What features would you like to see in the next major Unity version?
I would love to see some kind of easy MMO networking system implemented opening up MMO development for indie developers and giving professional companies something to prototype with
A system to put rivers, roads and trenches easily onto terrain (like Torque 3D)
DirectX 10 and/or 11 and OpenGL support for Windows
More (and improved) sample scripts and assets for the total newbie coming into games development
Even better performance 
It’s fast enough lol
Upgraded Mono.
Windows:
General:
Replacement of PhysX with Bullet. Nothing against Physx but CUDA based acceleration with much weaker acceleration on pure cpu isn’t modern anymore.
Hardware acceleration in PhysX is CUDA and Windows only. Even Havoc would be the better solution, but as PhysX it does not support OSX.
Bullet works the same on any platform including all the platforms UT seems to be looking into and has a very strong CPU multithreaded backend. This allows all systems to benefit of it, including casual and home office class Windows systems and all those poor 9400M / Intel GMA Apple boxes
More exposure of the available physical capabilities including access to the collision geometry.
Mono Upgrade, but thats a known thing to happen.
Refreshed networking that can be used more flexible. Optimal would be networking through a plugin or at very least a c++ / mono library of the networking so it can be implemented in an own solution independent of the Unity player.
Modern UI system. I’m already happy about a delegate based Windows.Forms alike thing, but I guess many would love to see Scaleform implemented independent of the thousands they will pay for its license to release a game with it.
What I don’t want:
Agreed.
If it includes a visual GUI designer, then I’m for it.
You don’t want 
A lot of people including me would want hehe.
I would love to see it have more features for mmo’s or simple multiplayer games, not necessarily mmo.
I agree with your addon idea, though :o
Thats why I said as an addon, so those who want it can pay for the massive costs a persistent, scaleable, performant server backend bring with them.
Commercial devs license BigWorld technology just for the server backend, and big world costs hundreds of thousands per title, so expecting something even remotely like that in the Unity Pro price range is totally unrealistic.
A few ten thousands of USD is the very minimum you can expect, thats why it to me would make most sense if it was part of the source license or even an addon to that only.
Always keep in mind, SFS Pro / Photon cost in the $2500+ range per node and they don’t offer persistency and scaleability, the two major points that make the difference between a multiplayer technology and an MMO backend.
That should give you an idea what you would have to consider paying for something that adds real MMO stuff.
I don’t see why you would need any MMO backend features for a multiplayer game. For that, all you need is a headless client or finally some better, unity client unbound access to unity networking, which is why that is on my list 
Built in lightmap baking.
For a program that touts “Rapid Development” as a selling point, not having a light mapper is ridiculous.
Occlusion Culling for PC and MAC
Mainstream adoption of DX11 is still 3 years away. As it is, only 45% of gamers have DX10 support, although 75% have DX10 cards. DX10.1 ended up as an ATI only technology. Therefore, that is out of the picture, which leaves DX10 as the version that will be used for the next 2 or 3 years.
As far as I understand, DX10 doesn’t have backwards compatability. Hence, why its adoption rate is so low.
Yupp, thats exactly the problem.
DX10 is just DX10, nothing else.
DX11 on the other hand has profiles for DX10, DX9, …
Also, the second reason that DX10 had and has a craptastic adoption rate is Vista. Windows 7 has solved various of those problems, especially it adressed the performance and memory problems. As such I would assume the adoption rate to be much better.
I highly disagree. OSX is better in some cases than Windows, except for user-friendlyness. That’s why most don’t prefer OSX. You just need to get used to the way OSX works.
You should whatch what you say. Unity was once a strictly Mac program, and they didn’t have to make Unity compatable with Windows, it’s just that they wanted to appleal to a larger crowd.
Many people who have been with Unity for a long time are Mac supporters.
And I’m one of them.[/quote]
I bought Unity as OSX only tool too, also I’ve done CUDA development on my 8600M GT MBP so I’ve seen both sides of gpu hardware acceleration.
The part you quoted there is related to the fact that the vast majority of the GPUs on OSX, even by now yet the pre-unibody generation, is hardly able to accelerate the graphics acceptable enough.
They are nowhere fast enough to also backup rigidbody or even softbody physics.
On the other hand, intel macs have had a lot of “unused cpu power” that can be used for physics.
Thats what I meant. Edited also my posting above.
Sorry for being missleading.
You are right I have not been keeping up with DX11 news. I guess DX11 adoption maybe be a lot faster then I was thinking. Depending on how well “feature levels” compatibility mode works. It may not be great in DX9 mod but I am speculating. It better be good in DX10 mod.
Are you saying a NVidia 9800 GT is a crappy video card?
I was able to run Left for Dead 2 with max detail settings with a great framerate on my MAC in bootcamp.
I think its important to focus context within which I posted that.
You are bashing around on your pure hardware and OSX, which are not even close to the context, as I don’t care about specific hardware or OS but care about an as large as possible userbase.
The problem is not with card XY beeing crap or OSX beeing crap.
The problem is a combination of GPU + Physic + OSX:
Mini, MacBook and MacBook Pros in the lower price range come with 9400M
Previous generations came with even worse graphic chips down to Intel X3100 / GMA9xx series. There are all graphically too weak to even consider offloading physics even if it was possible on OSX at all. Especially if we consider softbody physics which is something thats expected to be present in Unity 3.0 by most for at least clothing but potentially more.
Yet all of them have 2Ghz+ dual cores of the Core Duo or Core 2 Duo generation so plenty of spare cpu time.
And fact two, why “aka OSX”: Independent on what you have on your OSX, PhysX does not run with gpu acceleration at all (remember, no physx on osx so also no hardware accelerated physx on it. UT ported physx themself for OSX and the iPhone). As such, especially as pure OSX user, you should be supporting a move to Bullet with all you have, as PhysX has one of the weaker if not the weakest desktop cpu physx acceleration, especially in multicore environments. And aside of Newton, Bullet is the only platform that even supports OSX at all. PhysX and Havoc both don’t even support OSX at all and I doubt we will see it happen.
So in the end, a solution that is optimized on the cpu usage and either now or in the future might offer gpu hardware acceleration across all platforms is definitely to favor, so all can enjoy the Unity 3.0 physic power, not just NVIDIA Users on Windows with an GF8+, which basically is what PhysX means.
If Unity was a non-OSX technology, then the answer likely would be Havoc + Havoc Animation, but Havoc as PhysX does not support OSX, so the remaining answer at least to me the answer is clearly Bullet
Just to potentially strenghten the point that I’m not hardware - os focused: My main machine is a Core i7 machine with a GTX 280 and 6GB Tri Channel RAM and an additional 8800GTS as CUDA - PhysX only GPU, so PhysX on that box runs at a speed that most will never see.
My mac is a macbookpro with an 8600M GT so assuming there ever would be a hardware accelerated PhysX on OSX I would be able to use it too. So I myself am not directly affected by not switching to something else.
But I personally would love to be able to create something thats usable for more than just Windows NVIDIA users.
That makes no sense since MAC has to do with networking. Unless of course you are actually referring to your Mac.
The fact remains that the average Mac is miles away from the performance of the average gamer PC. Macs are also not upgraded as often. Macs are just not widely used as gaming platforms.
Modern Macs other then the Mac Pro also use laptop video cards you cannot compare them directly to their desktop derivatives. If you are limiting your game to requiring a modern Mac pro, you are just not going to succeed much on Mac.
Ultimately, anyway you want to cut it if you want to develop for Mac you are going to be more limited then on the PC. You are really developing for laptops with modern Macs. Assuming you limited your game to Macs it going to have to run well on a 9400M 256mb (note the M for mobile) not exactly cutting edge.