If I buy Unity 2, when 3 comes out I'll have to pay again?

Unity Engine
1

I see that those who bought the program early on, have to pay to upgrade to Unity 2. Right now there are some serious problems with the software, making it useless for Windows users.

When they eventually get around to fixing these problems, will they call the new version Unity 3 and make us pay another 200 dollars for it?

I’m not a big fan of the idea that supporting a product by buying it before its finished, will result in getting screwed over, and having to buy it again in its completed form later on. The new version will always be the same as the old version, just with less bugs after all, and perhaps some features it should’ve had to begin with anyway.

If someone figured out why I’m crashing constantly in Vista http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=32205, and I went ahead and bought it now, doing what I can while waiting for them to fix the problem which allows anyone to VERY easily decompile the code for any Unity game released in Windows http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=18253&start=90, would I have to just pay again when the next version came out?

Also, is there a list of what they are working on now in Unity, and what they plan on doing in the future?

Most computer users use Windows. No one wants someone stealing all of their code, and then reselling it as their own games. A very simple tool instantly shows you all the code, for any Unity game released for Windows, currently with no possible way to prevent that from happening. Is this problem eventually going to be fixed?

2

you don’t have to pay the full price.
But you have to pay an upgrade fee.

I guess the upgrade fee will remain in the scale its currently.

But UT will not call an bugfix release 3.0, it would be 2.x.1, 2.x.2 and so on.
Actually you even get at least another pretty large feature addition release for free with 2.6

Check the release notes on 2.5 to get an idea what marks a new point release, or the roadmap for Unity 2.6 :slight_smile:

And that .NET code can be decompiled far easier is no bug.
Its just a fact of how JIT works.
Obfuscation only partially helps.

Protection will naturally be nice but a pretty large thing so I would not expect it in 2.x to happen, especially not as there are enough apps that allow you to protect it (molebox and similar protection systems)

3

Do other engines have code this easy to decompile?

Seems like it should be a little harder than that to get someone’s code.

4

It’s not a function of the engine, it’s a function of .NET and the CLR. So, yes, any application that uses .NET languages can be decompiled.

5

basically any .NET application can be accessed that easy.

Check out Molebox if you want to protect them better on windows or use other obfuscation solutions. Its all up to you how you protect or not protect your application.

What you likely will find out when looking for such solutions is that Unity Indie is significantly underpriced (as most solutions you will find cost more than unity indie as whole and they only do basic protection any dedicated cracker will laugh about any kind of protection and just continue anyway)

For Unity Pro its a different thing, there I would love to see something alike as it is targeted at professional users and usage, less the hobbiests where protection couldn’t really be of any less importance (sorry but the majority of people write code that many others wouldn’t want to copy anyway …)

6

There are Windows users who are using it, so that’s rather an overstatement.

I’m not aware of any software that charges full price for an upgrade, and Unity is no different. So, no. Also, simple bugfixes don’t warrant a full upgrade and never have.

Neither am I. However, you don’t “finish” software like this; there will always be new stuff to add and new technology to take advantage of. If they waited until it was “done”, it would literally never be released. They’ve been working on this for quite a few years with only one paid update the whole time, when most other packages have had at least 2-3 such updates, and they don’t seem in much of a hurry to get to 3.0 either. Also the .x free updates have all been substantial upgrades with significant functionality, not just minor bugfixes.

Play with Unity 1.5 (the version I started with) and try saying that again. :wink: For one thing, they completely rewrote the entire GUI, and that was the free 2.1 → 2.5 update.

–Eric

7

As noted above if you buy now you’re buying a 2.x license and so anything in the 2.x family will be yours for free. When we release Unity 3 you will have to pay for that upgrade but via discounted upgrade pricing (currently 40-50% of full license cost).

As to “buying something incomplete”, no software is ever truly done but we strive very hard to offer you the best tool possible. In the 2.x family we’ve released 2.0, 2.1 and 2.5, not counting other even more minor releases. Those were all free updates that offered not only bug fixes but new features, lots of heavy new features. We are quite intent on ensuring that you feel like you get your money’s worth out of Unity. :slight_smile:

As to the code security issue, the folks above have it handled well enough for now. I will leave you with a note that we’ll be strategizing for better protection in the future, just don’t expect that in the 2.x family in particular given the weight of such work (a lot, and it’s time for us to finish 2.6 and move on to 3.0!).

8

Aha, so 2.6 is the last 2.x after all. :wink: I was wondering, since 1.6 was the last 1.x, but didn’t want to read anything into that…

–Eric

9

That’s not a 100% certainty but the 2.x family is getting a bit long in the tooth y’know (next month will mark the 2 year anniversary of the release of Unity 2.0!). There may be something after 2.6, but really we’re going to start turning our focus over to thoughts of 3.0 quite soon… :smile:

10

i even don’t want to start to dream about what possibilities&options Unity3 will provide…:smile:

So when will this long overdue Unity3.0 Release happen at long last? :twisted:

11

Unity isn’t bad price wise, and compared to stuff like Torque that just throws away and discontinues entire product lines (TGE, TGEA) to make something else entirely forcing you to upgrade or loose support, Unity is by far a great investment and far easier to use.

12

Lets really think about this for a minute, 2.6 “is” finished. Actually. I see no reason why this product does not do what it advertises that it does in the release point it is in. If UT were to stop adding more to the product today and just say “2.6 we are finished” well this is one of the worlds top notch programs and it is done.

Sure, bug fixes come along, minor updates, etc, but as far as this program is concerned, 2.6 is finished. It has a set of rules to the tools and the only thing lacking is documentation enhancements (note the enhancement word, documentation is actually done IMO).

So what is there left to do?
Bugs
Thats about it.

A product is finished when the development cycle defined and the life cycle documentation is met. They met their goal for the 2.x series and they are ready to move on to 3.x, when you buy “ANY” software product, you are purchasing a released version “of that time, of that release” with zero guarantee that anything will happen past your initial purchase and download or CD.

You own Microsoft products right? You own MAC products right? Tell me which of those were “finished”. Leopard was bug fixed tons of times, Windows was bug fixed tons of times. Snow Leopard came out, we bought it, and installed it, and rebooted, then there was an immediate bug fix patch, so was it finished? Windows Vista was released, what part of that can define the word “finished”.

As far as .NET is concerned, it is MEANT to be decompiled, why do you think it requires the framework? On the front it looks like a binary file that is enclosed or encapsolated, but not a single file created using C# or VB.Net, J# or otherwise is secure, not one. You need tools like MoleBox Pro to handle that security. The ONLY way to secure anything we create in .NET for Unity, would be for Unity to encapsolate the libraries INSIDE the final Unity build. Similar to MoleBox packages.

They only way to write secure code is to use assembler. You can get mostly secure code by coding directly in C++ or Delphi but you have to stay away from the .NET and make your code independent of the Framework Libraries. For me, that is what I own Borland C++ Builder 4.0 for. The last great era of true limitless compilers. Anything I make in C++ Builder is fully framework independent.

Just something to chew on when trying to decide if Unity is a complete product, I see absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t lock down 2.6 and move on.

13

The constant crashes make it unusable for me, as I explained in the first link.

I see MoleBox has €99 Pro and €299 Ultra versions. Anything cheaper out there that does this?

And I do agree that Torque is crap. I made the mistake of letting one of their sales people talk me into buying it over at my Game Maker’s forum Leak nudes - The Home Of The Sexiest Thots, Nipple Slips, Bikini Pictures, Nude Streamers From Patreon, Onlyfans And Much More!, they stringing people along saying they’ll fix everything soon, but then they never do. I bought the RTS Starter Kit, only to learn it already long abandoned by their support team. I also bought something built on TGE to make MMO games at http://www.mydreamrpg.com/ but after years of jerking us around, they finally just vanished with the money, it never getting completed, although every so many months one of them would post that they were going to soon release a finished version. They have now erased all the old forum post and whatnot, and started over with something else. Don’t trust them.

The Garage Games people kept selling Torque Game Engine, while using the money to develop their newer engine, before finally abandoning TGE entirely. They just kept stringing people along, there going to be new updates, etc. etc. but it was all a scam to make money, they planning on abandoning it for a newer product to sell anyway.

Anyway, forgive me for being a little cynical, but my past experiences have left me so.

This engine already has vastly more potential than what TGE ever had, if not for the still unanswered constant crashes that I have with it, making it unusable for me for any real game development. Someone please find an answer for that http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=32205 .

14

No, molebox is definitely the bottom end price wise.

writting a near end binary independent protection is a massive task actually. you can not only use it to protect your unity app but anything that uses exe + DLL + assets (independent of the language, I protect blitz3D, blitzmax, c++ and other stuff with it. sometimes not even for protection reasons but to reduce the amount of distinct files users have to cope with. My Patch Launch Technology patchlaunch for example bundles exe and required DLLs that way)