TGEA vs Unity 3D in 2009

#41 One thing I want to mention is that Unity 2.5 is now out and available for windows and unlike someone else who said "Unity's lic restrictions are so strict, you can't even get a demo:)", you can download the indie demo for 30 days use (and you can also demo the pro version just by emailing sales@unity3d.com).

Now when it comes to having access to the source code, this really comes down to what you need and does not make one engine better than another. For example let just say the with Unreal Engine, you did not have access to the source code (and yes I know if reality you do but this is just to prove a point). Then take Irrlicht which you do have access to the source code, that does not mean Irrlicht is better then the Unreal Engine. Now if you need access to the source code of the engine, then yes, Unity might not be an option for you (I say might because you can get a license with full source code access but I don't know what the cost is) but I still think that Unity is a much easier engine to use (and just because something is harder does not mean it can do more or that something that is easier can't do as much).

I think the TGEA and Unity both have 1 major compelling reason to use one of the other and those are:

TGEA: Full source code at a great price(talking about the 295 price tag) (again Unity does offer source code licensing but my guess is that it is a bit more than the professional license cost).
Unity: Fantastic Authoring (Development) Tools.

Now I think that most "indie" teams that are looking for a game engine are going to look for an engine that they don't need to modify the core code (basically be able to do everything through scripting) and this is where I think that TGEA is weak at. TGEA from my understanding was built from the Torque code base (not a complete rewrite like T3D is but more just adding more advance features to Torque) and Torque was designed with the mindset of first person shooters. This is evident by that fact when I asked would I need to make major engine code modification to build a action hack and slash rpg like diablo or what Mythos was going to be, I was told I would have to make moderate changes. I think that Unity is strong on this point (of course I have only been able to use it for the past few days so who knows what issue I might run into later down the road). Unity I believe was design from the start to be a general purpose 3D game engine which lends itself to be more flexible at the core engine and allows everything to be configured and scripted.

And when is comes to tools, Unity is hands down the winner. There IDE which just the tools available by default are already fantastic (it is so easier to add terrain and import your own texture to paint on it, adding a particle effect, etc...) but you also have the ability to extend the IDE yourself so if your game has some feature that can be managed so much easier with a tool, you can create the tool yourself and plug it into the IDE and now everything is integrated.

For me, source code access is pretty much a mute point which is why Unity is now looking like that better option for me. I will be interested to see what T3D looks like but I really don't think that it is going to match up with Unity's IDE (and we will see how much close the indie license with get to unity $1500 price tag)

#42 I have already downloaded the Unity Demo as I had to review it for a team. My recommendation was NO. Without the source code you are stuck with a "cookie" cutter engine and you are basically just creating a MOD with their engine.

Oh, and since I DO need the code, I contacted Unity at the email you listed. If you ask them about pricing for their code here is the response you will get:

Quote:
We at Unity believe that you dont *need* the source. Unity was built from the ground up as a game development tool - not as a game first... then kinda repurposed to be a useable engine of sorts.

This is straight from the sales manager. Even they view Unity as a game development tool. NOT AN ENGINE..


Why would I buy a car and then not be able to change the oil to the type I like?
And before you go there, yes my last few cars I replaced the engine from a 220 inline 6 to a 386 V8. My truck I went from a 350 to a 383 4 bolt main. Some people just don't want the same thing everyone else has:) The same goes for a game engine, I can still use TGEA and update it to the latest technology. With Untiy you would have to buy another $1500 lic when they upgrade.

#43 its funny how people compare unity vs TGEA or even T3D i cant even compare them as unity is far from being good engine. show me one game that was made without using source there is no game you can list as each and everyone they got the engine owners to mod the engine so they can release there game.

you will need source sooner or later like everyone else and them deciding weather to help you buy modding the engine for your release lets see how far you get with them as i bet those guys had to pay allot more money so they could release there game.

you can even see above what a email to them will get you no place as they don't even call it a engine and they are the ones that built it. you also have not looked that much at T3D look at ever blog you will see how much better it is to unity and C4 engine its 10 times better i think. its more then worth the price even if it was set at 2k i would still be getting it. you should also wait till he makes a post about physics which i think will be his next one its going to blow your mind as no indie engine will have whats going to be put in for physics besides T3D.

#44 There ARE released Unity games, so it's not impossible :)

#45

Quote:I can still use TGEA and update it to the latest technology. With Untiy you would have to buy another $1500 lic when they upgrade

Currently you get upgrades for all major versions upgrades. So Unity 1 was release is June of 2005 and 2 was released in Oct of 2007 so people got 2 years and 3 months of upgrades for 1500 which is pretty descent IMO. 2.X has been in development for about 1.5 years now and there is going to be at least 1 more upgrade if not more to the 2.x version (2.6 will be the next upgrade). Now I don't know when Torque was release to compare the amount of time till TGEA which required and upgrade cost but currently TGEA have been released for 2 year and 1 month and now the next upgrade cost is going to be T3D (and not sure if exist TGEA will get a discount like you do when upgrade major version with Unity).

Also about the fact that they themselves call it a game development tool and not an game engine, what is the difference to you from a game engine and a game development tool (besides having access to the source code)? I mean if you don't want to call it an engine then that is fine but there is underlying code the powers the applications and to me, that's an engine (just like I think calling the gears on a bike the engine of the bike, sure it is a lot different than an engine of a automobile, but to me an engine is what powers something else).

One thing about not have access to the source code that is a plus is that the company who built it is able to provide much better support. Now if I wanted to build a FPS then I think Torque would be a cheaper solution but I have no intent to ever build a FPS and Unity is just a little more flexible because like stated in the email you received:

Quote:Unity was built from the ground up as a game development tool - not as a game first.

With Torque/TGEA (Hopefully not with T3D) I would have to spend a bit of time in the beginning digging through the engine source code and then I would have to make sure what I change does not break other part of the engine. Ok now an upgrade was posted so now I would have to go back and diff all the code to bring in the new code but make sure my code is still there and then retest my changes. I rather not spend months on modify the core code before I can start on the real game (if I did I would rather build an engine from scratch). With Unity I can cut months out of development time because it is not built geared towards any gerne (even tho it does have pre-made scripts allows you to get a FPS up and running quickly) and I have the risk of breaking the underlying engine code; not to mention that Unity's Development tools also increase productivity quite a bit (or at least they are a lot easier to learn).

The main thing I wanted to point out is that I strongly feel that just because you have access to the full engine source does not automatically make the engine superior to another engine.

Also, I will responses back when I get my reply to see if I get the same response about source code access.

#46 Game development tool... Specialized software application that assists or facilitates in the making of a game.

Game Engine... Software System designed for the creation and development of computer games.


If you don't know the difference, look em up.

#47

Quote:not sure if exist TGEA will get a discount like you do when upgrade major version with Unity

Current TGEA owners will get a $295.00 reduction off of the $1000.00 price tag, along with another $200.00 reduction for early purchase effectively bringing down the price for T3D Professional to approx. $505.00.

Quote:Also about the fact that they themselves call it a game development tool and not an game engine, what is the difference to you from a game engine and a game development tool (besides having access to the source code)?

There is no difference really. As long as what you want is already there, or.. it can be scripted in without killing performance, you do not need the source. But no one that I know of would ever say having access to the source is a negative.

#48 @Randy: "assists or facilitates", maybe it is just me but TGEA/T3D does both of those. "creation and development" maybe it is just be but Unity does both of those.

Ok, I just read some of the blog posts about T3D that I missed and it is nice that they are upgrade the world editor, but it still looks like nothing compared to Unity's IDE.

The new/enhance features are also nice but how does the engine perform on low-end computers (Unity seems to support low-end hardware very well which can greatly open up your potential market). Also, using the latest in shaders and other advance graphic technologies is not bad on high-end computers but you can still get great visual results using somewhat older graphic technologies and better art resources and be able to perform on a lot more system that way (Blizzard has always been great at doing this).

About pricing, the one major downside to the licenses is that if we want to go for outside funding, we would need a studio license for each developer which is 2X the cost of Unity. The one plus side to the studio license is that they are transferable which I believe Unity is not so I will give you props for that.

There is also one other thing that I just hate about Torque/TGEA and that is the documentation. Given that the engine is basically an update version of a 10 year old FPS game engine, the code itself (at this is what other professional coders I know have told me) is not easy to read/follow. The documentation is also not that great. Sure there is a lot of articles and stuff around but everything is scatters all around with broken links and stuff. I don't think Unity has as much documentation as Torque, but it is a lot easier to find what you are looking for. I don't know How much more readable the code is T3D is going to be (is it a complete rewrite?) But I would really like to see what type of documentation is will have before I would even consider looking at Torque again.

#49

Quote:About pricing, the one major downside to the licenses is that if we want to go for outside funding, we would need a studio license for each developer which is 2X the cost of Unity. The one plus side to the studio license is that they are transferable which I believe Unity is not so I will give you props for that.

well, as it stands, Unity would cost me 4x the cost of T3D. My team also doesn't need to have the Professional license, only those working with the code, so they only have to pay a couple hundred for theirs which is nice.

Quote:I just read some of the blog posts about T3D that I missed and it is nice that they are upgrade the world editor, but it still looks like nothing compared to Unity's IDE.

Well.. it kinda needs to be because thats all you got. Don't get me wrong, Unity editor is.. the word amazing comes to mind. But again.. it all comes back to capabilities. With Unity, you have a box. Anything that's in it is at your disposal, and hopefully, that's all you'll need because if not.. your very much limited. Don't take this as me trying to bash Unity. I really like Unity and will be buying it soon. But it being better than T3D.. or even TGEA is very much debatable. I think the art pipeline is great, but.. no source.. no use of an SVN type program unless you buy theirs.. well, and other things just doesn't lend weight to that argument.

Quote:The new/enhance features are also nice but how does the engine perform on low-end computers (Unity seems to support low-end hardware very well which can greatly open up your potential market). Also, using the latest in shaders and other advance graphic technologies is not bad on high-end computers but you can still get great visual results using somewhat older graphic technologies and better art resources and be able to perform on a lot more system that way

GG products have historically ran well on older tech, so I really do not see this being an issue unless they have changed their target which would be fine; they do have several choices for people to pick from.

#50 @Ryan, have you looked at the TGEA docs recently? They have improved quite a bit since Rock Star Perry came to town. Still need a little help, but you can find most of what you need pretty quickly now, and clearly they're headed down the right path.

The engine code takes a while to get a real grip on, but it's not too bad once you do. As you said it's been a continuous upgrade from a 10 year old FPS engine, and there's still a lot of things in there that have been low-level optimized because such things were necessary 10 years ago, which makes some things a bit hard to follow. But that's changing as well. The GFX2+ rendering engine is very nice to work with. It's almost as easy to work with as Ogre3d is, and that's saying something. They've definitely come a long ways on that front.

As for the comparison of Torque with Unity, there's really no comparison for me. The editor is very nice in Unity, and it has a lot of nice features built-in, but no source code is a non starter for me. And yes, if my choice was between Unreal with no source, and Irrlicht with source, I would probably choose Irrlicht, since I wouldn't be able to do what I want to do with Unreal without the source.

#51 An interesting article about not needing the source code to Unity:

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2009/03/20/why-you-probably-dont-need-a-source-code-license/

#52 yes Ryan, I've read that. It's a nice sales pitch for Unity, but nothing more. I like the part where it says (paraphrasing) if you can't do it in Unity, then you most likely don't need to anyway. Nice of them to make that call.

Quote:Of course, some people will deliberately keep trying to think of things that might not be easily done in Unity through scripting.

Again.. as long as you think within our box.. all's well.

Quote: Some of those things (such as using external native libraries) can be done in Unity Pro using custom plug-ins - other things cannot, but those things are rarely real-world problems.

The very fact they take that call away from the developer is a problem for me.

Quote: Also, those things would usually require a major engine rewrite or overhaul to be possible in other engines that do provide the source code per default. Of course, if it turns out that a needed mission critical feature for your game really do require the Unity source code, you can always consider just buying a source code license.

OK.. so whats this say.. features you want that might require the source would be far to much work so.. we save you that problem? I mean.. really?? And yes you can get the source rumor has it.. just go mortgage your house one or two times and all will be well.

bah.. enough. Unity, as I've stated.. is really nice for what it is. And again.. I can see some great uses for it, but this no source code verses source code business just doesn't wash, and is becoming.. frankly silly. Of course there going to say those things, it's THEIR product. Good luck Ryan, if you choose Unity I'm sure you won't be disappointed. It's a great package overall.

#53 @Ryan, yeah I forgot to mention the Mono integration, which is great. But then again, the great thing about having the source code is, I can integrate Mono with Torque too, which I've already done, and it wasn't particularly difficult.

The big thing that article doesn't address though is custom rendering, which is something that is very important to me. I hate being limited to using stock renderable types, such as the TSMesh in Torque, so I do most of my own rendering through the GFX rendering API, and if something is difficult to do with the API, then I bend the API to suit my needs, rather than bend my needs to suit the API.

As a simple example, I wanted to be able to do updating of shader constants from script on a per-frame basis. Solution? Add about 8 lines of code to the material instance class, and a new ConsoleMethod, and bam, I've got my shader callback. Without the source code it would not have just been difficult, it would have been impossible.

#54 at this point I don't think there's a big need on a straight comparison of T3D to Unity. Technically, since T3D is being released in two major version, T3D Basic seems to be the new direct competitor to Unity3D whereas TGEA never was since they are two different beasts fitting two different holes.

For those dismissing Unity3D because it's a non-source (in its basic form) design tool, well GarageGames appears to think that's a viable route as well since they're releasing T3D Basic in a very similar manner - aka no source. For those people that need the source - probably people more serious or have more time on their hands, but who knows - then they can spend extra for the source (or think they need the source in many cases).

The car analogy sucks really. I once had a truck that I custom rigged, rebuilt, had a lot of fun with, but haven't done anything like that in years (many many years) and could care less whether I could personally change a new engine out or not. I didn't buy my current vehicle for that. For that matter, I haven't bought one for that in a while. Not everyone wants to nor do they need to rebuild everything. Hell, most likely some of you are running on Windows complaining about buying something you don't have access to the source - pot/kettle.

Some teams have and will need access to the source for some pretty nice and advanced features. Most people will probably think they need access to the source and really don't. Many people will probably do just fine without source access. That's why there are options. If GG thought that source access was the only way to go, then they wouldn't have released TX the way they did or offer a non-source version of T3D, and I think they have a pretty good idea of what people want. So, source/no-source, it's up to you since you have the options there. I don't even believe MoM was very intensive as far as source changes. I can't say for sure, but they seemed to have been smart enough (probably smarter than this crowd) to do most of the work outside of the engine - aka thinking outside of the box.

really though, T3D Basic is an alternative to Unity3D non-source - though GG is hoping it is a better alternative of course.

to each their own.

edit: as an add, I'd point out that when comparing shipping products with the different technologies, it's not quite as useful as comparing the teams delivering those products. Capable people and teams are going to deliver good product regardless of the technology, even if they have to write their own. GarageGames is a good team. They've developed good games and have a history of developing good games. The technology is a product of that, not the other way around. Torque doesn't make what GG does good, GG makes torque good and I'm sure they would make good games if they didn't have Torque. The same goes with Josh when he was with Prairie Games. Unity3D or Torque won't make you a good game. If you're incapable of managing a project or even thinking outside a box, then even access to the most expensive and documented engine won't help you.

#55

Quote:
For those dismissing Unity3D because it's a non-source (in its basic form) design tool, well GarageGames appears to think that's a viable route as well since they're releasing T3D Basic in a very similar manner - aka no source.

Not really. They (Brett, et al), on more than one occasion, pointed out that they don't expect T3D Basic to be something that is going to be used to make many games on its own. Though they suspect that maybe some people will use it that way, that's not really the reason they're providing a Basic version.

The primary reasons for T3D Basic is as a learning tool for people to get a chance to see what T3D is all about, and as a way to reduce the overall license costs for indie teams where every team member doesn't need access to the source; i.e. artists, level designers, and scripters. That would be the primary utility of the Basic license, where an artist can get a Basic license to use the editing tools and such tied into a binary built by somebody with a Pro license who has modified the source code to their needs.

Theoretically the Unity non-source option could be used the same way, if somebody sprung for the source code license, but that's going to be out of the realm of possibility for most indies.

#56 I'll stay with the same assumption, though you may be correct - sorry you're 3rd party speaking, no offense - as I was going off of Item number 2 in the pricing and licensing blog for T3D. Whether they are just saying that for sales or truly believe that I can't say, but I'll take GG's word for it for now. He does say that it's targeted at new users and those that want to learn what the engine can do (in a slightly less-than-full feature set compared to Pro) but then says right after that games can be developed with basic. As to persona thoughts from people, well I'm sure most people didn't think someone would make an MMO using TGE either. The real problem with this assumption, btw, are probably people with either an elitist mindset or just unreasonable. Many people would compare WoW/Warhammer and say they're MMOs and completely discount a game such as MoM (which I would not). The same is probaby the case on what games are developed with Torque - probably the same people dismissing games like GameMaker games and only thinking of using it to make the next Unreal Tournament.

http://www.garagegames.com/community/blogs/view/16727

Again, the comparison is the same for Unity3D. It really depends upon the complexity and scope. Hell, there have been tons of games, most small and hobbyist-oriented made with GameMaker. I have no doubt it would be difficult to make something outside of what the genre kits could do, but my day job is reverse engineering, analyzing, and exploiting software, including malware - so I see a lot of stuff that most people really don't expect to be able to be done (keeps the mind open). Heh, I'm sure most TGEA owners (including myself of course) haven't even finished a TGEA or TGE project WITH the source code, much less without it. The only thing I have is a fun little space game I made for my XBOX 360 that I have no intention of publishing, which I did without the Pro license I believe/recall - no source to the TX engine.

The biggest problem with no source access I don't believe to be features. Scripting can do a lot of stuff in most cases in most environments (whether TorqueScript is a limiter I can't say myself). The real kicker is bugs and bug fixes. That is the biggest separator between sourced and closed software. While I can patch software in pace with Olly (or Immunity if you choose) or IDA, most people, including experienced programmers can't - which means you rely on someone else to find and fix those bugs for you. That said, source doesn't solve that problem for sure either. As we see on these forums all the time, even people with the source can't necessarily fix bugs. I've worked with people that can program amazing things and then fall dumb when they have to debug them.

#57 Actually what I said came partially from that same blog, read a little further into it where Brett says:

Quote:
I think that working exclusively with Torque Basic to finish a complex game will be difficult, yet. I think this is true of any binary only game creation tool. Probably the largest reason for us providing a lower-priced Basic option was to save small teams the cost of purchasing a source license for everyone. Since artist and designers often won't need to touch the source, why not save them some money too? I also think that the Basic option will be a great way for users new to Torque to learn the toolset and get their feet wet with 3D game creation. Some, I expect, will take that all the way to publishing a game. Others will upgrade to a Pro license along the way. In any case, an additional low-priced option seemed like a good thing to do.

If you really want to compare T3D Basic with Unity, that's cool. Though I'd think the Unity people would feel a little insulted if you compared their engine to a newbie learning tool and toolset that you can also make simple games with. That's certainly not the way they're marketing it.

In that case, I would say that Unity Pro is probably a much better tool for making games on it's own than T3D Basic. Unity Indie is probably a little better, as you get less bells and whistles with Unity (I'm assuming that when they say you don't get advanced lighting, they mean you're going to get something similar to the current TGEA rendering system), but you also get a better scripting implementation and a better art pipeline. And Unity Indie is a little cheaper.

But considering that for $500 less than Unity Pro you can get T3D Pro with the advanced lighting AND with the source code, I still wouldn't consider a comparison between T3D Basic and Unity Pro a valid one in the least. At least compare it to T3D Pro in binary form :P


And I would vigorously dispute your claim that the problem with no source access is just bug fixes. There are many things that are just simply impossible to do without the source, and many other things that are made much more difficult. Your reverse engineering analogy isn't a serious one. Nobody wants a game engine where they have to hack a feature into the executable as machine code. Might as well just use Notepad as your base if you're going to do that.

#58 that was my point..I think you drove it home for me. nobody wants to do that, including me, nor should they, which is why source is better for that aspect, assuming the person with the source is capable of using the source. as far as people doing that, however, yeah it happens quite a bit - especially with games that are no longer supported in the form of unofficial patches. I think it was just a mis-reading of my comment though. I was saying what you drove home - that the biggest problem with no source access is bugs. That's a comparative, not meaning it's the only problem ('just bug fixes' as mentioned), but probably can become more of a problem than anything else if you don't need to add any features to the source in the first place.

it really depends on what kind of game someone wants to make I think. games have been made my just modding. in fact at least a few have become games in their own right due to that.

it's rather unfortunate that with all of the resources available on the internet and history of making games there are still people that see game making this way, that you need the down and dirty to make a real game.

I see the comments referred to above. Yeah, that was another point I made earlier that I think you helped drive home - he mentions making a complex game will be difficult with Basic. I would probably agree with that somewhat depending on what the complexity is. I would say the majority of games available on the internet that are indie or self developed and aren't published by big studios are not complex. Most of them that I see are more in the simple category, probably casual player-oriented. PopCap makes quite a few games that could probably be done in Torque without source access had they wanted to. I'd rather broaden some definitions of game to include stuff that's not on the top-XX charts or on store shelves.

I don't think you'd need the source to make a basic shooter, especialy if you used the genre kit, or even a racing game. The biggest aspect of a lot of games would be the art resources not the code. With TorqueX and T2D a lot of games game be made with them instead of using the full out T3D stuff - which basically covers games like you see on flash, casual, and GameMaker portals. I would think maybe a doom clone (as an example) could be made with the binary and scripting engine and scripting would be enough to make it unique. GarageGames employees are used to making big and advanced games so they probably see it in a different light than someone who wants to use T2D to make a new rpg in the form of Zelda or T3D to make athemed shooter.

I'll catch myself here as I just realized you probably can't use the kits with the Basic so that may rule a lot of this stuff out unless there's a binary component to them that you can plug in, which I think someone from GG said probably not. That probably leaves most games to FPS's using the basic version, or maybe third person if the camera is already built in for that.

I imagine it really depends upon how clever someone is. Someone clever enough should be able to do it should they choose with either one. Less clever people will probably need to modify something inside, and even less clever people will probably need someone else in the forums to modify something inside.

who knows who will make what. I'm sure most of the licensees of either won't make anything (especially if we can't get away from our day jobs enough), but maybe someone will be creative enough to make something without source access.

I think I'll leave this one alone for now though as the point's been driven in several times and people can make their own decisions with the input in this forum. Besides, i think we're going to start getting into vague interpretations of comments here before long which usually means getting out of hand.

good luck to everyone.

fina PS: btw, the reason I wanted to make those comments and push em forward wasn't necessarily to sell Unity over TGEA/Torque. I think with T3D coming out in two versions there are going to be some people for whatever reason (budget, making their first, non-complex game, etc) that will attempt to make games with T3D Basic. They may eventualy upgrade to Pro (an advantage that Unity3D does not have due to its probable high cost of the source), and I was hoping to stem the comments that I predict will be coming in the future on the forums towards these people: I'm trying to do this... with T3D Basic has anyone had any experience with it or have any ideas? (for example with something that CAN be done in scripting) with replies only being - If you want to make a game then buy pro - or - you can't do that or anything in Basic. I kinda sense that is coming though. Its kinda like our favorite Nix forums having a load of READ THE MANPAGES responses instead of offering any actual help..

anyways, no hidden agenda, just thought those responses may help there.

#59 Fair enough. Personally I think the great thing about low cost indie game engines is that they reduce the risk significantly of trying to innovate and try new things. If you license an expensive AAA game engine, unless your name is EA, you pretty much have to stick with something that you know is going to sell or you're going to go bankrupt. With low cost engines you're free to try completely new things without worrying about people losing their jobs over it failing. That becomes a pretty moot point if you're then restricted by the game engine features that are centered around already saturated genres.

If all you want to do is make yet another shooter then sure, just about any game engine will do.

But you'd be surprised at how difficult even games like the PopCap games can be to make with just a scripted engine if you try to deviate too greatly from the norm.

#60

Quote:really though, T3D Basic is an alternative to Unity3D non-source - though GG is hoping it is a better alternative of course

I am not trying to bash T3D Basic but Unity Indie I think is a lot better as it has the ability to post to the web (which is not really that big) but more importantly, Unity Editor seems a lot better than the screen shots of T3D's

Quote:Unity3D or Torque won't make you a good game. If you're incapable of managing a project or even thinking outside a box, then even access to the most expensive and documented engine won't help you.

I won't disagree there. Someone could probably create a fantastic game in T3D much quicker than they could in Unity and the same goes the other way around. Each person has there own way of doing things and I am sure certain engine would be better than others.

I do think that the real comparison for T3D and Unity is to compare both Pro versions. I think if you compare Unity Pro against T3D Professional not taking Source code access into account, I think that Unity Pro is the winner by a slight amount (not very much). The small stuff the give unity an edge is you get waivable splash screen, allows unlimited revenue, allows any type of application (whether a game or not), and allows for external funding. All those feature you would need the studio version of T3D (3X the cost of the Professional). The 2 big feature of unity that to me make it the winner in the very easy asset pipeline (even tho I know the pipeline in T3D should be much better than TGEA) and the Unity Editor.

Now if you take the source code into effect, I think the decision is not base on your needs. While I think Unity provides a lot without have to have access to the source code (more so than with TGEA and from what I read T3D), Unity will not provide 100% of the feature than ever project needs. There are some things that some projects needs the requires source code access and that is where even T3D Studio is much cheaper than Unity (the email from sales say that source code licensing is case by case and range from 10's to 100's of thousands). I do however think that because you need source code modification to do somethings in T3D that you need the same to do the same in Unity and that is just not the case. Unity provides a game engine that is not genre specific in the core C++ code (where TGEA is FPS based and maybe even T3D). I also don't like the fact that people keep saying the Untiy is good for small to medium size games as i think it will also work sell for even large scale games (and there are a few already done with Unity).

I think both Unity and T3D are/will be good engines. I think that Unity has the advantage of being but faster for development time and yet being almost as flexible as T3D as for what you can create. T3D will be able to give users the ability to create the own low-level feature and put them directly into the engine itself. I just think that some users that but the T3D engine that don't modify the source code might be able to create there game easier and faster in Unity (of course just because I think their editor is the best, I am sure there might be a few people that don't like it).