why do company hire unity programmer ?

why do company hire unity programmer ? the asset store pretty much has everything and is way cheaper than paying salary to programmer.

 

Whatever makes you think that is probably what is affecting important progress within your life. Read what you wrote slowly and ask yourself if it is a statement that leaves no doubt that you know what you are talking about or asking about.

 

Go make a game with those assets that rivals those found in the Unity showcase.

http://unity3d.com/showcase/gallery

 

???

Have you tried to make a complete game with only assets from the store? No tweaking allowed?

The store has plenty of really useful stuff. It seldom has exactly what you want. Even if it does, it seldom plays nicely with the rest of your products.

 

You guys are all blind... he's telling the truth...

 

well my first job after graduation is a programmer job using unity, i was being paid nicely (as an entry job without any experiences) and the job is easy as i have been using unity for a long time. Sometime i wonder whether senior unity programmers can earn alot of money like $100000+ annually (from singapore).

 

@Heu - Hahahahaha! Thanks for the laugh, I'm still giggling when I look at it. Awesome.

 

Here you go @Heu. Don't spend it all at once...

 

Well even if you build your game using Playmaker and Unity Asset store assets, you are still relying on the Asset store programmers and the Unity game engine programmers to provide you with that platform.

And remember that competing game engines that shall not be named provide scripting systems that allow games to be made without programming. But again you will be relying on the programmers of the game engine to build you that platform.

So you will always need programmers when working with IT systems, well at least until the programmers figure out how to get a computer to do their job for them and go on holiday!

 

We totally thought we had this when we built compilers. But the demands of application complexity are increasing as fast as programmers build tools to solve the complexity.

 

I believe Unity once did this for a laugh during a camp.

 

Many lols.

 

Serious game development is not play with legos.

 

No it's more like technical lego or Mindstrom lego!

 

unity programming is so much easier than ordinary software developer

 

Only to cowboys or inexperienced developers who don't treat it like other software development.

Yes, you can hack together stuff really quickly and that's great for prototyping. That's really not how you should approach larger projects, though. They should be approached just like you would any other larger software development... the fact that there's some 3D graphics and real-time systems involved don't magically change the fundamental nature of software development.

 

Not for any game of even moderate complexity it isn't. C# is C#. But if you haven't done a project complex enough to realize that, it might explain why you think off the shelf components are enough.

 

But aren't most computer game genres a solved problem especially now we have moved into 3D and all we are adding is more realistic graphics?

FPS -> Solved (Battlefield 4, COD, etc)
RTS -> Solved (Starcraft etc)
Platformer -> Solved (Mario)
Maze Runner -> Solved (Pack Man)
Match3 -> Solved (Bejewelled)
Tennis -> Solved (Pong)

Once a game is created that solves for a specific genre then surely it should just be a matter of re-skinning and tweaking the parameters?

And I have heard from game portals that want to buy games that can be re-skinned or hire developers that can quickly and cheaply re-skin games.

And look at the proliferation of DLC, just a way to paid for a re-skinning of or new levels for an existing game.

 

No.

Heck, you even use Mario there as an example. How many platformers have come since Mario that are both different and great in their own right? I wouldn't want to miss out on Prince of Persia and Ratchet and Clank just because Mario got there first and everyone shrugged and moved on to other things cause "eh, we've already got a game where a guy jumps a lot".

A "genre" is a ridiculously vague thing. The fact that BF X, CoD Y and Halo Z exist doesn't mean that "FPSs are solved", it simply means that we've got BF X, CoD Y and Halo Z. The facts that they all coexist, are somewhat different, are each up to a ridiculous number of sequels and there are numerous competitive products (direct copycats aside) demonstrate pretty clearly that it hasn't been "solved". Otherwise Unreal wouldn't exist because we'd all have moved onto other things after playing Quake. Sorry, I mean Doom. Er... that is to say, Wolfenstein 3D...

(Aside: Whenever my dad points out to me that there are essentially only a handful of video games, I point out that he essentially keeps watching the same action movie and reading the same crime thriller novel over and over again.)

 

Sure, Pacman is solved. If you want a game exactly like Pacman in every respect. In which case, gamers will simply decide that they've been playing that game for 30 years and want something new. If you want to do something new with it, like say asymmetric multiplayer where humans can control the ghosts, it's not solved. Or different power ups for Pacman, not solved. Or different AI for the ghosts to provide a unique challenge, not solved. Or maybe power ups for the ghosts and the AI for them to use them, not solved.

Watch Dogs is a vastly different game, with a vastly different set of requirements than Tomb Raider, but they are both third person games. Even games within identical genres have differences that set them apart. The different tournaments modes for Unreal Tournament vs Quake, the various multiplayer modes in the James Bond series of games, the vehicles in Halo, and a wide variety of other examples that might not be obvious at first.

If you want to be successful, you have to constantly be asking, "How can I make this genre better?" "How can I differentiate myself from my competitors?" The answer to those questions is never "Buy an asset that everyone else is using and implement it with no modifications."

 

Then why have Unreal, Frostbite and Quake turned into game engines that have gone on to power a raft of other games?

Quite a few games are just built on top of the Unreal FPS game engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games

My point @HemiMG is don't reinvent the wheel and that's why I think Unity should start making game frameworks or better still make high quality games that can then be re-worked into frameworks that come with the engine or via the asset store.

Or if you want to make a better version of a game then shouldn't you start with the best of the current generation so at least you are not devolving the genre by making a poorer game.

 

Re skinning certainly is a thing. The various versions of age of empires 2 come to mind. Or for a recent example just go download any five Disney apps for iPhone.

There is even merit to reskinning as a business model. Build a single app. Farm the game out to a bunch of franchises. There is a demand for people who can do this. If you think you can have success making reskinable games for the store, then by all means, go ahead and do it.

But to say reskinning is all that is required? You lack a fundamental understanding of games, and the gaming market. There is far more that goes into a decent game then just upgraded graphics.

 

Don't confuse a game engine for a game. The first game I clicked on in the list of Unreal Engine games you posted was a Harry Potter game. In that, they say you can learn to fly a broomstick. There is no flying broomstick in Unreal. That's something that a programmer had to add to the game. That's just one example based on a few sentences in a Wikipedia entry.

Also, don't confuse a framework with a game. I myself sell a framework on the asset store. I certainly don't want to discourage people from buying it, but it isn't going to do everything that anybody could want it to. It is a marble platformer based on the notion of playing until you run out of lives. A customer did request a feature that allows you to set a time limit that they must complete, and I'll add that as soon as get some breathing time. But that isn't everything you may want. Maybe you want a timer with a par that the player can try to beat. What happens if they beat the par? Do they get points? Maybe some currency they can spend on something? If it's currency, what can they buy with it? Even if I put in every game mode I could possibly think of, it doesn't meant that I've put in every game mode that every developer could possibly think of. Even with a framework, even with a really freaking amazingly full featured framework, you are going to need a programmer to make your game unique.

Sure, you could just push out a 1000 copies of all the games that are already out there. There are certainly tons of Angry Bird, Flappy Bird, Tiny Wings, etc clones out there. But some people are in the business to bring their own visions to life. Those people will always need programmers or need to be programmers.

 

I'm not arguing that we don't need programmers I'm just saying that ideally we should be able to do less programming as the problems of specific genres have already been solved and therefore we should not have to reinvent the wheel or the FPS or the RTS.

This is an area where I think that Unity is losing the game engine race, due to the fact it did not start out as a game and then evolve into an engine.

 

When you say "reinvent the wheel" you are probably focusing on some broad aspects. Such as having the ability to just drop in "stock" control panels, vehicles, doors, enemy AI and many other systems that are all integrated smoothly into one common framework.... so basically you want some kind of Kit / framework that starts you out with the full Battlefield 4, Dead Island 2, or whatever?

Those games are the result of developers continually building on their previous game engines. No game engine as in the tools Unity/Unreal etc. But the actual GAME engine that allows them to make a new Dead Island or new Battlefield game much faster than if they started from scratch. You could do the same thing. Use Unity assets as much as possible and program your own stuff as much as needed. Release a game. Then upgrade and otherwise enhance your engine to make WhateverGame 2. Repeat for 3. 4. And so on. Eventually you will have a powerful game engine/framework for making these games.

The problem with the assets currently available is likely due to them being built on theory and a small set of specific objectives instead of them being the result of an Indy gamer having created a successful line of games continually enhancing their framework and then deciding to release it on the AS with all assets needed to easily create their latest game. The latter is what you seem to be looking for.

 

The fact that they're "other games" - ie: not the same - shoots your whole premise in the foot. Why would those games/engines have evolved into tools to make other games if those games were already "solved"? You don't need tools to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Is architecture "solved" just because people have already made plans for a wide range of different buildings? Obviously not. Are all houses the same because they're made of bricks or other pre-fabricated components, or because they're all built on foundations of concrete? Again, obviously not.

The same applies to games. Just because some components are largely reusable or because there's common foundations that are a good start for many games with common aspects doesn't mean that they're "solved". The fact that people are making "other games" to bother using those tools is evidence of that.

 

Do you smell that? That nasty stench of troll is filling my nostrils.