Buy Unity3d pro For $99

Charlie just made enough money for ios. All you need to get on ios is $400 with unity, and its all raw profit from there on out, don't even need pro. If he wanted to (and it was his thing) he could turn that $400 into ten grand within a few months. And so on. Then all this whining about unity isn't concerning you any more.

 

Unfortunately this money is going into an Imac im getting this friday, after that the plan is to save for an iOS license, but I will need to look into whether there is an age restriction.

EDIT: Ill be one rich 16yro :3 hehe

 

If Unity was a Toy it would be worth $99.

But it's a Tool, a Tool you can make lots of more money with and reuse over and over. So it is priced at $1500.

 

Exactly, word for word, what I'm planning when I get my iOS license. Only problem is I have to pay for it via check or bank transfer (I bought Unity for $200, so I get iPhone at $150. The only problem is I can't use paypal or credit card for some reason).

 

I already have a game idea in mind for when I get a license. just been told you dont need an age just need a card to pay on haha, very simple game I could code myself even with no knowledge of coding ^_^ hehe.

BUT ANYWAY, im suprised this isn't locked/deleted yet :/

 

I'm working on my game in free with mouse instead of touch input. When I get my iOS license, it will be a very smooth transfer.

Also, to submit a game on the app store, it needs to be in the name of someone 18 or older.

 

Once again, age knocks me down D: haha

I guess ill find a friend who can publish for a % if I ever make the game idea I have.

 

It's funny that we're ripping in to "people that want Unity to be cheaper" when in 3 pages the only person that ever actually suggested it was the OP, lol.

 

I noticed that too. I'm sure everybody was silently aiming at him all along.

 

Actually, you could get a parent to sign off on it. You could choose what developer name appears in the app store (in your case, Charlie, or in my case, SC Game Studios).

 

there's relevant conversational linkage to other persons and groups that have whined about the price in the thread.

 

I'm not sure what's funnier about this thread, the typo/bad grammar in the question (coted?), or the fact that 20 people said they would "NOT" buy Unity Pro if it was $99. So they would buy it for $1500, but not for $99?
Hah, that's awesome.
I guess I should be encouraged by this too. I really need to get something out there to sell, because I'm rapidly finding out that people are extremely willing to jump on the bandwagon of maintaining or increasing the price of something, and can seemingly find any way to justify paying as much as possible as long as they personally have the money to spend. (Company needs the money, it's worth that, they have our best interest at heart, I want them to develop the software more, in my world where I have time to "consult" I can make this money back easy, etc.).

Do these same people do this a the local store as well? Imagine saying to yourself. "I refuse to buy that item on sale because it doesn't make the company enough money, and therefore I don't want to encourage that sort of pricing because I'm afraid the product will be discontinued and/or the quality of it won't be as good because the price isn't high enough."
Do these "pros", balk at bids for freelance services on the lower end? Do they call up the freelancer and say "Hey man, you're charging way too little for this and I'm concerned you may go out of business, I'm going to double my purchase price to make sure you're around for future business with me".

Yes I know this is software and requires continued development, but in the end, in business, you're always buying what is currently being offered, not what "might" be offered in the future. You could very well pay your $1500 price and a month later the company gets bought up by Autodesk and they charge twice as much, or give it away for free and stop developing it, or develop it twice as fast and still make it free, or charge twice as much and develop at half the pace. Never argue to pay more when you don't have to, because the person selling to you is NOT on your side, regardless of what "nice people" they may be (and they are in this case, but it's irrelevant).

That said, $99 is a misguided expectation based on my guess at the market size, but, I don't see any reason the price couldn't be lower than it currently is, particularly if you consider the pricing for all the "packages" added together (Unity Pro, Android Pro, iPhone Pro, Asset Server). The asset server is probably the single best example that paying a premium price for something is in no way indicative of further cutting edge development, or even any development from revision to revision.

In the end, phrasing the poll this way is foolish, at best. The better question would be, what price do you feel comfortable paying for Unity Pro, where prices below AND above the current pricing are all valid. Then there might be some useful data to make an argument, at least when looking at the average form a large number of respondents. The best data would be to determine this "only" for people who haven't purchased Pro, but I know that's an impossible to guarantee in a forum thread.

 

People aren't saying they wouldn't buy at $99, they're saying they're supporting $1500. $1500 is expensive if you aren't in a professional mindset. To someone making money out of games, $1500 investment is penuts, and it ensures that their development isn't wasted on a crappy cheap system.

Basically anyone bright enough to do business has learned the hard way: you get what you pay for.

Interestingly, price isn't everything. You can get low enough to appeal to a hobbyist market what wouldn't want ios, or android or anything except nice effects. Thing is, those people are actually better off with crytek or epic engines. The hobbyist market is better off with those engines if they just want a PC demo of their work.

But remember - unity is grossly multiplatform - much more so than epic or crytek - you've got pc, mac, (linux on the way), web on all those platforms and then all major mobiles. Unity's nature seems to aim it squarely at the indie business market and upwards rather than the hobbyist. It does not bar the hobbyist or block the hobbyist but it seems to be aiming for professionals where possible as a platform.

Thats probably why you're getting a few professionals responding to threads like this. We're kind of bemused that people don't understand business yet post frequently about it.

 

Actually I have been told my prices were too low and I had to raise them to get the work, but not because they were worried I would go out of business.

The reason people are voting No is because the suggested concept is stupid.

 

The poll asks, would you buy Unity Pro if it coted only $99, yes or no.
Based on that question, people chose NO. Regardless, of chasing the question out to what people "think" is implied, the question in and of itself is simple, too simple, as I stated.

As a pro from many fields, I can personally name five vendors for mechanical automation equipment, off the top of my head, that charge lower prices and have a higher quality product and better R&D. Making this blanket statement is silly. You'd "hope" that was the case, but it's not something you can "generally" state with any truth because there is a whole world of things that go into evaluating what makes one thing better than another. Leadwerks is less expensive, harder to use for noncoders, but has a MUCH better rendering engine, but doesn't offer as many compile targets in its current version. Torque is considered harder for artists to use, has a similar feature set, and comes with source code, but costs less. Shiva has a similar feature set, is simple to work with, is more expensive on the "low end" but less expensive on the "high end". All of these are part fact/part my opinion, and none of them are indicative of a price=quality argument. All companies are currently still in business and actively in development. Some may not make it past the next 5 years, some may take up a big part of the market, but given the variation in pricing, it's hard to say that price will be the determining factor.

 

No, you're quite wrong. You're talking about markets where there's more customers and more competition. That isn't the same market. It is not comparable. Lets look at premium products (because unity, epic, crytek are premium products).

You get what you pay for. You get quality over quantity in a market where there's no competition in this field.

If you want quantity in the field of software, you are looking at budget engines that can do a lot but you end up doing far more work. In no way is this comparable to the component business.

 

Yeah, that's why I refuse point blank to shop at Walmart.. Their price policies are designed to put all the pressure on the producer and there's no guarantee that if something fails the producer will be around to sort it, and anyway, I hate end of line discounts.

Yes.. a freelancer quoting to cheap means they have no confidence in what they are doing, but no, I don't call them up, I just ignore them

A very qualified buisiness man once told me.. once you remove the letter R from FREE, you have a business.


Regards

Graham

 

Well, when Apple gets a quote from an Asian shop for 1/10 the price of their European/American/Canadian counterpart, I'm very sure they do the same thing... I specifically used Apple as they are "perceived" to be quality, and yet outsource most of their stuff to the lowest bidder. A professional would evaluate the quote against the business references/quality of past work of the person quoting, not just dismiss it out of hand based on price. They pick the lowest price/quality ratio.

 

Why do the choices start with definitely ? X)

Anyway, imo $99 feels too cheap for such great software! Heck, my shoes costed me that much!

Of course I'd love it if unity pro was $99, but my logic tells me if unity pro was $99 it wouldn't be as good, I guess it would be about as good as all other gamedev apps that cost around $100, hehe.

I rather pay 1.5k when I'm ready for it, it's definitely worth it.

 

No, I'm not. I'm talking about markets where there are less customers and less manufacturers of comparable items, with lower profit margins, but significantly higher average pricing. Some of this includes software and services too. It's easier to justify lower pricing in Unity's market, than it is in what I'm talking about, for sure, because the potential volume is much higher, and the costs are much lower. I'd love to know how many Unity Pro licenses they've sold to date. Is selling thousands worldwide better than 100's of thousands at a lower price? Maybe, maybe not, but it's still not price=quality of service/product.

I gather you consider Crytek and UDK the Unity competitors, but not Torque, Shiva, Leadwerks, C4, etc.? That seems backwards to me, but ok.

 

eeeeeeh seriously guys? so you prefer paying 1500$ then 90$ ?

 

if this ensures that Unity doesn't transforms into a pile of garbage .. yes,indeed !!

 

Ofcourse we would prefer to have it for 99$.. d business wise for Unity, it wouldn't be right, therefor no one wants it to be at 99$

 

there be some dense ones in here..

 

Nope, those are quotes from epic and crytek. Crytek's CEO himself names unity as one of the big guns.

Shiva, Torque, Leadwerks and C4 are *exactly* my point. They are cheaper, but you get what you pay for. That is why nobody is making commercial games with Torque, Shiva, Leadwerks, C4 etc and why EA and big name publishers are working with unity.

They aren't remotely even in the same league as unity. If you don't understand why, I will not explain because you're smart enough to figure out why by yourself.

It's you that needs to learn the difference just WHY unity is worth this vs the named engines. I already know, thats why I'm laughing at how cheap $1500 is.

Lets expand on your argument and mine vs you get what you pay for? OK fine, I think unity is worth it because a) it does more, multiplied by the number of platforms it supports, b) renders it faster than the engines you named and c) allows me to rapidly develop MUCH faster than the engines you name.

Not only this, the stability and the constant improvements being built into unity in every single release speaks volumes: you get what you pay for.

This is why epic and crytek engines are so expensive. Expensive, if you're a proper developer selling a product.

1. it's $99 dollars not 90.
2. they are obviously not saying that. They are saying its worth $1500 but the poorly worded poll doesn't expose this clarity. The original poll is stupidity incarnate: of course people will vote to pay less if given the choice. But the SMART people voted no, because they posted in the thread why.

Ultimately if you're a developer building a business around unity, every penny you give unity, makes your business stronger. It takes a smart person to see it.

When you're given a yes/no answer, you can look for a 3rd.

 

It's clear to me that a lot of people toying around with unity haven't a clue of unity's true capabilities. It's sad they even try to compare it with shiva or torque. Sad and laughable. Thats like saying your microwave ready meal is michelin star cuisine.

They both fill you up but one of them is leagues ahead in quality and taste.

 

This is so ridiculous, its laughable no need to even try to explain.

 

Hmm. I'm wondering how much of a grammar nazi it makes me to point out that A: It's "costed" not "coted" and B: It's not "costed" since that isn't a real word. if you're going to use fake words at least spell them correctly.

 

guys...calm down...he is a 15 year old guy that wants stuff for free. Soon real life will hit him

i mean...lol
http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/61804-who-is-willing-to-give-me-the-Unity-3-Regestration-code

 

I suddenly regret voting yes... i agree with a lot of people on here about a lot of things, but the one thing i really with unity basic had was the ability to play videos, it would save a lot of time, both computer render time and animation time. I do plan on saving up enough money to buy unity pro, though, but it may take a few years , gotta have some successful projects first. Everyone is right, though, unity basic is really worth more than what it is, a lot more, with it being royalty free you can make people pay for something that was essentially free to make, except your time, of course.

 

You can play videos right now in unity free with the prime31 plugin, its fairly cheap and a good quick way to get going (mobile only though).

As for affording unity pro, its not as expensive as you think. Even one ios game for sale should cover that with advertising revenue (admob etc) alone... and this can be a simple yet appealing title that took you a month's work.

I would like to dispel the myth that it is hard to make money. It's not hard to make 1500 at all, it is hard to make a hundred thousand or so, but not 1500 give it a try, get that $400 together for mobile and just shoot for the sky.

 

Still, look at humblebundle's, they made a lot of sales (with limited time pay what you want-deal)
So they should atleast look at different options *IF there is a special need to get more users/sales faster.

 

which plug-in is that? i can't seem to find it out of the many others

 

EtceteraTwo (The second coming) on http://www.prime31.com/unity/

He's only got as far as ios for movie playback at the moment. But for PC/Mac there's also other options (you should make a thread on it separate from this one if you want to research possibilities).

 

Back when I was a consultant, I realized something early on. The more money you charge for something, the more percieved value it has to the user (assuming they paid it of course). They will then justify it to nth degree.

If I went onsite, and stayed at the Holiday Inn, and ate at McDonalds, i was treated like dirt, and everything I said was suspect. If I stayed at the Grand Hyatt, and had prime rib and lobster every night, I could do no wrong. Simply questioning me would get you shunned by management.

The same holds true in this situation. By charging more, the percieved value is higher. Those who have paid it will justify it as the "true and correct amount", and you are suspect for questioning it. It is also in Unity's best interest to keep this perception. Assuming that enough people can pay of course.

Me? I would be glad if I could pay $99 to get pro, assuming that the business model was sustainable.

 

thanks, your the best

 

Thats a good tale about perceived value. However, what about actual value?
Prime rib is a *hell* of a lot better than a floppy mcdonald's burger...

I guess if I paid for a floppy mcdonald's burger then I couldn't complain much if it tasted like crap. Because it kinda does taste like crap.

What people don't realise about me is they haven't seen my other side yet. They only see my posts saying unity's farts smell of golden blossoms because right now, unity are doing well. But you guys and unity can expect me to point out the failings - when I genuinely see a failing. I've paid up, but by paying up, I do expect a level of service and the engine to continue at the high standards it is. I haven't seen merit in moaning about the lack of shadows on ios because the competition isn't doing shadows on ios to any great degree yet. But when they do, I'll be asking with a clear argument, why hasn't unity got it?

Bear that in mind guys before I am judged. The people who pay bigger bucks often are the same people who will argue most forthrightly for their investment.

 

yeah, you got that right, especially when its from McDonalds, yuck

 

This may become the Blender thread.

So ease of use, Unity wins I think, at least from the standpoint of non-coders access to it and mostly better documentation.
More targets to create for, using the same editor.
Simplest art pipeline.
More ubiquitous web player with a small install size.
Best 3D iOS engine (which is $1500 "additional" for the pro version, so really 3K to have all the bells and whistles).

In what other ways is Unity "vastly superior" to Torque, Shiva, Leadwerks, etc., such that it merits, in some cases ,10x the price, or are those three things..."so" important that they dwarf all else?

I would say that it depends on who you are and what you're making. If you're a small team that is "strong" at writing code, making games only for PC, want an engine that looks the best out of the box, and want a relatively low up front cost, then Leadwerks would be my choice.

If you're a small team of strong coders, good at reading other peoples code, releasing on Mac and PC, and want the lowest up front cost with the greatest possible flexibility, then it's probably Torque.

The only motivation to pick Shiva, that I can think of, is if you want a lower entry price to the "more" feature rich version, and absolutely have to release on Linux. Honestly, they have a strange animal there, because it doesn't have a "real" free version, has a weird tool set, has poor documentation, and doesn't offer source access. Meanwhile the top product is priced in the same ballpark as Unity, more even, (but by recent arguments, price=quality, so it must be better ). I've actually wondered if they're going to try to make a big push with a 2.0 version, fixing the weird pipeline and toolset, or are just going to coast along, like they seem to be now.

If you're a big company, unless you want to release a web game, you probably pick UDK or CryEngine, because Unity simply does "not" compete on features, you can negotiate and afford the site license, and the ease of use goes away when you have many specialists and will probably write your own import tools and file format(s) anyway. With a couple of exceptions, I think that's generally the case.

All I'm trying to say is, I'm not convinced that $1500 is the "magic number" for maximum sales, maximum profit, and minimum support requirements. I agree $99 is stupid, but that doesn't make me say that $1500 isn't a bit too much, and I find it funny that people would answer that "very specific" question with the word "NO", to justify some misplaced argument about the "greater good".

 

Lowering Unity's price down to $99 is like selling a McDonald's burger for $500.

 

your very right about that daniel, kind of reversed, but still correct

 

They are similar because neither makes sense.

 

The Market of middleware has changed significantly, so a re-evaluation on pricing is quite normal practise:

Business 101:
More = less
Less = more

People are more easily willing to spend money on something (in this case virtual goods, like e.g. software), if it's cheap on their wallet. simple fact.
That's why micro transactions etc, are so booming right now. (new market, for big publishers)
e.g. 10 USD for a game instead of 60 USD, is a no brainer for many people. (or even free games, with ingame stores to purchage extra's for little money)

The publisher, get thousands of more sales, because of this low price.
Resulting in much higher profit on the longer run.

It's simple.
Why are there so many "on sale"/ "huge discount" / "now xx percent off" adverts? why are car facturers competing with price wars? or grocery stores for that matter?

Many studies on human behavior reacts, reasons, in the process towards buying a products shows:
PRICE DOES MATTER... people look at the price first, popularity (like mouth to mouth advertising, recommendations, reviews etc) is second, quality is (it's true) third.

 

Yeah anyone can post nonsense like you saymoo, watch this: lobble gibble gabble booo boooo.

Note: I don't hate you or anything I just think we are polar opposites in opinion.

 

This is true for the short term, but what about when most of the interested parties have bought Unity? Also, Unity makes a substantial amount of cash every time they release a new version from the customers upgrading their pro license. They would make significantly less if the price wasn't as high (notice 'as high'. Its already very low).

Since when can you speak turkey!

 

This is why Unity is cheap in the first place. But there are limits. Taking that concept to it's extreme, maybe we should sell Unity for $0.01. You have to take into account potential audience, and at what point less cost doesn't equal enough new customers to improve overall revenue.

The reason iOS titles can make a killing at $0.99 is the market size, same with Free to play with Microtransactions. Most of the people I see asking for lower pricing, are not asking for 10 or 20% lower prices, but 30-70% price chops, which means that amount of potential customers has to be huge. Do you really think Unity Pro would double it's user base at $750, or that it would triple it's user base at $500? They currently have a very large audience and are getting phenomenal press, attracting a ton of users at the full $1500.

No-one can say it's perfect where it is, but any large price slashes seem to me to be better for a few people who won't finish a marketable game anyway, and overall detrimental to Unity.

 

Yeah, anyone can post nonsense like you hippocoder, read this: gisllnoa llemooomls lla nklknlken ooooohhhhhaooaoaoa

But seriously, did you read it from a to z? why is it nonsense (your opinion)? the 101 and studie results are not mine, but from/done by professionals (big dogs in town). I just added it to motivate the first line, and the discussion: lowering pricing and the effect it (might) have/has.

Note: I don't hate you or anything I too, think we are (mostly) polar opposites in opinion (which makes things interresting.. a real discussion must have counter thoughts.. )

 

Well, you are talking about what's reasonable and what's not.... this is exactly what i'm pointing at: re-evalutions on pricing.
I did mention earlier, that 99 USD is too low.. so we agree on that part. But even if e.g. Unity PRO (not iphone pro or anything), would cost less, lowere it with 500 USD, making a license 1000 USD instead of 1500 USD, it could become more easy on many peoples budget, and are able to purchage a license without too much hassle.
i'm just giving example figures, to give an idea..

There is a magical number, where people are easily feeling they can afford it.. and not. (UT should figure out what that number is, based on their sales, and audience, and competition.)

 

Well it's nonsense because ultimately, business is about charging as much as you can to maximise your revenue over time. You can argue that cheaper = more business, but thats not how any business works in the entire world (successful businesses that is).

The art of selling is to sell it as high as you can where you reach a point that going lower will reduce your income, and going higher will lower your income, ie the sweet spot. Business isn't a charity, and doing the right thing price wise is a big mistake because they already have maximised the available people getting to unity with unity free.

Business is an art form, its a very skill-based thing. You can't just throw a few rules out and expect them to stick. Every business that did that, failed.

First of all, there's sales. A sale has two purposes usually:
1. drive new customers to the business
2. remove old stock

Now, a sale is exactly that, it is not a price drop forever. It is a temporary price drop for a well thought out reason. This is why it is bad going rock bottom price for the entire product's lifetime.

A clever business will use sales or discounts as a tool to mantain customer volume and growth, while constantly toying with price. Although it doesn't look like it to you, unity has fiddled with various projections of customers vs income (and us customers aren't the only source of income but thats beyond the scope of my post). So by examining the volume of potential sales (new unity users) against the cost of mid tier sales and premier sales, they're able to design a product line that will maximise their revenue over time. There are risks of course, nobody can see the future, but they have a pretty clear idea of how things are working out.

Yes and that is why I am happy you're here on these forums giving a different viewpoint. Thats healthy

I also noticed unity doesn't necessarily lock threads which are anti-unity or close to it. They seem quite happy to let users air their thoughts and that is fairly remarkable. It is this listening that will help them grow where Torque failed.

On the topic of pricing:

Ah now. Before my experiment with the appstore went free, I experimented with pricing. First I tried the classic 59p (it was 59p back in those days, or .99c) - and I got identical number of sales with 59p as I did with 1.99.

Successful apps will look at daily sales figures and price according to that. Some apps benefit from a higher price point. Why not, out of curiosity, check how much mika mobile is selling battleheart and zombieville for? hint: its not rock bottom.