Unity is a good game engine that ports to a massive range of platforms.
However it is always a game engine, what if you could morph Unity to fit the desired media target?
What if you could have a:
Unity 3d model viewer, super light weight but ideal for showing off 3d or 2d information.
Unity 3d movie player, super light weight refined to play 3d or 2d movies with basic interaction.
Unity 3d/2d presenter for lectures.
Unity 3d/2d Portal allow a view into another AR/VR Unity space.
…
…
Are there times when you don’t need all of Unity just a dedicated task specific subset of features but end up having to use another toolset/technology to make that multi-media app/dataset?
For instance if I want to show off a:
3D model online, Sketchfab is probably the go to technology.
3D video online, YouTube or GoogleVR(?) is probably the way to go.
2D/3D Lecture, PowerPoint.
It’s like we have this powerful technology buy it’s locked up in it’s own game engine mould, does Unity need to break the mould to grow?
Interesting thought, but It’d probably take a hell lot of re-engineering and the modular (?) approach probably comes at its own small overhead, unless you combine things differently for every combination that one may need to achieve the best performance of interacting modules.
Also, since you already mentioned existing technologies, why would you take the risk, re-engineer everything and try to compete with the exisiting expert technologies / tools?
I do get your point though and could imagine it’s an innovative approach, but I’m personally also fine with the way it is. We all know the engine’s main purpose, and that’s why we choose a tool in the first place.
It’s a game engine. All that other stuff is well serviced by other tools. It’s pointless for unity to compete in areas outside its space. Unity is constantly growing, that approach would limit growth due to lack of focus.
Moving the focus of future Unity development away from games seems like a poor use of resources considering the competition like Unreal won’t be taking their eye off the ball themselves
Unity is unlikely to become a serious competitor in any of those other areas you mention without making a much more considerable development effort than simply making the Unity more modular, that means even less resources directed toward the games part
Unity can be used for all those purposes mentioned already as is if you really want to go there, but as already mentioned there are purpose built tools already in those spaces which Unity should not even try to compete with
No. You’re asking the engine to split into 12 different products and die.
What you’re talking about is an inflexible solution geared to specific problem type. Those kind of projects are SIMPLE to make, but are hard to use once you’re outside of predefined use scenario.
Unity offers a very flexible framework. Those kind of solutions are relatively easy to use for most problem types, but are very hard to create.
So, what we have (in unity) now is vastly superior to specialized scenarios you’re proposing. Even if all the scenarios you propose were impolemented, they would’ve been less valuable than unity. Probably by several orders of magnitude.
Why would you want a game engine to be anything more than it needs to be?
Splitting up Unity into different programs? Why? For the consumers, that’s A: incredibly confusing and you’re guaranteed to have people struggling to work out which one they need. B: why would you go to Unity for presentation software? Do I go to a pizza place and ask for a car tire? Why would I want a Unity Movie player? What purpose do these things have that wouldn’t have direct and far superior pre-existing competition already? We’ve already got a wide assortment of programs that do these jobs and do them pretty well.
For the developers, that’s a whole new codebase you’ve got to maintain for each random offshoot you decide is for some reason a good idea. Which means you’ve got to have loads of people for each one maintaining, bug fixing, and more. More time, more money.
It’s not a bad idea in principle, as long as Unity didn’t attempt to bundle all of it together in the same download. I like the way that Allegorithmic make a bunch of different stand-alone products in the same general field of art creation, and no doubt it’s good for them in terms of monopolosing their end of the market.
It’s a terrible idea. Allegorithmic’s tools are complimentary and in the same market. Similar to the adobe suite. Presentation apps are a different market and dominated by 3 of the biggest companies in the world and free. Unity would bring nothing to that. Video players are free, not an actual market, and already available with web publishing in unity. Model viewer? Already free, and available with unity. Portals are a service/platform and not really a software thing, unless you count steam. Basically one of those things is an application unity would bring nothing to and the others aren’t viable “markets”.
Well as I said ‘in principle’ I think it’s a good idea. I’m not really sure that all of the options make sense. But having a software dedicated for a particular purpose can make it much easier to approach and use. I mean Allegorithmic could have bundled Painter and Designer together since they are very closely related, but it certainly wouldn’t be good for usability.
One option that seems like a decent idea is a machinima tool. It’s certainly not necessary, but worth considering.
Sure, that is at least related to Unity, more so than the other suggestions, but even so, that type of thing is just a toy. Best left to the asset store or existing options, not really a market.
still, all we really need is an .apk or webgl player that gets stripped to bare minimum
(like <1mb or whatever is possible, if most features were not used)…
so could make super light weight 3D web apps…
Maybe so, but if the industry for some particular thing becomes very popular and calls for an easy to use, dedicated interface with a low learning curve, it might turn out to be useful for Unity to provide that. But yeah besides machinima I can’t really think of anything right now, maybe if some kind of commerce VR becomes widespread it would call for a standalone product.
I don’t think there’s a pressing need for Unity to ship any other product besides the engine, but it’s certainly not something to dismiss out of hand, IMO.
Or you could look at it the other way how long before light weight multi-media tools start to become game engines…
Sketchfab, started with basic model viewing but has added animation, if it were to add basic input, sfx and particle effects it could play a basic game scene.
Twitch streaming could it evolve into a game portaling or streaming and playing system?
Could GoogleVR become the new standard VR presentation and learning tool?
Or how much of a game engine do you need to do good AR apps?
My thinking is if you get the media artists using your product for one set of features they are more likely to use it for other more advanced features.
Well, humans can also evolve and grow scales, sprout wings and start breathing fire. However it is unlikely to happen any time soon, so what’s the point discussing it?
