We all know what the problem is. Unity Free is used by people who aren't very good at making games yet. Unity Free requires you to advertise the engine. This means Unity has acquired an undeserved reputation for being a bad engine that makes bad games, because every time you boot up a bad game on Steam, you see the Unity logo. The purpose of this thread is to propose solutions. The simplest fix would be to reverse the way the logo requirements work: Free - No logo. Instead, a small, unobtrusive line of text pops up saying something like "Unity Team makes no assertion as to the suitability of this product or service for any particular purpose." It would be designed to look like a disclaimer, not a logo. This shouldn't be a deal-breaker for Free users, since a good enough game would overcome any stigma implied by the splash screen, just like it already does now. The only difference would be, in that split second before the occasional indie gem proves them wrong, players would be rolling the eyes at the game itself, rather than rolling their eyes at the engine. Plus - for $35/month, the splash screen is taken away, just like it is now. Pro - No disclaimer or logo is required. However, Pro users now have the option of applying for some sort of "Unity Quality" rewards program. An actual human being at Unity Team vets these games for quality. If the game passes muster, they're invited to display some sort of new "Unity Quality" logo designed by the marketing department. Remember "The Official Nintendo Seal of Quality?" It's like that. Pro users can submit their games for consideration or be invited by Unity Team, but it's important that Unity Team be at least somewhat picky about which games make the cut. I suppose Legal would have to go after anyone displaying a fake seal in their game's startup sequence. Not sure what enforcement would look like, but it's probably solvable. Just treat it like you would any other trademark violation. Yes, this creates extra work for Unity Team, but they're already making money hand-over-fist off of Pro licensees. If it's really that hard to maintain, they can just raise the price of Pro or something. (Alternatively, if it turns out to scale better than I thought, maybe they could let Plus users apply for it, too.) They absolutely must not let developers buy their game's way into Quality status. Games that are genuinely fun to play should be favored. High-profile games that are also genuinely fun, such as Hearthstone, should be a no-brainer. "Unity Quality" status will only have meaning if the people curating the list work hard to give it meaning. Those games Unity already showcases in the background on the front page might be a good place to start. Deliberately unfun games that make a ton of money by torturing their users 'till they pay up should be excluded with extreme prejudice. You want Unity Engine to be associated with FUN games in the minds of the audience. Not merely financially successful games. Not games you're obligated to log into every day like you're punching the clock at work. Not games that are in the news for being at risk of getting legislated as gambling. Actual fun games that are fun to play in their own right because the gameplay is actually fun. Intrinsic, not extrinsic, reward structures. (It's sad that I need to explain this, but that's the state the industry is in right now.) The goal should always be to make sure that only the best games, the cream of the cream, are proudly displaying the Unity Quality seal at startup. Not as an obligation, but as a hard-won privilege. And Baby's First Asset Flip would open with a disclaimer subtly all but washing Unity's hands of the game. But I'm sure lots of users on this forum have differing opinions, so I'd love to hear counter-proposals. I've modified this first post a few times in response to peoples' reactions to it, and I plan to continue to do so as people raise new points. Unity has an image problem. But I'm convinced it's a problem that can be solved. All it takes is a subtle shift in the splash screen. From a message bragging about the mere existence of the engine, to a message implying that the engine is capable of so much more.