unity-actions VS rivet

> https://game.ci

I don't recommend it.

Game CI has been in development for a long time. It only really supports GitHub Actions. It can't correctly build il2cpp Unity projects. The licenses needed to run it are more expensive than Unity Build Automation / Unity Cloud Build. If you want to automate Unity builds and you don't want to learn the Windows Containers ecosystem, Jenkins and/or Tekton, you should use Unity's service.

CI/CD is a bad choice for most developers, on most platforms, for most clients. That said, it makes sense to do for your backends.

> or (as has happened to us with different game web service/API/middleware providers) they may choose to abruptly deprecate the service upon which you built.

Which service was that? GameSparks? That sucks.

> with inappropriate cloud dev tooling

Well everyone takes their own journey to discover how shitty Lambda, Cognito, CloudFormation and related are.

> with basically any datastore other than Redis you will run in to issues matchmaking

Matchmakers do not have to be complicated.

I've been struggling with getting the docker images provided by https://game.ci/ to build his project at all, let alone automating it in a pipeline.

https://game.ci/ has fantastic GitHub actions to automate all of this on each PR or push to main etc and then just upload the result of the build as an artifact and job done - takes minutes to setup and you can use your own machine as a self hosted runner to get the same build speed as local builds

These guys did a wonderful job at providing a docker-based build environment for Unity, btw: https://game.ci/

(Someone's built something similar for Unity, but it wasn't as one click when I last looked -- especially since Unity may require licenses.)

My repositories are on github, so I'm using Github Actions for build automation - I found it really easy to setup compared to other platforms. + There's basically a ready-made action for building with unity - game.ci (although I wrote my own solution for iOS).

Game CI seems to be pretty good, given the fact that it is open source and you can fix it if needed

https://github.com/rivet-gg/rivet/blob/main/docs/infrastruct...

lists nomad as apache 2.0, when its either MPL or BUSL depending on version.

We built our OSS company (Apache 2.0) with Nomad at its core. We provide game server orchestration with a handful of services around it, which could be misconstrued to be considered providing a "competitive offering to HashiCorp." Needless to say, we'll be freezing our Nomad version at the last MPL version because of how vague the license is (intentionally).

We also use CockroachDB which uses BSL, but we're not providing a remotely competitive offering.

I'll likely continue to recommend HashiCorp products (Nomad, Consul, Terraform, and Packer) to anyone who asks my advice, but it's disappointing to hear this change.

We maintain a rudimentary SBOM for anyone curious: https://github.com/rivet-gg/rivet/blob/main/docs/infrastruct...