be improved, like a oversight in the Raytracing calculation causing massive lag, the realistic turnover time is 2 years for this to see the light of day.
Their processes and intentions did never care to make a real competitive engine that any larger studio would want to use and that is the price they have to pay now on the PC market. They are selling the dream not the product to make the dream.
They still show zero intentions to change anything on their extremely slow turnover times, extreme process bloat, maintaining of 1000 branches and resulting terrible stability and iteration speed. You can’t really blame any employees, this is clearly processes from management bogging them down hard-core and there is a extreme lack of technical vision. Dots, 3 Pipelines, Bolt, just terrible choices. Features by checklist. Hey this would look cool on a marketing paper. Just no vision to be found here, no greater whole.
Unreal is running circles around them in terms of technical vision and value proposition. Unity is now trying to increase prices and monetarization to avoid sinking instead of trying to fix management, process and engine issues at their core.
Yes, that’s the general feeling I had after reading the post. They ascribe maliciousness to Unity’s business model and the opposite for Unreal’s business model.
I’m not saying Unity is “good” or better than Epic. I just don’t subscribe to the idea that Epic’s model is based on people succeeding and Unity’s is not. They’re just different business models for different companies. Unity can’t adapt Epic’s business model without Fortnite and AAA licensing at scale. Current Unreal 5% revshare after first mil came about 3 years after Fortnite generated billions upon billions in revenue.
And if people struggle “for years”, they’ll just switch to some other engine that is not Unity after the project is done. It’s not a valid business strategy for Unity long term. Unity’s and Unreal’s growth was roughly equal by games released on Steam last year so I don’t really see that happening even if there is a vocal minority here making a lot of noise. And there are big, successful Unity games released every year.
You talk like they ever had intent to compete on AAA level. Unity succeeded because there were no other accessible alternatives for the general public and it could export to all relevant platforms with largely the same codebase. Recent development of HDRP and other high end tooling in general is rather a recent push into new markets since Unity already dominates indie and mobile markets. They don’t have to compete, they service markets where Unreal is not even present.
There is some intent to change, they’re restructuring - reducing half of their offices in the next few years and flattening the management structure some. I do agree that turnover times are extremely slow, and the bloat continues to accumulate, hopefully the restructure will address at least some of it. Part of the reason bloat is still here is that there are 10 year old live service games still running on the platform and require new SDKs that come with new Unity versions.
I don’t think Unreal is running circles around them in value proposition - Unreal can’t do web, can’t do low end mobile well and by extension also Switch, can’t do proper 2D. The new Lumen and Nanite tech runs only on mid to high end PCs and latest generation consoles. It’s also not the best fit for VR in performance and tooling. It forces you to use Blueprints which have different API from C++ and C++ itself has long compilation times and Unreal builds take forever to complete. There is no perfect engine. You trade one set of problems for another set of problems. Key deciding factor are project requirements.
Of course is Unity not intended to be a AAA engine, however it should be viable to use for 5-50 people though.
We work with hierarchy and basic organization features on prototype level here.There is no proper positioning of objects in 3D space. You can’t read full names in the project window. You can’t see prefab icons half of the time. Absolute basics are missing and nobody had and interest in improving them.
URP is getting SSAO in 2022, while we are entering the AI age. Let’s not talk about things like Terrain or Lighting.
Theres no copy paste in the project folders. Features from the beginning of the computer.
The Gigaya people couldn’t make the game as they said themselves because basic Industry standards were not met and building the lacking elements themselves would have been way too high of an effort.
All of those are valid problems, I don’t say otherwise.
I too struggle with timelines. They acquired Bolt in 2020, and half of 2023 is already gone and they’ve done nothing with it, nor is it actually usable in production in its package form. It’s some derelict zombie that was last updated in 2018 with the biggest new feature being sticky notes. Nor is a proper graph API anywhere in sight yet. They’re rewriting Bolt/Visual Scripting from scratch it seems. Maybe in 2024.
I don’t know if that’s true. The PR response could be interpreted that way if you really try but the utility of finishing it is described in the context of delivering a clean, best practices example for the community after the team was already fired, which, of course, would be expensive without the said team. Unity have downsized multiple times in the past year, GIGAYA just wasn’t vital to Unity’s continued existence and 20-30 people teams are not cheap to sustain for years without any revenue generating potential.
We do know, since at least one fired Gigaya employee said so here on the forums
And its understandable. They couldn’t just buy asset store things like other people do, since its official Unity right.
(even if asset store solutions are unreliable and prone to breaking they still make things somehow work)
So their sample project would have to make the lacking features on their own, and in a commendable way so its an example for others. Good luck building a new Terrain system, navmesh, light baking etc etc. They of course couldn’t, and the existing options were of course not viable for a slightly more ambitious project.
This is [what a ex-GIGAYA member wrote]( https://discussions.unity.com/t/875861 page-2#post-8278434) after the PR announcement. That they were on track finishing it.
EDIT: Here’s [another post]( https://discussions.unity.com/t/875861 page-14#post-8310492) that clarifies that GIGAYA was not cancelled for technical reasons.
Yeah thats a quite different story from the one I read from the other thread from another person.
Dosn’t matter much, the result was that it never got finished and it was said to be too much effort to finish it officially anyways.
Time to close this thread. It achieved the usual “why unity isn’t unreal” state of downness in the toilet.
