Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit down with David Helgason, CEO of Unity 3D. Unity are behind a development platform for 3D, with very strong virtual world and MMO capabilities.
Tell us about Unity 3D.
We do the 3D engine development tool called Unity which is being used as a development environment to develop 3D content really quickly and put it on a lot of different devices. Everywhere from downloadable games, to directly inside the browser, to the Nintendo Wii, with more consoles coming. We're also on the iPhone.
What basically happens is you create anything from a small casual game up to large scale MMO – both things have been done! The technology is insanely scalable. You deliver it to a lot of different devices.
The USP, what drives people wild, is that you can take the high end, graphically beautiful, complex virtual worlds and put them straight into the browser – an instant experience. You click once to accept the plugin, and you are then in the world, which makes it an order of magnitude more accessible than where you have to install a client or mail a DVD.
The whole world can be streaming in, so you start with almost nothing – a couple of hundred kilobytes data – and once that is in you can have an infinite universe. This is what Cartoon Network is doing with their full-scale children's MMO called FusionFall. Funcom are building a browser based MMO, the name of which has not yet been announced. At my last count, there about 10 different virtual worlds being built based on unity, from Hangout.net to Sosauce. Those are just the once which there is something to see – there is a bunch of others still in stealth mode, with VC funding. This has also happened since a year ago. It's only picking up now. Two years ago I wouldn't have foreseen it. I didn't think we would be able to deliver those scales of worlds.
So what do you think the advantages are of the middleware, Unity approach over developing it all from scratch.
First of all, developing from scratch is insanely expensive. Unity has some really nice workflows. The development tool is extremely polished and has had so much hammering. It's currently in use by several thousand people, and all of them report bugs and annoyances, and we just improve the tool in ways that home grown platforms simply cannot deliver.
The other thing is that actually making 3D work on all computers in the world, including old laptops with horrible integrated chipsets is really hard. It's not glorious to fix those bugs! We have a test lab. If we receive a lot of bug reports, of things not working properly on a particular piece of hardware, then we go to eBay and we buy those old computers. We install it in our lab, and we have a student who hammers it out until it works or he finds the error. This is something you can only really get from something which has scale.
Then as you get the plugin installed on more computers, that also becomes a value because then a lot of people don't have to install the plugin to use the game. This together makes it uniquely viable.
You were talking about how it runs in the browser, in contrast with other approaches. Why do you think it is important that MMOs and virtual worlds fun in the browser?
It's this sense of instant on- you're on the page and playing right away. This is a value which is hard to get with other approaches. Of course in the browser already you can run Flash, and you can get 2D or 2.5D virtual worlds. That's a perfectly viable solution, but if you want to up the graphics fidelity and deliver something that looks like console games then Unity is the solution.
Do you have any numbers on how much cheaper it is to use Unity, because of the extra work taken out.
A lot of people have asked me but I've never been able to figure it out. What we hear from a lot of our customers who are delivering all scales of games from really small to boxed retail is a lot of them say that we wouldn't have been able to pull this off without Unity because they would have had to have a team twice as large –an engine team and a content team. Now they can save the engine team, and in a lot of cases they wouldn't have been able to do it otherwise.
You're very cross-platform. What are the challenges of cross-platform development – for example the accelerometer on the iPhone isn't available on the PC. So do you just build different games, or is there a way to build the same game but have different interfaces.
It really depends on what kind of content you're doing. Of course, in all cases the input has to be rethought or re-engineered, so there isn't one answer to that. But in delivering to many platforms, you need to think with each platform. And Unity can only do so much of that –it can't solve game design or user interface design issues. We just make everything really easy; we make it work, now you just have to make it feel good again.
An announcement came from Lively recently that they are going to turn their product into some kind of platform for game developers, taking out a lot of the hard work from game development. How do you think that might fit into the market?
It's hard to say really: Google is Google and they do things in a certain way. Our approach is more flexible; they don't have to fit their approach into a certain platform or login system. It's also more powerful – you can actually pull more stuff through Unity than you can through Lively. More graphics, more different platforms, Mac and PC, and mobile devices. Down the line, I don't know where Lively will go, but our speed of development and traction is so great that I'm not too worried about them. In theory, at least, they might be a competitor, at least taking part of our addressable market, but fair enough, it's a free market!
Lively have been talking about enabling the much smaller developer, the individual or independent studio. Is that a market Unity might want to cater to?
We already do, and a lot of our developers are either students or very small studios. A lot of students came to Unity and now they are professional studios: two or three guys doing contract work for really big clients, because they were empowered. The pull of Unity content is so great that every single person who knows Unity right now is needed and getting hired by big companies. That's definitely something we cater to already, and something we'll always be very focussed on.
Do you think that the smaller studios and individuals will become more important in the industry? Do you think they might be able to out-innovate larger studios?
I think it's cyclical. Whenever something new comes out, like most recently the iPhone, a lot of small developers were incredibly empowered and made really good businesses out of it, and then things consolidated. I don't know if it's a fixed rule, but it always seems as if the big players end up owning each space. If you go further back, with casual development on the web, you had a lot of small studios, now it has consolidated. In the deep past, small studios and independent developers were doing console titles. That went away, and now they're doing console titles for Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network. It seems like a cyclical thing. I think small studios will always have some channels; they just have to be very agile and find those opportunities by being innovative, fast and young, not being entrenched in old habits. In every generation of platforms and channels they can make good business.
Where's Unity headed in the future?
Going from being a very nice tool for a few platforms to being an even better tool for all platforms. That's where we're headed in the next 12-18 months. We're growing extremely fast, and are self-funded and profitable (and have been since day one). So we're a very healthy company and have a healthy approach. The traction we have is so great that we're able to start up new teams developing for new platforms, adding key new features. We see it as a sort of square. On one axis we have key features enabling more types of games, and on the other we have platforms. If you visualise that that's the addressable market for us, and by extension for our customers.
How are you going about driving adoption of your standard plugin. When I get a new computer, I download Flash straight after I've downloaded my browser, because it's essential. How do you make your plugin essential?
Technology is almost always content driven, so we have to enable companies to develop really good content, which then drives the plugin. As you have successful MMOs and virtual worlds that's an extremely strong force for adoption. When you buy a new computer, you will immediately login to your favourite virtual world. In the future, many of those will be built on Unity, so that way the plugin penetration is driven. It's a bit different for something like Unity that delivers high end content such as virtual worlds and MMOs because the hassle, even if its small, of accepting the plugin, downloading the three megabytes and going through the auto install, is still there, but seems minimal because of what it allows you to do after you have installed it.
How many installs of the plugin do you have?
Currently, not quite updated, somewhere around six million plus, but growing really fast. Currently its quite Western focussed, but as virtual worlds and MMOs get launched into Asia next year, that will change. Our ability to deal with non-standard hardware will also be useful in expanding into emerging markets.