Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Paper Pilot using too many Unity Assets?

Discussion in 'iOS and tvOS' started by Oniatariio, Jan 14, 2009.

?

Was there anything wrong with Paper Pilot relying almost ocmpletely on Unity assets and level layout

  1. Yes, definately.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Not Sure. Maybe.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. No, not at all.

    100.0%
  1. Oniatariio

    Oniatariio

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    16
    Clever Coding put "Paper Pilot" on the app store yesterday (Jan 13, 2009), made with Unity: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewSoftware?id=301639092&mt=8

    However, they drew critisism from some other forum members in the thread for announcing new games: http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=15524&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=105

    Clever Coding took their levels from Unity example projects, adding little of their own assets (the plane, paperclips and some light menuing art).

    Legally, they didn't do anything wrong. (As per their EULA, Unity is properly credited on Clever Cloding's website: http://www.paperpilot.clevercoding.com/, in the game and now on iTunes.) So when does cheap ($) production become cheap ("quit doing that move over and over!") production?
     
  2. Causality

    Causality

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    10
    I think it's poor form. Nothing legally wrong like you said, but just a lazy effort. But as you can see in the forums and especially in the big wide world, it's takes all sorts of people to make the world go round. Some of them will take a very generous license agreement and try and turn it in dollars.

    I wouldn't be proud of it, but that's just my opinion. In the end they can do what they want and I'll just keep working away on MY game and be extra proud when it finally gets out there.
     
  3. Martin-Schultz

    Martin-Schultz

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,377
    I don't see a problem there personally. UT allows to use the assets as long as it's a Unity made game and to be honest, damn he was clever I think. Great game featured on iTunes (at least here in Germany).

    Hey, on the other side - now Oniatariio made enough money to hire one of the great artists here from the forums for the next projects!

    Of course, everyone sees this different and it can lead to endless discussions, but in the end, another great Unity game, great advertisement for Unity itself, a developer who is maybe a bit closer to his indy dream if not already. All good! :)
     
  4. col000r

    col000r

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    698
    Well, I clicked the link, saw that the screenshots show nothing but unity examples (funny enough the warehouse seems to have had some furniture removed, but the baked-in shadows are still there) and that the reviewers all cheered about the great graphics. So I though to myself: that's a bit cheeky... Especially since he he mentions "gorgeous 3D levels" in the text, but doesn't mention that he didn't actually make them... Well, he added a notice now, at the bottom, saying that they're from the "asset library" that comes with unity...

    So all good, right? No need for a bad conscience, right? Impudence wins and once the money starts rolling in... well, money justifies everything anyway...

    Like my grandfather used to say: No one's ever gotten rich by working...
    Thanks for reminding me, I just don't seem to get that lesson...

    PS: Sorry for posting in the other thread - I'm usually the first one who gets annoyed when someone posts something off-topic in there... Just couldn't help it and had to show my contempt... Evil prevails when good men fail to complain... or something like that...
     
  5. Martin-Schultz

    Martin-Schultz

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,377
    I see your points and understand them. And no, money does not justify everything.

    But I think this one here just might be a bit of a border case. UT allows to use the gfx and he did exactly that. He used the art for his game. And he maximized the use of the iPhone asset art. Nothing wrong. He even mentioned that it is out of the asset library (even if afterwards added).

    So morally you might say yeah, he sells other people's art in his game, but hey, those guys allowed that. It helps them too to some extend.

    As I said, endless discussion might get born out of this... :) and I'm on both sides here. Morally yes, might be a bit strange, on the other hand, a well made game with a great look. Done by him and Untiy... :)

    Peace!
    (before I get flamed) :)
     
  6. AngryAnt

    AngryAnt

    Keyboard Operator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Posts:
    3,045
    I'll take the heat then :p

    I don't see anything wrong with it - he read the license and used it to its fullest. If he makes some money on that then kudos - cleverly done. Why all this negativity just because you didn't think of it first?

    Its not like he is taking over the market or anything (by the way when do we see a shooter in the unity environments?).
     
  7. Causality

    Causality

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Posts:
    10
    Don't worry Martin, no flaming here, just good robust discussion.

    I guess it would be nice for people to raise the bar a bit. Seeing this and the rampant use of the standard unity GUI look is just a little disheartening, that's all.

    AngryAnt - Just saw your post, it's not because we didn't think of it first, I'm sure a good number of people thought of it the second the examples came out, I know I did. It's more the principle of the thing. But if philosophy has taught me anything it's that morality is just a big pile of subjectivism and that clever coding obviously doesn't share mine, which is fine....

    And as Martin said there could be endless discussion over this so it's probably best for me to bow out and get on with the real stuff.

    Cheers

    Michael
     
  8. col000r

    col000r

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    698
    no flaming here either, sorry.

    Plain and simple: Anyone who tries to sell other people's work without a substantial contribution of his own earns my contempt. No matter how legally unproblematic it might be...

    If you can live with being an impostor, go ahead. - But I'm not gonna be your friend.
     
  9. NicholasFrancis

    NicholasFrancis

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Posts:
    1,587
    The way I see it; we made those assets to be used. The more people use them, the happier I am. We want people to do stuff like this.

    Normally, people take the Unity code and add content on top to create a game. Here somebody took Unity graphics as well. The whole idea of Unity is to get help to make your games. Normally, this help is in the form of a well-written runtime authoring environment.

    To me, expecting that everybody should make all their art themselves is the same as expecting that everybody should write their own engine. Let's try to rise above the notion of "you have to create it yourself". Let's rather look at the games for their own merit. If somebody can create a great game using stock art, that's still a great game - and to me that is what matters.

    Cheers
     
  10. col000r

    col000r

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    698
    Seems you unearthed a flaw in my narcissistic scheme. - I really should write my own engine...

    Well, truth is: i couldn't. Games are complex, if there's tools to help you realize your creative vision: use them. It's like Paul Feyerabend said: Intelligent people are opportunists - they don't stick to a certain dogmatic way of doing things, they do what yields the best results.

    So for my first game as an Indie I used this wonderful, preexisting tool "unity", I even used a preexisting set of rules. Why is no one accusing me of ripping off unity or the unknown inventors of curling? For the same reason that no one is accusing Unity Technologies of ripping off Mono and PhysiX - because a substantial amount of work and creativity has gone into the new product and it transcends what was there before.

    I'm not trying to be a moral authority, I'm not trying to draw a line and say: You have to invest X hours and create Y percent of the assets before you can call it your game. We're all happy to use a script from the wiki, to get advice from the forums or to use a texture from a texture pack. - Then why do I and many others feel that what he did was wrong?

    I think it has to do with decency and the creative spirit. (I'm a dreamer, I know... proud of it too)

    So taking the gameplay of one demo and mixing it with the graphics of 3 others just doesn't cut it in my book. It makes me sad. Makes me believe that my idealistic, creative world really does end at the doorstep.

    Nicholas, you said it. - "The whole idea of Unity is to get help to make your games." - Your games - there's creativity and self-fulfillment in there...

    I'm expecting the Paper-Plane-game to sell well and if that helps to spread the word about unity - good for you and in the end also good for me! More sales might mean more money goes into the tools and engine. I'm not saying "burn 'em", I'm just saying that I wouldn't want it that way.
     
  11. GusM

    GusM

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Posts:
    585
    Of course, nothing stops nobody here to also take the same Unity Assets and scenes and use them for another little variation, or even two... And then selling them also in Itunes... Interesting where all this can go... ;)
     
  12. grobm

    grobm

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Posts:
    217
    I think it is not to creative nor technically impressive. But they had the right to make the choose they did.

    However, what if the game sells well? What is going to stop me from taking the same exact game and make it a little better and sell it on iTunes? Technically I am not infringing on copyright if I cite the same sources they did since the content is nonexclusive, and I make a better GUI.

    Would I actually do what I stated above? Heck no, I am more creative and technical then the person that published this game, and I think that is what bothers everyone.

    But Kudos to them if they make a quick buck, at the cost of respect in our community. A choice that might be more costly then the few bucks they make on this game in the long run.

    For example:
    Will I be quick to help them out in the forums? Will I wondering if I provide them with some examples will they use it in their next game if I do not disclose the usage rights?

    Who knows?

    Glad to see Unity iPhone is making another splash in the iTunes Store.
     
  13. Martin-Schultz

    Martin-Schultz

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,377
    But it's not the community that made the gfx he used, it was made by Unity. And those gave permission to use it, wait, they are even happier the more it gets used!

    I will!

    As I promised... endless discussions... :)
     
  14. grobm

    grobm

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Posts:
    217
    Martin,

    Kudos to them, I am on the fence like you.
     
  15. IPete

    IPete

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Posts:
    414
    Now that will remind me to read ALL the thread before I poll a vote in future.

    My initial reaction was there was nothing wrong with this premise, but thats when I thought it meant by only using Unity primitve assets such as cubes and planes etc, not by using the Unity DEMO artwork - !!!!

    I trust Unity will be sending an invoice lol - I know I WON't be supporting these chaos with my money.
     
  16. AngryAnt

    AngryAnt

    Keyboard Operator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Posts:
    3,045
    Peter:
    I the reaction of you and others, but overly simplified there is absolutely no difference license-wise between putting the 3D assets used here, which were provided by unity, into a game and putting primitives created in unity into the same game.

    In comparison - what about games and productions being sold only using completely unmodified scripts from the standard assets and tutorials? Should the creators of those also be burned on the fire of righteousness?

    Finally - if you answered yes to the question above, does that mean that you value my work as a programmer less than the work of artists?
     
  17. col000r

    col000r

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    698
    no one should be burnt at the stake. (the offending parties should know what's honorable and take the appropriate steps themselves...)

    Personally I value everyone's work equally much, no matter what field they're in, IF (now comes the important part) IF they show creative effort and try to bring something new to the table.

    A thought of a nice metaphor: Imagine you're a baker and you and your circle of baker-friends all get a free cake from the manufacturer of the ovens that you all use. Now you would expect everyone to take a slice, enjoy it, maybe some would take out their mobile labs and analyze the chemical composition of the cake as inspiration for their own future creations. But what you wouldn't expect someone to do (and what would certainly appear as blunt and bad behavior) is for him to take the entire cake as is, wrap it up, write his name on it and try to sell it on the street.
     
  18. kenlem

    kenlem

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    1,630
    I really hate metaphors like that. They just cloudy the discussion with false choices. (Imagine you are a monkey with only one hand and a pirate marries your sister...)

    Paper Airplane isn't violating any legal agreement in the EULA and UT has already said they have no problem with using the resources verbatim.

    It's a non-issue. There is no reason to resort to words like "offending party" or suggest that using free assets, which all Unity users have permission to use, is other than honorable.
     
  19. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,325
    Right on.

    Frankly, I think it's awesome that we all can use the Unity art assets if we want to. But seriously, let's consider why you would do this. If you're not an artist, or a musician, or a programmer, or whatever, you can still have a good idea of what you want your product to be - you're a director, in this case, and a person who should be browsing what is available, to fit with your vision. Everybody is limited in some ways, and it's good that we can all build off of other people's work for creative and technological advancement purposes.

    But, do you honestly think these people came up with the game idea, "Oh man! It would be AWESOME to fly a paper airplane in a sewer!"? Unity only has so many assets; I'd say it was entirely possible that they had the idea for a paper airplane sim, and then just used what environments were available for no extra cost. But if the extent of the creative vision was "paper airplane", then the vision was not fleshed out enough to warrant a shameful App Store release like this.

    So, did I vote "wrong" because I think it's a breach of policy, written or implied? No. I did that because I think it is unethical to litter the world with shovelware crap. You can make money to feed yourself in much more useful and scrupulous ways.
     
  20. texazzpete

    texazzpete

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2008
    Posts:
    2
    Hmm. perhaps we should go look for all those people using Dreamweaver templates and scripts for their websites and harass them for being 'indecent', eh?

    What he did was legal, perhaps even clever IMHO. At the end of the day what matters is the quality of the gameplay.

    @Jessy
    Why don't we do this for most Unity games on the Appstore, then, since most of them aren't much better than this? Check out pocketgamer.co.uk's review of Crazy Snowboard to see what i mean.
    I'd like to say i've seen any compelling game from you Unity developers, but so far i cannot say i've come across any yet.

    if it takes borrowing heavily from the included asset library to produce a good looking Unity game, then so be it. poor gameplay aside, how many Unity games in the appstore actually look any good?
     
  21. antenna-tree

    antenna-tree

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Posts:
    5,324
    That made me chuckle several times :wink:

    As the person who made most (if not all) of the environments used in this game I just have to chime in and say that I have zero problems with what they did. Over the last few years I've seen my art assets get used in some whacky ways and I always get a kick out of it rather than get offended. Like Nich said that's what they're there for.

    I think what's leaving a bad taste in certain people's mouths is that we can all see the direct correlation between using prebuilt assets and making easy money on the app store. But like AngryAnt said it's no different from using someone else's freely available code unchanged... it's only that artwork is more obvious.

    Ethan
     
  22. kenlem

    kenlem

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    Posts:
    1,630
    Amen... thread over!

    Move along...
     
  23. cheezorg

    cheezorg

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Posts:
    394
    Edit: Wrote this before I saw the response from aNTeNNa trEE. Great input from the creator of the environments in question. Well said.

    Lots of good discussion here. I think there's a difference between real laziness and the appearance of laziness amongst your colleagues.

    Was this lazy? Probably. But is it lazy to use 3D assets from TurboSquid? Or to hire out coding work? They use stock footage in Hollywood films all the time. Is that lazy or just creative budgeting?

    We all have biased opinions because we are 'inside' this community. To those on the outside (the rest of the world aka potential customers), They built a great looking game (for the most part - a little effort on the GUI end wouldn't hurt - seriously, crappy UI design does NOT help build the Unity engine rep).

    As others have mentioned here, there seems to be a perceived difference in using licensed art vs licensed code. But how many hours went into creating the FPS Controls? Or the Third Person Controller? Or the numerous driving controls available? Or the underlying engine code? Anyone here guilty of using these 'assets' in a game?

    The 'perceived laziness' with using stock environments is that ANYONE can use them, so if I buy a model from TurboSquid, I know deep down that I may see that same model in another game, cheapening my own game somewhat. (But if that model saves me 8 hours of 3D work for a 99 cent iPhone game, it's worth it.) Using the stock Unity models is even riskier. How long until we see 'Star Trooper Occlusion Demo 2' from a completely different developer? That's a risk Paper Pilot is taking and I'm sure they thought of that.

    //Personal tangent

    This topic has me especially interested because this week I'm putting the finishing touches on a memory match game based on the iPhone Match example. From the very beginning I was determined to make it my game. The textures, graphics, and UI are 100% original, and it has a certain... *visual gimmick* that sets it apart from similar games, in addition to high scoring, level progression, etc. Much of the original example code has been greatly shortened and the majority of the finished game code is mine.

    HOWEVER - On first glance it could look like laziness to the community, and this has been a BIG concern since the start. I would be lost without this place and I plan to be here for a while, so losing community respect would definitely hurt.

    But respect is a subjective thing. There is only so much you can do to add variety to a card matching game, so even with the additional code, original artwork, a *visual gimmick*, and crediting Unity for the card matching code on my About page, there may still be someone who calls me lazy for basing a game on an example project. For them, I'll just have to to earn their respect with my next game! :eek:

    //End personal tangent

    We all obviously care a lot about what the other community members think, and yes, the perceived laziness of Paper Pilot is off the charts. But I'd like to see their second game before judging too harshly.
     
  24. col000r

    col000r

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Posts:
    698
    Well, I didn't care about the legal side from the start. It was blunt to do what he did - that's what I said in my first post, that's what I say in my last post about this topic... Ok, just checked. I said "bold" in my first post. whatever. bold in the first, blunt in the last - close enough.

    kenlem: The implicit suggestion that he should commit harakiri was a joke btw. Sorry, I didn't know you wouldn't get it. (A low blow just to test if you'll explode ;D)

    PS: Great work on the environments, Ethan. Keep on setting the bar high!
     
  25. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    The reason why there's a large negative response is because they've simply taken several already-made environments and dropped them in mostly unmodified, and then (at least at first) appeared to be taking credit for them. You'll notice that Dexsoft usually gets a positive response when advertising their model packs in these forums, and nobody would complain about using those assets, because in that case you're using them as building blocks--probably coupled with assets from other sources as well--rather than as finished and complete levels.

    --Eric
     
  26. antenna-tree

    antenna-tree

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Posts:
    5,324
    I think what you're doing is exactly in the spirit of what the Unity demos are all about... a jumping off point to get you started. I've actually been hoping that someone would extend the gameplay of that demo and come up with something better because as rudimentary as memory games are they're pretty fun IMHO. But if someone came along and just hit "build" on my match example and put it on the app store I'll admit that I'd find it unethical (and a pretty poor game to boot). It's hard to define exactly where the plagiarism line gets crossed with stuff like this, but I think you're well in the clear and I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with :wink:

    Ethan
     
  27. cheezorg

    cheezorg

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Posts:
    394
    Oh, great... Now the pressure is really on! :wink:

    j/k Thanks again for all the great work you guys do.
     
  28. Charles Hinshaw

    Charles Hinshaw

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Posts:
    1,070
    The best thing about this thread is that it brings this discussion to the surface. From a legal / EULA standpoint, as long as it is built in Unity, there is no line. I don't think anyone is arguing that though... it is the line on taking demo material and using it commercially. How much is too much? This seems to have crossed the line in the eyes of many people. It didn't cross the line for others. I guess in the end, each of us has to make that judgement call for ourselves if we are using demo assets.
     
  29. kevinr

    kevinr

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Posts:
    263
    I think what totally crossed the line for me, are the comments that the developer made.

    "..features unsurpassed graphics with a level of detail and richness unseen elsewhere in the App Store."

    Because at this point, they are taking complete credit for something which was not original content.

    The other problem is that it's not just the demo level that was taken, it was also just a hack of the first iphone demo + the demo level.

    Then, to add insult to injury, the company is named "Clever Coding". I can't tell if it's ironic or not, because I is clever coding when you've figured out a way to make games doing no coding at all.
     
  30. ooftish.com

    ooftish.com

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Posts:
    8
    Unity is in business to make money by selling Unity 3D development kit for IPhone Developers. Developers are in business to make money by selling apps in app store.

    Giving away IPhone Sample projects is a selling point for Unity and getting IPhone Sample projects with Unity is buying point for Developer.

    As long as it is in legal terms of Unity, what ever clever coding is done clever thing to do in business.

    If somebody want to protect their assets they should use copy right disclosure statements to protect it. In this way actual asset owner have complete control over their assets.
     
  31. simonre

    simonre

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    I think this thread has made me realise that this game stuff is just too hard. But I think I can (just about) open up Roll-a-ball and build it. My three-year-old loves it.

    Oh... it's just so tempting - can I?
     
  32. Brady

    Brady

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Posts:
    2,474
    I know lots of people feel, on a gut level, that this was wrong, but seem to be having a difficult time articulating why. Well, here's something that may bring that perspective into somewhat clearer focus:

    Imagine I take Tunnel Runner, build it, and submit it to the App Store as-is. Does the license allow it? Sure. But what have I done here? Having done this, I'm now claiming, to an extent, that this game is my own. Now maybe I can't claim LEGAL ownership of the game as-is, but what happens when the next guy comes along, has the same idea, and does the same thing? Now the AppStore has two identical games in every way from two different developers. And the result is the guy who comes along second is going to be seen by the world to be a heel who is copying the other guy. Or worse, Apple will reject the submission altogether.

    This kind of "land rush" to "claim" (even if only implicitly) highly recognizeable assets to such a degree has the effect of diminishing the value of these assets for subsequent developers. Now, for instance, if the little throttle arrow used in StarTrooper is used over and over again, big deal, right? It's not significant and nobody's going to complain. But if I'm guy #2 (or 3 or 4) to release a game that uses, say, the warehouse environment, the viability of my product has been diminished by the fact that prospective customers will look at my screenshots or my Lite version and say, "been there, done that".

    None of the above is true in the case of using prefab primitives, or even using some demo assets very sparingly. But when you do something this extensive, you're sort of preempting others.

    Now the argument could reasonably be made that this is no different than someone making extensive use of some sort of art, texture, music, or sound library. For instsance, I'm an amateur musician, and some of the sample libraries I have require that the samples not be used by themselves in isolation, but must be combined in a musical way to form a composition. Of course, Unity has no such license requirement...

    Anyway, feel free to disagree with me. A reasonable person could certainly hold a contrary view. That's just the angle from which I see it. I wish nobody any ill will. Just thought I'd toss in my $0.02. :)
     
  33. zumwalt

    zumwalt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Posts:
    2,287
    *shrugs* nothing illegal here, creative alteration and distribution..
    I am not an artist and buy my work from different sources, turbosquid comes to mind, so does DAZ (but with DAZ work I can only use them as rendered animations or sprites), some work I even get from other artists from free, all they ask is that they are mentioned in the credits, no problem there...

    Only thing cheeky is the fact they didn't mention that the assets were created / authored and distributed by Unity. Any of us can use them 100% for any reason.
     
  34. kinl

    kinl

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Posts:
    355
    Nothing wrong with it at all as its totally within the license, and exactly the same as outsourcing artwork, or anything for that matter.

    The only thing that bugs me is the baked shadows for items in the original demo that are not in the game, but this is purely a level of polish for the game and nothing else.

    Maybe the original creator could be commissioned to provide a new shadowmap for the items that are in the level :)
     
  35. antenna-tree

    antenna-tree

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Posts:
    5,324
    Oooh, extra income on the side... nice!

    For only $100 per an object I guarantee to remove the offending shadowmaps from your Unity stock environments.

    I'm going to make a killing ;)
    Ethan
     
  36. nomand

    nomand

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2008
    Posts:
    44
    look at it as using stock imagery. you use something to create something better.
    in this case, as an artist, i think that using the models is ok, BUT.. using models from tutorals and example scenes is just shameful to the developer's ability to create art.
     
  37. Lab013

    Lab013

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Posts:
    405
    I think that I can understand them doing a more copy paste and edit routine, however, the learning experience and the pride that they can take ( also the respect from others ) will go way way up if they build it from the ground up using the assets and what not as a guide instead of a source.
     
  38. zumwalt

    zumwalt

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Posts:
    2,287
    I am not an artist at all, just purely a coder, I buy all my artwork and sound effects from many different sources, which include DAZ, TurboSquid and many independent artists. Hopefully this first experience of product distribution will allow them to purchase artwork from creators and learn to mention who they got it from. Either way, they made a buck and Unity got more exposure.
     
  39. kinl

    kinl

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Posts:
    355
    Its probably off topic, then again maybe not.

    I would like to know how the developers (or anyone else) think they got the App on the main page under the "NEW" section, as we all know everything that is new does not get put there and its a very good sales pusher.

    Ofcourse I do not want to imply the game is no good, far from it (although on my slower first gen Ipod Touch the framerate is far too choppy for me, so I find the game very hard to play)

    My question really is what do you think got it noticed:

    Gameplay
    Subject matter
    Knowing the right people
    Luck
    Graphics (the only on topic part of this post)
    Exposure and Marketing (which is probably linked directly to option 2)
     
  40. kinl

    kinl

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Posts:
    355
    Ok so i guess its luck as Monkey Diving has also made it to the new and noteworthy section, that and it being the best 59p you can spend this side of a Boost choccy bar ;)

    Has anybody noticed 3DWorld by NDMapple on the iTunes store?

    Give it a search (I dont have itunes on this machine to link sorry), but its is basically JUST the demo of the warehouse being sold for 99cents.. I got a mind to build it n stick it out there for free ;) unless ofcourse aNTeNNa trEE put it out there.
     
  41. simonre

    simonre

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Posts:
    53
    Why do you say "luck" that you're now on new and noteworthy? Surely it was knowing the right people - by posting to this forum you know the right people and it just happened.

    A friend made it to the UK front new and noteworthy over Christmas... and it made a difference! And he had no idea how or why.

    Good luck.
     
  42. kinl

    kinl

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Posts:
    355
    I think the luck side of things is a good thing, in a sea of apps it seems hard to get a good app noticed, i've come across many quality apps that I thought should be pushed more than they are, where some are up there that are in my mind not worthy of the exposure (and I dont mean this app by any means).

    To be fair my original question was a bit daft and maybe was looking for "Graphics" being the answer from others, fuelling the fire in this post ;)

    But then I cant comment on the gameplay as the framerate doesn't make it very playable on my 1g iPodtouch, it does look great tho, so maybe I was also looking for peoples opinions in it actually being a good playable game also.

    Thanks for the luck, good luck to you also :)
     
  43. jalist101

    jalist101

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Posts:
    90
    I don't blame the guy for using the unity assets at all.
    there are no tutorials on using unity iphone
    what the hell are people suppose to do.
    you spend all this money the software and there is no instructions on using the thing.
    we need more tutorials not examples for unity iphone..
     
  44. Omar Rojo

    Omar Rojo

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Posts:
    494
    I just came across this thread and i totally agree with col000r.

    However, into the legal terms, he (the paper plane developer) is in his right to do what he do with paper plane, im NOT going to argue with that.

    I guess we (me and col000r and probably others) just got driven by how well this community has acted along the way since the first release of Unity3D. I think concepts as sharing, honesty, ethic, friendly advice, etc. are too well attached to the community, and to think someone got to break some of them makes all the controversy happen.

    That is what we argue, but there is nothing we can do about it, and we have to live with that. Its never too well accepted, for people who takes the time to think and create something, that someone just takes what someone else did (almost without touching it) and takes the credit and also make money with it.

    This is business, and legal terms are perfect to destroy all this concepts the community have forged for this years, its because of the flaws on the law that so many crimes are committed right ?

    Its an idealistic and almost dreaming point of view of a perfect community, and we react against it when we happen to encounter it, but hey! its never too well accepted by the counterpart either!

    So keep going and do what do you think its right, successfulness will feel good that way. Im glad col000r rose his voice and i think everyone who answered it with legal terms just missed the point a little.

    So what now? everyone using the assets provided and no more advance?? i guess i should take a shot with that "methodology" too! hehe this is madness!

    PD: I just wanted to share my point of view too :)

    .org
     
  45. n0mad

    n0mad

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Posts:
    3,732
    For me it's definately wrong.

    If Paper Pilot dev was a robot, for sure we could debate on copyrights.

    But he is human, we are humans, and the main difference between us and animals or robots is our differencies. Our unique identity amongst each other.
    Art is the ability to express that difference. Successing at Art representation is directly linked to intelligence of building a bridge between our soul and the other souls.

    Copy/Pasting the whole Art of an existing game is therefore dumb, and furthermore useless for evolution.

    All I see in there is another one way consumer who just wanted to make fast cash.

    We're not talking about inspiration here, we're talking about stealing.
    And what about respect of the original artist, who spent hours to create those assets, huh ?

    I don't deny there is some quality gameplay, grats for coding. Yeah code is not a copy paste, right ? I'm giving kudos to the right person, am I ?

    See... When a part of the cake is a lie, it's easy to believe the whole cake is a lie.

    Sorry to be that rude, but my artistic studies taught me to fight creative lazyness.

    On a smoother note, I saw far worst copy/pasting than Paper Pilot ...
     
  46. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    This is not stealing, this is full and legal usage of assets under the license terms we put forth.


    He has posted repeatedly in this thread that he's happy his art was put to use, he does not care one bit about this.
     
  47. Scrat

    Scrat

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Posts:
    316
    I think people (especially artists) thinking that using assets this way are pretty hypocritical.

    I'm pretty sure here, most of the artists who use Unity are using some source code that they (or their team) haven't written. If you think that using the assets provided by Unity is stealing then think again next time you use any class you found in one of the examples you downloaded on Unity's website (CombineChildren.js, PlatformerController.js, CameraScrolling.js etc.).

    We, developers, find it just as difficult to create art than you to write code. It's not because it's visible that it is more important.
    So as long as most people here use the source code provided by Unity, why couldn't we also use assets (it's legal, as written in the license terms)?
     
  48. HiggyB

    HiggyB

    Unity Product Evangelist

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    6,183
    +1

    Did you write your own engine?
    Do you write your own modeling/art tools?
    Do you write your own OS?

    No, we all leverage existing tools, assets and media to achieve our goals, let's drop the high-and-mighty here and move on. What was done was legal and within the license rights provided, no theft was involved.
     
  49. n0mad

    n0mad

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Posts:
    3,732
    Ok then, let's create a unique asset model which everyone will use 10 times a month ? :p

    But please don't ask me to buy or develop this game because I will be bored too quickly...

    On the left corner, the hypocritical cloner who claims that it's not illegal to clone.
    On the right corner, the hypocritical artist who uses the minimal tools to keep the pace with technical evolutions.
    Tell me who's in the right direction ?

    This is getting a bit odd, sorry I'm off this one.


    P.S : I personally never use any external .js. As a professional coder, I know that my coworkers do not like to reuse someone else's code if they can do it themselves (and have the time to).