Official Important updates to the Unity Runtime Fee policy

I was wrong when I said in the other thread that any changes would just be the old plan with the old problems in a new coat of paint. This is a significant change and addresses the most important issues.

The biggest problem is trust was damaged from the previous announcement. Lots of people will be watching with skepticism that the plan won't be changed again, won't be retroactive again for already released games. It is going to take some time for that to die down. Hopefully the right people really realize the critical mistakes that were made, and this isn't just a reaction to calm the situation in the short term. Hopefully trust can be restored.

This is a good start, and I applaud the people at the top for listening instead of doubling down on a plan that had the potential of destroying the company over the long term.

 

Yes, of course, please be sure there will be no more TOS changes and get even more entangled in Unity's ecosystem, so you have less and less options when the terms change with 3 months notice.

 

PR event just to do damage control. in the end the hard question just get ignored.

 

Personally I think these changes are great. All I wanted from this whole thing was a standard, predictable, fair, transparent revenue share model. 2.5% also seems pretty fair to me. And Personal not having the splashscreen requirement it's a great unexpected bonus.

As long as this is reflected on the TOS, I think these changes are very good (well, specially considering the contrast to the previous proposal). Some people will still be angry but I think we should reward positive changes with positive feedback, or else why would they bother change it only to continue to get bashed? So good job, Unity.

The only thing I would like is to have the splash screen removal on older versions, so I wish (and I can't believe I'm saying this considering this was a big cause of our anger on the previous policy) I could be able to opt-in to the new policy with older versions than 2024, just so I could have the splashscreen removal on personal using an older version, while also paying the new fee.

 

You can't hide it but your certainly can make it less obvious like if the call happen after a certain time or only during certain days.

The fact that Ironsource first product have been labeled as malware indicates that you can't expect them to be easily detected.

If you don't think it will include some type of malware, I'd love to know what you think is the reason behind Unity and Ironsource's merger.

 

A new corporation might let me down. It would be naive to think otherwise.

Unity already has.

That by definition makes any other competitor a better bet.

 

so the correct wording would be - "up to 2.5% rev share; after 1 Million revenue"?

 

For all Unity versions still getting bug fixes, they could release an update which allows splash screen disabling for Personal accounts. We'll see if they end up doing that (I doubt it, but they could).

 

Until you change that number on the next TOS and force users to accept them or pay additional fees on their subscription, which is what you're doing today by removing Plus.

 

Then the option is going for an open source alternative, not staying.

 

I've never seen people so overjoyed to be able to hide what engine they use.

 

Seems reasonable

 

Oh S***, if it wouldn't be so sickening i would laugh so hard.

 

i don't thing it will, those "assets flips" or really bad games are going to stay with the splash screen because they do not even care in looking the option to remove it, so pretty much it will be the same.

 

Which is limited to those who can do video at this particular time

 

Unity seems to have heard me. Thanks a lot......
https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates.1482750/page-6#post-9290329

 

How does this work if I wanted to do this? My current Plus term ends in a few days. When I click upgrade right now it goes to a 404 page. Is this going to be fixed before my term is up (and I theoretically lose the "free" upgrade for the next year)?
Thanks

 

Unity is a multibillions dollars company. They d'ont make these kind of mistakes.

This is an old salesman trick. Sells a couch for 13 000, sympathise with you and tells you that because you're a nice cute couple, he'll ask the boss for a discount, comes back with an incredible 7K offer if you buy it right now. And that's how he sold you a 3K product for twice the price.

 

Exactly. I'm not asking them to do it out of the kindness of their hearts, to remove the splashscreen on previous versions and to gain nothing from it, THAT I'm pretty sure they won't do. I'm asking to do that while ALSO paying the new fee, which should make it a more interesting idea for them. So people can have both or neither, get the benefit while also paying the fee. I think that is fair to both sides.

 

I have been working on iOS and Android integration of Unity for the last 7 years. LTS lifetime is 2 years. Apple is already forcing developers to upgrade Xcode 15 due to April and Android is forcing developers to target a higher version of API level every year. Eventually, staying in the legacy version won't be an option anymore. So that is not a good plan for those who are thinking about it.

Yes, the new terms seem better than before. But that doesn't justify that after a big increase in Unity subscription fees, now we have to go with revenue share or runtime fee. I understand why Unity management wants to get a cut from a big mobile market. And in my opinion, they have a right. The mobile game is a big market. Only a revenue share could have a big income for them. They could have even protected Indie and freemium game developers along the way. Exposing game engine source code and allowing modification to the public (for Free!) would significantly improve the engine quality. There are very talented developers who can contribute. That would be even fun. Instead... Everything is money and money demands more money and it demands even more money. But adding value to the engine doesn't cut it. Why? Bad management? Ironsource, Silver lake, Sequoia trinity? Bad investments? Please switch to a better management model that could happy everyone.

and... Editor and runtime cannot be separable. I know, you have tried very hard so developers can just accept it. But that just doesn't. What use of an editor, if prepared assets and code that doesn't get executed by anything? And what use of a runtime, if you manually prepare every asset to a specific format, optimizations, and compile your code on the command line (Just a single game for a single lifetime)? They are both useless without each other.

Therefore, I personally, just want to pay either Revenue share or for a subscription seat (a.k.a Editor usage). Cannot accept them both and never forget the previous attempt that cost 10 days of our lives.

 

Firstly, I want to acknowledge the courage it takes for any company to admit to a mistake. While initial pricing decisions did have a huge fail, it's commendable that you've listened to the community's feedback and made necessary changes. This shows a commitment not only to your business but to the developers and creators who rely on your platform. We truly appreciate your responsiveness and willingness to adapt. Here's to a continued partnership built on trust and understanding. Cheers!

 

thanks @Xaron and @LeftyTwoGuns for point out errors

Updated overview of the final situation, heres what I gather, please let me know if I am wrong

Major change - PLUS plan removed
Rest stays the same, unless you want to upgrade to 2024.

Current state of things without upgrading to 2024:
- Cant remove splash screen unless subscribing to PRO
- Have to subscribe to PRO sooner, when reaching 100k revenue
- After subscribing to PRO, no further charges ( no rev share )

Downsides from upgrading to 2024:
- maximum 2.5% rev share(possible to have less than 2.5%); after 1 Million revenue

Incentives to upgrade to 2024
- remove splash screen for free
- free until 200k revenue: up from 100k
- (new unannounced features?)

ONE LAST THING WE NEED:
- Something that enshrines these rights in the TERMS OF SERVICE, so there can be no further rugpull attempts in the future, and we can have some degree of trust that this will stay this way. Something on the terms of service that says that you cant change the terms of service for people who decide not to upgrade to 2024 LTS

Overall: Thanks for listening to the community and coming back to something fair. I hope that we can work on the terms of service wording to regain the trust that was lost during the events of these last days

 

The "Made with Unity" logo has always been bad, because it appears primarily in low-budget, low-quality games made by inexperienced developers. Do you realize how many gamers still have the perception that Unity is a crappy engine with inherently bad performance? I can't count how many times I've tried patiently explaining to gamers that Unity isn't inherently slow, and you can make a crappy game with any engine.

 

Yes, whatever the cheaper option is. Which for like 98% of Unity games will be the self reported unique engagement fees. The cap is there to mainly address extreme cases of mobile games with higher install rate and lower return rate on each player

 

As Unity Plus User, how to remove the Unity splash screen without a Pro license for pre LTS 2024 versions?

 

To be fair, ironSource's malware problem was bad actors using the ad service to deliver malware. But then, every ad service has been victim to that. Google Ads had cryptomining malware run in an ad, and use the victim's hardware to mine crypto while the ad was still on the page. So I am not sure why ironSource was singled out as worse than any other ad service for that having happened. Maybe I am missing important information, but I couldn't find out what made their breaches uniquely bad enough to label the entire company a malware company.

 

Unity is still talking about the "runtime fee", "install fee"...

At this point I don't really know if it's just stupid pride or some more evil scheme of them, just waiting to be used somewhere in the future when people are used to this complete non sense...

And then there'll be no revenue cap.

Which one?

 

Of all people you choose Jason to handle this new bs. Wow. Subscriber only. Cool. Gets even better.

 

Much better thought through this time, but one question remains (at least I didn’t saw it being mentioned):
What abound refunds? Do they count in gross revenue? Steam for example does count them in, but they get deducted later from the real revenue. Same about the steam fee. So what’s the exact definition of gross revenue?

 

I think it's 200K universally now for free? But given how they're hiding the ball with the splash screen in the blog post, I'm not 100% certain about that.

 

I think developer reports the numbers, so can leave refunds out

 

Yeah sucks for those who are in development and won’t upgrade editors yet because might break project or assets may not be compatible. Splash screen not really free for people on previous versions. Either pay 2K or upgrade and accept the new terms.

 

and... what happens when you guys pull the TOS and change it all again? you need to answer why it was done in the first place. Deleting the repo etc etc

 

Why are you all so dead set on the runtime fee? Get away with it. It is punishing success and a precedent that should never be set.
All of this debacle could've been avoided if you all had just "starting with 2023 LTS, pay 2.5% rev share"
That's all you had to do.
Please fire all upper management that let this happen, the trust is broken.
Trust and commitment is not a coin you can just monetize mister Ratatouille.

 

Here is a reddit post about it. TLDR : Ironsource guy used his influence to buy enough Unity shares to make the deal happen.

https://www.reddit.com/r/unity/comments/16j23ci/i_know_people_dont_want_to_hear_this_you_shouldnt/

 

Woah, would you look at that. Seems like the sky didnt fall after all. Terms are pretty damn good.

 

Yes and this is exactly why I've always thought a forced logo only harms a brand. Because if you let people freely decide to use the logo instead, than it will mostly appear in good quality games people are proud of, instead of every crappy asset flip.

But now nobody wants to be associated with Unity at all.

 

Because it's much less of your revenue than a flat % royalty. DO SOME MATH. You're literally begging Unity to take MORE of your money by begging for a flat royalty. 98% of Unity games won't come close to 2.5% of their revenue in engagement fees.

 

"You are not affected so they are innocent angels", for real?

 

I've even entertained making an updated "Powered by Unity" splash screen with some killer visual effects

 

Yep, people cant read at all.

And trust me, people will forget. Look how many people were ready to jump ship to Unreal and apparently completely forgotten all the BS Epic has pulled so far.

 

Thank you, Unity3D, for the great update! I am confident in continuing to use Unity3D without any trust issues!

 

It really makes me laugh how many DEVS cant understand the concept of AND and OR. Like, broooo...

 

Exactly, the 2.5% is the worst case scenario, while in Unreal is always a 5%.

 

the inviability and harmful nature of the original plan should've been patently obvious to unity management even if they neglected to get adequate community feedback. i can't have faith in the judgement of those in charge of this engine if they didn't reject this proposal outright from the beginning, on their own. they're getting paid millions of dollars for that kind of judgement? shocking.

 

Why him and also why did he put the chat in subs only?!. It seems a bit fishy knowing that his community is made out of those 90% who were not going to be afected by the unity changes because they never made a dolar from the game/project they made with unity since the version 5 or 4