I am not (yet) a Unity Pro user, so I was wondering if someone could answer a Pro-related question for me.
If I publish a Unity project as a web applet using Pro, will browsers loading the applet still initially display the Unity logo splash?
I just tried it for universal binary of the mac web player and dashboard widget. Both display the initial Unity splash screen.
Are you using Pro to create them?
They are the same in pro. Don’t see that you can change them…
I don’t think you’re following me, I’m asking if web applet made using Pro have the splash.
My hope is that they do not, much as web applets made in Pro do not have the watermark.
I think they were trying to tell you they do. Jeff
Darnit. I had a feeling that logo was always there.
If so, that is a bad thing. It will be somewhat difficult selling clients on having an advertisement for someone else’s product appear while their game loads on their website - even if it is a non-competing product.
Shockwave doesn’t do it. Flash doesn’t do it. .Net Studio doesn’t do it. Torque doesn’t do it. Etc. Professional development tools should help you to make something but then disappear in the final mixdown.
This doesn’t bother me too much, but custom load screens similar to shockwave/flash would be further icing on the cake. Shockwave had/has a default load screen that displayed their logo and it was never too distracting (and of course could be customized). Having the game’s splash screen showing while the game loaded would be sweet though and I would totally see this as a pro only feature.
Historically, this is not a trivial thing. I have personally had more than one client nix VirTools because it displays a similar splash in the browser. And, I’ve had numerous clients turn down Shockwave because of the Yahoo-Toolbar nag in the Shockwave plug-in installer.
It would be great to allow us to write little stub apps in Unity that preload the main feature, as with Shockwave and Flash, in place of the Unity splash.
I wonder if David is reading this? 
Hi,
i totally agree and also did report this that i wanna have custom streaming and custom or no splash screen without a unity logo at all like it’s possible in shockwave. This is a very important point due to client work and again i’m not willing to pay a extra price for this.
Greetings,
taumel
I’m willing to pay a tad more for this dual platform web distribution. My god, Flash is up to $699 (when I started at 3.0 it was $299). Director is at what, $1,199? I would gladly pay an extra couple hundred for a mid-range Unity that allows custom load screens and no watermark across both platforms on the web. Limit my data file to around 50mb for my entire creation and I’d be a happy camper. But I think a $750 gap is too much between “mac only” and “free range”.
Well, this is a different discussion in my opinion as i was talking about a general capability of unity which it’s competitors already offer regarding shockwave and flash for the web for instance.
Comparing the prices between director and unity is somehow not adequate as director is a lot more in other fields than unity is. Unity is about 3d and director is the swiss army knife for multimedia making everything possible but not going too much into the depth. It’s not version 1. It’s an established plugin and so on…
And i think as i’ve bought pro i should be able to do publish the way i want.
As for your price suggestions this comes down to what’s best for otee and their customers. Is it better to have a mix of how it’s done now or would it be better they way you’ve suggested. I’m not the one to make the sum in both scenarios but i’m sure if they only sell indies then the price for indie will increase…
Greetings,
taumel
Yes, and Unity is in its infancy (sorry, I know OTEE would refute this statement). And Unity so completely blows ShockWave 3D out of the water at this point that comparing the 2 isn’t fair. Unity makes available (for the first time ever) true 3D interaction on the web with no discernable ceiling to it’s ability. So it’s on the level with Director and it deserves a relative price point. But OTEE needs to decide whether Unity is strictly a game engine or a platform for a myriad of different on-line content.
Yes, and Unity is in its infancy (sorry, I know OTEE would refute this statement). And Unity so completely blows ShockWave 3D out of the water at this point that comparing the 2 isn’t fair. Unity makes available (for the first time ever) true 3D interaction on the web with no discernable ceiling to it’s ability. So it’s on the level with Director and it deserves a relative price point. But OTEE needs to decide whether Unity is strictly a game engine or a platform for a myriad of different on-line content.<<<
Hmmm i don’t wanna sound like a director fanboy after all this years of fights with MM but it’s not true to say that unity blows shockwave 3d away generally. It depends on what you want. Media integration is much better in director (i can use flash members for instance as textures), i can use any texturesizes beside of 2^x, the plugin works on both platforms, the plugin is accepted, i can do cute debugging in director, shockwave 3d is easy to use,i can use concave objects in physics ;O)…
Now Unity has it’s pros in a lot of other fields but as i said not in every aspect.
update And a very important thing i do have an ide on windows!
Greetings,
taumel
C’mon, Shockwave 3D is 4 to 5 years old now with no updates (it died a painful death and was nowhere near the engine capabilities of Unity)… it was goofy and akward from the outset. Flash integration, yes, and since Unity is using the QT framework Flash should be integrated better since QT can read Flash. You wouldn’t have bought a macmini and Unity pro if you weren’t impressed about what Unity can do beyond ShockWave. But we’re in agreement about cross platform web distribution, this needs to be tweaked a little bit.
Sure i had my reasons to buy unity. As you said a) i was impressed b) i wanted to kick MM’s butt and help otee. But i can still make cute things with sw3d. I did a really nice cd which integrates flash where you don’t see the jumps between flash and sw3d. Now only if they would have supported proper blending and aa… :O\
Anyway sw3d for sure isn’t dead already.
Greetings,
taumel
Ugh, now that Adobe is in charge of MM’s development it’s going to be a long time before they get their proverbial head out of their proverbial ass. They’re going to be fighting over standards for many months and hopefully Adobe will just back down and admit MM’s media standards were just better and adopt them outright. But I believe this is going to be a slow shakedown.
Wow, Taumel singing the praises of Director? Truly a sign that the end of the world is near!
Anyway, we all love Unity. Some of us also love or like other devtools. And each devtool has its strengths and weaknesses. Let’s consider those point settled, or at least tabled here.
But just in case someone with an OTEE nametag is reading this thread, I still think that logo splash has to go. I don’t care if I have to pay more to see it go (as long as it’s not VirTools “more”) but I have to see it go. Otherwise, my ability to use Unity in production is severely restricted, and needlessly so.
Some (aNTeNNa trEE, for instance) may feel that the logo doesn’t bother them. That’s fine. But clearly I am not the only one who has concerns. And I can’t see it as having tremendous benefit for Unity to keep the logo splash there, since it promotes little more than the product’s name (no features described, no link to otee.com) and reaches only game-players rather than game-developers in most cases.
Wow, Taumel singing the praises of Director? Truly a sign that the end of the world is near! ;-)<<<
Nahnahnah i didn’t praise director (please don’t let Thomas Higgins read this), i just made a statement that things aren’t just black and white…that’s a difference, right?! ;O)
Anyway, we all love Unity. Some of us also love or like other devtools. And each devtool has its strengths and weaknesses. Let’s consider those point settled, or at least tabled here.<<<
Bawling a Yes!
But just in case someone with an OTEE nametag is reading this thread, I still think that logo splash has to go.<<<
Agreed simply out of experience with client work reasons.
I don’t care if I have to pay more to see it go (as long as it’s not VirTools “more”) but I have to see it go. Otherwise, my ability to use Unity in production is severely restricted, and needlessly so.<<<
Disagreed as it should be part of pro already.
Some (aNTeNNa trEE, for instance) may feel that the logo doesn’t bother them. That’s fine. But clearly I am not the only one who has concerns. And I can’t see it as having tremendous benefit for Unity to keep the logo splash there, since it promotes little more than the product’s name (no features described, no link to otee.com) and reaches only game-players rather than game-developers in most cases.<<<
You spread the word much more effective by making good content and not by a logo in my opinion. And as said before it only stands in the way for contract work…
Greetings,
taumel
Just in case Tom is reading this, I do still love Director. A lot. And, I’ll still use it for a lot of thngs. Untiy is just looking like a super-awesome-terriffic replacement for Director 3D game development.