Unity no longer makes games. Their forays into game development, like the UT-associated Global Conflicts: Palestine and the Over the Edge Entertainment’s GooBall, were spearheaded by Nicholas Francis, who has since left UT to pursue game dev independently. In a recent newsletter, UT touted the fact that they didn’t make games as an advantage—because they could instead focus on making the best tools for developers. I’m curious what you guys think about whether this is indeed an advantage.
On the surface, it feels like a contradiction, but perhaps skepticism is just the inevitable stance of a game developer on this topic. The “eat your own dogfood” argument goes that if Unity were involved in game development parallel to engine development, the pragmatic needs of their game would:
-
Inform the direction of development on the game engine.
-
Provide increased pressure to fix low-priority but abrasive bugs, especially those of long standing.
-
Incentivize more rapid development in general.
-
Engender trust among customers who feel their situation is familiar to the corporation’s.
-
Put a face on the engine’s capabilities, ameliorating the age-old question, “which good games are actually made with Unity?”
Unity’s disinclination towards in-house game development stands in stark contrast to its competitors. Epic and its subsidiaries have developed a number of famous properties, and their expertise in content production stands out when comparing the two company’s tech demos and community initiatives (to wit, Epic’s choice to involve the community in Unreal Tournament 4 post production).
However, UT is a savvy company. Their movement into the free development space showed both bravery and acumen, and their roster unquestionably boasts many talented decision makers alongside designers and developers. Unity began as a Mac-only product clearly inspired by Apple’s ideal: render the complex into the simple and the essential. It’s in the name. Likewise, UT’s business practices are reminiscent of Apple’s: often secretive; at their best—innovative. The object / component model is unquestionably weird. But there’s also no question that it makes prototyping a cinch… even a joy.
So giving the benefit of the doubt to UT’s choices, why might eschewing in-house game development be the right choice?
-
Close links to a specific game can create an engine best suited to specific gameplay formats and technologies. UE4 resists this accusation with counterexamples, but from what I understand the criticism still holds.
-
As we know, game development is very risky, AAA development especially so. Perhaps UT simply don’t want to have to take on the risk of hundreds of artists, audio crew, designers, producers, etc. etc. for the esoteric benefits listed above? Just look at how Crytek’s fortunes have risen and fallen again on the back of their game development efforts.
-
If UT keeps very close ties with specific developers, it might render in-house feedback on the engine moot. They would get the same feedback without the risk.
-
UT has stated that as a company they are simply more interested in making tools than in games. On the one hand, this sits uneasy because as one among a community of game developers the natural reaction is, “what’s wrong with you guys?” On the other hand, could it just be as simple as that? A personal preference guiding a large, increasingly impersonal company?
So what do you think? Does UT’s reticence to develop games with their own game development tools suggest a lack of confidence that they can “put their money where their mouth is”? Or does it show a conservative wisdom and the vision it takes to walk one’s own path and not another’s?
