Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unity 2019.1 Beta Deprecates Linux x86, Offers Up Many Vulkan & Linux Improvements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by Babuloseo View Post
    Both companies are pretty shit, and you should be using actual open source solutions like Godot.
    All I am really interested in is lifespan, maintenance and digital preservation. Yes open-source software goes a long way in solving this so +1 for Godot.

    However in the naive games industry UE4 is definately the lesser evil compared to Unity because Epic provides access to the source code (not GPL or BSD but access nonetheless). Unity pretends this is something that can be purchased but to date, not a single company has done this. I suspect some foul play here to be honest. I don't believe they do actually allow source access for any price.

    So Unity is an entirely closed source prosumer product like Flash was and in 20 years when both companies are dead, I will still be able to build and run UE4 games on FreeBSD 20. You will not be able to run a Unity game (possibly not even in an emulator because GPU passthrough only really supports "current" guest platforms (i.e Windows 98 is not supported now so Windows 10 will unlikely be supported in 20 years).

    So if a developer *needs* a bloated engine to make a game, UE4 is a good choice. If they only want to make a quick buck, don't care about their players being able to play the game in the future and are completely incompetent then they can join the rest of the Unity plonkers.
    Last edited by kpedersen; 01-31-2019, 01:02 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by przmk View Post
      Please explain how Unity could die in a few years then.
      Dies by being obsoleted by UE4 or other engines? Like how Flash died because it got outcompeted by HTML5 etc.
      Originally posted by przmk View Post
      And it doesn't change the fact that UE4 has poor Linux support.
      It has better than Unity, and Linux support doesn't matter for an engine dying or not anyway.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Babuloseo View Post
        Dude, Unity works fine on Linux, atleast they have freaking binaries released for it. Where I would probably need like 16GB ram + and a decent CPU to build Unreal. While I have to wait for hours to compile Unreal, I can already pull in a bunch of assets and build various applications with Unity quickly.
        "build various applications"
        "not compile"

        Wat?

        That's the problem with Unity. Only kids who think they're hot shots "building applications" without compiling (sounds like a paradox).

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by przmk View Post
          Please explain how Unity could die in a few years then.
          Adobe Flash is a great example. Read up on it. Many more games were made with Flash than in Unity and it still died. Why do you think Unity could possibly be different?

          Originally posted by przmk View Post
          And it doesn't change the fact that UE4 has poor Linux support.
          It actually does. You still haven't pointed me to Unity's official Linux documentation. Why is that? :/

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

            All I am really interested in is lifespan, maintenance and digital preservation. Yes open-source software goes a long way in solving this so +1 for Godot.

            However in the naive games industry UE4 is definately the lesser evil compared to Unity because Epic provides access to the source code (not GPL or BSD but access nonetheless). Unity pretends this is something that can be purchased but to date, not a single company has done this. I suspect some foul play here to be honest. I don't believe they do actually allow source access for any price.

            So Unity is entirely closed source like Flash was and in 20 years when both companies are dead, I will still be able to build and run UE4 games on FreeBSD 20. You will not be able to run a Unity game.
            I am pretty sure there are people out there that have Unity reversed engineered to an extent they know more about the internals for it. But honestly, I think Unity is going to be around as long as Unreal. I personally don't like Unity for their company practices and such. For example, the recent issue of running Unity on the cloud and more. UE4 is definitely better in this aspect, and you know for sure that they won't try to hamper you creatively as Unity probably will. But currently on the Linux end, it's easier to develop and build with Unity, than it is for Unreal, and Epic hasn't done anything to mitigate this yet (how hard is it to release binaries?)

            At the end of the day, a majority of companies will choose the option that will get them the fastest ROI on whatever engine or solution they choose. It seems like more people are steering towards Unity than Unreal.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Weasel View Post
              "build various applications"
              "not compile"

              Wat?

              That's the problem with Unity. Only kids who think they're hot shots "building applications" without compiling (sounds like a paradox).
              Yes because I am going to compile applications and not build them. Also if you read my statement, I said that I have to compile Unreal, whereas I don't have to compile Unity and can focus on getting an application developed and "compiled" more quickly.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                That's the problem with Unity. Only kids who think they're hot shots "building applications" without compiling (sounds like a paradox).
                Agreed and this is exactly it. Unity developers are massive handicaps to a development team. They need babysitting at every turn and do some of the most bizarre hacks because they just cannot think logically and don't know how the machine works. They are literally the millenials of the software development world.

                As soon as a client asks for something oputside of their baby Unity sandbox (such as calling a native C DLL to interface with a specific hardware from .NET), they cannot do it and absolutely embarrass themselves and waste everyones time and money.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Babuloseo View Post

                  Yes because I am going to compile applications and not build them. Also if you read my statement, I said that I have to compile Unreal, whereas I don't have to compile Unity and can focus on getting an application developed and "compiled" more quickly.
                  This isn't correct. If you get a license with Epic, you get access to their build server where you can simply download a binary for Ubuntu. Most companies maintain their own custom builds though and so will opt to build from source.

                  You don't compile Unity because you can't. Its closed source! XD

                  Plus, Unity puts out its (Ubuntu) binaries on a forum. Not only is that pretty naff but you would need to compile it from source anyway if you wanted it to work on a newer or older Mesa or achitectures. Which you can't so it is effectively defective by design. Linux doesn't work like this. Source is often the only way for decent compatibility.

                  Also, another great way that Unity is going to die is as soon as they turn off their DRM / activation server. Not even the "free" version will be able to activate. I would never accept renting a development tool. Only a fool would .
                  Actually, I think the DRM server has already been turned off for Unity 1.x and 2.x. Lets hope you don't need to maintain one of those projects eh? XD.
                  Last edited by kpedersen; 01-31-2019, 01:25 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                    Dies by being obsoleted by UE4 or other engines? Like how Flash died because it got outcompeted by HTML5 etc.It has better than Unity, and Linux support doesn't matter for an engine dying or not anyway.
                    You have no idea what you're talking about guy. UE4 has no Linux support. Every game using UE4 that had planned to offer a linux version had to cancel their plans thanks to the almost complete lack of Linux support. It's like crytek advertising linux support for the cry engine. Technically they had it, but it was so badly done it was effectively unusable. Unity is the only engine I've seen with proper linux support.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by kpedersen View Post

                      Adobe Flash is a great example. Read up on it. Many more games were made with Flash than in Unity and it still died. Why do you think Unity could possibly be different?


                      It actually does. You still haven't pointed me to Unity's official Linux documentation. Why is that? :/
                      What documentation do you need ? You download the binary and you're good to go.
                      You don't need to spend an hour compiling UE4 (that works somewhat good only on the supported Ubuntu).

                      Unity gets lots of money from their licences, has the biggest gamedev community there is, doesn't show any signs of declining at all, has C# instead of C++.
                      Flash was replaced by a better solution (HTML5+ JS) and I fail to see how it's similar to Unity since it's thriving.

                      I don't even like Unity, but it's pretty clear that it's here to stay for a long time.


                      Also, you're just being an elitist like plenty of other toxic Linux users, this is my last post here since I don't want to bother wasting my time.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X