I don't understand (believe) the license options

Nope. They start the game, see Unity Personal learning edition logo, stares at the logo for 10 seconds since it is not interruptable, wich gives them enough time to realize that a PERSONAL edition is for LEARNING purposes. And they quit the game at this point since they don't want to waste their time with a beginner game.

 

And my point is that the one has nothing to do with the other. It's about the word personal in the splash screen, no matter how good or bad the game really is.

 

If that is truly the case then reviews, screenshots, videos, etc should more than carry the game beyond the splash screen.

They would have found something else to complain about.

 

Another ridiculous thread about this, what a waste of everyones time.

The fact is Unity give you a great product for FREE!!!! If you don't like the splash screen stop bitching about it and pay for the product you are using, they give you that option. As a paying Unity user I find it quite disrespectful that people get so much for free and still complain...

Photoshop is not free, Visual Studio is limited in the free version, companys have to make some money so they can still exist, thank god you do have to pay for it for those extra little features otherwise they wouldn't exist and most of us would be no longer living the dream of making our own games.

 

Visual Studio is another great product that has had its restrictions lessened considerably over the years. VS Express was a nice product tier, but VS Community completely blew it away.

 

Sure they do. But it remains a minus point. And every little minus point costs you users. There are too much other games around. Users are super picky nowadays.

A game is a multimedial thing. It's enough to have one bad thing in the game to let the whole game suck. A bad sound effect, disturbing not fitting graphics, unreliable game play, a too hard to defeat endboss ... or a bad splash screen.

We can of course discuss about the real impact of the splash screen, how important it really is. Is it 10% or 0.01? And we do

First, the free version was and is a clever marketing thing. It is not a gift where you don't have a right to complain anymore since it is free. Without the free version Unity would be just one of many more or less unknown commercial engines like Shiva for example. And when something sucks, then you better name it, free or not. First step to fix a mistake remains to realize that the mistake exists.

Now tell me, how can a indie buy the commercial version when his games doesn't generate enough income to do so? That was initially the reason for the free version at all. Create a huge user base with the free version. And allow them to make money with the free, so that they can afford the pro version then. To scare the free users away by nag features stands in direct contradiction to this stragegy.

 

You must be joking. On all markets there are videos, screenshots and reviews that will tell the gamer does the game look like its worth a try. When user has already "wasted" time and downloaded and checked some info about the game they surely wont be cancel on one splash screen no matter what text there is. Anyone who thinks this way has a twisted view about end users or is targeting special use group and will have more problems other than splash screen related.

 

Yup, Pro users get to finance all the free users by only having splash screen and asset server (that hasn't been updated since 2009). All for a low $4,500 and tons of services you can buy for even more coming soon!

 

Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee, on PS4 (which is most definitely made with Pro)

There are others, but you only wanted one

 

The "people don't play games with unity logo" is the same bullshit tactics as the "light editor skin makes my eyes bleed". It's only purpose is to ask Unity for more free stuff.

 

Check your Pro privilege.

Someone should start a Tumblr about that.

 

That is it. They should bring back amber screens! That will show everyone!

 

People are bitching about ridiculous threads! Why don't you just ignore them and pass your way and stop wasting you time!!
Is there any admin to close this topic? Thanks.

 

Yzaroui just report your first thread asking for it to be closed.
Looking forward to trying out your game when you do put it on the android store.

 

As an independent developer, I found your OP offensive to all of us who are starting out and appreciate that Unity gave us a chance without a huge overhead. The fact that you find the splash screen so degrading to your game that you refused to publish with it is your business. But when you basically slammed all games with the splash screen that became a slap in the face to us and to Unity. That is my problem with your post. You can't insult us without expecting us to defend ourselves, can you? It goes both ways, you know.

I do agree that the cost is excessive if developing on mobile with the pro versions and the requirement to buy a desktop version is a bit much. However, since the engines are the same, you can use the Personal edition until you get funding. If your game is that good, getting enough funding to pay for the Pro licenses should be easy.

Glad you decided to at least try and I wish you luck.

 

I don't want to call it Stockholm Syndrome, but judging by the overboard negativity and defensiveness about game engines (of all things), it most probably is.

 

Talk about hyperbole!! LOL Geesh, Unity is not your captor or your abuser. There are numerous excellent engines out there.

But thanks for the laugh this morning.

 

I have to say, @Teila wrapped it up pretty well.

You have to remember where you are, where you say you don't play games with Unity splash screens, you're inferring they're all the same - and here you're asking for help from the people who make those games

I have to say it's a bit twisted to suggest Unity's no good, and yet here you are using (or considering using) Unity despite the fact. Removing a splash screen doesn't make your game any better, it's hiding from a truth - your game is, what your game is.

No offense meant, just re-stating the obvious in case it slipped by.

 

Exactly. The problem is with the wording that has been added in Unity 5.

I have spoken to several members of Unity staff about this when I have met them. Apparently not enough people complained about it for them to consider it an issue. I pointed out that they closed many of the threads where people complained before others got a chance to, and many others would have kept quiet because of the abuse they got for being considered stupid when they are not.

My situation highlights the changes. I cannot afford Unity Professional at the moment, and I am looking for a publisher to give my game the marketing I cannot. Most of the publishers I am speaking to are not willing to fund Professional for me, but will not accept a "Personal Edition" splash screen.

The changes for Unity 5 were great for those who will always use the free edition, but bad for those who want to earn their way from free to paid customers of Unity.

Unfortunately I am spending time learning Cocos2D instead of finishing my game.

 

I disagree. Unless you're targeting exclusively a crowd of gamers who read a publication that talks a lot about game engines (i.e. Eurogamer/Digital Foundry) then the vast majority of people loading your game have no idea what Unity is. This is even more so on mobile, where most users have very little to zero contact with the industry press, and a great many don't even know what an instruction manual is, or how to reset their devices to clear memory. Their background knowledge on what they have in their hands is paper thin.

You can visit Steam communities and Reddit and see people dissing one engine or another, but remember that forum and comments section voices, especially the negatives, almost always represent the vocal minority. I know what Unity is, I don't like crap games, but I don't close a game because it has a Unity (or any other) logo on it's splash. Except, maybe, Hero Engine.

If there's a downside to looking at a logo for 10 seconds, it's that 10 seconds may be too long for some people. That's a technical aspect that can be argued for, but it's not an indication that the logo in itself is a bad thing.

 

Tiles point that you quoted was that the term "Personal Edition" usually refers to not for commercial use. Your point that many users will not know Unity reinforces that they will not understand that Unity uses the term in a different way.

 

I've recently been debating about the unity splash. I currently have a pro subscription so the splash doesn't have "personal edition" at all.

I really like the Unity 5 animation, but I don't know about the engines general connotation. For a lot of PC gamers, Unity has picked up very bad connotation in general from stuff like "asset store flipping", Jim Sterlings videos have probably raised more general gamer awareness about Unity than anything else and whenever he says "Unity" it's almost always showing a terrible game or asset store ripoff.

Another problem is that a lot of the best Unity games do not show a Unity splash, so people don't associate stuff like Cities Skylines or Pillars of Eternity with Unity. Instead they associate stuff like Slaughtering Grounds or some straight from asset store cash grab.

I don't think the ops post is terrible or anything. He was asking a question that's kind of reasonable really.

 

That is ... sort of fair enough. Not entirely black and white though still, as I have no problem with it and I've seen no proof to suggest the rest of the world (the part that makes you a success or failure anyway) has a problem with it either. All I've seen to date is reactionary responses. I could back down a bit more, but at the end of the day it will always be contentious because it's not possible to get enough for free.

 

Wow. I have been playing eso for months now and I can't tell you a damn name of the splash screens that come on. That is right... sever splash screeps i hit enter/escape to bypass. Why? Cause I don't give 2 S***s about it and just want to play the game.
So telling me that people are so picky about a splash screen that controls the closing of a game is incredible.
Think you need to start thinking on your own and be able to make up your own mind if you like a game or not.
Don't forget a lot of those big name players have also made crap ass games. Oh but they weren't made with unity so all is good....

 

Just an aside here but an important one that hasn't been mentioned... the $100k limit is for your business entity, not your game. I'm not doing mobile development so I don't need pro for any mobile platforms making my hit only $1,500 (I purchased the perpetual pro license when Unity 5 was in pre-order). But in my case my business is parentElement, LLC. It is an LLC that is manager managed and established as a sole owner (not a corporation) which means that my business finances and personal finances are one and the same. This also means that between my day job and my asset sales I exceeded the $100k / year limit so I was required to purchase Pro regardless of my asset itself not coming anywhere close to the limit (and not selling a game currently).

So do keep that in mind when you're considering whether or not pro licensing is required... it has nothing to do with whether your particular game will make any money and everything to do with how much money your business entity (which is yourself if you're self-publishing and not under a separate corporate entity) grosses in a year.

 

I've had players contact me about smaller issues than that, and for each one that does email about something, there will be a lot more that don't bother.

And that is the other point that is being misunderstood. It is not about getting more for free. I have posted in the past about the massive gap between free and Pro, suggesting offering Pro features individually. That is being offered with Unity 5, but only for the features I am not interested in (it was listed that they are doing it for Level 11, analytics, etc. but not the splash screen, and obviously not the engine features now that they are free). I have been a paying customer (iOS Indie when that existed) and want to pay something fair for something reasonable and affordable.

 

If...you have a video of game play..good screen shots..a little marketing,and your own logo splash, with music, fade, etc.

It WILL succeed...period. .what you're actually saying is your game is so bad that the content inside is directly reflective of the Unity logo..I am a noob and my work reflects that....WRONG..
you need to think this in the other angle , you need your game to be so good , the screenshots and this video, force this player to open your new game.. they NEED to open your game ...

anything that happens in that five seconds before your game starts is irrelevant..you cannot make a bad game better by removing the Unity logo..

I made enough money with my first free Unity game , made with unity free, very little marketing but good screenshots and a good video...why ? it's not because of I have a unity splash screen it's because I've got a fun game.

I used that money to buy Unity Pro, to buy all sorts of assets and still have a couple hundred extra bucks every month from one single game ..that's the plan, that's how it should work, you stick to it you won't have any problems you try to take shortcuts you will fail..

now I can keep some integrity because , I didn't buy my way into being a pro developer, I earned it.

this is the most simply I can put it, you have to earn the right to be a game developer..

it's not given away for free...

I'm in it for 5 years now, I still have not considered myself a true game developer until I release something successful that I built myself .
! (No asset flips!)...that I can be proud of...a true piece of dynamic art..

 

Level 11 is (or will be coming soon, not sure if they released it yet) available ad-hoc for a monthly fee. The other features you get for pro are understandable... analytics, cloud build, etc. I have a feeling those will be available ad-hoc eventually as well.

 

I used to be a big critic of the gap between free and Pro in 4.x. I felt it kept many of us from ever making a decent game and earning the money buy Pro. But Unity changed that. They gave us that chance. While I am not fond of the word Personal for a variety of reasons, I have no problem at all with the logo.

As for publishers, it might be wise to send copy of Unity's license information to your prospective publishers. It is very clearly stated that Unity Personal can be used commercially up to a limit of $100k. I am sure your publisher already knows your status as a developer, that you are an indie, that you have not published many games and have not made 100k. If not, then they are not doing their research. If they reject a game, my guess is it doesn't seem to be a good risk for them, for whatever reason. Unity as the engine might be part of their concerns due to bad press out there. But there will be publishers that don't feel that way. You will have to find them if you want to use Unity for your games. A lack of a logo isn't going to change the fact that you are using Unity.

I see so many similar games being made here on Unity, and the same games on other Indie engines. Maybe the problem is more over saturation of the market.

 

That is my point. Everything except the splash screen can be bought individually, the only thing I want from it. I think Unity would have been better doing the same with the Pro features they made free.

The problem is a publisher does not want a "Personal Edition" logo on their apps.

The Unity 5 EULA says "any user of the Software may use content licensed from third parties regardless of the version of the Software that was used to develop such third party content. You acknowledge and agree that Unity may tag Licensee Content created with Unity Personal with an identifier to prevent such a prohibited combination of Licensee Content." So it is allowed to licence content, but it will be tagged because it is prohibited. Yes, I have asked Unity about that contradiction. A publisher is allowed to licence my game from me, even though I am using Personal and them Professional, but it will have the Personal Edition splash screen because it is prohibited.

 

Then maybe you need to find another publisher. I am sure there are people who are publishing games with the Personal logo.

 

Or the dark skin, but I personally think the splash screen is mostly a non issue. I'm not a big fan of the "personal edition" wording, but it's still a non-issue. It doesn't matter how much they offer to free users, someone will always find something that's not included to complain about until it's all free and then Unity no longer has a monetization model and stops producing their great product because there's no way to fund it.

Again, poorly worded, but this just means that if someone develops part of the game with the Pro license, or even develops the entire game with the Pro license and then you try to publish it with the free license, you'll get the splash screen. So you can't buy someone else's project that was made with pro and the publish with free as if you had pro.

 

The free version should be there to help people earn money to get Pro. The wording does the opposite. It is far from a non-issue. Maybe not for you, It is for me.

With Unity 4, I could create the game with free, then licence it to a publisher who released it using Pro. I asked about that at the time and had it confirmed. With Unity 5, it says you can do that, then says you cannot. It is bad wording and a change for the worse.

 

But why? You lose, what... 0.001% of sales because some yahoos think the splash screen has anything to do with the game quality? I've played plenty of crappy games with only custom splash screens... 99.9% of users could really care less about the splash screen.

On top of all of this, by the time the user actually sees the splash screen they have already at least downloaded your game, and chances are if they went through that effort they're going to play it and decide for themselves whether or not it sucks.

Maybe, maybe not... I don't know, but I still think it has almost no impact on sales unless you can show me metric data that proves otherwise. Other than that, it's just the perception of a few people which overwhelmingly seem to be the developers who want to remove the splash screen. In fact, I went through the first 5 pages of results on both Google and Bing and found nobody saying anything about a game sucking because it has the Unity splash screen.

And lastly... game development takes time... you're not slapping any decent game together in a day. Try to find things that you've developed that other people need and that are useful and sell them on the asset store. That's how I funded by Pro license, no need to be already selling a game to do it.

 

Did you confirm this with Unity? I always thought you could not publish a game with Pro if you used free to create the game, even with 4 so surprised to hear that they told you that you could. If I were you, I would get the license clarified by Unity before worrying about it. Get it in writing.

I can see why Unity might not allow this. I could sell my game to my friend Bob for 1$ and have him publish it with his Pro version just to get around the license agreements.

If someone is buying your game, hopefully they are paying you a decent price. Wouldn't that be enough to purchase Pro and take out the logo? I don't know how much published games go for at this time, and it might be a 99 cent mobile game, but just thinking out loud.

 

I thought this was the case as well. The exception probably being if you're selling your IP so you're transferring the code / project and all rights to them but even that is a sticky situation because you can't transfer rights to any third party assets you've purchased... but this would be akin to having a team where one person had pro and one had free and that was not allowed... in fact mixed license content (with the exception of purchased assets) was not allowed period.