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

Should the most successful Unity games be released as frameworks?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Arowx, Jan 25, 2015.

  1. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    Most of the most successful games of the past have evolved into game engines, Unreal, Crytek, idTech all started life as a game then evolved into a game engine.

    Unity does not have this heritage, but what if the best games made with Unity were released as game frameworks on the asset store?

    What Unity games would you like to see as asset store Frameworks?
     
  2. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    Lol. You must have posted this the same time I was posting a reply on the other thread. I kinda thought this was what you were after.
     
  3. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    It might work as a good starting point, but just because someone has a game framework doesn't necessarily mean it meets my needs. Remember that the frameworks made in those games are tailored specifically for their games. If it really were this simple, Unity would likely be shipping with it or selling it separately themselves.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2015
    GarBenjamin likes this.
  4. CaoMengde777

    CaoMengde777

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Posts:
    813
    hmm i was thinking of what ... kinda the ultimate game was...
    and i was thinking, to fight "destructive" with "constructive" (destuction vs creation)
    ..
    like, minecraft is all about creation...

    and so...i was thinking and then i was like ... dang it..
    Unity itself is the best game to be made with Unity...
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  5. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Lol. Totally true. There are dozens of threads on here each day, bemoaning the fact that there are more developers out there then the market can support, meaning no one make money. Normally they blame it on accessibility and the possibility of getting rich quickly off a hit game. But another key reason is Making games with Unity itself is fun.
     
  6. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    On the framework issue this comes down to the individual IP owners. Most figure they can make more money off of refining their IP and releasing sequels then they can on selling the framework. Ultimately selling the framework promotes a flood of lesser clones.

    Unity itself is not likely to develop the frame work either. Unity's main selling point is anyone can make any game on any platform. Building a specific framework will cost money and only benefit a small portion of users. So unity will stick with broad brush feature that affect everyone.

    The only group left is people who don't make a specific game, but sell frameworks for a living. Plenty of these exist. But their frameworks will always be generic to the point they need significant tweaking to run how you want it too.
     
    HemiMG, AdamScura and Ryiah like this.
  7. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    I can't imagine that most code that is used is actually shippable as a framework. As a learning exercise and as a object of academic study, it would be nice for code to be public, but as a method of cutting corners and getting closer to shipping your game, you're probably going to be closer to making a mod than a completely different game.

    Just how many things get hard coded or implemented in sub-optimal manners because it's easier, faster, and, for your needs, it's perfectly acceptable? Especially if the project is a one-off, it's easy to start cutting corners and deliver just what you want and not what everyone else needs.
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  8. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    LOL but look at the other game engines, they started life as games then evolved or were adapted into frameworks and game engines.

    Unity developers seem to have a blinkered view of the games industry, and it is an industry, where time is money and profit is dependent upon using both wisely.

    Now take a step back from your Unity focused world and think about your favourite game genre, and the best example in that genre, then check out the game engine it uses. Now if you were to make a game in that genre would you be better off using a genre specific game engine or Unity?
     
  9. BFGames

    BFGames

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Posts:
    1,543
    Good luck getting anyone successful to put up their game on the asset store :D Lets call blizzard and ask if they put up hearthstone!
     
    HemiMG, Kiwasi and hippocoder like this.
  10. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723

    Your suggestion is suicidal for developers, absolutely suicidal. Because a framework cannot be released without support, and the costs of support would actually be a full time salary, so they would need support to be a paid subscription that earns more than developing more games. Lets say I earn 2 million for a new game over a period of 6 months? how much do you think I would charge for full time support over making another game?

    Answer: more than anyone would afford, so they'd pirate it and I'd essentially be giving my games away for clones to flood the market with.

    Your suggestion is fine for match 3. It's not fine for any blockbuster title.
     
    Ryiah and Kiwasi like this.
  11. djweinbaum

    djweinbaum

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    Posts:
    533
    We already have the framework of successful unity titles. Its Unity.
     
    Kiwasi and hippocoder like this.
  12. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    You are totally entitled to not use Unity and use a genre engine. Trying to force Unity to meet your business model won't work. Vote with cash and use another engine. If you are right Unity Technologies will crash under its own weight on the next few years.

    In the meantime those of us that like the Unity engine and format will continue to use it.
     
    Dantus likes this.
  13. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    Yes, they started life as games. Games with multi-million dollar budgets. Selling copies of a game to consumers makes up the cost very quickly because the entry barrier to gaming is very small. Game development has a much higher barrier and thus they wouldn't be able to sell anywhere near the same number of copies.

    Are you willing to pay the potentially high costs for a genre engine? And the cost of support? Unity is able to easily achieve an affordable price because their engine is very flexible and thus has many more potential customers. A genre-specific engine or framework won't have this advantage.

    No, I think you're simply ignorant to the real world of game development for anything beyond the very simple games typically found on Kongregate or similar. I may be wrong but that's how your threads and posts come across to me.

    This is a tricky question to answer because it is very dependent on your project. One of the biggest problems with a genre engine is that it will be tailored specifically for that genre and nothing else. You may think this makes it a better choice but it won't necessarily be better.

    What if your game is similar enough to be classified under a particular genre but deviates in little ways that would normally never be found in that genre? Unity, like other general purpose game engines, would allow you to complete your project but a genre engine may not.

    Additionally there is the problem with having to learn new engines. If your company stays with one genre this won't be problematic, but if your company intends to branch out they would need to learn an entirely new engine for every new genre they wanted to make.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
  14. TheSniperFan

    TheSniperFan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2013
    Posts:
    712
    Not necessarily. It really boils down to what you understand under 'releasing your game as framework'.
    And why shouldn't you be able to release a framework without support? It's your decision after all. You can release it on an 'as-is' basis.

    Let's look at Half-Life 2:
    If memory serves, large portions of the source code of HL2 were available to all buyers via the Source SDK. It was meant to give modders a base to work off of or in other words: a framework. The important point is how the assets are separated in Source. When you compiled everything, you got a game that would start to the menu and do nothing else. The code only contained generic stuff like ladders, the player, health, items, saving/loading, etc.
    That's not enough to create 'cheap clones to flood the market with'. That's barely enough to create mods and unique games with.

    You could totally open up parts of your games without shooting yourself in the feet. You just have to be smart about what exactly you open up. In fact, I am planning to do just that in future.
    Open up certain, generic parts of the code and release them under some permissive OSS license, while keeping all the game-specific assets (scenes, sounds, textures, models, certain scripts,...) to myself.

    The thing is that there's a lot of busywork involved when developing games from scratch. All those generic, reusable things like doors, ladders and elevators don't define your game in the slightest, but someone has to write them. Might as well release them afterwards and save others some time.
     
    Arowx and Kiwasi like this.
  15. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    I bet Unity has had millions of dollars spent on it so far but it still does not provide frameworks to get people quickly up to and running with a basic 3D FPS, RTS, Platformer, Racer or Turret Defence game out of the box.

    You're confusing genre specific engine and genre specific framework, a Unity genre specific framework would add to the features of Unity needed to produce games in that genre.

    So you can't see that I think Unity is holding itself back by limiting it's own toolset of basic components and frameworks it is allowing the big game engines to out do it and letting the next generation of young upstart WebGL game engines quickly catch up and surpass it in basic features and toolset.

    Unity is a great little game engine, but it could really improve it's out of the box toolkit.

    Imagine if a nood started with Unity.
    1. They downloaded a tiny download manager that then let them browse what Unity can do and it's feature set while the engine was downloading and or patched. Playing games or watching genre specific tutorials.
    2. If they could decide from a set of frameworks and templates what they wanted to make for their first game before the engine had downloaded and even play with pre-build framework prototypes online.
    3. Now when the engine has downloaded and auto-patched (optional) the user confirms their first games framework, templates and style and can begin playing and changing the game.
    And this is before the Cloud based VR/AR version of Unity is released, where you can step into the game or build the game into your living space.

    I'm a dreamer yes but in them I see how much Unity could be improved.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  16. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Then go build it. What you have described could easily be done within the asset store framework. You might even make some money off of it.
     
  17. BFGames

    BFGames

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Posts:
    1,543
    I see Unity as an "overall" engine, one that can be used for all type of games and does not cater to specific genres which is a GOOD thing in my opinion, because they can focus their energy on new features that can be used throughout all genres and are tough to do yourself if your not specialized in a certain field like the new lighting system, the 64Bit editor or the new networking system they are working on.

    I would hate paying for my pro subscription if all they did was adding new "scripts" for specific genres. I can code that stuff myself.
     
  18. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    But what if Unity fails economically because other engines do provide frameworks and templates that allow new developers to start with quick generic games, as opposed to a blank project.

    Or because it is easier to develop with other engines as they provide frameworks and templates that reduce the amount of work to get a game prototype working.

    The big picture is people choose a game engine because it makes it easier for them to make a game. So if other game engines make it easier than Unity then it could as a product and company suffer, falter and eventually fail.

    Think of frameworks and templates as a way to make Unity better, maybe not for you but for others and in doing so Unity will continue to be around for your own unique projects.
     
  19. BFGames

    BFGames

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2012
    Posts:
    1,543
    Well they seem to be doing OK and keeps growing.

    Also don't know how it is around other places but in Denmark almost every game company uses Unity more or less now a day. Why? I guess it is because it is so easy to use for all genres without the need of learning new engines. That has not changed because of cheaper licenses for other larger engines.

    Also what larger engines have a lot of genre specific help that you cannot get from the asset store?

    I know there are some smaller engines that focus on specific genres, but what gaming company would use those? The amount of time you have to put into learning each engine is not worth it at all.

    I see your point to some degree from a hobbyist point of view, but from a professional point of view (which is often the paying customer) it does not make any sense to me. Also their learning section already have examples of a platformer, top-down shooter and more.
     
    Ryiah and HemiMG like this.
  20. randomperson42

    randomperson42

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Posts:
    974
    I'm confident Unity won't fail economically if the don't provide game-specific frameworks. I for one, would still choose Unity over an engine that had pre-made features for common game genres, all else being equal.

    Plus, UT has kind of already addressed this.
     
    Deon-Cadme likes this.
  21. Andy-Touch

    Andy-Touch

    A Moon Shaped Bool Unity Legend

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Posts:
    1,479
    But we already do provide asset frameworks for people to adapt into their games (And arguably more customisable than a 'First Person Shooter Setup' or a 'Tower Defense Game'):

    https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/21064

    In this pack are complete assets for:
    - First Person Controller
    - Third Person Controller (Fully rigged and reusable animation data)
    - 2d Character Controller
    - Car Controller
    - Jet Controller
    - Various Camera setups for different game scenarios: CCTV Camera, Handheld Camera, Free Look Cam
    - Mobile Cross-Platform Input
    - Various Post-Processing Effects
    - Several Particle Effects: Flames, Water, Smoke, Dust, Firework etc
    - A set of different skyboxes
    - Assets for Trees
    - Various types of Water
    - Prefabs for greyboxing 3d environments before you put your own environment art in the game.

    Before you say something like "this doesn't cover all usecases in making games!", of course it doesn't cover EVERY use case as that would be almost impossible to achieve. Instead, these assets are created to be flexible for as many use-cases as possible. For example, I met one 10 year old kid, at a conference, who adapted the 2d character controller into enemy AI that chased the player across a 2d environment. :)
     
    HemiMG and Ryiah like this.
  22. Zaladur

    Zaladur

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Posts:
    392
    I disagree. Unity has to focus its resources somewhere, and I'd rather they focus it on core features than one off genre specific features that I would most likely rewrite anyways (not because they were poorly written, but because they just don't cover my use case). And for a majority of professional developers/companies creating those larger games, the same will be true.

    Give me better terrain, prefab improvements, some Shuriken improvements, - you know, stuff that will be useful in every game, no matter what direction I decide to go.
     
    HemiMG and randomperson42 like this.
  23. RockoDyne

    RockoDyne

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2014
    Posts:
    2,234
    There are a lot of things UT leaves on the table, and most of it comes down to whether or not it will fit most people's needs.

    Now let's sit down and ponder about who this is really for. Is this for the experienced developer? Chances are most won't use it outright, and those who know how they work might reuse some of the code, but most of it is still being pitched.
    Is it for the novice developer? These are likely to be the people to use frameworks, but now you've given a giant code base to people who might still need to learn how a while loop works.
    For art studios (or generically any studio with a high artist to programmer ratio)? This might just be the most appropriate demographic. If you really need something representative of the end goal on day one to build off of, this is probably the most suitable.

    So is it worth UT's time and money to cater to a very small user base, or should they hire a few more guards to man the room where they keep mono caged up to keep the tendrils from escaping and folding Helgason's collars down neatly.
     
  24. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    Unreal 4 provides templates with their engines. They provide something akin to frameworks in that the resources within their demos can be used in commercial projects. Yet you do not see everyone jumping ship do you?

    While hobbyists may find these beneficial, it is the professionals who are primarily supporting Unity. They are already capable of implementing these or they simply obtain them from other professionals (through the asset store and otherwise).

    A "dreamer"? Why does that sound like an "ideas man"?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2015
  25. HemiMG

    HemiMG

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    911
    This is the greatest reason why I'd rather them focus their efforts on other things. If there was a framework for a game type I wanted to make, I likely wouldn't use it. I want to design not only the functionality (which might be simple), but the overall architecture of my project around my needs and my style. Having a fully developed framework that you base your code off of doesn't really allow for that. It isn't reinventing the wheel when you get that details such as this, because everyone's idea of a wheel is different. Yes, a wheel is round. The similarities stop there. I know the wheel needs to be round, I can round it. I don't to try and take a bicycle wheel and fit it onto a drag racer. I don't need Unity spending resources making wagon wheels, and low rider wheels, and unicycle wheels, etc. when they could be spending that time bringing more features.

    But I still can't afford the Pro version, so Unity should take my opinion with the same grain of salt that they should take the opinion of everyone that isn't a paying customer yet.
     
  26. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    @HemiMG you sound like an experienced 'wheelwright' but every 'wheelwright' starts with training wheels. Now if they have some good example wheels to play with then they can make some fun things and then build and improve their skills when they can take the training wheels off.

    Now consider the training assets available, if Unity were to add a few additional assets they could provide the basic training wheels for a lot of basic genres.

    You also argue that you don't want Unity to spend time writing a framework and templates but they don't have to as they can be found on previous demo projects, the wiki, tutorials and the community have provided lots of free examples.

    I think they just need to package these together so people can find them quickly and easily. Like I said as long as they put a training wheels logo and disclaimer on them then the pro's can bypass them or only use them for quick prototyping.

    I think UT could with minimum effort, think one developer in a matter of days pull together a greatly improved Starter Kit that could let new developers build their first FPS, TD, Platformer games and then once they are ready to take the training wheels off make something unique with Unity.

    Of course the ideal Starter Kit or Kits would cover every genre of games development!
     
  27. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    What you were describing earlier was far more massive than mere training resources. It was far more in-depth than anything I would ever recommend to someone learning Unity and would overwhelm them.

    What you are describing now is more realistic for beginners, but still reasonably useless aside from hobbyists and individual developers. It is also capable of being fulfilled by third parties through the asset store and already is to some degree.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
    Kiwasi likes this.
  28. HemiMG

    HemiMG

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2014
    Posts:
    911
    Not to mention, because it's already been mentioned, Unity already does that. We have the Boot Camp demo, we have the 2D Platformer demo, we had Lerpz, we have Angry Bots. We have quite a large selection of tools and components in the standard assets packages. These aren't massive games, but they don't need to be if the point is to learn.
     
  29. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    We also have video tutorials. Those that step you through the process of creating a game and those that are arranged as lessons or assignments. Both of which are far more useful than simply throwing a starter kit at someone and telling them to have at it.
     
    zombiegorilla and HemiMG like this.
  30. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    But these polished 'complete' demos can get in the way of prototyping, a Starter Kit would take elements of these games/demos and provide them as simple example components and demo scenes that users are tempted to play with and make.

    Think of taking the map and guns, terrain out of the Boot camp demo and putting them into the starter kit, with a link to the complete boot camp demo. But now new developers can add a map/compass and guns to the car, plane or character in the StarterKit.

    Also the Starter Kits should have a menu system so you can run them from a menu system and go through all the demo scenes in game as opposed to searching for them in folders these could even link to online video tutorials.

    And of course take the robot enemies, doors and unlocking system out the angry bots demo and the dropping them into the starter kit.

    Improve the sound fx and wrap it in a menu with a couple of simple game scenes and you have a greatly improved Starter Kit that could have lots of fun components from which people can make great little game/prototypes quickly.

    Now add turrets (stripped down version of the robot AI) maybe a tank, helicopter, boat the terrain from the Island demo.

    And people could have some great fun building lots of little games with the starter kit.
     
  31. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    What if you could reduce those videos to a fraction of the time because they show you how to combine components of the Starter Kit into a game and then provide unique assets so you can re-dress the prototype game into a specific theme!
     
  32. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    Remember the purpose is to learn. You won't learn anything if it is all handed to you. As the saying goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

    Plus unique assets are not really unique if everyone has access to them.
     
  33. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    Give a man a toolkit, fishing line, rods and wire and he can make fishing rods for the fishermen or he could use them to make something completely different, maybe a fishing net, lobster cage or bird cage.
     
  34. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    You forgot the instruction manual that, despite being intended for someone with no idea how to assemble the items in question, is overly complex and includes vague diagrams. While you're at it throw in only enough parts to get the job done perfectly on the first attempt.
     
  35. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    LOL
     
  36. Andy-Touch

    Andy-Touch

    A Moon Shaped Bool Unity Legend

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Posts:
    1,479
    I sometimes wonder if Arowx even bothers to read my posts. I have already offered a solution to his requests.
     
    Ryiah, BFGames, Dantus and 1 other person like this.
  37. djweinbaum

    djweinbaum

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    Posts:
    533
    With regards to Unity, every time I've tried to get knee deep in someone else' high level framework, I've ended up giving up and making my own. For my first six months of development I was using UFPS, and ended up ditching it in preference of making my own. Its not that UFPS isn't a fantastic framework, its just a learning curve thing. To make something truly different I needed to learn the ins and outs of someone else' stuff, and in an engine as robust and high level as Unity, it just ended up being easier for me to make my own.

    Plus, in addition to what @andytouch mentioned, the asset store is teeming with high quality, fully featured frameworks for all kinds of game types for negligible amounts of money.
     
  38. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    I sometimes feel like he only posts to see his own text. He clearly is ignoring any opinion that is not his own. These are less discussions about a topic and more threads to see how many people agree with him.

    Further if he dislikes something, he does what he did to my last post. He laughs at it. I've just about written him off as a troll.
     
    Arowx likes this.
  39. GarBenjamin

    GarBenjamin

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Posts:
    7,441
    It is difficult to see the need for such frameworks due to all of the reasons people have listed previously and, more so, based on the fact that every single week (maybe even daily) one or more "this is my very first game" / "I'm new to all of this" people post showing their just completed now available on the app stores games. If it weren't for all of these completely inexperienced people completing and releasing games every week or day I could see a much greater need for frameworks beyond those already available on the asset store. Clearly beginners don't need any more than ambition and time.
     
  40. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    @Ryiah Well I concur you just seem to disagree with everything I post and keep turning up on every thread I write. Why don't you just ignore my threads if you don't have anything constructive to add or are you just my own personal troll.
     
  41. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    I do have to ask why you liked my statement if you feel I'm simply trolling you. I've tried to add constructive comments and your typical approach is to laugh them off as nonsense solely because they disagree with you. I'm not the only one you do this to either. This was supposed to be a discussion right?
     
  42. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    Because there is not a dislike button, and I thought it was funny how much we both think the other is a troll, simply due to our opposite opinions on what could be done to improve Unity.
     
  43. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,952
    Basically anyone who disagrees with you is a troll? Because practically everyone in this thread has disliked this idea. We have even given very sound reasoning as to why it is bad yet you continue stumbling around like a blind man trying to prove your point. Going so far as to even changing your statements from frameworks centered around big games to starter kits.

    How does providing big frameworks benefit beginners? They will not be able to take advantage of something that complex.

    How do they benefit professionals? As has been pointed out, by the professionals themselves, they aren't useful.

    How do they assist with learning? A big game turned into a framework would be too complex for learning purposes.

    How does not providing these resources harm Unity if no one can or is willing to use them?
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  44. Arowx

    Arowx

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Posts:
    8,194
    Apologies did I miss it, I think you mentioned that you were improving the Starter Kit.