Slashdot Mirror

You can program games in Unity http://www.unity3d.com/ in JavaScript and release them on Windows, Mac, Android, IOS, Playstation 3 (4 is probably coming soon), Xbox 360, etc. They have a full fledged debugging support using Monodevelop.

After reading several comments that game industry jobs are all sweatshop work, I thought I might share my (different) experience. I work at Unity, so not exactly a games company, but game industry anyways. I've been here for quite a few years no and have always been (and I still am) very happy about my work. While everybody has done overtime work to get urgent fixes done at some time or other, this is not the rule, and we are far from the working conditions in many places described here. The development team has a great culture, we get to work on exciting stuff, and we get plenty of opportunities to try out things which interest us -- as a rule, similar to Google's "20% time", we have FAFF (fridays are for fun) to work on pet projects, as well as regular Hack Weeks, were the whole dev team is brought in to one location to form teams to try new ideas. It's fun.

If you're interested, check out http://unity3d.com/jobs/ - but then, I guess your chances of being hired for an engineering position when fresh out of colleges are somewhat slim, unless you have done some really awesome stuff besides your education. But that will not be any different in any of the other larger companies in the industry.

A little research indicates that Unity is a 3D engine. It's used a lot for 3D games. http://unity3d.com/unity/

pretty overwhelming records show that third party browser plugins are a major source of vulnerabilities, even more so if they are closed source and maintenance restricted to private profit organizations whose due dilligence in the process simply cannot be assumed, or even have shown outright negligence. see sun, oracle, adobe, apple, microsoft ...

this is not just ironic, it must be april fool's day in some random geeky tz somewhere.

Erm. Unity is a well-known 3D gaming engine, dude.... http://unity3d.com/

Sorry, but your statement here doesn't diminish the huge cloud of irony hanging over this. User must install plugin to see visualization about malware fed often via plugins. Uhhh, yeah...reminds me of that time I was taking a security course teaching about how to never click on pop-up windows...when the course was initiated via, you guessed it, a pop-up window.

A little research indicates that Unity is a 3D engine. It's used a lot for 3D games. http://unity3d.com/unity/

Erm. Unity is a well-known 3D gaming engine, dude.... http://unity3d.com/

You don't have to with C# either...

Then again, I'm becoming a bit of a NodeJS fan for server-side dev.

Oh dear. Java and Flash are bound by whatever constraints limit the browser such as firewalls and security sandboxes.

Fortunately they can poke stuff on the same domain thanks to policy files with Flash, which isn't really a problem for the BBC since they own the domain. With Java it's either accessing the same host as where the applet is loading from, which shouldn't be a problem for the BBC. The more long winded approach with Java would be a matter of signing with a certificate, and then the user authorizing it from the BBC (although annoying for the user).

And Unity3D is an game runtime abstraction which has multiple backends so it would be transformed to Flash or WebGL

Uh no, Unity 3d is it's own plugin, it's not converted to Flash of WebGL and is automatically offered to be installed when encountered by the majority of browsers now.

Well clearly it is or they wouldn't have yanked the clock.

Or clearly they just don't give anything about it on the website. Especially if they have to invest so many man hours.

I was using examples of other sites that could do with an accurate clock. It's really not a hard to understand that some sites need precise clocks.

It's not hard to understand that most don't need a super accurate clock and those that do should be probably using NTP.

I could be wrong but given the context I'd say he was probably referring to Unity.

By "Linux" did you mean the Android stack (phones, tablets, Ouya) or the GNU/Linux stack (still associated with PCs)?

I'm assuming he meant both, Reliance on any one platform, or relying on some platform dependant tools is stupid in todays diverse market its why game engines like Unity work on both Gnu/Linux and Android :) http://unity3d.com/

Most mobile games you play are using mono http://www.unity3d.com/ .

A lot of the top selling iOS/Android games are done with Unity; which also uses C#/Mono. Actually the PS Suite SDK looks very similar to Unity in a lot of respects.

(Actually to take it a full loop; Unity pushes to the PS anyway, Rochard and a few others have gone cross-console with Unity)

Sure. It also sends a clear message they aren't making enough in the Apple market to sustain them. Otherwise... look at this: if you believe their own numbers, by investing an additional 20% of development resources they increase their market by 5%. Say their development expense is $200K and they pull in sales of $1M. By their numbers, $40K is incremental development expense and $50K is what they got back for it. Sounds like $10K of free money! Well, obviously they aren't making anything like $1M, from iOS or Android, and that is their real problem. I trust they won't quit their day jobs.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/93625-Unity-iOS-iPhone-Apps-sales-(Updated-thread)

Game: Battleheart
Release Date: Jan 31st, 2011
Sales: 400,000+
Units per day average: 1200
Units per day: unknow
Current Price: $2.99
Last updated: Feb 21, 2011

They've made their $1M a long time ago in very short time. Jealous? Just to kick you in the nuts once more, here's the returns for one of their older apps, still available for Android:

Game: Zombieville
Release Date: Feb 10, 2009
Sales: 1.5 millon (and counting!!)
Units per day average: 1744
Units per day: 1250 (last update)
Current Price: $1,99
Last updated: Jun 20, 2011

Unity 3D lets you write in C# (or Javascript) then port to PC, Mac, WebGL, iPhone, Android -and, if rumors are to be believed, soon Windows phone.

Free to try, not too pricey for the full version either. They have some demos to get you started, there are also a few books to help you dive deeper.

http://unity3d.com/

Possibly Unity -- with an extra license they have PS3/PSN support available, so Vita support can't be far behind. And it also enables cross-publishing for iOS and Android, as well as PC/Mac. I know a lot of indie game devs are using Unity because of its good toolset (especially the integrated asset pipeline) and this freedom to choose platform targets. Of course, going "down to the metal" will sometimes give your game engine better results, but it's hard to knock the versatility of the engine. One downside is that you're limited to coding in C#, Javascript (ugh), or Boo (some Python-esque affair I've never used).

I am a professional video games developer, I have worked on many triple A console titles, mainly working in C++. But for the past year I have been using Unity professionally, at our company we investigated different tools and engines in which to prototype game concepts, and Unity stood out from all the rest.

I believe Unity is a fantastic tool for an introduction to game development, I'm perhaps very heavily biased but that's only because I love it so very much :)

1. Its fast and easy to see the changes you're making, be it to code or art. You save your texture, or model and tab back to unity, its straight away updated. With code you make your changes and press Play, no complicated build steps.
2. It's very little code (well technically, no code!) to get up and running, and very little code to do what you want. The libraries they have provided are really quite good.
3. The way they have an object hierarchy, with objects containing components (scripts you write) makes its easier to visualise what's going on. In most other game engines your code would have to create and manage all these objects and the main view into this world is from the code, but with unity you can see your code and your objects interacting.
4. There is a large support community (official unity forums, unity answers), and good documentation.
5. They can export their games to a web page, which will be playable from any browser with the Unity plugin installed (they are soon to add a Flash export option to make it playable through the Flash plugin).
6. It's free, you only have to pay for it for the more advanced features, external source control, real time shadows, post processing effects etc...

Theres been quite a few games written with Unity , it's good for kids aspiration, what they could achieve. Using something like Kudo, you could not release a product with that, but with Unity you have both simplicity, and no limits! The only thing Unity has working against it for the purpose you have stated is that it will require the kids to write JavaScript, or C#. But if that's the point of the exercise, then Unity is a great sandbox for them to do that in.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with all the people who are going to recommend Unity (which is also the platform I prefer), you might be better served with UDK when demonstrating to students. I'd say that Unity is a 3d game engine/platform made for programmers whereas UDK is a 3d game engine/platform made for level designers with support for programmers. You can get a lot of mileage from both platforms without much programming, but UDK is specifically designed so you can create an entire game without one stitch of programming (i.e. Jazz the Jackrabbit).

Also, I highly recommend the free training videos from 3dbuzz, here are the ones for UDK and here are the ones for Unity.

Boneheaded malformed link. *sigh*. Here: Unity

This seems like a perfect match for Unity. It has a free version which does not have many restrictions and is reasonably easy to use.

As far as coding resources, it doesn't have any in and of itself. All the GlobalGameJam is, is an event for people interested in game design to get together and build a game. What they do end up providing just by it's nature is programmers, artists, designers, sound engineers, and anyone else with a skill that can help in making games (and people without relevant skills that are just interested in games). Also, most of the games that come out of a thing like this are very small scale simple games. No real engine unless you decide to use something like Unity to make it. If it's something you are interested in, just sign up on the site (I think registration opens in November), list any skills you have, show up and have fun. As far as reference to a good simple graphics package, check out http://www.unity3d.com/ and http://create.msdn.com/en-US/education/tutorial/2dgame/getting_started/ Both are quite easy to use and have tons of great documentation and tutorials.

Actually, I don't think he is. Unity3D is a pretty popular cross-platform game development environment. Guess what? It uses Mono for game scripting. Just because you can't think of a use for a tool doesn't mean there is no use for a tool.

Don't forget the hugely popular Unity!

http://unity3d.com/ is what I thought this article was all about, imagine my disappointment when discovering some stupid window manager reuses the name.

I mistook the article title as being about the Unity 3D game development tool, which unfortunately doesn't support Linux yet. Unity is a desktop system for Ubuntu which apparently happens to have 3D effects.

It'd be nice if you clarified product names when writing headlines.

I mistook the article title as being about the Unity 3D game development tool, which unfortunately doesn't support Linux yet. Unity is a desktop system for Ubuntu which apparently happens to have 3D effects.

It'd be nice if you clarified product names when writing headlines.

I know at least one that is a game changer and a major leap forward in its industry, that is based entirely on Mono and wouldn't be possible without it ( http://www.unity3d.com/ [unity3d.com] )

Oh please, Unity news are the most irritating posts on monologue, precisely because it's not a game changer. Company uses open source software. Company still doesn't care to release their stuff on Linux. Seen it before.
Miguel himself treats Linux as the least important platform, releasing Monodroid for Windows and OSX first. And they're busier writing Visual Studio plugins than improving Monodevelop.
The Mono ecosystem is neither very open, nor even targeted at the open source community.

1st of all:
Quit picking on Miguel. You may not share the same opinion as he on bigger issues, as do I, but treating him the way the majority here does is primitive. He deserves all respect and professional merit you can give. Unless you are Linus Torwalds, RMS or someone other of the rare few on which who's work his work is based on, you are not entitled to picking a fight with him or destructively ragging about his decisions and/or motives. The others actually aren't either, but at least they have a track record to back up their ego.
He's done considerable contributions to the cause of FOSS, more than most of humanity anyway and way more than anybody of the wannabees here on slashdot could ever dream of accomplishing, so suck up any stupid and/or ignorant and/or snide remarks you may have ready and just STFU. Thanks.

2nd: Mono may be a controversy in broader issues, but that's not to say it's not a good project. As for the product itself and products based of it: I know at least one that is a game changer and a major leap forward in its industry, that is based entirely on Mono and wouldn't be possible without it ( http://www.unity3d.com/ ). Cudos to Miguel and the Mono team for making it possible. I know for sure that the other large x-plattform around, Java, would have been beyond pointless as a foundation for realising this and would have failed miserably. Mono and Monodevelop are cool cross-plattform toolkits, and as far as I can tell they get the job done.
Who can say that about their pet FOSS project?

http://unity3d.com/unity/ ??

Unity what?

As a developer with experience in both C# and Java, C# is the spiritual sequel to J++. It was MS' answer to the then-war with Sun over Java on Windows, and a sad effort at that. A language tied directly to a single OS = BAD. As a Java coder, I can get a job developing on desktop PCs, Web applications, smartphones, Blu-Ray players and TVs, or Martian rovers.

C# is tied to one OS? Huh, I guess no one bothered to tell the guys that make Unity that, seeing how their product uses C# and is cross platform.

The Unity namespace is already occupied by http://www.unity3d.com/ a great game engine for iOS and android and support multitouch and so on. Canonical is just going to make it a PITA for one or both sets of developers searching for "unity opengl" "unity GUI" "unity multitouch" "unity android."

Oh, also, for developing on iOS devices like the iPhone, iPod Touch & iPad, think of the environment as closer to game consoles where the owners have very tight grips on which devs can enter. The license & requirements to dev on iOS is much cheaper than compared to applying for Playstation, X-Box, Wii & NDS (and that's why it's also a lot of game developers are switching to iOS).

Aside from that, a growing number of users are already ditching their PSPs & NDSs for smartphones/PMPs. Nokia had the right idea with the N-Gage, they just borked its execution horrendously (whoever had the final say on designed the ergonomics obviously never played a console game in his life).

Oh, and don't forget to look into Unity3D! It's also cross platform and with proper tweaks, you can get your app to run on Windows, Mac, iOS & w/ additional licenses, Wii, X-Box 360, PS3, Android (soon).

I personally think that you're on the right track by choosing Unity.

With VERY little programming background I was able to make fully functioning games within my first few days. You can explain the basics in less that 5 hours and let them have at it creating, leaning, and most importantly enjoying game design.

It's very easy to start learning by using UnityScript, which is basically their version of Javascript.
The engine itself is very powerful and once they start getting the hang of UnityScript if you wanted to introduce a more rigid programming language you could do so with C# which is also supported by Unity.

Unity has been released for FREE so you should have no problem supplying it to your student. The Pro version has its pluses especially for stereoscopic stuff, but I don't think you'll be introducing that very early on. The free version will most certainly be enough for beginners and even intermediate students.

Did I mention the huge amount of resources available online for it:
http://unity3d.com/support/documentation/Manual/Tutorials.html

The community is also incredibly helpful! I know because I've received plenty of help and guidance.

It's ideal for rapid prototyping which is what I tend to use it for, however it can serve as an excellent resource for learning game design and even programming without getting bogged down with the low level stuff.

Good Luck!

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but just in case: Take a look at Unity 3d. (Get it here: http://unity3d.com/) - that's a pretty powerful game engine. The standard version is free and will suffice, it is very easy to learn. It's kinda like an universal level editor. Coding is done in javascript or C#, but there are tons of examples to get started (Official tutorials: http://unity3d.com/support/resources/tutorials/). And the community is pretty active aswell, so he'd be able to get help on the (Official forum: http://forum.unity3d.com/ - User wiki: http://www.unifycommunity.com/).

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but just in case: Take a look at Unity 3d. (Get it here: http://unity3d.com/) - that's a pretty powerful game engine. The standard version is free and will suffice, it is very easy to learn. It's kinda like an universal level editor. Coding is done in javascript or C#, but there are tons of examples to get started (Official tutorials: http://unity3d.com/support/resources/tutorials/). And the community is pretty active aswell, so he'd be able to get help on the (Official forum: http://forum.unity3d.com/ - User wiki: http://www.unifycommunity.com/).

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but just in case: Take a look at Unity 3d. (Get it here: http://unity3d.com/) - that's a pretty powerful game engine. The standard version is free and will suffice, it is very easy to learn. It's kinda like an universal level editor. Coding is done in javascript or C#, but there are tons of examples to get started (Official tutorials: http://unity3d.com/support/resources/tutorials/). And the community is pretty active aswell, so he'd be able to get help on the (Official forum: http://forum.unity3d.com/ - User wiki: http://www.unifycommunity.com/).

Everything that has gotten approved so far uses XCode as a build step. You don't necessarily have to do all your development work in XCode (i.e. Unity game engine),

Where have you seen that Unity has been approved by Apple? All I've seen is the Unity people saying "we think we're fine because Apple can't afford to remove all apps on the appstore that have been built with our engine, but obviously we can't offer any guarantees".

Cross compile to an XCode project with things like static libraries for your runtime and everything will be fine.

I'm not sure how you can interpret an SDK agreement stating, a.o.,

• Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine
• Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited

as

Applications can be originally written in any language as long as they are translated into an Xcode project and if your compatibility layer is linked in via a static library

why don't you see how the others got around it. Flash is out, but there are others that Apple has approved. /me looks at Unity ...

Can you point me to a statement from Apple to that effect? All I could find is a blog post from the Unity people saying that they think they are fine because Apple can't afford to pull all apps using their engine from the AppStore. That's not really a solid basis to work with. FWIW, they haven't done that either with apps containing Pascal code (most likely because they're simply completely oblivious to that fact).

If Apple reserves the right to remove all apps containing compiled Pascal code (or the Unity engine) from the AppStore at any time, I don't consider that "getting around it". It's just ignoring it and hoping you (and in particular your users) will be fine. The elephant remains in the room though.

The fact that I can't even discuss this on the iPhone developer forums without first signing the new developer agreement (and thereby make it illegal for me to continue working on that project) only adds insult to the injury.

You need to reread the developers agreement rather than going by what you read on some website. You're simply wrong on this one.

I have read and reread the agreement (I am a registered/paying iPhone developer after all, and I'm not letting this money go to waste just for the purpose of getting snarky replies on slashdot). I have also sent a message to ADC asking for clarification and did not get an answer other than the boilerplate "we have sent your comments to the appropriate department".

So please do enlighten me how an SDK agreement that states the following explicitly allows anyone to use it for compiling programs not originally written in any of the sanctioned languages (emphases and square brackets comments mine):

1.1 Acceptance

In order to use the Apple Software [i.e., the SDK] and related services, You must first agree to this License Agreement.

3.3 Program Requirements for Applications

Any Application developed using this Apple Software must meet all of the following criteria and requirements, as they may be modified by Apple from time to time:

3.3.1. [...] Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine

Our compiler is self-hosting, but it makes use of the SDK's assembler and linker to create object files and binaries, and the apps it produces obviously link against the SDK's libraries.

Well, maybe they're similar in concept (Monotouch compiles to native bytecode, just like Adobe was planning to do).

However, the philosophies underlying the Monotouch and Adobe approaches are very different. With the CS5 compiler, Adobe was trying to provide an easy way for flash developers to port their flash content originally written somewhere else.

With Monotouch and Unity3D, most apps written with those tools aren't ports at all but are original,iphone exclusive apps. Check out the monotouch and unity app galleries. Most of the games for iphone aren't ports at all, and the unity games particularly appear to have a higher level of polish that your typical iphone games.

Monotouch uses the same UI builders and OS widgets that xcode/cocoatouch does. They aren't trying to *hide* the specifics of the platform (with exception of the programming language itself). On the other hand, CS5 was/is all about porting your existing flash apps -- maybe there's some iphone specific piece but for the most past you write to adobe's ui widgets.

Is the Unity3D Game Engine threatened? I doubt it. Adobe, yes. Unity, no. I think this Adobe guy is reading between the lines of Apple's announcement. He knows Flash (its code generator workaround, not Flash itself) will be targeted, but not Unity3D. He's only trying to get Apple to admit its hidden agenda, or goad them into banning Unity3D to maintain consistency (which would only go against Apple's interests, Unity3D already has many top selling titles, the code generator from Adobe is not even close).

So no more Unity? whoa...

Typically, but not always.

Yeah, it's not like anybody has done this or anything. I'm sure that *this* time, it will completely revolutionize gaming. And somehow install the desire for hordes of consumers to want to play graphically intense 3d games from their web browser...

3D games in a web browser? Been there, done that.

Also, Trinergy appears to be a Windows-only technology wheras Unity works on MacOS too (and additionally supports native building for iPhone & Wii)

Check out this demo of unity3d: http://unity3d.com/gallery/live-demos/tropical-paradise 3d hardware accelerated gorgeous tropical island in your browser! The first time i saw it, i could only say: "no way this already exists"

And the news is what, exactly?

Unity 3D has had a browser plugin for its engine for several years now. (PC and Mac)

There are one or two others as well.

So the news is what, again?

I'm pretty sure there's been 3D plugins before. One from Adobe springs to mind - it even had Havok physics engine....

Though Adobe never had decent Hardware 3d support, and Shockwave does not seem to be going anywhere these days.

But Unity has been around and gaining momentum for a while, and offers 3d acceleration, PhysX support, and much more. You can check out the latest installment of EA's Tiger Woods for a decent Unity browser game.

What would take the place of FLASH games?

How about this: http://unity3d.com/unity/

You can publish the game on the web and on platforms like the Wii or iPhone/iPad.

Many popular iPhone games use Mono to some degree because of the Unity 3D engine. http://unity3d.com/company/news/unity-iphone-momentum-press.html

Your argument makes no sense at all. First of all, there are already lots of ways to build iPhone apps without using a Mac, like Unity 3D or MonoTouch. So you don't need a Mac, even without a JVM or Flash player.

Regarding Unity3D, see the Unity for iPhone Requirements page:

In order to license and use Unity iPhone Publishing, developers must meet the following requirements:

• You must own Unity 2.x (Indie or Pro)
• You must be an approved Apple Developer for the iPhone and install the iPhone SDK (requires Intel-based Mac running OSX 10.5.4 or later)

And regarding MonoTouch, see the MonoTouch FAQ:

What is MonoTouch?
MonoTouch is a software development kit for Mac OS X that lets you use .NET programming languages to create native applications for Apple iPhone and Apple iPod Touch devices. [...]

Do I need a Mac to use MonoTouch?
MonoTouch requires a Mac and Apple's iPhone SDK to test on the emulator and deploy on the device.

So no, those aren't ways to build OS X apps without a Mac. For someone who asks his parent poster to rant all he wants, but at least to make sense while doing so, you might check your facts a little better.

Your argument makes no sense at all. First of all, there are already lots of ways to build iPhone apps without using a Mac, like Unity 3D or MonoTouch. So you don't need a Mac, even without a JVM or Flash player.

Regarding Unity3D, see the Unity for iPhone Requirements page:

In order to license and use Unity iPhone Publishing, developers must meet the following requirements:

• You must own Unity 2.x (Indie or Pro)
• You must be an approved Apple Developer for the iPhone and install the iPhone SDK (requires Intel-based Mac running OSX 10.5.4 or later)

And regarding MonoTouch, see the MonoTouch FAQ:

What is MonoTouch?
MonoTouch is a software development kit for Mac OS X that lets you use .NET programming languages to create native applications for Apple iPhone and Apple iPod Touch devices. [...]

Do I need a Mac to use MonoTouch?
MonoTouch requires a Mac and Apple's iPhone SDK to test on the emulator and deploy on the device.

So no, those aren't ways to build OS X apps without a Mac. For someone who asks his parent poster to rant all he wants, but at least to make sense while doing so, you might check your facts a little better.