Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unity Software Inc S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 294 posts

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#131

Post by DizzyDoo »

brundolf wrote: post #87
DizzyDoo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, really wish it did. Here's just one concrete example: real-time point-light shadows in the Universal Render Pipeline. URP is the new 'default' way of rendering, the old renderer is being phased out, this is the new way of doing things - as you say; technical debt as they re-engineer. But how horrid has this process of eliminating technical debt been? You've got Unity proudly announcing that URP was 'product…

That's pretty bad, but I'd still file that under "too-hastily deprecating things before the new version is at parity". Not that it isn't a huge issue, but could it be a temporary issue? Is the newer one, in theory, on a good track for the long-term?

I mean, I've been watching this unfold over multiple years, and I fully expect this to continue over the next two at the very least, and it applies across every slice of the engine that I'm aware of, and some that I'm not intimately familiar with (I hear second-hand that networking is somehow in a worse state?)

I guess everyone has different tolerances for what may technically be a 'temporary issue.' Yes, I have no doubt that all this engineering will lead to a better, more stable Unity, but for right now I actually have to somehow write real software and ship something to paying customers.

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#132

Post by [deleted] »

johnfn wrote: post #33

I'm quite bearish on Unity in the long run. Unity to me seems like a team with a fantastic marketing department to contrast with a much weaker engineering department. I've tried to use Unity off and on for years and every time I spend time learning it, I regret it. I'm a full-time React developer, and the difference in engineering culture and best engineering practices between Unity and React is massive. The Unity ex…

[deleted]

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#133

Post by alexbanks »

formalsystem wrote: post #22

Out of any software tools I use frequently, Unity is the one that brings me the most joy. Any reasonably complex interface is essentially a game whether it's a music composition app, simulator, MMO or even a basic form. The basic abstractions of entities and components sometimes feel like they could apply to any software project. It's seamless to animate something, add physics, style in ways that would seem mind bogg…

This is my first time being involved in a game. Is there a way to make dependency/package management not abysmal? I was legitimately shocked when I realized that if you wanted to install a .net standard 2.0 library, you had to manually walk the dependency tree of that library and download/copy every single DLL into your app. Did I miss something? (probably)

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#134

Post by DizzyDoo »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #117
brundolf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty bad, but I'd still file that under "too-hastily deprecating things before the new version is at parity". Not that it isn't a huge issue, but could it be a temporary issue? Is the newer one, in theory, on a good track for the long-term?

The newer one (URP) is already in its second rewrite after ditching the initial version (LWRP). They also completely split the post-processing stack into two incompatible stacks depending on whether you're using URP or HDRP, then backtracked and are attempting to merge them into a single stack again. So while maybe they'll get it all fixed soon, based on their track record I'm pretty cynical and bet it's more likely…

Absolutely. One more additional thing: the latest back-track has been the URP-is-not-a-standalone-package anymore, URP package versions going forward are going to be tied to a specific Editor version. I imagine this is going to make the ability to backport features and bug fixes incredibly difficult because the dependencies are going to be so tightly enmeshed.

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#135

Post by jfim »

foobarian wrote: post #101
formalsystem wrote: post #22

Out of any software tools I use frequently, Unity is the one that brings me the most joy. Any reasonably complex interface is essentially a game whether it's a music composition app, simulator, MMO or even a basic form. The basic abstractions of entities and components sometimes feel like they could apply to any software project. It's seamless to animate something, add physics, style in ways that would seem mind bogg…

Press one button and presto: you have a game running on all the environments one could possibly want today. This alone is worth putting up with a lot of deficiencies in the UI, or the API, or whatever. I remember this boat in early 2000s, when engines were less capable, and I was younger and more arrogant. The thought of using some crappy engine with last gen graphics would make me laugh. Of course I was going to mak…

To be fair, back then, engines were far more limited and there were much fewer platforms to support (only supporting D3D back then was viable).

Plus it's a lot of fun to write your own engine. Sure, texture loading or managing sound buffers won't make your game better than others, but it's definitely fun to write that code.

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#136

Post by xex70 »

andybak wrote: post #126
xex70 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game development historically and consciously does not use Git so you’re fighting a losing battle. There’s good reason for that. Git remains not a great fit for managing large projects of assets despite extensions and work put in, so I’d be cognizant of your projection of Web-centric preferences on another vertical. That’s a recurring theme from the Web vertical (why don’t you do things our way) and I can tell you I’…

> so you’re fighting a losing battle That's an odd way of putting it when I was stating "I've always found tons of great Unity stuff on Github - and I'm worried that might change". The rest of your answer makes sense in itself - it just seemed to be responding to somebody else. I basically learnt by downloading Unity stuff off Github and playing with it and I follow a lot of great accounts which I check regularly.

You hinted you’re worried about the perceived and hypothetical lack of synergy of GitHub and Unity reflecting on your perception of the latter, and you spoke about licensing concerns to reinforce that point. You also expanded your position in nearby comments. I’m advising you that the entire concern and approach you’re taking to source management, and your interpretation of the same as well as your beliefs about free software, reflects where you come from more than where you’re going, and you should loosely hold whatever conviction brought you there if you’re serious about pursuing the industry.

I was responding to you. The game industry is fundamentally different from other industries, and approaching it with questions like “why not Git?” or “why no type safety?” or “what about GPL?” marks you as not really understanding the industry, its product, or its motivations. I realize there’s a huge clutch of cash and free time that lets the average Web dev schedule meetings about and argue type safety and microservices and so on among their peers, but game development is an industry driven by a whip and is closer to Hollywood than San Jose. We look to indie to innovate and put in our 80 wishing we had the time.

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#137

Post by whywhywhywhy »

In 5 years Unity will completely dominate the creative space, even outside of games you're going to be finding this tech everywhere and there is no double in my mind you'll be seeing the unity logo at the end of summer blockbuster credit sequences.

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#138

Post by whywhywhywhy »

johnfn wrote: post #33

I'm quite bearish on Unity in the long run. Unity to me seems like a team with a fantastic marketing department to contrast with a much weaker engineering department. I've tried to use Unity off and on for years and every time I spend time learning it, I regret it. I'm a full-time React developer, and the difference in engineering culture and best engineering practices between Unity and React is massive. The Unity ex…

>why is it so hard to make a good game engine?

Game engines basically seem like magic if you compare them to other creative tools, being able to build and manipulate systems and tooling.

Imagine if Adobe products could work like that.

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#139

Post by swalsh »

echelon wrote: post #65

It seems like Epic is going to trounce Unity when they go public. They've got a more powerful engine, megahit game, and distribution platform.

I'm bull Epic too, but honestly, I don't care about the quality differences. The main thing Epic has going for them that Unity does not is it's diverse marketing channels. They are becoming huge in the cinematic, and broadcast markets, huge markets Unity doesn't even have a presence in.

Re: Unity Software Inc S-1

#140

Post by andybak »

xex70 wrote: post #136
andybak wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so you’re fighting a losing battle That's an odd way of putting it when I was stating "I've always found tons of great Unity stuff on Github - and I'm worried that might change". The rest of your answer makes sense in itself - it just seemed to be responding to somebody else. I basically learnt by downloading Unity stuff off Github and playing with it and I follow a lot of great accounts which I check regularly.

You hinted you’re worried about the perceived and hypothetical lack of synergy of GitHub and Unity reflecting on your perception of the latter, and you spoke about licensing concerns to reinforce that point. You also expanded your position in nearby comments. I’m advising you that the entire concern and approach you’re taking to source management, and your interpretation of the same as well as your beliefs about free…

I'm simply interested in continuing to find useful and inspring stuff on Github or some similar open, shared resource. I can see how it might be less than ideal for large projects and the purchase of Plastic SCM might be a great benefit to studio workflows - but I hope all the strange, quirky, experimental stuff on Github that's a real boon to learning doesn't disappear in it's wake
Post reply on HN