Official Important updates to the Unity Runtime Fee policy

.

While Unity is losing money?

Interesting business model...

 

Two points come to mind regarding the whole topic.

1. I believe one of the main reasons why there is so much heat with the price change is the fact that your users are not satisfied with your software. At least those who need to use Unity on a daily basis know how flawed and incomplete it is and that unfortunately, little to nothing has changed for years. Every few years you say "We hear you loud and clear" with many good intentions, but ultimately, everything remains the same.

If your customers were happy with your product and service, they would certainly not be averse to paying more money.

2. I can't understand why you don't focus more on the big whales who generate tens or hundreds of millions in revenue with their games. Currently, the whales are the ones who will pay the least in relation to revenue and paying some more would likely not hurt them.

 

Like who? Example?

Yeah, we (well I for one) overlook a lot of shortcomings because of the simple price structure, the friendly, indie atmosphere and all.
But on the top of that pulling this crap is a no go. You can choose:
- lazy overall on the tech
or
- pull this crap
We (well I for one) tend to forgive one of these transgressions. But rarely both. If you have a pristine past without screwing up your users' lives, then maybe, but Unity has questionable past already, many people won't tolerate pulling this crap on them. That includes me. Unity successfully created a very disappointed soon to be ex-user (for now) from a loud near fanboy.
That's something.

 

This narrative is being repeated everywhere I go. Just please, no. If Unity wanted 2.5% share the entire time, they could've just done that. No need for the dog and pony show, and certainly no need to kill their brand just to play some dumb tricks.

 

Indeed this company just continues to show that it's completely incompetent at marketing and public relations.

 

Nobody is "falling for it" They made a mistake. They change only after a masive backlash. The trust is gone and should be regain.
But let's not forget that bascally every corporation had a backlash at some point because almost every one screw up at some point. No corporation should be trusted It's just what suits you better, because at the end of the day you are using a product, you are not getting a girlfriend!

The excuse is lame... They should just keep quiet about that one or a sorry would have been enough.

 

To be fair, no one says it is flawless. They just love how Sweeney and Epic Games have made it so sensitive to the needs of the actual smaller developers. They constantly upgrade with AMAZING new things like Nanite and Lumen. They don't make new components, abandon them, and leave holes in the engine's functionality. They make all-around better decisions.

They do things like make massive funds of millions of dollars to help developers whose entire world has been upturned by decisions like Unity's around SpacialOS.

I think all the points in favor of Unreal are valid. Although I don't think every point against Unity in these threads has been valid.

 

Anyone who says/said they "love the engine" is a fanboy. It's a piece of software, it's a work tool. As a work tool, it also comes up dramatically short in a lot of ways. So I don't think you understand the frustration at all if this is your framing because Unity is a complete mess and has been for ages. There are loads of workflow issues that people have been complaining about for years, the entire SRP setup and its contrast to the built-in pipeline is a complete mess, Entities somehow feels more half-baked than Mass does in Unreal despite being in development for years now, URP somehow still doesn't have a proper post-processing stack, I could go on for a while.

For me, these license changes were the straw that broke the camel's back because dealing with how the engine has been managed over the past 5 years especially has become increasingly frustrating. Switching to Unreal for client work and only keeping Unity around for the people sticking with it is the most logical conclusion for me and I sure as hell won't be using it for personal projects going forward. Other people being in similar spots is at least a part of why people in this thread are still mad.

 

From latest GamesFromScratch vid:

Most solo devs still dev for free in both engines:


For a small indie studio over the period of two years both Unity and Unreal cost about the same:



For mobile, Unity has just become significantly more expensive:



Unity becomes more appealing only at the level of AA studios and above. But at that point studios can probably get a custom license from Epic with similar costs.


Unity by default is quite a bit cheaper on AAA level but at that scale studios don't have the default 5% deal with Unreal anyway, they make a deal behind closed doors.

 

And you are right. The management sucks. But I would say survival more than greed at the amount of losses they have.
But the engine , the tool is still the same that was 2 weeks ago.

 

It's not lame, it's lying through their teeth.

 

I'd love to believe this but I know it's not true.

 

I wonder how much hassle it will be to correct Unity on their wrong estimates if you don't use their services. "entirely optional".

 

Which versions have you worked with?

 

Unity Chan is in tears right now - how could you people be so heartless ..she's always been smiling and dancing, every time I can remember, and now she just lays around and cries.. "nobody like my engine, anymore ?"

 

Frankly, the only version I think this could really apply to is UDK.

 

Honestly, this is the biggest uppercut they did this past week. Lying through their teeth left and right.
"We have a proprietary data model to track installs, fraudulent too, we solved piracy"
"But we aren't planning to track your games"
"We will charge every install since we don't have the capability to distinguish two installs"
"The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs."

Unity, just stop lying. You can do it. It is simple. Besides admitting you screwed up royally is easier than sticking to lies. People will notice.

 

Latest one

 

That's not possible though. With the way things are now, lies are the best option because if they told the truth there would be an uprising no game engine provider has ever seen before.

 

How could WE not be disappointed though?
Marc said he didn't even know about the github. That means the management didn't know how they communicate about their TOS...
The current state of github states "In September 2023 the metadata in this repository was modified to update the email address used for all commits." This is quite inconsistent.
So what is it? "The views were so low" or "update the email address"?
I mean, both are reasons that Unity wrote. Like official statements. They seem to contradict each other.
I'm sorry but it looks like a lie. Either that or the people in charge are incompetent and a good way of Unity not losing money could be to fire them instead of imposing new fees.

Of course views would be low when TOS remain unchanged.
Removing the tool that helps understand TOS change right when you make a major change is, at best, a communication disaster.

 

I will accept that they removed it due to low views on one condition, they tell me what the viewcount was when they removed it, and what viewcount they were expecting in order to keep it there.

 

Seriously, you think people will struggle with the latest Unreal Engine? Were you just unable to pick it up or something? Because I've seen nothing but positive statements from people learning it for the first time.

 

Thanks for thrusting additional busywork on me that magically goes away if I use your "optional" services, I guess.

 

Wait a minute.
If you read the.reason they removed the ToS, look at "who" they are blaming too.

They blame everybody who found it suspicious:

"Genuinely disappointed in how the removal... ..has been framed across the internet"

Think about what they say they are "genuinely disappointed" about. They are upset highly suspicious behavior was viewed with high suspicion.

How dare we not trust them, after all, what did they do not to deserve our trust in the first place?

The ol cheating spouse blaming the other for not trusting them.

 

Yes, we've been totally slandering their totally upstanding behaviour.

I think Unity's C-Suite will ask us to duel them at dawn so they can restore their honour.

 

This is the real issue. Unity can be more expensive depending on team size and scale:

2 devs, >$200k revenue or 4 devs, >$400k revenue
- unreal: 0%
- unity: <2% in license fees
- open source: 0%

Unreal licensing is plain, reliable and only charges royalty after (assumed) success while offering a AAA engine they continually invest in.

Unity licensing is convoluted and subject to change while offering a neglected engine.

The ownership/leadership structure at UT isn't worth investing into long term.

 

I've not seen it explicitly mentioned either and have asked them as well. For what little it's worth, I'm interpreting it as working the same way Pro licensing works, where you're paying the current fee regardless of editor version. I don't think it's completely uncapped liabilities, but the worst case scenario can still be pretty high.

What's setting off alarm bells for me, is that the runtime fee includes a bunch of things, and adds up to very small charges currently, but is so important to Unity that it be there when everyone would just accept 2.5% revenue and move on. In any contract where someone insists on some line that looks like a minor thing, but is unwilling to explain why it's so important being skeptical is a good thing.

 

I mean, isn't it obvious?

The TOS you will accept with 2023 LTS will say you accept the "runtime fee" but will not explicitly state what the percentage of the runtime fee is, giving them the ability to change it at any time for everyone.

 

Just about every company out there has a clause that allows them to change their TOS at any time for any reason, but most of them won't do it in a way that screws the customer. Unity proved that they didn't care about that, and if they've done it once chances are they will do it again.

 

I’m genuinely curious to see the next quarterly financial results after this mess. You need a change of management. Or you would need to wait until Apple moves to Unreal too to get the message?

 

Epic has already started looking into supporting Apple's Vision Pro.

https://www.roadtovr.com/epic-unreal-engine-support-apple-vision-pro/

Their last major release added native support for Apple Silicon.

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/...pple-silicon-and-other-developments-for-macos

 

This is weird. Unsure why Unity Technologies would be ok sending a potentially very inaccurate invoice, especially if it could drastically underestimate the payment they are to receive. Surely we have to submit reports monthly to stay in compliance with the ToS? Why would it be in there if it was optional.

Also personally? Monthly paperwork sounds like a hassle. Unreal only asks us to report quarterly.

 

Next time, they will take a couple weeks for an impact analysis team, create a comprehensive roadmap, and then update the ToS with small, one step increments, so that only a small percentage is upset per ToS change.

I was just about relaxed too, then I read what they chose to be "genuinely disappointed" about.

 

But the hassle is gone if you use their "optional" services. Therefore it is to their benefit for the hassle to be as big as possible, so it will be.

 

They don't do it in a way that screws the customer because that's its own consideration in lawsuits for unfair business practices under contract law, as I understand it. If the contract is altered in a way that benefits only one side and is flagrantly 'hostile' to the other partner, that puts that contract in jeopardy.

 

As is, the fee saves people money, and it saves some developers a lot of money compared to the revenue share alternative. Which says to me that it's much more important to Unity to normalize a runtime fee, more important than the money itself. If they wanted to charge less, they would just make the revenue share lower and change the number to something under 2.5%.

Instead, they're willing to take all the bad press for the runtime fee, walk it back, and now continue to get a lot of bad press (though less than before) to once again establish a runtime fee. They need to explain why this specific non industry standard fee is so important to them.

 

You are automatically bumped up to the pro plan at that point, being charged 2k x 2 for a total of 4k dollars. About 2% of your revenue given the two dev scenario. Not 4.5% at that juncture. But then, after the 1 million threshold, you are charged 2.5% royalty on top of that, or a value based on installs, whichever is less.

 

Because once you establish and make everyone accept some bullshit made up fee, you can redefine it at will. Plus it pushes everyone towards their services, which is the ultimate goal.

 

Worth mentioning that unity also still has freelancer-unfriendly license, where you should match your client's tier.

 

Does it mean that every single month I'll have to report to Unity the number of installs of my game and its revenue, even when I'm not above the thresholds, till I die, and then my heirs will have to carry on the torch ?

 

I just want to emphasise that in some cases people can trust and sometimes they can lose their trust. That's what people do every day, all the time. It's normal. Unity lost that trust. That's normal too.

It's a perfectly normal manifestation of human nature and it would be foolish to expect people to willingly and easily accept changes to the EULA.

I see this as a fatal failure of official communication. It's perfectly fine to abandon Unity and use any other engine.
Please do not decide for other people how to behave.

 

And Unreal may charge potentially millions of dollars more than Unity if you get to be very successful.

It is always a risk on both sides. Check the above image, Unity worst case in a month is $50K and Unreal would charge 5% x $5.000.000 = 250K, loosing $200K per month more than Unity for a $5 game.

In a year Unreal brings a $2.4 million loss charging $3 million to the business over Unity $600K. That is a five times more loss than in Unity.

This 5% can be devastating if the team is large and profits marginal.

 

-"Father, why do we keep sending those numbers father?"
-"You see my child, your great great great great grandmother once made a game with Unity 2023 LTS"

 

Yes, if you make like a billion in revenue, and somehow don't contact Epic for a custom deal as everyone does, Unity is a better deal.

 

I love how you consistently incorrectly calculate the fee for UE. That first million is royalty exempt meaning you start with $4.000.000 so the simplest math would be 200K. But it's not that simple with UE. You don't have to report if (a) you make less than $10.000 for the quarter or (b) you've discontinued the game.

https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq?active=releasing-products

 

Looks like I misread something in the FAQ, I suppose my point was that it still costs significant money to use unity before reaching what most would consider success and I'm not sure that cost can be justified when you have open source engines offering a similar feature set and unreal offering a lot more (but charging a success tax).

 

It is still millions more than Unity if go by 200K per month, $2 million more in the above case.

 

With Personal costs zero and now they even removed the Unity screen