Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Get Unity Pro for FREE!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by imaginaryhuman, Aug 30, 2011.

?

Would you pay your first $1500 profit to Unity?

  1. Absolutely, let's do it!

    33.3%
  2. I would.

    15.2%
  3. Probably.

    9.1%
  4. Not sure

    12.1%
  5. No way.

    30.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    Diverting off from the other thread/poll about getting Unity Pro for $99, here's my suggestion. Get Unity Pro for FREE!

    Unity Tech should provide a "Personal License" or "Unity Pro Credit":
    - Unity Pro is provided to you at $0 cost up-front.
    - You agree with Unity that any proceeds you make from sales of a Unity-Pro-powered product (up to $1500 maximum) will be paid to Unity Tech (they get 100% cut of profits until $1500)
    - When you've made $1500 you collect all future profits and owe Unity nothing
    - If you don't ever make $1500 you only pay Unity what you do make up to that amount
    - If you make absolutely nothing in sales you pay Unity nothing

    Benefits:
    - You get all the great features of Unity Pro up-front to make even better products that are more likely to sell
    - Unity gets paid as quickly as possibly instead of waiting for 50,000 in sales (or whatever the limit is)
    - A huge number of Unity developers who cannot afford Unity Pro get access to it
    - The incentive isn't to get extra features from Unity in future, but to be more likely to make your own profit beyond the initial $1500
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2011
  2. UnknownProfile

    UnknownProfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Posts:
    2,311
    The last thing we need is ANOTHER thread discussing alternative pricing plans. The $99 should be locked.
     
  3. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    Others will disagree and should be allowed to vote.
     
    Anzu420 likes this.
  4. saymoo

    saymoo

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    850
    No, a fixed fee is most fair. (as it is now.. )
    But just a lower (more modern) pricing strategy would work out fine. (longer term)

    Or a royalty based version available nothing, but once you publish it (commercially), you pay royalties to Unity (calculated per quater, on net revenue (tax deducted)) of like... 10%.. up until the (new) PRO price.
     
  5. UnknownProfile

    UnknownProfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Posts:
    2,311
    This is the reason Unity is so great, though. The price already IS ridiculously low for what you get, and you DON'T HAVE TO PAY ROYALTIES.
     
  6. saymoo

    saymoo

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    850
    Well if you have read the other thread, it appears it's not sooooo ridiculously low. And the royalties part is based on the OP's suggestion. ;)
     
  7. windexglow

    windexglow

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Posts:
    378
    What's stopping someone from lying about profits?
     
  8. saymoo

    saymoo

    Joined:
    May 19, 2009
    Posts:
    850
    what's stopping someone from pirating in the first place.. if we go that route, we get nowhere... windexglow.

    If other companies can force royalties (and getting them), i'm sure UT can also enforce such things.
    it's a suggestion to consider as alternative for the OP's suggestion. (the how, and technical implementation is not part of the discussion.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2011
  9. UnknownProfile

    UnknownProfile

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Posts:
    2,311
    To answer both questions...

    Human ethics

    Nope, sorry. I just couldn't keep a straight face.
     
  10. DanielQuick

    DanielQuick

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Posts:
    3,137
    The only way I could see this work is if you gave Unity the profits up to $2500 or similar. I don't believe that this is a good pricing plan, because most of the people that do not want to buy Pro because of its $1500 price tag probably won't finish a product in the first place.

    Then you get to the fact that Unity would have to hire more personnel to check up on you and make sure you are paying Unity correctly.
     
  11. Phil W

    Phil W

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Posts:
    231
    I know this is a general Gossip forum, but really, this is just becoming anal.
     
  12. Per

    Per

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Posts:
    460
    That's what you do already, there is Unity free which used to be Unity Indie, if you can't create a game that will bring in that much with unity indie then you wont with Unity Pro either.

    I'm not saying that this is the only view or even the right view, but personally I like that there's a bar to entry with Unity Pro. It's a filter for those who are serious enough about their own projects to invest in them beforehand and are slightly more likely to complete due to personal investment from those who are dilettantes and mavens just collecting software they'll never use and polluting the forums with requests for other people to invest for them and do their work for free because obviously you'd want to once you see their genius totally original ideas on game design. Where it's priced right now is good for any first world country IMO, yes it's expensive, but Unity are a company not a charity, they have their own mouths to feed, and it's not so expensive as to be out of reach for most indie developers who are serious about what they're doing.

    Having said that if it were completely free then it would make it more competitive with the likes of UDK and now Cryengine. Of course I do prefer the Unity royalties scheme on Unity Pro (none) to that of the other two It's an interesting question and a difficult topic. But without seeing UT's books there's no way of definitively saying what their pricing scheme should be as an outsider.

    I don't mean to be nasty to the OP as I do think it's an interesting idea and who knows what may come from discussing it, but there's a rash of these threads right now polluting the forum and true or not they all kinda smack of cheapskates with double standards about the value of work (theirs and UT's), either that or spoilt kids who aren't used to the concept of value, earning something and are coming up against the term "no" for the first time. I mean I could be totally wrong and out of touch, but that's just how it's coming across to me, I'm just sitting here thinking "dl unity free and get some work done ferchrissakes, then once you've got some titles out there under your belt talk about the cost of Unity Pro and what it's worth". It would just have a lot more weight.
     
  13. niosop2

    niosop2

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Posts:
    1,059
    Epic and Crytek have totally different business models than Unity. Their core business is licencing their full engine to big studios for huge sums of money and creating their own big budget AAA games. Giving UDK or CE3 away to hobbiest/indies for free doesn't affect their core business much, if at all.

    Epic then sets a minimum bar for collecting royalties. This isn't just to be nice, it's because trying to track every crappy game that came out to ensure they comply with the royalty agreement is stupid. They can focus on only going after those who are successful and worth going after, which most likely will comply with the royalty agreement on their own because they're likely an actual business and not some kid at home.

    Crytek requires you to go through them for any commercial project. We have no idea what their pricing agreements look like.

    Unity's core business is selling Unity Pro licenses. The current free version gives them exposure and potential income from the Asset Store. I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of their current Pro sales are to people like me who use it in a hobbiest/consultant capacity and will likely never release a game that makes any money. Taking that revenue stream away would kill Unity. Trying to go after, or even just keep track of, every person who makes $90 in ad revenue off some game they released on Kongregate just isn't feasible and would cost way more than it's worth.

    Unity should keep doing what they're doing. Charge what they need to ensure growth, keep improving the product, and keep their paying customers happy.
     
  14. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    Just to clarify this isn't a request to get Unity Pro for free, it's a request for a different kind of license where you `buy now, pay later if you sell stuff`. Unity obviously has value and shouldn't just be outright free or Unity would have no income.

    I also agree there are people out there, lots of them, who can't and won't finish or sell anything no matter what version of Unity they use. That's fine. They wouldn't have been customers anyway, right?

    I'd also prefer not to get personal about this, we're just exploring possibilities here not digging in our heels about a viewpoint.

    Is this a practical, workable solution or isn't it? That's the question.
     
  15. Kinos141

    Kinos141

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2011
    Posts:
    969
    $1500 is a pretty steep price, but you have to spend money to make money. Also, if the team chips in to buy a license, then it solidifies their determination to get it done. If I did chip in, I want a goddam ROE.
     
  16. Chickenlord

    Chickenlord

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Posts:
    381
    I don't see any problem in using the free unity version to create a game and when it's finished, buying a license to publish it.

    But i'm still waiting for the "Get paid if you use Unity Pro!" Thread :p
     
  17. justinlloyd

    justinlloyd

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Posts:
    1,680
    UDK and now CryEngine are free for a number of reasons. Not all of them obvious. Straight from the horse's mouth, neither Epic nor Crytek care about the hobbyists. Never have, never will. What they care about is, listed in reverse order of importance:

    2) getting free press from the hardcore who give themselves nerdboners playing the games that UDK and CryEngine excel at and talking about the engines like they know what they are talking about to get other hardcore gamers excited about it too.

    1) Getting a large base of future level designers and developers familiar with their tools so that when it comes time for those future developers to be hired, companies get people with experience on the engine and tools already, but most importantly, companies will pick UDK or CryEngine because... there is a large pool of talent already familiar with the engine and tools that cut their teeth on them. And later on, those developers, when in a position to make the buying decision, will go with what they know and what is familiar and pick... UDK or CryEngine.

    Unity serves an utterly different market.
     
  18. justinlloyd

    justinlloyd

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Posts:
    1,680
    That is basically what I did. That is what the company I am currently contracting for did -- they are pulling out the credit card next week for thre Unity Pro + Unity Asset Server licenses. The software development is far enough along that they are now ready to spend the money. The cost of $6,000 is neither here nor there when you are paying $50,000/month for developers. Throw in a whole bunch of other tools and Unity's price is insignificant.
     
  19. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    Regarding how Unity would manage getting paid, you basically agree to the terms of the license like you would any other. You sign something to say you agree to their terms and if they find you broke the rules you're in trouble. Or require that any product for sale be registered with Unity (maybe up front?) so you are tied in more. I don't know exactly the best way to police it. Maybe the Unity pro editor can be made (when used with this kind of license) to auto submit data to Unity every time you do a build and basically have that little bit of Internet enabled DRM so you product gets tagged and then Unity can go out and identify your products? Just a thought.
     
  20. DanielQuick

    DanielQuick

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Posts:
    3,137
    They would have to hire more employees to do this.
     
  21. RoyS

    RoyS

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Posts:
    664
    Many of you (here and $99 thread) are authors in the Unity Asset Store. Would you want to implement this license where you wouldn't get paid until you made a profit? Everything on the Unity Store free until we make a profit. I don't see those Asset Store prices dropping...hence, you want to (and deserve to!) be paid.

    I would rather see Unity make their money as I will be more assured that Pro (and free) will only get better and better as there are enough people on staff to make improvements. I've seen engines that only have one or two people on staff and improvements and bug fixes are slow.

    Money is motivation to improve the produce - be it Unity or the Asset Store authors.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2011
  22. Broken-Toy

    Broken-Toy

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Posts:
    455
    I'm against a "loan" system for three reasons:
    • Basically this is asking UT to act as a bank (provide loans) but at the same time for you to avoid the responsibilities that come with a loan (reimbursing it). If you need a loan to afford something, banks are already in place to "help" you.
    • The price tag on Unity Pro acts as a barrier of entry to sort the pros from the hobbyists. Remove the requirement, and you remove the meaning of Pro itself.
    • With a credited payment, UT would need to hire new people just to keep track of the process and legalities of who should pay how much when. The revenue stream also becomes even more unpredictable for them. I like RoyS' example: how would you like it if your asset store items didn't give you a dime unless the customers made a profit of their own? Thought so.

    That said, with the 30% fee on Asset Store items I don't see why the Pro features aren't included in Free already, except as a barrier to entry... Also, IMO this extra revenue stream is much more steady than any "version upgrade" fees, making those obsolete already. Bear with me as I don't have UT's numbers, but the Asset Store's apparent success gives me the impression it could well become their main revenue source (and therefore make other fees to us less and less justifiable) in the future.

    Moving on.
     
  23. kablammyman

    kablammyman

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Posts:
    507
    heres something that many of you are missing. Unity is software. which means, no matter if they give away 1 million copies ,or sell 2...they loose nothing if a person using a "free until you make $1500 in profits" person doesnt make a dime. Its not like a physical good, where they lose the cost of materials as well as the time that went into making it. Besides, once its made, it exists, so if unity decides to stop supporting the engine or whatever, the old copies wont just disappear. So, with that said, I think a "free until you make money" version wouldn't be a bad idea.

    Again, I'm a pro lisc holder.
     
  24. DanielQuick

    DanielQuick

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Posts:
    3,137
    Yes, they don't need to pay for physical materials but they do need to pay for more employees to make sure you are paying them your revenue.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011
  25. RoyS

    RoyS

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Posts:
    664
    In some ways they do pay for physical materials - not for the software, but the investment in computers, building and parking lot for employees, typical office supplies...

    Everything on the asset store is virtual (as opposed to sofware), ie no physical product.
     
  26. ColossalDuck

    ColossalDuck

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Posts:
    3,246
    I definitely would. But if I really wanted to get Pro, I would just make a game with free and get $1500 from that.
     
  27. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    The trick idea for the Asset Store is to increase the user base somehow (more free, more pro users) by offering more license types.
    I think the Asset Store is right now a big revenue for Unity, that's why they need to attract even more users.
    The main thread idea isn't bad, should provably need to get few adjustments here/there so it will be good for Unity and for it's users.
     
  28. cannon

    cannon

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Posts:
    751
    I'm sure Asset Store revenue, while significant, are massively dwarfed by revenues from both individual Unity license sales and Unity's mass site licensing and will be for quite a while. There are only a couple of runaway successes on the Asset store from last I read.

    Unity's goal is to be as useful out of the box which is at cross-purposes with encouraging Asset Store sales (e.g. integrating 2D, GUI editors and pathfinding). If their main revenue source became the Asset Store the impetus will then be for them to leave the core product with holes that encourage purchases.
     
  29. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    So far 69% of people who voted say they would at least `probably` go for this license if not `for sure`.
     
  30. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    There's a reason nobody is doing this sort of licensing deal. Because it costs more than $1500 to track people down to pay $1500.

    However, paying $2000 for licensing fees of 20% due from 50k would easily work, hence the epic licensing model can work. And at that point, who wouldn't pay up. For $1500 it's impossible to ever work since unity's fees would be too much.

    They will need to raise the base price to make this model work.
     
  31. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574

    I got a proposal for you. How about you release that Screensaver framework that you gonna sell using the strategy you are proposing?

    So we all get to download it for free, but only when we turn a profit we will start paying back the total cost of ownership.

    Would you do that?
     
  32. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574

    Similar to student loan scheme, where repayment is very very low (people just aren't earning enough to repay the principal, or they are exploiting the system by not paying). Even the government who has all your details, tax records are find it hard to collect back student loan repayment.

    The mortgage with the bank on the other hand is different, because the bank gets the property if you can't repay.
     
  33. ProjectOne

    ProjectOne

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Posts:
    442
    Then you have the issue of users releasing free products as marketing tools to make money in other ways, harder to monitor
     
  34. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574
    @ImaginaryHuman (and all those who can't pay for UNITY PRO)

    How about alternative method of repayment? Since the problem seems to be the "majority" who found Unity Pro too expensive because of the initial upfront cost which creates a barrier to entry, how about a subscription based repayment system? You pay $48 every month for 36 months (Unity refresh cycle seems to be every 3 years), with 5% interest (I am being very generious here, most bank wouldn't give you a 5% mortgage interest).

    $1500* 5% interest = $75 per year
    $75 * 3 year = $225
    $1500 + $225 = $1725
    $1725 / 36 month = $47.91
    Let's round this up to $48

    This is know as Rent-to-own, also known as rental-purchase.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-to-own

    And all you pay is $48 a month. That works out to be $12 per week, or $1.60 per day! CHEAP! So for the price of a can of Coke every day you can own Unity in 3 years! I am sure a lot of you probably smoke a pack of cigarette (which cost $12 here now) every day or have a cup of Starbucks coffee or a can of coke everyday. You just need to set aside your addiction, and get a new addiction known as Unity and put that money into that addiction.

    Does this seem more acceptable?

    How about that?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011
  35. DanielQuick

    DanielQuick

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Posts:
    3,137
    Why should Unity fiddle around with abnormal pricing strategies when you could use a credit card or take out a loan all by yourself.

    I can see people making their game in Unity Free, paying $48, upgrading their game, release it, and then stop paying Unity.
     
  36. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    The difference between just using a credit card is that you then HAVE to pay the bank back within a given time frame, whereas what I suggested is you pay nothing back if you make no money.

    Mr Bawss. .. it's an interesting idea. Although like you and others said I'm not sure about the policing of the payments. Do you have a good idea for how to get people to pay up when they do sell something?

    Right now Unity has a plan where when you earn at least 50,000 or 100,000 or whatever it is, you HAVE to buy Unity Pro. They obviously already are having to `police` this, so why not just police other users also who owe money for their credited version?
     
  37. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    That's basically shareware, then, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to not work. (I mean true shareware, not demos incorrectly called shareware.) Even honest people generally don't pay for shareware...it usually goes like this: "Nice app, I'll pay for it later." Then later somehow never arrives, since there's no practical incentive to actually pay.

    Because it's orders of magnitude difference in numbers. Also, I seriously doubt they actually police anything in the first place. Nobody making that much money is going to stubbornly stick to using Unity Free. Not to mention that most people who can make that much with Unity probably bought Pro long before then anyway.

    --Eric
     
  38. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    29,723
    Eric is right.

    Nobody sane in this business is *stupid* enough to be able to make a game yet not pay for better tools. Nobody's that stupid.
     
  39. Vert

    Vert

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Posts:
    1,099
    Interesting thoughts, its like the Unreal Engine but with a royalty cap...
     
  40. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    No it's not shareware, it's `you are required to pay up if you earn money` ware with an enforceable license attached. Of course it's up to Unity to go after the money properly, not just `hope` the user will pay.
     
  41. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574
    How about my idea you pay $48 every month for 36 months (see above)? Of course you have to enter a legally binding contract with UT pretty much like taking a loan with the bank except with low interest (or no interest if Unity think its do-able)
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
  42. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574
    The problem with that approach is that, then every one would adopt that license. Big studios like EA / Activision who license thousands of seats often make money losing games (as are 90% of the indie developers) who would not make it back the investment they put in.

    Basically, Unity should not be liable for your failure.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
  43. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,401
    It's functionally equivalent to shareware, given that there's no practical way to enforce it on a wide scale. In the real world, in fact yes it does amount to hoping that people will pay.

    --Eric
     
  44. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    That's why "free for non-commercial" then "pay later if you make any money" doesn't really work for Unity (neither for anyone willing to sell a product). The trick to sell even more Pro copies is provably lowering the 1500$ license fee to 500-750$ for non-commercial and 1500$ for commercial (before publishing your game). At 500-750$ even broken students wont see it quite high and will jump in the Pro range. It doesn't mean that Unity is losing value, but they have reach a point where there's a huge amount of free user base (they can evangelize those guys and attract even more free users with a lower Pro price). Keeping the best features for the Pro version with a such high price will only piss off the majority of Unity users (which are Unity free users).
    I think the best move for Unity now is to lower their price, they will hit pretty hard all their competitors and make a lots of Pro users.
     
  45. rockysam888

    rockysam888

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Posts:
    650
    I don't know much about udk and cryEngine.
    Users most concern about cost and quality.

    Could anyone please compare the cost to produce a simple commercial game now,
    with the existing payment scheme of these 3 engines (Unity, udk and cryEngine) ?
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
  46. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    @rockysam,
    Putting down some simple cases for a 3 man company making around 120 000$ (total sales).

    Please notice that I'm not counting the first time 50000$ sales without any fee on Unreal Engine (I'll do it in my next post).

    With Unity you must pay 3000 for each guy (if you use the Pro iOS version).
    Which means 9000$ before selling your game. So...

    No taxes:
    Unity:
    120 000$ - 30% apple cut = 84000$
    84000-9000$ for all Unity licenses (3 desktop pro and 3 iOS pro) = 75000$ total revenue.
    84000-30% that goes to Epic (including the 100$ upfront fee) = 58800$ total revenue
    84000-20% that goes to Crytek = 67200$ total revenue

    Your company net profit with Unity: 75000$
    Your company net profit with CE: 67200$
    Your company net profit with UE: 58800$

    I'm not even counting the taxes you must pay but it's also quite problematic as you must pay Epic/Crytek from the initial cut (Apple's or Steam cut) and your taxes must be subtracted from that initial cut too (after Apple/steam cut).
    This is where things gets really nasty.

    I'm now do the same thing but including 40% of taxes (that's an average of what you pay here in Canada).

    We know that 120 000$ hit game, after Apple's cut = 84000$ (where your taxes must be taken off)
    So here is:

    With taxes:
    Unity:
    84000 - 40% of taxes = 50400$
    50400-9000 (of unity licenses) = 41400$! Now take that and split it up by 3 developers! Isn't that bad. ^^

    Unreal Engine:
    40% of 84000 (for your gouv taxes) = 33600$
    30% of 84000 (for Unreal Engine taxes) = 25200$
    84000-33600-25200-100 = 25100$. Now take that and split-it up by 3 developers! Now that's pretty bad!

    Cry Engine:
    40% of 84000 (for your gouv taxes) = 33600$
    20% of 84000 (for Cry Engine taxes) = 16800$
    84000-33600-16800 = 33600$. Now take that and split-it up by 3 developers! Now that's pretty bad!

    I don't even need to say that the higher is your game sales the bigger the money you make with Unity and the bigger CE/UE cut is! So Unity is a clear winner (even if you must pay 9000$ upfront for your 6 licenses).

    Please notice that I'm not counting the first time 50000$ sales without any fee on Unreal Engine (I'll do it in my next post).
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
  47. c-Row

    c-Row

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Posts:
    847
    The problem might be that Unity would have to process payments via local banks to insure themselves against non-paying customers, and I don't think they are big enough to handle this for each and every country. Maybe limiting this to some of the bigger countries might be an option, though.
     
  48. tatoforever

    tatoforever

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Posts:
    4,364
    @rockysam,
    Putting down some simple cases for a 3 man company making around 120 000$ (total sales).
    Breakdown sales.
    I'm now including the first time 50000$ sales without any fee on Unreal Engine.

    With Unity you must pay 3000 for each guy (if you use the Pro iOS version).
    Which means 9000$ before selling your game. So...

    No taxes:
    Unity:
    120 000$ - 30% apple cut = 84000$
    84000-9000$ for all Unity licenses (3 desktop pro and 3 iOS pro) = 75000$ total revenue.
    84000-20% that goes to Crytek = 67200$ total revenue

    84000-50000$ not taxable on Epic = 34000$
    34000$ - 30% that goes to Epic (including the 100$ upfront fee) = 10300$ goes to Epic.
    84000 - 10300 = 73700$ total revenue

    Your company net profit with Unity: 75000$
    Your company net profit with UE: 73700$
    Your company net profit with CE: 67200$

    I'm now do the same thing but including 40% of taxes (that's an average of what you pay here in Canada).

    We know that 120 000$ hit game, after Apple's cut = 84000$ (where your taxes must be taken off)
    So here is:

    With taxes:
    Unity:
    84000 - 40% of taxes = 50400$
    50400-9000 (of unity licenses) = 41400$! Now take that and split it up by 3 developers! Isn't that bad. ^^

    Unreal Engine:
    40% of 84000 (for your gouv taxes) = 33600$

    84000-50000$ (not taxable on Epic) = 34000$
    30% of 34000 (for Unreal Engine taxes) = 10200$
    84000-33600-10200 -100 = 40100$. Now take that and split-it up by 3 developers! Not bad, but remember that Unity have an one time fee (Unreal/Crytek doesn't have any). Which means that any future profit you make with Unity you don't pay a single penny with your license!

    Cry Engine:
    40% of 84000 (for your gouv taxes) = 33600$
    20% of 84000 (for Cry Engine taxes) = 16800$
    84000-33600-16800 = 33600$. Now take that and split-it up by 3 developers! Now that's pretty bad!

    I don't even need to say that the higher is your game sales the bigger the money you make with Unity and the bigger CE/UE cut is! So Unity is a clear winner (even if you must pay 9000$ upfront for your 6 licenses).
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
  49. rockysam888

    rockysam888

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Posts:
    650
    I see the ideal case.

    How about the worst case?
    What would be the cost difference of these engines if the game is a failure for wrong marketing?
    (eg. that 3 man company making around 1000$ (total sales))
     
  50. I am da bawss

    I am da bawss

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Posts:
    2,574

    Not a fair comparison, CryEngine doesn't have iOS version, nor did you account for deduction on CryEngine/UDK's part when it comes to App Store (or if it can even run on OSX). Also you got the percentage wrong on UDK, its not 30%, its 25% (you can check UDK licensing term here: http://www.udk.com/licensing).


    How about :
    Let's assume a more fair comparison : Digital distribution on PC platform (ie. STEAM which rumor to take 30% profit)

    Putting down to a simple case of 3 men company making around $120,000 (total sales).


    With Unity you must pay $1500 for each guy (this is for PC distribution, we don't account for any other platform). Which means $4500 upfront cost before you even start developing the game.

    Unity: $120,000 - 30% Steam cut - $1,500 x 3 upfront Unity Pro licenses = $79,500 total revenue.



    The per-seat option does not apply to UDK when you distributing a commercial game.

    UDK: $120,000 - 30% Steam cut - 25% Epic royalty above $50,000 revenue ($84,000 - $50,000)x25% - $99 Epic upfront cost = $75,401 total revenue




    Crytek does not disclose licensing term publicly, so I am assuming it is similar to UDK's with no per-seat cost and with rumored 20% cut.

    Crytek:$120,000 - 30% Steam cut - 20% that goes to Crytek = $67,200 total revenue



    Your company net profit before tax with Unity:........ $79,500
    Your company net profit before tax with UDK:..........$75,401
    Your company net profit before tax with CryEngine: $67,200


    Tax is irrelevant because its different in each country. So tax is not included in the calculation.

    From the above calculation, it is clear you get the most saving when you use Unity's fixed price licensing term. The saving is even more dramatic if you are just 1 man team ( = $82,500 net profit), where as UDK and CryEngine are % based which take a big chunk out of your profit regardless if you are 1 man or 100 men. The real saving from UDK or CryEngine is in the flexibility of its licensing term to a TEAM - regardless of how many people using UDK or CryEngine (again, I am assuming Crytek has similar licensing term as Epic), be it 100 men team, there is no per seat cost here so it benefit a large team with small profit. (LOL?)
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.