how will this work once there is a windows version of unity?
with the mac indie version you won’t be able to publish to windows?
with the windows indie version you won’t be able to publish to mac?
both will cost $200?
Perhaps no windows indie? I think that is the most elegant solution. Restriction to windows only deployment from a business perspective is no big loss even without dynamic real time shadows etc…
I don’t think anyone will be able to comment on this yet, until the windows toolkit release is very close.
I used to want a windows unity version too…now I actually hope it never gets there ;).
wouldn’t that be unfair? how would that get marketed? windows losers don’t get indie offers here? 
in my opinion it would be better to raise indie to $400 or so if really necessary * but if windows users will be disadvantaged i won’t get unity. 
edit:
- but actually, why should that be necessary? a lot of money will come in once there is a windows version.
And how is what you propose fair to Mac users of Indie? The question of fair is irrelevant. It isn’t about fairness. It is about how many Windows Users would bother to buy Pro if they had Windows deployment in Indie. Windows Indie should not have windows deployment for that reason. But then what good would it be without it? So why sell it? Unless they figure something else out or know something that I don’t.
Anyway this is all speculation and so your bitter remarks about not buying Unity unless it had Windows Indie are inappropriate. I think you should wait until you read something from the Unity folks about what they plan before complaining about what might be.
In the mean time, I highly recommend buying a Mac. You pay a few hundred more for some hardware that lasts twice as long without issues, and you can usually find cheaper software that does the same thing the professional grade Windows software does. That has all been true for my home use and the company I work for in anycase.
Sorry for the rant folks, but the push for a Windows based Unity given how horrible Vista is just makes no sense to me. How much longer do you think folks are going to keep suffering through it? I miss Windows NT, but that was 10 years ago. Time to move on.
i didn’t want to sound bitter. i don’t really care. i just was curious about it. this will be tricky for the company to market. if there aren’t the same offers for all operating systems then some people will feel disadvantaged.
unity is interesting but probably i will never buy software which is more expensive than a few hundred dollars and i won’t get a mac either.
why is a mac supposed to last twice as long? it uses the same hardware as windows computers. a computer usually lasts as long as you are happy with the software it is able to run nicely. and there is cheap software for windows too.
Maybe the Windows-deployment-limitation thing will just be dropped entirely. By now there are quite a few Pro-only features that are worthwhile enough so that letting Indie do Windows deployment isn’t as much of a big deal anymore IMO.
–Eric
That hasn’t been my experience with longevity for an off the shelf computer. I’ve worked in mac based offices, mixed environments, and PC only. The macs last longer. If you want a PC that lasts as long as a Mac you need to invest in the hardware - which typically costs the same.
i agree! this would probably make most sense.
If it wouldn’t be one of the top 3 reasons to get Pro currently, not sure if this will happen.
The shader effects are a reason as well but given that there are very little benefit otherwise of Pro over Indie (I guess iPhone deploy will be extra cost + iPhone Dev), there just isn’t enough otherwise that would make sense to invest 1300 USD in.
It would only work if a more “funding based” licensing system was used.
Unity Standard Indie: Current Indie, Income of you, partners, investors publishers etc of <= 100’000 USD (or 250’000 USD)
Unity Professional Indie: Current Pro, Income restriction of Indie as above
2x the same but instead of Indie Business, if the income restrictions are not met.
Question as well with the Windows release that would need to be answered: Is it single OS? Ie if you buy windows is windows only or can you have one installation windows, one OSX and the like?
there is a lot of stuff that they will have to look into and consider when releasing the Windows Version, given they ever do, as S2, C4 and TGEA Juggernaut will be considerable strong enemies on that platform, and they all offer Unity Pro features at the price of Unity Indie + full source access
Man, I usually stay away from these insane Mac vs PC debates, but I feel that I must take issue with this. :roll:
I’ve been a computer enthusiast for nearly two decades, I’ve serviced or assembled hundreds of PCs for both myself and clients during that time, and I’ve noticed that even $400 OEM machines tend to last 3-5 years before something important decides to give out. Even better, the dozens of custom machines that I’ve built (usually for $300-$800) have an average lifespan of 6-8 years. As a matter of fact, I just had a machine go up in smoke (quite literally :P) a couple of months ago that I had built in early 1999. Nine years of 24-7 operation for about $700 isn’t too bad, and I kind of doubt that there are a whole bunch of Macs that can beat that.
Bottom line is that while one may still be able to justify the price of a Mac given that it’s the only legal way to run OS X (if you’re in to that sort of thing), in my experience I would have to say that improved hardware longevity is not a valid selling point. And yes, even when comparing Macs to PCs with identical specs, which I can usually build for $300-$600 less. The OS X tax may well be worth it if you really like the operating system, but not so much if you don’t.
Nobody said that the hardware of cheap OEMs does not last that long. Problem is that on the desktop end, nobody cares about no end (below low end) hardware after 3 years anymore, while apple supports this kind of hardware for years. Even G4 are still supported while on the windows end, a P3 or even P4 < 2 Ghz, is a joke that does not even suffice for Vista or the new Office anymore. Or take the ram: with the 256MB RAM that most OEMs had 4 years ago, you can not even install office or Vista at all. Its not “running bad” its not installing at all.
Uh, all of the OEMs that I’ve dealt with (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.) will support their old machines until the end of time, at least in the sense that you can still buy (overpriced) replacement parts for them and still get service work done if you keep paying for an extended warranty. After all, that’s where most of their profit is made. And as for Vista, I was running it quite happily for a while on a 5 year old 1.8Ghz Athlon XP, and I’m sure that it would run (albeit not as happily) on a six year old 2GHz P4 too. RAM might be an issue, but then again upgrading it isn’t too expensive so long as you don’t allow yourself to get ripped off by the OEMs. Of course, just buying another $500 machine after 5 years is the easiest solution, which is why the majority of consumers do just that.
What?! Whatever gives you that silly idea?!? Don’t encourage them!!!
yeah, that was a bit silly.
I’ll say. And not a bit funny.
Try nothing breaking down within 8 years on a Mac running 24/7 as a file server, ftp server, print server etc… Two others as work stations. One used and abused by my boss who doesn’t know a thing about computers. While we only have our own anecdotal evidence, combining our experience supports my view that Macs last longer. Furthermore, you sound like you know much more about hardware than I do. You built your own machines from the best parts you could find. And still they haven’t lasted as long as the Macs I am familiar with. That is also telling. You can know nothing about hardware, buy an Apple product, and trust that it will last for you.
Thats a dream that has nothing to do with reality anymore.
By today, Asustek builds the machines (at least the notebook ones) for apple and since the day thats done, the machines break pretty often and to make it worse, the roundtripp for getting a MBP repaired for example is at 2-3 weeks even for large scale costumers like our university (the informatic services only bought MBPs and Apple Cinema screens since the Intel switch for new research groups and groups grading their equipment). And that without offering temporal replacement, which pretty much is inacceptable for one of the top 3 system sellers worldwide.
If you ask for “premium prices” offering premium quality and premium problem handling could be seen as standard but it seems like Apple currently mainly milks its cash cow without investing it into the expansion of its service structure to be able to handle that at all.
Well that is good to know, Dreamora. Since the computer I use is nearly seven years old I don’t have that experience. When I get around to actually needing a computer, I’ll do the research, and if Apple can’t produce a machine that will last me at least another decade, I won’t purchase from them.
It’s not just Apple, as newer, smaller, and hotter computer components just don’t have the lifespan of their ancient cousins (not that anyone cares). Case in point, my oldest machine that still runs is an Atari ST built in 1986 (yes, that’s 22 years and counting :P). So saying that you have a 90’s era Mac , for instance, that’s still kicking speaks more to changes in manufacturing technology (and priorities) than to any inherent hardware superiority. Oh, and I tend to build computers (both for myself and for clients) out of the cheapest decent parts that I can find, not the “best”. They may only last 6-8 years instead of 10+ (not that you can reasonably expect to get 10+ out of modern hardware), but neither I nor my clients have ever cared about that, as I’ve never encountered anyone who is on anything longer than a 5-7 year upgrade cycle.