Rumour: The Unity Engine Is For Sale

A not particularly relevant screenshot from a Unity 5 official showcase for you, because

As in, the whole bally company. Clearly anyone’s been able to buy a copy of the engine for yonks.

Unity is the go-to gamemaking tool for a vast number of developers, big and small (around three million of ’em, in fact, with Blizzard’s Hearthstone its highest-profile title, at least until one of my games comes out), and it was perhaps only a matter of time before it became an even greater concern. That time may be very soon, if reports that the game engine company’s angling to be sold are true.

Clearly, we can have no idea what this will mean for PC gamers and PC game-makers as yet, but rare’s the case where a corporate buyout doesn’t have eventual repercussions. Watches Mojang closely.

I couldn’t count how many games we’ve covered here have used Unity, so this might just turn out to be as major an event in PCgameland as the Minecraft sale was. Of course, Unity is essentially an all-platforms tool these days, so it goes far beyond our big little corner of the world. That could very well change if its eventual buyer owns or has a vested interest in a particular platform.

There may very well be no buyer, of course, as right now public talk of a sale stems purely from a CNET report claiming that Unity has “shared presentations with possible acquirers including Google, according to people familiar with the matter.” Man, is there anything those Google guys won’t try to buy?

“Serious talks” with a particular buyer also went down recently, allegedly, though the outcome is not reported, and neither are any sources for this information named.

As yet, Unity have made no comment on the matter. Well, they wouldn’t, would they?

104 Comments

  1. Skiddings says:

    Notch to buy Unity

    • darkhog says:

      You have no idea how much I would like it to be true. Even though Notch betrayed, like every gamer on the planet, if he’d do that and then make it so you have to buy Unity Pro only when you make 100k per year and not for additional features… That’d be enough to pay for what he did to gamers around the world.

      • Gap Gen says:

        The Betrayal at Notch was a dark day indeed.

        • BockoPower says:

          I don’t think it was a “Betrayal”. Notch was always saying he is making Minecraft only for fun and he doesn’t like popularity. I was even amazed he stayed for so long.

        • DrEnzyme says:

          Notch didn’t betray gamers, gamers betrayed Notch, by blaming him for things he had no involvement in, by turning him into a celebrity that he never wanted to be and by turning him -a human being- into some kind of symbol.

          • darkhog says:

            He could, at the very least, sell it to less evil company, such as Google.

          • Bassen_Hjertelos says:

            But, but, but…the Internet has decreed him to be a Judas of gamers! A Quisling of indie developers! Do you presume to call the prophets liars?

        • Premium User Badge

          Aerothorn says:

          I think the above two commenters are taking Gap Gen a mite too seriously.

      • Stellar Duck says:

        What did he do that was so nefarious?

        Kill a kitten? Release the Old Ones?

        • Orija says:

          Dropped support for Minecraft midway with many of the promised features yet to be added.

          • Kamalen says:

            Minecraft support is not at all dropped in anyway…

          • solidsquid says:

            OK, I have no idea whether this is a serious comment. Part of me thinks it might be, but there’s a niggling doubt that you’d actually mix up what happened with DF9 and Minecraft. Just in case though, they’re still working on Minecraft, the same *team* is still working on Minecraft even. Notch hasn’t worked on it himself in over a year now (possibly over 2 years)

        • darkhog says:

          Sold his soul (Mojang) to the devil (Microschei├če). That’s enough.

      • Smashbox says:

        Oh the humanity!

        I hope you’re joking.

        • Simbosan says:

          I think he’s like, totally serious, like every gamer man, betrayed

          • Rocketpilot says:

            Gamer Toxic Entitlement Syndrome is real, man. The phrase “Notch betrayed” really sums it up, I think.

      • AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

        I like how the missing comma makes you look like you’re denouncing gamers as a breed of traitors. It makes me feel as if I’m in a Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden game.

    • MrTijger says:

      That doesnt make much sense given that Notch has pretty clearly stated he wants nothing to do with anything that would him in the limelight again, he’s also said he sucks at running anything remotely like a company.

  2. Terragot says:

    Well this has the potential to move a lot of developer’s cheese.

    If these rumours are indeed true, and Facebook doesn’t manage to buy Unity, what would that mean for Oculus’ game lineup?

  3. mattevansc3 says:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Microsoft didn’t put a bid in for this. They’ve recently changed their stance on software and acknowledged that there is competition out there and have made more of their software platform agnostic as well as releasing software across platforms so that people keep using them. Controlling something like Unity would guarantee that software is still made compatible with Metro, XboxOne and WP even if the dev doesn’t consider them relevant.

    Amazon would also be a likely buyer as they’ve made quite a few big game purchases and need something like Unity to ensure future Android games are AOSP compliant after the steps Google are taking to keep them out of the party.

    • GiantPotato says:

      Yes, I can absolutely see MS killing XNA and then paying for Unity. That would be a very Microsoft-like move.

      In 2015, they’ll trade Unity for 2 Unreal Engine licenses.
      In 2016, they’ll trade the 2 Unreal Engine licenses for 4 copies of Assassin’s Creed.
      In 2017, they’ll trade the 4 copies of Assassin’s Creed for 5 magic beans.

      And then they’ll issue a press release saying that they’ve created 5 new growth opportunities.

      • Kamalen says:

        Well in fact, XNA is somewhat already dead. It’s no longer in play for WP 8 and there was no new release since this long. Only a few PC indies still use that.

      • Ross Angus says:

        [applause]

  4. rabbit says:

    could someone slightly more clued-up on this sort of thing run me through what might be going on here — or what might happen in the future if a sale goes through?

    I’ve figured that it could mean things like plummeting customer service, changing the scope of the software itself, price hikes, that sort of thing. but could it also mean changing the licenses of people who have already purchased? could someone lose part of their own IP through this? could people who already own the software 100% be now forced to pay for continued use?

    • Terragot says:

      I’ve no idea but surely it could mean any of the above, though they’d struggle to enforce previous releases to any new contractual obligations.

      What I’d personally expect to see, if Microsoft bought Oculus, is them head towards Microsoft platform exclusivity. Price reduction, potentially only an annual subscription service. They’d want to promote Windows 10 and the Xbone, whilst taking the fight directly to Unreal Engine and scupper Sony and apples constantly growing game library.

      Who knows, I hope it’s not true. Unity are doing a fantastic job as are but it seems anything successful these days inevitably gets vacuumed up by the big tech companies eventually.

      • Flying Penguin says:

        Well I’m not familiar with the details of the Unity licences, but as a general principle, most (if not all) legal systems don’t allow you to unilaterally change historic agreements, unless the agreement provided for review/modification.

        Realistically that means that any agreement would have to be honoured (so anyone that had licensed the engine for an indefinite period would be perfectly safe), however if there is a renewable element (e.g. a support contract or an annual fee due, or anything similar) then that could be changed from the next renewal, in very much a “you can agree to our updated terms/costs or go find another engine” way, much like the average phone contract.

        • P4p3Rc1iP says:

          This is interesting since Unity has been offering a monthly subscription to the pro version for some time.

          We, as a company, are about to buy (pre-order) a Unity 5 pro version for the release of our game. Mostly to get rid of the Unity logo on startup and easier Steam integration and for future projects (we won’t really be using any of the pro features for our current game).

          I’ll have to do some research on this to find out where this potential buy-out will put us…

  5. Bobka says:

    Uh-oh. I’m not sure I like this. Anybody who buys Unity could start favoring or neglecting the platforms of their choice, which is counterproductive to the value of Unity for indie studios. And nobody really likes the PC platform except Valve.

    Also, why would Unity want to be bought? I thought they were doing fine.

    • daver4470 says:

      My understanding — and bear in mind it’s limited understanding based mainly on hearsay and semi-educated guesses — is that developers have run into inherent technical limitations within Unity, especially the 64-bit version, that probably need a significant amount of development time and labor to properly fix. And if they don’t fix those limitations, the engine might stagnate and lose out to newer 64-bit-friendly engines. I’m wondering if the Unity folks have done a cost-benefit analysis of raising capital to do the work themselves, and have decided that it might be better to sell to someone with deeper pockets (e.g. Google) who could easily spend the money to keep the engine contemporary and desirable.

      • Stardog says:

        And the landscape has changed overnight with Unreal Engine 4 being so cheap. I wonder how much profit Unity Technologies makes these days.

        • Kamalen says:

          Well, “overnight” seems too much ; UE4 is a harder engine to master, and not many people will restart project almost from scratch just because UE4 is cheaper.

          But yes, for future project, it’s totally a game changer.

      • tomovo says:

        There was a problem with the licensing of Mono. Unity uses an outdated version which is getting old really fast.

      • tylo says:

        There was word that one of the big shareholders (I believe one of the founders) wanted to sell his shares.

        That, I believe, would mean the other big shareholders have to decide if they want to buy those shares, or sell the entire company.

        I remember hearing about this a month or more ago, that they were possibly considering selling the entire company instead of buying out his shares.

        edit source: link to venturebeat.com

    • kwyjibo says:

      If a company buys Unity only to neglect certain platforms, it just means developers will go Unreal or Cryengine.

      Epic were doing fine, but they still sold a big chunk of the company to Tencent. You can always do with a bigger yacht.

  6. Golden Pantaloons says:

    What’s a yonk?

    • darkhog says:

      It’s like a dong.

      • AXAXAXAS MLO II: MLO HARDER says:

        It’s nothing like a dong, at least if you’re treating it properly.

    • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

      It’s one million jiffies, or ten million shakes of a lamb’s tail.

      • Llewyn says:

        It’s not often you reveal your colonial impostor roots, Smingleigh, but I think you’ll find there are six shakes of a lamb’s tail to a jiffy.

        • Rise / Run says:

          You may have outcustarded the Lord.

        • LionsPhil says:

          Actually, the number of shakes to a jiffy is calculated dynamically by the kernel during early boot.

        • Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

          Well yes, if you’re talking about short jiffies, which are 6 shakes of the lamb’s tail to the jiffy. Old jiffies are 8 shakes to the jiffy, and metric jiffies are commonly accepted to be 10 shakes of a lamb’s tail.

          Then there’s the fact that a metric jiffy is technically 1024 hundredths of a shake of a lamb’s tail (10.24 shakes of a lamb’s tail), but unscrupulous clockmakers use the rounded 10-shake version because it makes their clocks sound faster. Naturally this means that depending on the manufacturer of your clock, you might need to take a leap jiffy exactly every 250 jiffies.

          Personally, I prefer the Imperial jiffy, but that has fallen out of favour since nobody could work out how an Imperial jiffy could be 16 shakes of a lamb’s tail, but 24 if you count it in half-shakes.

        • blind_boy_grunt says:

          if anyone thinks they exaggerate for comedic effect:

  7. Alevice says:

    That screenshot reminds me of the fanmade video for Retrovertigo by Mr Bungle

  8. draven says:

    Well, I wouldn’t worry too much, if some Evil Corp ™ buys your indie-dreams-come-true Unity Engine ™ you can always grab the source code and branch it… oh, wait… no… you can’t, you’re doomed!

  9. Kollega says:

    I’m so fucking pissed off that apparently, every time some gaming company makes it big, it has to be sold to some already-gargantuan technological behemoth as opposed to keeping to doing its own thing – no ifs, ands, or buts. Now of course I understand that people that make it big want money, but this apparently means that money is the only reason anyone ever makes something like a game or a game engine or a streaming service, with no things like ideological reasons (such as “give indies the tools they need and not try to yank the rug out from under them” in the case of Unity) in play. And if I know anything about history, it’s that need or want to have money is not the only thing to drive this world, even if it’s a major element of it. Motives like pride or misguided idealism are also major things, you know.

    • Alevice says:

      Sometimes people want to move on and the only way is to sell it.

      • suibhne says:

        Exactly right. For a project like Unity to have achieved its current level of success, there are probably some private investors who’ve sunk a ton of money into it, and the only way for them to realize any gains on their investment is if the company experiences some sort of liquidity event. An acquisition is the easiest way to accomplish that.

    • Sam says:

      There are a great deal of game engines out there. The ones made by idealistic people who want to help others make cool things are helpfully labelled as free and/or open source. Unfortunately free engines and frameworks make no money and so their logo doesn’t get thrown around the place nearly as much.

    • ruthwik.coupdegrace says:

      Yep… Just like Press Play, Mojang,etc

    • Kamalen says:

      Motives like pride or misguided idealism are worth not much is this world. Like it or not, money is the very reason any company is made. And seriously, who can seriously decline 2B$ ? Almost everyone bashing Notch will probably have done the same.

      Remember, we’re talking about super-massive entities who can totally make the same thing with less money. It’s all about the brand.

      Plus, as some said, they can be stuck into financial issues.

  10. Skiddings says:

    Seriously – I would probably bet on Sony, they’ve been partnering with Unity a lot recently.

  11. beardedkeet says:

    If it does get bought by something seen as indie unfriendly or brings in licensing hell, would that not open a door for another platform’s popularity to rise, on a smaller but friendlier scale? Maybe there are smaller engines out there right now hoping for a Microsoft or FB purchase.

  12. Lobotomist says:

    People dont realise how big Unity is at the moment. With its integration of 2D we are reaching point where 80% of games are made with Unity across all the platforms. And the public secret that they are working on HTML5 engine that will even remove need for player download.

    With its totally free client and one development cycle for all platforms , its more important for Indie Game scene than every tool every was.

    In one word Unity is where the Indie game scene is now.

    So this rumors of purchase worry me greatly.

    If the buyer turns out to be Google it might be good. They may even remove cost all together.
    Anyone else including Microsoft , I can only see major limitations – or should I say “not Unity anymore”

    Lets see

    • Bobka says:

      Yeah, Google would be the least worrisome buyer.

      It could be extremely damaging to indie developers if Unity were suddenly given upfront costs or restricted to given platforms. There’s basically nothing to replace it that’s nearly as flexible.

      • mattevansc3 says:

        Google would be the 2nd most worrisome (Apple being first). Google is quickly becoming the Microsoft of the 90’s and now that they’ve got the market share they are battening down the hatches and making Android as closed a platform as possible. They are also not shy about restricting services and playing dirty when it comes to competing platforms.

        Personally I’d love it if Paradox had the money to buy it, they to me are the best part of the gaming industry and their attitude aligns with that of Unity, make games cheap and easy with low risk and high return. They are like the indie Peter Pan of the gaming industry.

    • Stardog says:

      Google would be the worst… Blogger has stagnated for years and they let Sketchup stagnate for years before selling it. Google+ is a failure. Horrible company.

      • Lobotomist says:

        Well. There you go. Its doomed than.

        There is nobody outside real big players that can pay the price Unity will be asking. I bet 1 billion or more. Realistically they are far more important than either Oculus or Minecraft.

        So it has to be one of the big ones. And any company except google will try to limit Unity to be exclusive to the platform (or at least preferred)

        • thestjohn says:

          I don’t actually think MS would limit the platforms Unity supports. They’ve made pushes recently to support cross-platform development; MS are so relaxed about people using Visual Studio to write cross-platform apps that run on iOS as well as Android and Windows “Store” that they arranged a “global collaboration” and discount with Xamarin for MSDN subscribers. They don’t really care what you’re using their tools for. I keep seeing their strategy described as “any device”.

          • Lobotomist says:

            MS comes to mind as one of better options. But they have interests in gaming area.
            Removing Playstation and Nintendo from Unity support would bring them clear advantage in Indie scene on Xbox

          • tomovo says:

            Since Unity uses Mono, Microsoft might want to switch to the .NET runtime to avoid licensing problems (which Unity is facing). That would limit the platforms it would run on.

        • ripclaw says:

          I think with recent silly money being paid for companies people are losing perspective of what a company may be really worth. Unity, I’d figure, is nowhere near 1 Billion. Yes, they are indie darlings, but there is little hype about them outside the developer world. They have a good product and it makes money I assume, so they’ll get decent offers I guess. But I doubt it’ll be Minecraft money (which, honestly, is just totally crazy).

        • bobbyk says:

          Not sure how you get the 1 billion dollar valuation… Value of a company has to be either percieved or projected (by analysis/sales). In the terms of Oculus they were bought based purely on percieved value. Unity has many things keeping it from a “1 billion dollar” mark. Firstly they don’t make money through actual game sales, they sell the engine but retain no royalties. It’s also a very cheap engine at $1,500. I wouldn’t be surprised if they make the majority of their sales on their asset store, because they seem to pay more attention to their asset store than anything else. Secondly as someone else mentioned, the engine needs better 64 bit support to stay competitive. Lastly the Unreal Engine is undercutting them by a lot, also Unreal asks for a percentage cut. If a developer makes 5 million dollars on a unity game (which is happening, see games like The Forest), Unity only gets the $1,500 per a seat. Where as Unreal 4 engine would net them 5% of that. Most likely we’re hearing about Unity selling in the news because they’re dissapointed in the current bids so they keep shopping it around, and whoever decides to buy it will most likely change the price structure to percentage- however the buyer will see that as a risk. Given an uncertain future, now’s the perfect time for Unity to sell itself, but also a risky time for a potential buyer.

    • darkhog says:

      I think second to google would be FB. I mean they didn’t meddle with Oculus so far and only gave them necessary resources, so probably they won’t meddle with Unity as well.

      • Lobotomist says:

        FB are desperate to bring games focus back to Facebook for some time now.
        Making Unity focused on Facebook , preferring facebook , or even just having automatic facebook integration – would be logical move if they invest considerable sum Unity will cost.

      • manny says:

        The Unity engine is really the missing link to Facebook domination on every platform under the sun. Right now their website sucks, they can really push Facebook to the stratosphere with the use of Unity tech. So I’m sure they will aggressively campaign for this sale. Will the Unity developers sellout to them?

  13. Sam says:

    This is what you crazy kids get for building an independent games movement on proprietary software. Even if it’s not sold or it’s sold to the loveliest people in the world, using Unity always means losing control of a core part of your project.

    Example from popular games: Kerbal Space Program are constantly rubbing up against limitations in Unity due to heavy reliance on the physics engine. What they really need is to be able to spend their Early Access dollars on digging in to the code and heavily customising it, but it’s all closed source stuff so they’re stuck patching things at a much higher level. They’ve mostly been able to fix ships spontaneously exploding when passing in and out of a planet’s influence, but the simulation will probably never be fully deterministic and there will always be unexplained wobblings.

    They saved time at the start of the project by using Unity. The time from having the idea of a rocket building game to being able to clip some RigidBodys together and fly them must have been pretty low. But I can only imagine how long they’ve spent since then wrestling with the engine as they’ve expanded the game out.

    Note: I have not worked on Kerbal Space Program. I may be talking rubbish.

    • jalf says:

      So what else would you recommend? Writing your own engine from scratch?

      Using one of the utterly shitty open-source ones like Ogre3D, which has a fraction of the functionality, is badly designed and buggy as shit?

      Unity is popular because they’ve offered a damn good package. True, it’s not open, but it’s easy to work with, documented, supported, powerful and flexible.

      Unless you’re planning to write everything in your game from scratch, which would take a couple of decades, you’ll be giving up some amount of control. It’s just a matter of deciding *what* you want to give up control of, and what you’re going to get in return.

      I don’t see how that relates to the possibly rumoured sale of Unity though. People who already have a license will still have a license then. People who don’t, well, worst case, they’ll have to find another engine, which they’d be doing if they wanted to avoid Unity *anyway*.

      • Sam says:

        I enjoy writing stuff from almost-scratch, although I wouldn’t recommend it to a general interest “I want to make video games” person. To someone starting out I would point them towards Unity as it’s a pretty good way to learn without being stuck in command line purgatory for months. Having your first lines of code make a cube jump around is far more invigorating than having them print out “2+2= 4”

        For a significant project open source really is the key though. When you outgrow the intended use of a framework you have the capability to expand it along with your game. I personally don’t much like any of the engines available, as I prefer to engineer that level of stuff myself. Open source libraries for physics (if needed) and basic cross-platform input and output are usually no-brainers though.

        You’re right that this isn’t directly related to the possible sale of Unity, but the worries being brought up about what a new owner might do are inherently tied up with developers being so reliant on proprietary software.

        • blind_boy_grunt says:

          If the physics are a big problem couldn’t they just use another physics engine, or is there no way to bind libraries? And what library would you think wouldn’t have the same problems? In case you know.

        • Reapy says:

          I wouldn’t recommend to anyone hand writing an engine unless they are learning about writing engines, or are prepared to not have a product for another 6 to 10 years. Ok maybe life is better now and there are some open source projects you can pull together to make your own engine, but there is still A LOT to be done to have a working game.

          If anything look at overgrowth, how long has that guy been work on his engine and is only now beginning to flesh out gameplay. It’s not even just a question of time, but knowledge as well. It is a pretty deep area with lots topics to learn, understand and implement correctly. Everyone’s PC’s are different to boot, so even just targeting the pc as a platform has a ton variables to work for.

          Unity and it’s ilk have so much going for it, it is really, really impractical to hand roll your own engine unless you are already rich.

      • Asdfreak says:

        Unreal basically. You get the entire source code and are free to modify it. If you stop prescription you can still use everything you have gotten up untill then. Also, even if I don’t really like that it is propreatary, they are currently trying get the next generation of indie developers to use their engine. As a student of Computer Science: Games Engineering I can say that it is really nice that you can get it for free if your prof contacts them. In our case they even contacted her, so now we can all get free updates untill we graduate. And not only us: Every single student in CS, even the Bio- and Economic CS students. The only thing that might hurt them is the 5% they get of all the money you earn, before taxes, before any store takes their share etc.

    • LionsPhil says:

      While I get the point (and it’s why I reach for Irrlicht and Bullet and am trying to find Someone Else’s half-decent open-source netcode library), I’m not sure what they’d really be able to do about it, since I think some of the problems are rather fundamental rigid body physics ones, and they already switch over to their own physics model (the on-rails orbiting) when appropriate.

      I’m not sure any of ODE/Bullet/etc. would necessarily fare better, nor that Squad have (or want to develop) the skill to improve on what are already skilled people expending effort on making the best possible real-time rigid-body physics simulation they can.

      (Ok, PhysX does seem to be a bit of a runt of the litter, now that Karma is long dead. Maybe if they had the option to pay money for Havok or something instead of paying money for PhysX via Unity they might be better off, at least for performance. Maybe.)

    • Detocroix says:

      The physics being undeterministic is not fault of Unity though. Majority of the pre-built physics systems are like that… all the better systems I mean. Box2D with it’s faked (all physics systems are faked, Box2D just fakes being faked so hard it’s so fake it hurts) is not comparable to proper 3D physic systems like PhysX (Unity uses) or Havok.

    • darkhog says:

      You’re right. But what Unity offers is great workflow. Believe me, if someone would make Unity-grade IDE for things like Ogre/Irrlicht+Bullet+Some library that uses Lua or similar language (certainly NOT python or python-derived language) I’d jump the ship right away. But AFAIK there is no such thing in the FLOSS world.

  14. Tom Servo says:

    I am still learning the basics of Unity, hope I am not wasting my time. It’s my dream to make some cool Oculus thing and Unity seems to have the lowest cost of entry (currently free).

  15. Stardog says:

    Facebook/Oculus, pleaseeee. Then make it free open source.

    I really don’t want to pay $600 to upgrade then $1500 for iOS and $600 for Android.

  16. Freud says:

    How are the company behind Unity making money?

    • Sam says:

      They’re in an almost unprecedented position for a tech company seeking a buyer in that they’re probably actually turning a profit. People pay them quite a lot of money to use Unity Pro instead of the free version, and yet more to get access to certain platform targets. With the huge number of people getting in to games development I’m sure there’s a decent proportion who will buy the Pro upgrade (probably with a project that doesn’t really need it, but so it goes).

    • MrTijger says:

      Remember, the company behind Unity got to make Unity because of venture capital firms, it might well be that those firms are now considering selling off their share or forcing Unity3D to sell to recoup their investment. And by recoup I mean making a big ass sum of monies.

    • JP says:

      They sell Unity for a flat fee, take royalties on projects that make above a certain amount, make deals with console makers, and they started with a substantial amount of VC/investment money.

      Only non-horrible outcome I see for this is “Valve makes it all free”. Literally no other company I trust not to drop platform support, make the business model more predatory, etc.

      • ripclaw says:

        This is not entirely true. Unity only makes money off of licensing the software. They are not taking royalties (which is the opposite of Unreal etc, which basically give out their software for free but then take royalties off the _gross_, which can be damn much if you happen to be successful). Unity only requires you to purchase a commercial licence when you make over X amount, otherwise you can keep using the free version to make money.

        • JP says:

          Ah ok, sorry my mistake. I thought I’d heard about a royalty if your title was very successful, but it might have just been speculation about something they /might/ do. Sorry again!

    • fuzziest says:

      An unnoticed source in addition to all the other mentioned stuff is the Asset Store. They make 30% off everything on there and its bigger money than you’d expect.

  17. aer0ace says:

    Please don’t be Autodesk. Unity Pro $3700.

    • Premium User Badge

      Ninja Dodo says:

      If it’s Autodesk, this will end badly.

      • Detocroix says:

        Unless it’s their darling software like Maya or Mudbox. Autodesk is monster only to the software packages they don’t care about. Unity would be their only one, so it would likely be their darling too.

      • Premium User Badge

        Ninja Dodo says:

        Even in the best possible case – they treat it like Maya – you’re still looking at a massive price increase and subscription only.

  18. Asami says:

    I know it’s a pipe dream, but…
    Wouldn’t it be awesome if, say, an open-source software supporter bought it, released it as Open Source, and made their money skimming profits from sales on the integrated marketplace?

    We would finally have a good, current, free, fully cross-platform development engine that anyone could use and improve to make excellent games for all platforms. The world has needed that for a long time.

  19. ripclaw says:

    In all honesty I think Microsoft wouldn’t be a bad buyer. They already own the UnityVS integration iirc,, and with Unity using .Net, but lagging behind due to mono or whatnot, Microsoft could certainly help out there (didn’t they just recently make .net more multi-platform? can’t remember the name)
    I really prefer visual studio over monodevelop by miles. And Microsoft seems to try to become more relevant in the “hip” markets again (minecraft, sway, that new photo app thing…, onenote for mac). And they do give out a whole bunch of software out for free, so I don’t see them killing the free Unity version.
    I’d definitely prefer them over someone like Google, who have a really bad track record of letting software dwindle and die.

    • Detocroix says:

      Eh… Microsoft lets things die as much as Google does. XNA, Silverlight, Messenger… Also Microsoft MIGHT limit Unity to newest Windows versions only (like Apple and Xcode) and also might kill contester platforms from Unity exporter (Wii, PS, Mac, Linux etc)

  20. Wret says:

    I went over and took a look at the Official Unity Gossip subforum, where they have a thread going on this.

    Someone linked the following post from a Unity Technologies person from May of this year:
    link to forum.unity3d.com

    Regardless I’m still going to be working in silent anxious terror until a month or two passes without incident. Depending on who buys Unity and what they do with it, a good amount of time and investment in Unity could be torpedoed. Alot of skills and assets are transferable (really glad I got into C# over “Java”/UnityScript), still, it’s nothing anyone making a project in Unity needs right now.

  21. fuzziest says:

    This is good news. Despite a crazy number of developers working for them Unity dev has been going at a glacial pace. The fact that no one in house makes anything bigger than a game jam game has also given them goofy development priorities and too many half engineered systems. New management might change all that.

    • Detocroix says:

      That would be nice. Majority of the new systems have been really half arsed… E.g. 2D system is missing proper 2D particle system (Shuriken doesn’t play nice with sprite rendering order), Shuriken just barely having same collision support as the old system, Mecanim (mainly for characters) is partially broken and forcefully replaced the original animation system (intended for every object you can ever think off), “new” Terrain system is really barebones in terms of controls and quality. They barely even managed to add normal maps to it… when other game engines roll with generators, height blending, better sculpting tools, better blend map control, base texturing etc.

      Unity is good as a sum of it’s components, but horrifying if you look at it through something else than rose tinted glasses.

  22. racccoon says:

    Another one bites the dust! Another one bites the dust! & Another one & Another one, Another one bites the dust!

  23. P4p3Rc1iP says:

    What if… Ok, many poeple before said it.

    But really, what if Xamarin bought it?

    • Wret says:

      …that would certainly sort out that kerfuffle over updating the Mono framework, with it, the Garbage Collector.

  24. WiggumEsquilax says:

    I think that I can finagle $1500. I’ll take it.

  25. noizz says:

    I’d be interesting if Adobe bought Unity3d. Kind of aligns with their “content creation software” motto and the webgl exporter coming in Unity5 also aligns with Adobe’s recent embracing of standards based web technologies.

    Sadly though, my experience with Adobe is that they would completely mismanage the product, outsource it to India and finally give all the credit card information to spammers.

  26. Baines says:

    Joachim Ante made a statement on the rumors of Unity being sold.

    Unity is not being sold. They still believe that Unity serves its purpose best as an independent company.

    link to forum.unity3d.com