Most of the most successful games of the past have evolved into game engines, Unreal, Crytek, idTech all started life as a game then evolved into a game engine.
Unity does not have this heritage, but what if the best games made with Unity were released as game frameworks on the asset store?
What Unity games would you like to see as asset store Frameworks?
Lol. You must have posted this the same time I was posting a reply on the other thread. I kinda thought this was what you were after.
It might work as a good starting point, but just because someone has a game framework doesnât necessarily mean it meets my needs. Remember that the frameworks made in those games are tailored specifically for their games. If it really were this simple, Unity would likely be shipping with it or selling it separately themselves.
hmm i was thinking of what ⌠kinda the ultimate game wasâŚ
and i was thinking, to fight âdestructiveâ with âconstructiveâ (destuction vs creation)
âŚ
like, minecraft is all about creationâŚ
and soâŚi was thinking and then i was like ⌠dang itâŚ
Unity itself is the best game to be made with UnityâŚ
Lol. Totally true. There are dozens of threads on here each day, bemoaning the fact that there are more developers out there then the market can support, meaning no one make money. Normally they blame it on accessibility and the possibility of getting rich quickly off a hit game. But another key reason is Making games with Unity itself is fun.
On the framework issue this comes down to the individual IP owners. Most figure they can make more money off of refining their IP and releasing sequels then they can on selling the framework. Ultimately selling the framework promotes a flood of lesser clones.
Unity itself is not likely to develop the frame work either. Unityâs main selling point is anyone can make any game on any platform. Building a specific framework will cost money and only benefit a small portion of users. So unity will stick with broad brush feature that affect everyone.
The only group left is people who donât make a specific game, but sell frameworks for a living. Plenty of these exist. But their frameworks will always be generic to the point they need significant tweaking to run how you want it too.
I canât imagine that most code that is used is actually shippable as a framework. As a learning exercise and as a object of academic study, it would be nice for code to be public, but as a method of cutting corners and getting closer to shipping your game, youâre probably going to be closer to making a mod than a completely different game.
Just how many things get hard coded or implemented in sub-optimal manners because itâs easier, faster, and, for your needs, itâs perfectly acceptable? Especially if the project is a one-off, itâs easy to start cutting corners and deliver just what you want and not what everyone else needs.
LOL but look at the other game engines, they started life as games then evolved or were adapted into frameworks and game engines.
Unity developers seem to have a blinkered view of the games industry, and it is an industry, where time is money and profit is dependent upon using both wisely.
Now take a step back from your Unity focused world and think about your favourite game genre, and the best example in that genre, then check out the game engine it uses. Now if you were to make a game in that genre would you be better off using a genre specific game engine or Unity?
Good luck getting anyone successful to put up their game on the asset store 
Lets call blizzard and ask if they put up hearthstone!
Your suggestion is suicidal for developers, absolutely suicidal. Because a framework cannot be released without support, and the costs of support would actually be a full time salary, so they would need support to be a paid subscription that earns more than developing more games. Lets say I earn 2 million for a new game over a period of 6 months? how much do you think I would charge for full time support over making another game?
Answer: more than anyone would afford, so theyâd pirate it and Iâd essentially be giving my games away for clones to flood the market with.
Your suggestion is fine for match 3. Itâs not fine for any blockbuster title.
We already have the framework of successful unity titles. Its Unity.
You are totally entitled to not use Unity and use a genre engine. Trying to force Unity to meet your business model wonât work. Vote with cash and use another engine. If you are right Unity Technologies will crash under its own weight on the next few years.
In the meantime those of us that like the Unity engine and format will continue to use it.
Yes, they started life as games. Games with multi-million dollar budgets. Selling copies of a game to consumers makes up the cost very quickly because the entry barrier to gaming is very small. Game development has a much higher barrier and thus they wouldnât be able to sell anywhere near the same number of copies.
Are you willing to pay the potentially high costs for a genre engine? And the cost of support? Unity is able to easily achieve an affordable price because their engine is very flexible and thus has many more potential customers. A genre-specific engine or framework wonât have this advantage.
No, I think youâre simply ignorant to the real world of game development for anything beyond the very simple games typically found on Kongregate or similar. I may be wrong but thatâs how your threads and posts come across to me.
This is a tricky question to answer because it is very dependent on your project. One of the biggest problems with a genre engine is that it will be tailored specifically for that genre and nothing else. You may think this makes it a better choice but it wonât necessarily be better.
What if your game is similar enough to be classified under a particular genre but deviates in little ways that would normally never be found in that genre? Unity, like other general purpose game engines, would allow you to complete your project but a genre engine may not.
Additionally there is the problem with having to learn new engines. If your company stays with one genre this wonât be problematic, but if your company intends to branch out they would need to learn an entirely new engine for every new genre they wanted to make.
Not necessarily. It really boils down to what you understand under âreleasing your game as frameworkâ.
And why shouldnât you be able to release a framework without support? Itâs your decision after all. You can release it on an âas-isâ basis.
Letâs look at Half-Life 2:
If memory serves, large portions of the source code of HL2 were available to all buyers via the Source SDK. It was meant to give modders a base to work off of or in other words: a framework. The important point is how the assets are separated in Source. When you compiled everything, you got a game that would start to the menu and do nothing else. The code only contained generic stuff like ladders, the player, health, items, saving/loading, etc.
Thatâs not enough to create âcheap clones to flood the market withâ. Thatâs barely enough to create mods and unique games with.
You could totally open up parts of your games without shooting yourself in the feet. You just have to be smart about what exactly you open up. In fact, I am planning to do just that in future.
Open up certain, generic parts of the code and release them under some permissive OSS license, while keeping all the game-specific assets (scenes, sounds, textures, models, certain scripts,âŚ) to myself.
The thing is that thereâs a lot of busywork involved when developing games from scratch. All those generic, reusable things like doors, ladders and elevators donât define your game in the slightest, but someone has to write them. Might as well release them afterwards and save others some time.
I bet Unity has had millions of dollars spent on it so far but it still does not provide frameworks to get people quickly up to and running with a basic 3D FPS, RTS, Platformer, Racer or Turret Defence game out of the box.
Youâre confusing genre specific engine and genre specific framework, a Unity genre specific framework would add to the features of Unity needed to produce games in that genre.
So you canât see that I think Unity is holding itself back by limiting itâs own toolset of basic components and frameworks it is allowing the big game engines to out do it and letting the next generation of young upstart WebGL game engines quickly catch up and surpass it in basic features and toolset.
Unity is a great little game engine, but it could really improve itâs out of the box toolkit.
Imagine if a nood started with Unity.
And this is before the Cloud based VR/AR version of Unity is released, where you can step into the game or build the game into your living space.
Iâm a dreamer yes but in them I see how much Unity could be improved.
Then go build it. What you have described could easily be done within the asset store framework. You might even make some money off of it.
I see Unity as an âoverallâ engine, one that can be used for all type of games and does not cater to specific genres which is a GOOD thing in my opinion, because they can focus their energy on new features that can be used throughout all genres and are tough to do yourself if your not specialized in a certain field like the new lighting system, the 64Bit editor or the new networking system they are working on.
I would hate paying for my pro subscription if all they did was adding new âscriptsâ for specific genres. I can code that stuff myself.
But what if Unity fails economically because other engines do provide frameworks and templates that allow new developers to start with quick generic games, as opposed to a blank project.
Or because it is easier to develop with other engines as they provide frameworks and templates that reduce the amount of work to get a game prototype working.
The big picture is people choose a game engine because it makes it easier for them to make a game. So if other game engines make it easier than Unity then it could as a product and company suffer, falter and eventually fail.
Think of frameworks and templates as a way to make Unity better, maybe not for you but for others and in doing so Unity will continue to be around for your own unique projects.
Well they seem to be doing OK and keeps growing.
Also donât know how it is around other places but in Denmark almost every game company uses Unity more or less now a day. Why? I guess it is because it is so easy to use for all genres without the need of learning new engines. That has not changed because of cheaper licenses for other larger engines.
Also what larger engines have a lot of genre specific help that you cannot get from the asset store?
I know there are some smaller engines that focus on specific genres, but what gaming company would use those? The amount of time you have to put into learning each engine is not worth it at all.
I see your point to some degree from a hobbyist point of view, but from a professional point of view (which is often the paying customer) it does not make any sense to me. Also their learning section already have examples of a platformer, top-down shooter and more.
Iâm confident Unity wonât fail economically if the donât provide game-specific frameworks. I for one, would still choose Unity over an engine that had pre-made features for common game genres, all else being equal.
Plus, UT has kind of already addressed this.