Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
Tags

I don't have an issue with the animation itself (I actually think it's rather nice), just that it could be sped up a bit.

Also I use Godot. I started with Unity a few months ago, but there were just too many issues with the engine for me to do more than follow basic tutorials. Meanwhile, within a week of switching to Godot I was able to submit something for a game jam (it wasn't remotely good, but it was something unique that didn't follow a tutorial).

If you wanted to switch, you could probably try porting Molegan's Quest to Godot, the only thing I'm not sure how to do would be the hyperlinks but I'm certain it's possible.

Just note (and I'm not completely sure about this), the version of Godot that offers C# support can't export to HTML yet. They're working on it and it should be available for 4.2, but in the meantime gdscript is very similar to Python and rather easy to learn.

(+1)

Yeah. I'm still debating whether I'm going to switch. It's hard to imagine the Unity's changes negatively affecting me at the present time but if I do switch, Godot is my top choice. I'm really into 2D development and pixel art right now...

The financial changes may not affect you now, but the fact that Unity can just retroactively change their TOS without warning certainly does.

I completely agree. What do you think would be the optimal path for unity to make money. I can appreciate the fact that they need to be profitable somehow. I disagree with their course of action but I'm not sure what I think they should do instead?

Obviously I don't know the inner workings of Unity, but Unreal just has a flat 5% royalty fee after a game makes 1 million USD. Which seems to work fine for them. They also run several games owned by their parent company, which makes tons of money. That was something Unity was going to do until they scrapped the project recently.

Really, if they need more money they could just increase the prices of the previous model, or charge per game purchase. Charging per install is insane and potentially dangerous. It opens the door for Unity to lie about how many installs a game has and illegally steal from developers with no way to hold them accountable, or to include spyware with their software to track installs, or for anyone with a basic understanding of programming to install-bomb any studio into bankruptcy. Unity has kinda walked back on some of these changes, but in a very unclear way that's just led to more confusion. And it's unclear if some of the worst exploits are still possible (especially since Unity is financially incentivized to allow install-bombing and charging pirated games).

It should also be mentioned that their current CEO was the CEO of EA while it was ranked as the worst company in America. And might have done a bit of (extremely illegal) insider trading just before this announcement. So in all likelihood, Unity doesn't need more money, the executives are just being greedy.