Unity Technologies Sale/Options [SOLVED]

Back in the '90s, MS had their Windows seal. The only way a software vendor could get it for their product was to offer their product EXCLUSIVELY on the Windows platform. They've had a history of when they bought small companies. taking IP they were interested in and discarding the rest. MS wants to sell their latest and greatest OS (BTW: that will be Windows 10... somewhere along the line someone decided Windows 9 will not exist.)

C|Net is indeed owned by CBS. The other day, C|Net wasted some of my time by posting a statement made by a famous atheist scientist on my Facebook page. I didn't sign up for or like C|Net for its religious/anti-religious views, but its reporting on tech. I think It's time for me to wish them goodbye.

It wouldn't be the first time that some company played dirty (ahem... MS) to acquire IP, so the theory put forward by tswalk is plausible, at least. CBS, at its roots, is a media giant, and wants full control over all the media it can get its hands on. Independent developers/artists and distribution channels not under their control are seen as lost revenue (speculation: possibly even added to money lost to piracy figures.)

Now, on to more on-topic things:

I'd hate to see UT sell off as it is definitely hard to find buyers that will share the same views as UT has or that will let UT function autonomously without interference. The parties rumored to be interested I don't see sharing the same views as UT as far as being cross-platform. (Apple historically has been a closed architecture. Today, they vet everything before letting it into their store, and require final builds to be done on Apple hardware before even being considered. Google, who touted open-platforms in the past is slowly in some ways, quickly in others, moving to be more proprietary, i.e. Android as used on phones and tablets is becoming more and more proprietary and the open-source version losing ground to its functionality. MS has historically acted in anti-competitive ways, wanting everyone to use their software platform, and theirs alone.) Yes, the parties are well endowed with the financial means to make UT's IP better. but I can't fully trust their motives and ultimately, their actions, if they really are interested in UT.

I wish UT the best, and continued growth, as independent game developers will take risks, and publishers are afraid of lost revenue with new IP to the point they will avoid it and cash in on existing IP until sales drop. UT gives us indies a way to shoot for the moon without being held back by bean-counters telling us that it is too risky.

So far all we have is rumors, and a quote that says some of the rumors are true, without specification as which is which. We all can speculate, but until the rumors become more than hearsay, that is all they are. I think a good developer will always keep their eyes open for what is the best tech with the best licensing for them and their projects. Currently for me, with the provided tools of the Unity Engine and licensing terms, it fits well despite some of its shortcomings. Most other engines lack the ease of use found with Unity. I like what I see in 4.6 and the upcoming 5. I'll continue with UT's engine until rumors are more than rumors and the new terms are wrong for me. Then it will be time to shop around again and learn the ins and outs of something else, but until then, I'm staying put.

 

You know, what would have been really funny, if MineCraft was made with Unity.
Make a game so epic, that you buy out the engine you built it with

 

Microsoft has been suffering the hallmarks of someone going through a never-ending middle aged crisis for years now it seems, but they're still here and still very relevant. In terms of the long view, I can't see a future where they don't continue to exist as one of the lead players. Considering that they almost always manage to drop the ball every time they try something new, they're still there...the omnipresent unpopular guy at the party who just won't go home, and nobody kicks him out because, well, he owns the house. I guess they just own too much real estate to be simply pushed out of the way.

With regards to someone with their kind of capital buying Unity (or acquiring a stake), I don't suppose it's all that bad. MS are a lot more platform agnostic when it comes to solutions than people give them credit for, and seem to accept that it's just as well to eat from someone else's dish as open a competing restaurant opposite on every street corner. Logistics.

And imagine what Unity could do with the kind of resources and logistical support/ken such a partnership could bring to the table.

Of course I guess it wouldn't help much if the management can't tell their arse from their elbow. How *do* you vette a good partnership, when billions of dollars are on the table?

 

A couple weeks ago, I decided that I was sick of Monodevelop's bullcrap and decided to try Visual Studio Express. So, I went to download it...oh, I need a Microsoft account? I used to have one of those...can't remember the password. Okay, reset password email...great! Set new password...there. Now, download it and...I have to change the password because I haven't logged on in a while? But I just...alright, set second new password...there. Now, download it and...gigabytes? Why is an IDE measured in gigabytes? Whatever.

Okay, downloaded. Installing...there. Finally! Let's try this thing. Oh, it expires in a month unless I sign in within the program? Well hey, I just went through the account refreshing and...oh, mysterious error code with no information whatsoever beyond "your browser couldn't do it"? Great. Google time...oh, there's only three results for this error code in all of Google? This should go well. VPN? No, I'm not on a VPN. No, my account isn't locked. Have to use IE in least-secure mode? What a shock. Okay, set IE as default browser, turn security to minimum, cookies on, reboot machine...oh, same error. Well, let's give it a few days...same error. Let's try again next weekend...same error. No help anywhere. Alrighty then...Monodevelop it is!

To HELL with Microsoft and all their bullcrap. There is no potential buyer of Unity that will not destroy Unity: The only way we keep Unity as we want it is to keep it a successful and profitable independent company.

 

Weird. I haven't had any of those problems, aside from requiring to be logged in. Granted I installed Visual Studio Express 2013 as the first application after a fresh install of Windows 7 SP1.

 

Adobe could be good.

 

I don't think so.. they haven't been very innovative the past few years... unless you call "Cloud Only" Saas innovative. (which I don't)

 

One of the things I liked best about Unity is they were not Google or Microsoft or any other huge monopoly. To me they seemed like Indy developers who understood Indy developers. It's kind of ironic that as I am finally starting to "click" with Unity development they are looking for buyers.

I do wonder if someone has taken things out of context. Ya know... it could be Unity is simply sending a presentation around to all of the big developers pitching what Unity can do, how it can save them time and money and letting them know about the option to purchase a custom version of Unity with full source code. I could see someone glancing at the summary... hmm... selling their product including source. Guess they are trying to unload it and do something else.

 

It is also possible that somebody pulled this entire thing directly from between their buttcheeks, and the other "outlets" just picked up on it in their rush to get some clicks. It's not like such a thing doesn't already happen on a weekly basis, and it's also not like somebody more reputable is running it besides these chuckleheads.

Reminds me of a time a TV news station ended up reporting on a horrific dozen-car wreck and loss of life and oh the horror, and it was actually a movie being filmed and could they please get that helicopter away because it's messing with the shoot.

 

...as JAKJ said, the same thing just happened to the iPhone 6+...'BendGate'; the media never truly researches these articles, barely aspiring to sounding boards and ending up nothing more than echo chambers. Obnoxious, especially when I allow blurbs like these to reverberate in my own thoughts...

 

The last thread like this was shut down by the Unity folks. They came on and told us that Unity was not for sale. This thread has been basically ignored. That makes me worry, especially as we are getting ready to start a subscription. What would happen if we had a year commitment and Unity was sold and something changed?

It seems we have been in limbo for a while now. So waiting again to find out what is happening.

 

Is this where we jokingly state that Unity 5.x is taking so long because they're trying to sell the company?

 

I would think if they were selling and Unity 5 is as good as it looks, they would be eager to release it. Wouldn't it just up the value? My guess is it is taking so long because it is not ready.

 

I've not had any trouble with MS tools, but then I've been using them for years so I guess I don't see the new user experience as it is today. Their website is a nightmare for discoverability I'd agree, but to be fair, I think everyone has a horror story to do with signing up to many different services/getting software. Too many systems and constant changes. One of our guys cries when it comes time to install a new XCode, and that's supposed to be simples.

If by monopoly you mean ubiquity, we're not far off Unity being eligible for the same camp.

Context is rarely important when it comes to a good headline, but I've no doubt Unity are grooming themselves; they'd be lax not to as you never know what's around the corner, and the stakes are high at this end of the market. Never say never, as they say. All the moves they're making into the services segments are signs of grooming (imho). Sure they're for us, and they're extremely cool and valuable as utility, but the real value is in the bigger picture.

 

Yeah that's basically what I mean. Personally, I see both MS and the big G as wishing they had complete and exclusive control of everything... that is where I get the monopoly view from. And to pull that off they need to be ubiquitous. But that is just my personal view. I liked Google when they were the underdog many years ago. You're right about Unity in that sense. I had not considered but yes they appear to be the same as far as game dev is concerned.

 

Possibly you're forgetting how much Adobe's suite has ....not really changed in the last ~10 years. I believe they would destroy Unity by failing to innovate.

 

But they made a ruler for iPads.

I don't think they have enough space on their website for another application anyway.

 

Just because Valve has its own engine doesn't mean it would not have interest in the game development market, and the fact that they are distancing themselves from Microsoft and investing more in Linux is more reassuring for the direction they would take Unity.

 

I've been following that thread... If these rumors are true, then it's realy sad.
I've been Autodesk Maya user from about 10 years. I remember the times when Maya was developed from Alias and they've been adding new features with every new version, improving constantly the software... Few years ago Autodesk bought Alias, they also bought Discreet (Which is developer ot 3D StudioMax) and then they bought Softimage, who is developing XSI. I don't know about the other 2, but as i work everyday with Maya i can say, that since Autodesk bought it, they aren't improving the software a lot. There are problems that stays with years, nobody cares. The only new features, that are added to the software with the new versions are just third party plug-ins, that Autodesk buy from other people and adds them, as plug-ins. They don't even bother to integrate them to be core features...

It allways sucks if some monster buys smaller company, that is focusing on one software only.

Your assumptions about who might be the buyier might be right, but i coud say, that i won't be surprised if Autodesk is the one, who want's to buy Unity, since at the moment they hold all of the Professional softwares for 3D, either it's Effects, Visualisations and so on...

Anyway, we can continue crying here for a long time, but the real thruth is that Unity3D is property of Unity Technologies and as such, they have the right to do whatever they want with it... We as clients, can decide if we wan't to stay with Unity or not...

After all if it's true, let's hope it's for good

 

Thank you for posting those articles. I do agree that a lot of Indie developers might turn their nose up at Unity if they are brought out. But at the same time I understand they are a For profit business.

My other complaint is that when large businesses (like Amazon) purchase a smaller company, the changes to the smaller company are hardly ever "good". Good in the sense that they reconstruct their investment to become a cash cow. That train of thought always bothered me because if a company is good at doing something (so good you want to buy them out), why would you make drastic changes to them? Were they not doing well enough to garnish your attention prior to your purchase of them?

 

I don't care how good your product actually is and how many people use it flawlessly: If your program cannot even give an error message useful enough to do something about it, and cannot in fact even make it to the screen to input the username and password for the account at all, your program sucks. No matter how many people think it doesn't, if it CANNOT EVEN BRING UP THE LOGIN SCREEN successfully, it sucks. Visual Studio sucks.

You cannot argue this. Unity works, Monodevelop works, Steam works, Cygwin works, VirtualBox works, fifty bajillion games with their own stupid launchers work, Firefox/Chrome/IE work, everything on my machine works perfectly well. But install Visual Studio (with no installation errors, mind you: it worked perfectly) and an entire week of attempts cannot even bring up the LOGIN SCREEN while the program itself (loading source files, editing preferences, using autocomplete, viewing assemblies) otherwise works?

That is a failure. You expect me to even attempt to trust something like that? That is proof positive of an underlying development model where the people either don't care about what they're doing or they're so overwhelmed by time constraints or codebase size that they are unable to.

Go to any tech-support person and tell them "my program doesn't work". That's it. No more: Just that. See if you don't get laughed out of the office. Well, that is what Visual Studio told me. It just didn't work. Not why, not how, nothing.

Microsoft is huge. Microsoft has a lot of smart people and a whole hell of a lot of money. And what does the size and population and wealth of them acutally mean in terms of software quality? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Unity is tiny compared to Microsoft. And Unity works better.

 

There are always companies who are keen to talk with us, and look at acquiring us. If the community want to talk about who might be a good purchaser, and who they think would wreck Unity if we got bought by them, that's cool. That doesn't mean we are for sale.

 

I tell my wife something like this every time a pretty girl looks at me. She never buys it.

(Joking of course, I don't get those kind of looks anymore)

 

My guess is there was a meeting to discuss a potential acquisition which probably didn't go through because of a disagreement on the evaluation.

Just along as Unity 5 comes out this month I will remain a happy customer.

 

Just 'cause I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

 

If it was some changes, the terms and conditions of use can't be changed for people who baught the software or using the Free version. Some people pre ordered UT5 , so the conditions of use and price are deifned for that version people , so no need to worry.
Only some UT5 major upgrade could bring new prices or terms of use; so you have just to continue making your game using UT4.x and not worry about some change for now.

 

If they didn't know before at least this thread has made Unity aware of just how much loyalty people have to the brand, the current company and the product as it is today. Perhaps that may have some slight impact if any buyout is seriously considered.

 

Doesn't mean you aren't for sale either.

Just be honest about human nature. Right deal comes along, top people will jump at it.

There are few people who have the integrity and patience to be bombasted by userbases all day long and NOT sell out if they get the right offer.

 

I'm a big MS fan but...

They acquired Softimage and didn't do much with it, ended up re-selling it.
They bought TrueSpace and just plain killed it.
They just canned XNA...

If you look at their new business alignment under Nadella, Mobile, Cloud, SAAS.. Unity3D doesn't really fit there.

 

There have been rumours for years, and will always be rumours. Unity are a tasty target.

Some rumours will be seeded by competitors / suitors for their own game. Some will be analyst fantasies. Some will be recycled old stories. Rumours are popping up with increasing frequency for those reasons, and more. It is unrealistic to expect Unity comment every single time, especially because the one time they don't say anything would be taken as confirmation, even if it was just a case of them not hearing that particular story.

The thing that makes me doubtful that anything is imminent is how much David Helgason and Joachim Ante appear to be enjoying running the company.

 

Yeah I have used MS stuff for a long time DirectX, XNA etc. You're right. They come out with (usually acquire) cool tech stuff but XNA was crazy they way they did people. Spend years hyping up it up and building a huge community of active users then one day just announce welp Metro is our future we are not updating XNA to work with it. Lol

 

Have anyone seen this?
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/unity-one-gaming-development-platform-to-unite-them-all-up-for-sale/
PS: I have problems navigating the forums recently, I can only select first or last pages on threads (not in between).

 

This may be true, but still makes me less likely to commit $150 a month for a year to the cause. Some people have plenty of money to throw away, we do not. We will wait and see..again! Getting old though. lol

 

It occured the same with Autodesk buying it's main conccurent Maya , they just let down Maya as a simple tool while expanding 3DSMAX, or Zbrush buying Sculptris that could have begin to become a serious challenger for many hobbyst.
I just hope if some change appears in the future , that Unity will keep it's main strong points :
- Free version with desktop and mobile
- Pro license without subscriptions
- No royalties
- C#
- Easy of use framework and programming
- always bringing new features

 

Business is like life. Make the best decision you can, with the information you have TODAY! And today, what we can guess is that it's unlikely Unity will sell, and if they did, it's even more unlikely that would mean any significant change for at least 2 years. Innertia would carry it that far forward.

So, if a subscription makes sense for you, then go forward, without worry. Personally, I paid upfront - as I didn't like how much the subscription felt like renting.

Gigi

 

That would be the wise thing to do. Then even if they sold and things changed, we would have the license. But that means having $3000 up front which we don't have at the moment. Maybe in the spring. It does mean putting things off again. Of course, not Unity's fault, but our own for having too many kids and a car payment.

 

IMO I would hold off until Unity 5 is actually out, because Today you would just be paying for 4.5 as 5.x is still a promise, this is especially if you are considering starting a 1 year subscription, since you would only be getting 4.5 for your first month, assuming Unity 5 is released this month.

 

I think it's more of a case of people wanting pro or not when it comes to subs. It's not like you own it at the end of it.

 

Unless he needs it right away its still wise to hold off a bit longer since 5 isn't out yet.

 

I don't understand, as subscribig on UE4 if you pay 20$ one time only , you own the software and you can make and sell a game without having to pay 20$ each month.
Unity is propsoing 75$/month for a year minimum and you don't own the software at the end , here UE4 is a really best solution in terms of pricing only , as UE4 is not as good in terms of the most easy to learn framework and more easy to program.

 

That is true, but the 15% royalty is going to have an impact down the down; though many professional studios are licencing the tech so there must be some payoff from using it.

 

You never own the software with Unity's subscription. If you stop paying you lose it, which is why subbing when rumors of a sale abound might be a bit foolish. Lots of things could change including the price, the availability to indies, etc.

UE4 might be better in terms of price but we have looked at it and decided it is not best for us for this particular project. It may be for future projects though. We committed to using Unity for our current project and do not intend to change. We do need pro for some of our features in this particular game.

By the way, I am a she.

 

You mean 5% right?

@Teila

Whatever gets the job done

@hippocoder

Unity really needs to shorten the commitment length of the sub.

 

My criticism of Unity really passed over your heads

 

Not really, seems you were alluding to you should have it after the subscription ends. Which is cool, they could do a rent to buy scheme. But I think it would be better if they just reduce the length of the subs..

 

If Unity plays in same field as UE4 i mean subscribe and cancel when you want, tehy will have to change the price.
I think it's too high 75$ for one year as you finally pay 900$ that is not so far from the Pro version price, i would better save the money instead.
I'm just curious , did they have some many customers paying 75$/month ? Does it really works ?

 

Naw.... That ~never happens.... /end sarcasm

 

Who's better than Google? I think Amazon would let Unity continue as is autonomously except for things like maturity ratings and laws and those type things that neglect would lose the customers and cause them to get sued. Maybe that would get free game server hosting for, let's say 1 year, from Amazon. You know, long enough to see if a game is going to be profitable enough to actually pay for game server hosting.

Amazon despite the Kindle Fire and such has a bigger stake in publishing content to as many platforms as feasible. The Kindle Fire hardware was created because of a perceived Google / Android security and quality problem. Google is still mostly advertising. Can you imagine Amazon creating models for in game placement with links to the Amazon Store? Not so dumb and kind of neat. Maybe even make a 3D Amazon Shopping Experience similar to IKEA.

Don't know if Amazon is even interested though.

 

LOL , we are not making houses or furniture, but 3D games of any kind. Unity store is related to Unity, i just hope it will continue to stay like that, we don't need others stores.