- Will the tool be free for anyone to use?
- How will the Unity community be informed, so that we realize the benefit of many seasoned Unity develpers becoming involved in DCL building?
RIP unity …
My understanding is that it is only those needing to distribute a Unity Runtime will have to pay a fee. So what is proposed in this post could still be utilised without any charge by those running the free/personal versions of Unity.
Ok . Let’s see. The game dev community is in uproar atm.
- @Billyteacoin : DCL-Edit v3 and the toolkit we’re proposing serve different purposes. DCL-Edit focuses on Decentraland-specific development after it’s already started and introduces a new editor standard. Our toolkit, on the other hand, emphasizes scene layout, aligning more closely with the familiar Unity workflow. In essence, our tool facilitates Unity-based creation that can later be adapted for Decentraland. DCL-Edit, in contrast, is confined to the Decentraland ecosystem, making cross-compatibility with other Metaverse platforms challenging.
- @james : Thank you for recognizing the value of our toolkit in helping experienced developers transition into Decentraland’s development framework. It indeed provides a fast pipeline for exporting content to Decentraland while ensuring that your work remains compatible with established development practices.
- @Morph : Absolutely! Our toolkit includes a GLTF export pipeline, allowing you to choose between packaged GLB+textures or GLTF+.bin+Textures file models. Integration updates for OMI standards (or any additional components) are in the works to convert Unity instructions into SDK7 elements seamlessly.
- @CarlFravel : Great questions!
- Yes, this tool will be freely available, open for contributions, and developed transparently on GitHub as part of our grants initiative. We’re also exploring the possibility of distributing it through the Unity Asset Store to increase its visibility.
- Our marketing budget will be allocated to create tutorials, documentation, and social media posts to highlight the simplicity, accessibility, and scalability of building for Decentraland via Unity.
- In response to @SugarClub 's concerns about recent changes in the Unity Engine’s business model, I’d like to clarify that these changes do not impact SDKs, tools, or any editor functionality, as @james has pointed out. Our toolkit remains unaffected by these changes. However, it’s worth noting that dcl-edit may face challenges if these changes are implemented, given its reliance on Unity runtime.
I hope this clarifies the key points for each of you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to ask.
Voting no, but only because I think that the Mobile Godot Client proposal should get priority for this quarters budget. Would be awesome to have DCL fully functional on mobile asap!
I would support this proposal for next quarters budget.
(I still think platform category should have a way bigger budget so when two good platform proposals like this happen, they can both be funded right away. Reduce all other categories, and increase the platform budget. These are the types of grants that will prepare DCL for mainstream users and make it easier for us developers to create better content also. Funding the platform category at this stage of DCL is the most important one for the long term success of this space.)
This proposal is a huge win for bringing external talent to building inside DCL, one of the major kickbacks i’ve experienced trying to bring devs in is having to learn a unique toolkit/adapt to the dev environment. The amount of Unity devs far outnumber the current SDK7 builder pool so it would be great to bring them in. I see this is a far greater benefit for onboarding content creators and expanding the pond to an ocean. No point being a big fish in a small pond etc… More creators, more content, more experiences, more marketing, more users.
I’m not sure if I missed it in the proposal though but alongside the development process will you be ensuring to keep the tools up to date with potential updates to SDK7 that won’t be an automatic parse to your toolkit?
What about the new pay per install rule?
Let me point you to this blogpost - https://garry.net/posts/unity-can-get-fucked
What I personally think?
- I’m more aligned with Garry, instead of the self-proclaimed experts on this forum
Don’t know whos Garry Newman?
- Google is your best friend
I’ve switched to abstain as this and the Godot client are directly in competition for the remaining funds from this quarter - I do believe that the Godot client is a must, and we cannot afford to lag development there, so I have moved this vote.
This does not reflect on this proposal nor the team, but is simply a logistical decision that must be made based on our platform grant limits - please ensure this gets re-requested as the new quarter limits open and I will happily vote yes immediately for the same reasons above.
It is a shame that the platform grants are more limited versus some of the larger community building grants being given out - it seems clear that while both these platform grants are requesting large amounts - it is definitively worthy of our funds to contribute to the actual development environment for creators.
SDK7 Unity Editor Toolkit
This proposal is now in status: PASSED.
- Yes 53% 7,736,798 VP (103 votes)
- No 12% 1,931,444 VP (22 votes)
- Abstain 35% 5,426,024 VP (19 votes)
There was a lot of last minute vote changes happening on this one. Initially thought the proposal was not controversial given early results but now i understand it was controversial given competing budget with the Godot proposal.
Is that a normal-frequent dynamic? Some kind of time-based vote lock would be good to avoid bad dynamics like this.
Also agree with @Morph that it’s a shame that we need to pick one over the other in this specific case. We do need both development efforts and while the treasury isn’t unlimited - now is a perfect time to invest in building platforms/toolkits/clients etc.
SDK7 Unity Editor Toolkit
This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0x88013d7ed946dd8292268a6ff69165a97a89a639)
Vesting Contract Addresses: 0xe426b284b61f6bacee5efe355f186625045142ee