Interesting comment from a game developer on /r/pcgaming [0]
> The problem with Unity cinematics is that they are much less representative of their tools and engine out-of-the-box capabilities than Unreal's demos.
> They use heavily customized assets specifically for a video and even do a lot of custom changes to the actual engine held by hot glue and duct tape to make it work. Then you try to recreate only fragments of what was show and nothing works. Even their released demos are usually not very portable and useful for devs, while in Unreal you can pretty much copy useful modules and most of it just works. This is why devs struggle to make things that look like demos Unity released 5 years ago...
> Unreal is less smoke and mirror. They focus more on things that are actually available inside the editor (eg. the main character in Matrix Awakens was taken straight from the metahuman editor instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on custom scanned model rigged by a huge team of world experts).
> Unity does much better job with their demos to impress general public, but look at comments on their own forums and you will see over and over again how many devs are frustrated with their marketing tricks that don't turn into something real.
> Some devs say that this difference comes from the fact that Unreal guys have to eat their own food that they make, because they also make games (like Fortnite), while Unity is more detached from actual needs of game devs and recently they became obsessed with film industry, even acquired Weta Digital that made LOTR and Avatar. It should be exciting and impressive, but the comments from their licensees (waiting for years to fix core issues) were quite negative.
The "glued together" may be a little overstated. Their "Mega-City" demoed in 2019 is available to download and run as a standard unity project. I haven't looked at any of the code, but the fact that it runs on a mainline version of unity and not some forked, hacked together version should count for something.
> The problem with Unity cinematics is that they are much less representative of their tools and engine out-of-the-box capabilities than Unreal's demos.
> They use heavily customized assets specifically for a video and even do a lot of custom changes to the actual engine held by hot glue and duct tape to make it work. Then you try to recreate only fragments of what was show and nothing works. Even their released demos are usually not very portable and useful for devs, while in Unreal you can pretty much copy useful modules and most of it just works. This is why devs struggle to make things that look like demos Unity released 5 years ago...
> Unreal is less smoke and mirror. They focus more on things that are actually available inside the editor (eg. the main character in Matrix Awakens was taken straight from the metahuman editor instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on custom scanned model rigged by a huge team of world experts).
> Unity does much better job with their demos to impress general public, but look at comments on their own forums and you will see over and over again how many devs are frustrated with their marketing tricks that don't turn into something real.
> Some devs say that this difference comes from the fact that Unreal guys have to eat their own food that they make, because they also make games (like Fortnite), while Unity is more detached from actual needs of game devs and recently they became obsessed with film industry, even acquired Weta Digital that made LOTR and Avatar. It should be exciting and impressive, but the comments from their licensees (waiting for years to fix core issues) were quite negative.
[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/tjasoe/enemies_rea...