Developers can now charge for updates to their assets??

Recently went to update my Emerald 2.0 to 3.0 but now there is a upgrade fee. Doesn't this break the policy and agreement?

 

Yes we can charge for updates, this has been possible for a long time. What part of the agreement you think it voids?

 

"8.2
Licensor may at its own discretion from time to time provide upgrades of the Assets to END USER without requesting further payment. Irrespective hereof END-USER is only entitled to licenses to upgrades if END-USER has entered into an Upgrade Agreement with Licensor. END-USER may use the upgraded Assets only in accordance with the terms of this EULA." No upgrade agreement has been established prior to release of update.

 

While not discussing the license, I have to say it's absurd that a person can't ask for more money in return for more work.

 

While not being a lawyer, (and definitely Unity allows us to do it since we have the option when publishing the asset) it says: "Licensor may at its own discretion". This is nothing new, paid upgrades have been available for a long time.

And following what @hippocoder said, it would be really absurd if we were forced to provide updates without charging.

When in doubt, contact support. They will definitely provide a better explanation that us here in the forums. Just know that it is possible, and has been for years.

 

I won't speak for the asset in question but typically SomeSuperAsset Version 2.0 is a different product than Version 3.0. Buyers of SomeSuperAsset 2.0 can expect some bug fixes and might be pleasantly surprised with new features but it needs to remain generally compatible with projects throughout its available lifecycle. SomeSuperAsset 3.0 can charge a whole new price from scratch if they so choose, and buyers of SSA 2.0 might be pleasantly surprised with a special upgrade price.

That's how most software-for-purchase has worked since the late 1970s.

 

I'm sure there's examples of gratuitous large-version updates that don't really justify a complete repayment, but the fact is that all code and especially code design and layout rots and gets old and useless.

Hence it is generally necessary to periodically refactor everything to have a product worth using. No developer would bother if they couldn't get paid for that massive work.

 

Ironically I can't remember the last time I paid for Windows. Microsoft seem pretty keen to give away free upgrades for it (Including for Windows 11).

On topic, again, I think it's absurd that a developer should provide all updates for free. When they do, awesome! But at times it's well within reason for the working man to ask for compensation for his time.

Though this does come with a level of managing ones customers. Many persnickety individuals will want upgrades for free, but at the very least a reasonable discount for your existing users is fair. If you ask your existing user base to fork out the full sum for an upgrade, you should expect some blow back.

Of course this is entirely up to the developer, who can do whatever they please. The equivalent to this in video games is a remastered version. I have many I've been given for free (the recent Quake remaster, for example) and some I've paid a solid discounted amount for. Though none where I've flat-out paid the full amount for.

I remember the game Deponia, which was released as individual episodic games. Once the game was done they released a complete version, but offered nothing to folks who already owned the existing episodes. No free copy, no discounts, nothing; and expectedly there was good blow back (rightly so). I don't think the devs ever backed down from that either.

And the end of the day, devs should treat their customers fairly, but customers should check their expectations. We all need to eat at the end of the day.