Killing Asset Server

Unity Engine
1

I’ve been working with Unity for several years now, more than 2 professionally as a full-time freelancer, and with the latest update (2017.1) Unity - without warning - destroyed my work pipeline. They took away the system I use for back-ups and quickly replicating projects. No heads-up, no reasoning beyond “Collaborate is the replacement”, no way for me to do things the way I always have.

Unity has claimed that they killed the Asset Server option in the editor for a list of reasons - all of which I presume to be complete BS - but I am inclined to believe that they are absolutely doing this to try and get more people clogging up Collaborate servers with 10 GB+ projects so they can make money hand over fist on storage space that isn’t even necessary.

I don’t remember anyone asking Asset Server be killed, but I do remember a ton of posts in which users have asked that Asset Store downloads have an option for a download destionation so that those of us who use a SSD don’t have to clog it up with files. We have not been given that option yet, but I have had a integral part of my pipeline taken away.

I run a local development server for a lot of reasons, just one of which was to run my local Asset Server. It had it’s issues, I’ll admit that, but a little experience with the server and you knew the workarounds. The bonuses that this local server setup provided me were priceless; no data needed to be transferred over the internet, just via my local LAN, resulting in lightening fast commits; restoring a back-up in the event something went totally awry was just as quick and painless; I could easily duplicate a project on the server to serve as a back-up to my back-up or to start another project with one of my pre-configured templates. If my HDD ever died, all of my projects resided safely on my Asset Server to be downloaded again.

My pipeline was pretty fail-safe. Work, commit, work, commit, and there was very little interruption in between. Unity now claims that Collaborate is the replacement, and I am here to say BS to the nth degree. Forcing me to commit via the internet is not a replacement; forcing me to move to Perforce is not a replacement; forcing me to setup GitHub or some other online back-up system is not a replacement. They are weak alternatives to a pipeline that has not only served me well since I started with Unity, but on multiple occasions has been the go-to fix for when Collaborate has broken my current clients project (Collab was in beta at the time, but we continue to have issues with it, but that is for another post).

I can understand Unity no longer supporting Asset Server, but for those of us who do not require support, to simply remove it as an option from the editor is clear evidence - at least to me - that the end-user is not their priority, only their bottom line is. Why offer a local back-up solution when you can force users to back-up to your servers and charge them for space? 15 GB is laughable and would only serve for 1-2 projects, if that.

I was drawn to Unity because it seemed to favor the small-mid indie devs more so than - or at least as much as - AAA studios. I have been feeling more and more that this is no longer the case, and this latest move to kill Asset Server without warning, a viable alternative, or even an option to continue using it without support is as crass as it is unnecessary.

So, thank you Unity, for making it clear to me that my needs nor my opinion no longer matter. You’ve gone astray from the project/service/company I fell in love with, and that affection for what you stood for has disappeared as quickly as my version control setup. I will stick with your software for the time being out of pure necessity, but I will be looking for an alternative, be it Unreal or something else. I don’t know what you intend to do in the future, but I dare say at this point that it will neither be what we have asked for nor what is in the best interest for small-mid studios. Best of luck serving those AAA’s.

3 Likes
2

They did give you a heads up, quite awhile back.
https://blogs.unity3d.com/2017/02/06/deprecating-asset-server-support/

2 Likes
3

I was and am aware of that blog post, which contained the announcement and was made public merely 3 months before the release of 2017.1. I suppose I am to believe that Unity only made the decision to remove their own version control system just 3 months before releasing the update.

The lack of heads-up was only one point in a long list of grievances. I don’t think it will take long for Collab to screw up my clients project again, and when I do not have an Asset Server back-up to lean on as I have had to do more times than I can count, I don’t think it will take much convincing for him to consider a software “replacement” when the time comes for the next project.

1 Like
4

I can only speak from my experience, I haven’t had a single problem with the collab, it’s quick fast and easy for me.

5

“Fast” is a matter of opinion; what is not an opinion is that it is anywhere near as fast as posting commits to a server on the local network. It makes a huge difference when posting 2+ GB updates, so much so that I now go off the clock when posting updates to Collab and just leave my dev machine, which is both counter-productive and affects my ability to earn income. On larger updates it fails about 1/3 of the time and has to be redone from the start.

That’s great that you haven’t had a single problem, but we have, and we are not alone based off of forum posts and tweets. Most recent is Collab locking up on “Checking for updates to workspace…”. Closing down the editor and re-downloading the update does not work, it hangs every single time. This results in multiple e-mails between myself and my client as we decide how far back into the history to go and cross our fingers with each rollback; and that doesn’t even touch upon the issues we had when Collab was in beta. This is my career and my clients project and it has cost us both more money than I dare to calculate.

Point being even if Collab was 100% error-free - which it is far from - it is not a replacement for Asset Server by any means. I have 20+ projects on my local Asset Server; I could fit maybe 2 of those on Collab.

1 Like
6

I should add to that last point that I could fit maybe 2 unless later on I opt to expand my storage space on Collab for $$$$, which I am guessing is Unity’s intent to begin with.

7

Three months isn’t exactly long in this context. I often have projects that go for longer than that, and switching tools mid-project is something I do my best to avoid.

[Edit]Was there anything solid earlier than that? Usually it’s mentioned way in advance when something is being deprecated, like with the recent UnityScript announcement. Maybe it was so long ago it’s been forgotten?[/Edit]

While this doesn’t help anyone now, I remember a Unity rep visiting our office giving us a heads up about this years ago. In 2013 or something like that, they said that text-based metadata was being implemented to help support 3rd party versioning systems specifically so that they could move away from the Asset Server, which they wanted to deprecate. That is in fact what prompted me to look into other options and move all of my teams’ projects over to Git, which turned out to be a way better tool anyway for a variety of reasons (more reliable, more features, better tools).

Honestly, if you don’t like Collab then I’d suggest doing that yourself - move to Git or Mercurial or Perforce (which sounds like the best fit for your case if you’ve 2+GB updates!) or whatever other 3rd party source control takes your fancy.

With this in mind, why have you persisted with either Collab or Asset Server for so long when there are so many alternatives to this? When we started using Asset Server it was because Unity didn’t play nicely at all with the available 3rd party alternatives. Switching away from it when we could paid off very quickly.

2 Likes
8

To answer my own question… it has been marked as a “legacy product” in the Unity Manual since Unity 5.1, with a clear recommendation to use a 3rd party tool in its stead.

Interestingly, the current manual page lists it as “deprecated”, which I don’t believe is correct. When something is “deprecated” it is still present for compatibility purposes, but that’s not the case here - as the blog post says it has been removed. @ , @SaraCecilia , this should be brought to someone’s attention.

That said, a couple of quick searches aren’t showing up any clear announcements before the one in February. The recent announcement about UnityScript’s deprecation specifically says that the process they’re following now is the one they want to follow “going forward”, so it could be that while the Asset Server also had a long period of being phased out it wasn’t such a well communicated one.

1 Like
9

Thank you for sharing this. Yes, had I been told that my version control system was going to be completely abandoned back then I would have definitely have found an alternative by now. I understand the need to evolve the software, but 3 months cannot be considered even remotely enough time to make such a critical decision.

I am currently looking for a substitute that suits my workflow; whether that substitute will be used with Unity remains to be seen. I am not a fan of how they have been conducting business over the last year or so, and this was the kick in the pants that proved to me that they are moving forward as quickly as possible for the sake of profits, even when such a pace comes at a high cost to those of us who have been using their product for years. The most frustrating part of this particular issue is that they gave 3 months notice. I had always thought (although hoped seems more accurate a term now) that they would have included the option for the Asset Server, even as plug-in I had to manually install, for more than a few months after announcing it would be removed entirely.

I loved the Asset Server, even for its insignificant problems. My client pays the invoices and therefore is the boss when it comes to their project, and they opted for Collaborate. We pushed through while it was in beta with the hopes that things would be better upon official release; they were, but far from great. The majority of my issue lies with me, not my client, in that this was my back-up system and that back-up system was used at least a half-dozen times to restore a project that had been rendered unusable due to Collaborate issues - and I have the emails between myself and my client to prove it. It was always the same rhetoric: “Collab screwed up again, but I commit to my Asset Server before posting to Collab every single time, so I’ll revert and try to post again.”

The fact that they have had it listed as “legacy” is not the same as making a public statement regarding the removal of their own version control system. The Legacy Animation system is still in place even though Mecanim has been available for quite some time; I would hope that, for the sake of developers (especially those in the small-mid range), they will give more than 3 months notice when/if they decide to remove it altogether.

10

You can use perforce and any number of alternatives. This is a moan thread, let’s not dress it up :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
11

Many of which are free, and which Unity has been actively recommending for years.

It’s a legitimate moan, though. If the only announcement about one of my tools disappearing was a one-liner in documentation I hadn’t needed to check for months or years then there’s a good chance I’d miss it, too.

And the latest version of the one-liner is misleading at best. If the OP is correct then in 2017.1 it is not “deprecated”, it is “removed”.

That said, back to being practical, if you need features that the new version of Unity doesn’t have then why update to the new version? You can stick to whatever version of Unity you were previously working with that had the Asset Server integration for as long as it takes you to get something new set up.

3 Likes
12

It’s legacy, which by default means it’s not supported. I get it though I’d be annoyed too.

I used to use asset server once but I stopped because a) it sucked and wasn’t reliable b) it was depreciated. These days I’m on collab which works great for me, easier than asset server.

1 Like
13

As I stated earlier, I am a freelancer and at the whim of clients. Clients that generally prefer to work with the latest version of the software, at least when starting the project although some risk updating mid-project as well.

But I see your point, which is what led me to consider moving away from Unity. If I am not going to use the latest version, then why have a Pro subscription at all? If I am going to be forced to either use an older version of their software or to find, implement and become familiar with a new version control system to the point that I can still consider myself a professional within the span of 3 months, then perhaps the software I am using isn’t the best choice for my career.

It is not the death of Asset Server that bugs me; I get it. It isn’t really the notion that I was given just 3 months notice… it is that Unity knew long before, they misrepresented their actions in the manuals, and then dropped a blog post 12 weeks prior; 12 weeks in which I have spent working diligently to ensure my clients game releases on Steam. Version control is not just a feature, it is not the same as moving from Legacy Animations to Mecanim; it is a fail-safe and is important to every single other aspect of a project and they just ripped it out from under me and expect me to not “moan”.

14

They what? This brings my point of view far closer to that of hippo.

Look, I agree that it may have been poorly communicated, but I can’t see how they deliberately mislead you as you’re accusing them of here. The Asset Server stuff has been listed under a “Legacy” section of the manual since 5.1 (early June 2016) with a note as to its status and a clear recommendation on what to use moving forward.

You said yourself that you’re mostly using Collab and that Asset Server was being used as a backup. If you can’t pick one of the alternatives and get set up to cover that same use case in a few hours I’d be genuinely surprised.

In case you don’t realise, Git, Merc and Perforce all provide tools for you to set up local repositories. (On re-reading the OP I’m wondering if that’s why you’re hesitant to try them or think they aren’t a solution, as you refer to them being “online” and to Git only via GitHub.) In fact, with Git + TortoiseGit it’s trivially easy to do so.

Edit: Removed tangential stuff.

2 Likes
15

I empathize with your point. Loosing a critical tech sucks. Especially if you don’t have anything to hand to replace it.

That said, this is tech biz. That’s how things work. All of the big companies pull support for techs, all of the time.

You should be able to get back up and running in a couple of days. Version control isn’t hard.

I don’t think you’ll find the grass any greener anywhere else. And I certainly think you’ll loose more time switching engines then you will switching to a new VCS. But you are welcome to try. Let us know how it goes.

16

I used the asset server once. It was awful.

Git+SourceTree has me up and running locally faster than I can import the same projects in Unity. The latest commit can push to a server in the background while I work on it too. My workflow with it is pretty smooth.

Git has many great self-hosting options. Gogs is lightweight and quick to set up - one server binary, runs on basically anything with a CPU and writeable storage (hardware requirements are lower than a modern smartwatch). GitLab has more features, but fewer supported platforms and higher requirements. Both give you an interface similar to GitHub.

I don’t use the built in Git stuff in any IDE or tools. It’s better to settle on one comfortable external tool (in my case SourceTree), because then the VCS workflow is the same no matter what I’m working in.

3 Likes
17

+1 for git running locally. Easy branching and forking. I remembered trying the asset server once, it seemed like an in house vcs, didn’t have faith in its maintenance. Actually, I was a bit shocked it was still around at all.

18

As per the point that you yourself already made, listing something as legacy and removing it entirely are not one in the same. Believe it or not, the project I am currently working on for my client started in early May of 2016 and discussions concerning it began even before that. It had always been my intention to switch to a new version control system once this project finished (which releases in September). Given that it was listed as legacy and not “to be removed in incredibly short notice”, I thought I had time. Which is what this “moan” is all about, the timing. Something you had previously agreed with me on but I see now that other contributors see fit to belittle my concerns, you are quick to hop on the bandwagon.

You misunderstand. I was not using Asset Server as a backup to Collab. My client uses Collab, that is how we share the project. I use Asset Server for everything, and regardless of everyone elses experiences with it, it has served me just fine.

I am well aware of this, my OP was partially in reference to the blog post that N1warhead was kind enough to share; in the comments someone suggests using GitLab and someone else is quick to point out that they lost terabytes of data with no backup. Ironic, isn’t it, how I am “moaning” about how Unity just ripped away my backup system with only 12 weeks notice and the internet’s best suggestion is to backup my work on sites that apparently don’t backup their servers.

I’ll add more to my point in a bit.

1 Like
19

I have been freelancing in the tech industry for nearly 15 years. Never, in all of those years, have I been given such little notice that a feature would be completely removed. This is of course said with my apparent misinterpretation of what ‘Legacy’ means; apparently it means find a solution quickly and mid-project because it won’t be available to you in the next version of our software. Even the big companies, of which I would not consider Unity to be one of, give more than enough to time find suitable replacements.

Again, I’ve been doing this a long time; I do not stake my career or my reputation on ‘should be able to.’ Unity ‘should have been able to’ provide more than 3 months notice, and they obviously couldn’t. Version control isn’t hard to implement, you’re right, but finding the one that best suits my workflow so I can work efficiently for my clients takes time. This is not something I am willing to roll the dice on, especially considering how many times we have had to revert to my Asset Server when using Collaborate.

I was told the same thing when I, without notice, switched from building frameworks for web applications to game development; I doubt switching engines is as difficult as switching careers.

20

So the consensus seems to be that, although I make a good point that 3 months is not adequate time, I am in the wrong. I should simply implement a new version control system and move on. Which is pretty much what I had come to on my own accord. Although along with my new version control comes testing the waters with a new engine.

Asset Server is obviously not the only version control system, and while it may be true that setting up a new one “shouldn’t be” that difficult, I am all about process. The Asset Server is an integral part of that process, and while I understand others may favor different solutions, it has never failed me - Collab, the supposed replacement, has failed me at every turn.

I suppose I should have simply told my client(s) mid-project that I was going to, on a whim, swap over from the backup system that had saved their project multiple times because I had a notion that Unity was going to just toss away Asset Server from the editor completely on short notice; I am sure that that conversation would have gone over well. They would have told me to not worry, it’s listed as legacy like so many other features, and Unity wouldn’t just rip it out from under you without ample time to find a different solution.

Hindsight is 20/20. Version control is a matter of what works best for someone’s particular workflow. I chose Unity after months of research, and while some may consider their choice of version control a non-issue, I do not. I have not found 15 years of success as a freelancer by rolling the dice when it comes to my work, nor have I found it by sticking with companies that lose connection with those who use their products, a perfect example of this is when Adobe acquired Macromedia. Point being, hindsight may be 20/20 but blind loyalty to a company/software is exactly how not to survive in the tech industry. Before Adobe acquired Macromedia (and Flash with it), Flash was on the fast-track. When Adobe bought them out I made the decision to bail and have never once regretted my decision. Was it easy to switch? Of course it wasn’t, but that is exactly why I am still in the tech industry today.

I doubt I will return once I make my move to share my experience with whatever engine I end up choosing. Worst case scenario is I expand my potential client base.

PS. I hope for the sake of everyone who seems to think I am at fault here that Unity does not do the same to you, but given their recent track record I can’t say that they won’t with any confidence. But if that day should come and you are met with ignorant responses in which others tell you they had nothing but trouble with the feature that you were using, and doing so without issue whatsoever, remember that we all have our own workflows but we do not all possess tact.