Official Important updates to the Unity Runtime Fee policy

Interesting, i think Unity should make this clear right in the fee calculator, that you need use the calculator only on the above million sales.

The way it is now feels like you start pay from the 1st sale.

E.g. the Estimated monthly revenue should be made clear that is a number only of what sales are made above 1 million, e.g if make 2 million, would be 1 million.

 

Sounds similar to us
We had shifted away from Unity's DevOps a while ago and use Git/Azure now
We shifted our internal game project to Unreal, the timing was good as we are in pre-prod so there is nothing major to move
We had been expanding into Godot and Unreal for our assets and community guides and all for the past year or two already so this was just a catalyst for a process already in action

I do still have a pro license but ya I guess I have no use for it, sorta sad, I have had it since day 1 but it's not required for us to maintain our Unity side plugins, I have no clients on Unity at the moment with the last project closed off July. We foster a game dev community and it is aimed at game dev in general with some in the community still on Unity so will still be here, will still be developing assets and tools and playing with the engine to keep up with its development.

but

I don't expect to do another project on Unity, not for some time anyway, the trust issue is the killer. Cant see anyone being happy to roll the dice on a multi-year Unity project with Unity having a track record of multiple instances now of retroactive TOS change nuking the business of people and needing to be walked back after some degree of firefighting. The damage to the Unity brand is sad but real.

 

So what you're saying is, there is hope.

 

Yes, and he shares something in common with Bill Gates: he's a college dropout.

 

Glad you enjoyed the read. Just some random thoughts.

 

Like Loden also stated it's more than hope. It's a cycle. Things have to get worse before they get better, and it's all relative.

 

If the workers of Unity unionize or this board golden parachutes out: yes.

Absent that: we're hoping that three ghosts visit each board member on Christmas Day and give them a crash course in business empathy versus greed-fueled miserliness.

We're looking at TSR going 'boy I wish they'd stop suing people'. But they're not going to. Not until they either declare bankruptcy, get bought out, and a new guard takes over -- or people stop working with their product.

Oh and folks: Don't target or be mad at the CEO (I mean you can because they didn't refuse the board, but they like money so they were never going to refuse). The CEO is an agent of the board; he does what they want and that's his real and actual job. This board loves their CEO. Firing the CEO isn't going to happen and wouldn't change anything; the board would just appoint someone just like John R to replace them. If you want things to change: you want the board to lose power either by being muzzled by a union or being forced to golden parachute out. Don't settle for anything less because this board sure won't.

 

Was using PlasticSCM Enterprise on-premises for Unreal before Unity bought them and got "grandfathered" into my enterprise subscription so still using it for my projects.
Is Git working out for you for Unreal?
Last time I tried it LFS and stuff was a mess.
Really want to move but the only option I realistically found was Perforce which feels like a downgrade tbh.
(I have hundreds of gigabytes of repos)

 

Monopoly gets thrown around a lot in cases like this but its not quite the truth
Unity like most growth-first tech startups went for broke with growth in order to go IPO or acquisition and get that big cashout. Then they get stuck trying to find a way to make it profitable, that process is a hard one it kills many of those who make it and always has a major reduction before finding their feet if they find it at all.

Game Engines being a topic here is newer but not completely new
But you see this same process in other areas, games, movies, TV, streaming services, web services, productivity software, enterprise software (RMs, ERPs, etc.)

While it's not another Tuesday exactly ... it's a familiar pattern
It's sad to see Unity fail at this stage of the process but it's not unexpected at all. And I do hope they find a way to right the ship. They need to find a sustainable model for profit and no they won't be propped up forever, really they won't be propped up for long.

They have a few years maybe 5 to un-FUBAR which is a drop in the bucket in business
This will end with them doing one of the following

• Finding a sustainable profit model likely involves additional servers such as publishing, LiveOps, DevOps, etc.or maybe you know ... making games (unlikely at this point)
• Being Acquired... ending up a tool in the Tencent, Embracer, Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, etc. toolbox
• Being Replaced... failing to keep up with the Johnses e.g. Godot, Unreal, or any of the other 30 million competitors hungry for that market (e.g. fragmentation/consolidation I noted)

I hope it is the 1st one

Honestly, I think the 3rd one is highly likely unless they change tact and NEVER repeated this mistake again ... this isn't the first time they shat the bed like this with Runtime BS and all ... there was the TOS change that killed Spacal OS, there was a thing with Ads ... this is a recurring theme and if this one doesn't fuel the competition enough to kill them ... the next one will

The second option wouldn't be tragic, I mean I don't really want Tencent to take any more of it but they are already in there. Microsoft has been investing heavily and they have a HUGE bag of money so could do it and not even notice the impact on the bottom line turning Unity into something like XNA I think it was called ... just another Microsoft Developer tool ... would be sad to see that the tool would be there, and free, etc. but its growth would basically end if that happened

Really the only way I can see Unity making it in a form we know would be if they find a way to get into publishing. They are trying LiveOps and DevOps which ... @Unity you are stupid to try ... you cannot compete there not even a little. DevOps and LiveOps require scale, have tight margins and your competition is Microsoft (PlayFab/Azure) and Amazon (GameLift/AWS) you will NEVER get anywhere near that level at least not this decade.

Publishing of indie titles is an option to become a Devolver-like resource
Going game dev would be ideal but frankly, I can not see you managing that one

 

I wrote it before, Unity will need to get their S*** together and become the best mobile & indie dev engine, without going overboard by hiring that many people. I mean they added new stuff that was good (TMP_Pro & IL2CCP) but otherwise it feels like they stagnated.
Their UI Canvas system was made for desktop and literally kills performance in mobile.
Its literally the Asset Store and the users that wrote software for unity, what is the reason most are bound to unity.
But as soon as those asset store people are focusing other engines, things will change.

Big players are waiting for Godot to get ready (which wont be easy), and as soon as Godot has the performancein mobile titles and a asset store, someone wants to create a new project, many will try it out. So yeah they have damaged themselves a lot over the medium term and they really need to focus their Editor.

 

These are solid points.

I sell my products outside the app stores. I can attest it's difficult. But I was a game developer during the early phases of the app stores and I can attest it was just as difficult there. I had a game I'd spent a year on, show up on page 5 of the "new games" on the IPhone App Store, behind a calculator that hadn't been updated for over a year, and a bunch of random apps that helped you keep track of yarn. Seriously.

When VR hit, I thought hey, finally a way for me to make some money again. VR users were initially quick to buy my products. Glycon for example is ONLY available outside of the app stores. I market my stuff on YouTube. So I'm here to say it is possible.

But is it a good idea? That's hard for me to say. I might be rich right now if Glycon was available on the Quest market. But since they limit who can show up on the front page, maybe not? Who knows. I definitely experience FOMO all the time, at the moment

-Chilton

 

Yep we use GitHub for most small things
You can go Azure DevOps if you want a more full scale ALM tool
Azure DevOps replaced TFS which was my preference for years
I always hated Plastic

 

If you want to develop the community instead of only making money, I would say to start looking at good assets you can port to Godot or monodevelop.

 

We are porting our assets now

We ported Steamworks Foundation over a year ago to Godot
Steamworks Complete is being ported to Unreal now

We are looking at expanding platforms as well so we are not just a Steam tools dev

So we are looking at doing tools like our Steamworks Complete for PlayFab, Discord, EOS, etc. and we will be looking to bring them to Unreal, Godot and Unity where it makes since

 

It ‘literally kills performance’? Thats some pretty potent code.

And Unity needs to ‘become the best mobile & indie dev engine, without going overboard’, that’s the best advice I could give them.

 

Perforce is great, I can really recommend it. Only drawback is that you need to put it on your own server (or use Assembla as hosted solution) and that it's only free for up to 5 users. But then it's rocksolid and handles terrabytes of data without issues

 

I appreciate you guys.

Do you have a link to the steam works foundation for Godot?

 

I personally love the UI Canvas system for mobile interfaces. It's so nice being able to write an app that works on all the platforms. I just wish it was less of a resource hog on mobile, as you pointed out.

I wonder how much of this can be optimized by us users.

 

https://github.com/heathen-engineering/SteamworksFoundation

It was ported on Godot 3.X I think C# verison
our community didn't do much with Godot but if your interested, join our Discord, lets us know what you think and what you need and we will see what we can do

We held off on porting Steamworks Complete to Godot because there just wasn't much traction around it but I do like the engine so happy to put more support to it if there is call for it

Discord link here
https://discord.gg/6X3xrRc

and we have a rich Knowledge Base that covers a ton of game dev things not just our assets and not just Steam though Steam is a big huge part of it
https://kb.heathen.group/

 

https://unity.com/solutions/game

Sounds like the best thing since sliced bread don't it.

 

Not seeing an "offer you can't decline" here, can disable both nanite and lumen. Those are high fidelity feature a lot of people don't need. And how's half life 2 even related to this?

It is best not to do any "sensationalist" posts. They aren't exactly bringing any new or useful information to the t able.

 

Will activation every 3 days be canceled?

 

Internet connection requirements have been changed from 3 days to 30 days.

But, you do know that Unity Hub is already doing this? It asks you to login, validates your license, and access to the assets. This is nothing new going on here.

 

well looks like pretty much nothing changed, they are still trying to get money out of us. Nope, this is all a bunch of BS. First, remove your splash screen from everything, period. I can't say anyone is now "proud" enough to have it on their game. Second, make an open source version of unity so we can develop it ourselves instead of relying on your bandaid development approach. I could care less if it's "already been discussed." It now requires a revisit. Third, you cannot charge for an engine AND royalties, doesn't work that way if you are trying to hide your greed, remove one or the other or you'll lose both. Last but not least, what are you going to give us loyal developers who have been with you 10+ years in order for us to stay? I have been with unity since the release of the very first engine, and I am already knee deep in my unreal engine development after your charade this month. I would think some compensation is in order if you want me to continue using your engine, if someone like me leaves it spells the end for you. No one trusts you anymore, all you have left are your teacher's pets who thank you when they have absolutely no idea how they are being raped, while being raped. I wonder if Unity team is still in la la land thinking they will come out of this ok, someone should be crapping their pants by now, or maybe they need another month to realize how fast their ship is sinking.

 

Nothing new, still the same old shady S***.

 

Very true, login is required in general, to download things etc also.

 

Yep, same. Been on since 5.3, have actual thousands invested in unity assets, etc.
Godot and UE leapt onto my HDD the moment this announce hit. Every version except for those my contracts currently required are deleted. I'm hating it, but I hate the idea of a knife in my back more.

 

Also Epic has a EULA that can not be modified. Unlike Unity TOS that can since s/w is offered as a service.

 

Runtime Fee Estimator shows if you're using Personal and if your total revenue exceeds $200.000 you should upgrade to Pro license.

Does anyone know if same thing applies to Plus?

Estimator page doesn't include Plus (there is only a tooltip that says :" Runtime Fee doesn't apply to Personal and Plus projects")
Tooltip doesn't help at all. And FAQ says a similar thing. But we know that Runtime Fee application depends on several factor, so saying "it doesn't apply" is kind of misleading.

In other words:
Does a Plus sub, (in order to not sign the new TOS) having over 200K total revenue, using 2022 LTS for release, have to upgrade to Pro license?
This is not about Runtime Fee in particular, this is about trying to stay with Plus (as long as I can) without the new TOS changes.

 

There's no Plus any more.

If you go over 200k you need Pro.

 

You can use Nanite and Lumen outside of high fidelity. Nanite much moreso than Lumen as it has a much lower performance impact. For example I saw a massive decrease in triangle and draw call counts using it on low poly assets from Synty Studios.

 

Nanite is a best solution for LODing. U can use decimated mesh and not care about creating lods, just slap nanite and it will take care of everything. Smooth, not noticeable transition + there is lower memory footprint due to some compressing shenanigans they made for Nanite.

 

Been digesting this for a few days. On the surface it seems like a positive change that should have been what they led with to start. But ultimately there are two things that bug me still.

1. They *really* want to make runtime fees happen. They want it so badly they're kneecapping it, and even giving away the treasured "remove the splash screen for free" that people have been begging for unsuccessfully for 10 years. It's clearly the most important component of this whole scheme for them or they would just go rev share, especially since the rev share is almost always going to be higher. They want it more than basically anything else.

2. No change in leadership. Same board, same executives, same incentive structure.

These two combined signal an impending rug pull. How many years (or months?) will it be before it becomes the higher of rev share vs runtime fee? Then how many years (or months?) until the rev share goes away? Then how many years until the % of revenue cap disappears and you're right back where we started? Then how long until required telemetry ships in every binary to accurately track every install? And then after that is in place, it goes from every individual sale from an individual sales platform to once again "every install"

It's nice of Unity to warn us ahead of time that we have a bit of runway to move off their platform. We'd be wise to take it.

 

Thanks for the response AcidArrow
the FAQ says

if you renew your plan on March 27, 2024, you will be able to use Unity Plus until March 26, 2025.

That made me suspicious.
Isn't it a bit confusing. So there is Plus until March 2025 but it is actually Personal.

The last 2 grams of hope in me weakly says:
Unity was too busy inventing a new revenue for themselves they (again) didn't gave this whole thing a through thinking.

 

Unity Plus was just a fancy way of paying to remove the splash screen. You rarely had any use for it outside of that like for example contracting which almost always meant you had to use Unity Pro. With the splash screen no longer being a requirement and the threshold being $200K there's no reason to keep it around.

 

I guess you're correct on this.

That' a bit "personal" but I paid Plus even when I didn't have to (thinking I was giving a small support)
Now I feel betrayed. (what a fool I was)

Now if Unity doesn't care for me, I think it is only fair if I don't care for it in return.
It seems, I'll abandon ship whenever I can.

 

This whole thing seems like it can't work. Think about who uses Unity and why? Unity comes along and says we are going to change the financial structure of our relationship. The people who use Unity had a purpose for choosing Unity, and a large part of it was the financial structure. If that can't work for them, they won't - they cannot - continue using Unity.

I can't help but conclude that this will force the BoD to rethink their entire C level.

This!

 

The people refusing to update because they don't want to pay Unity anything are not going to be the people making the most money. Or it at least won't be a direct correlation. Companies with plenty of money, making lots of money on their games, will want the latest technology in their engine. They won't be furious that they have to pay half of what Unreal developers pay. If they were, why would Unreal developers not jump ship to not have to pay?

I am sure there will be plenty of individual developers that do what you are saying, but they won't be major financial players most of the time. Small team games like Battlebit, Among Us, Slay the Spire are a rarity. And it is sometimes out of their control that the game really takes off. They don't represent a massive revenue stream to Unity. It won't dramatically hurt Unity.

But I will agree, Unity now needs to step its game up to make newer versions more appealing to the big players.

 

Why are they using Unity then?

*ba dum tss*

 

Because is much more versatile, fast and easy to use than anything else.

The distance in this is enormous to the next best offering.

Technology and development is not only about best graphics. And Unity can still support stunning visuals with proper optimizations, which are vastly easier to both develop and apply in Unity than anywhere else.

 

AcidArrow knows all about Unity and its benefits. He just saw the opportunity for a joke.

 

That isn't really true though. Many dev teams take the approach that they never update their tool chain unless forced to, as if something isn't broken you don't risk touching it. Some larger places still use versions older than 2020 LTS even to this day, and this change does nothing to give them an incentive to update.

The only reasons to update are to use a feature that will for sure solve a pain point, or else an external factor like regulations or app store requirements forces a move to a new editor version.

 

Ok, let's assume that ends up being true. What has Unity lost (besides a few developers)? They aren't charging less. For older versions, they are sort of charging more, if you want to remove the splash screen. Otherwise, they are making the same revenue as before. But they will have revenue from the people that do upgrade added on. So I don't really see the problem for Unity save for maybe, they won't be getting as much of a revenue boost as they hoped?

And a caveat. I think a number of the developers saying that they are leaving Unity will realize that other engines just don't appeal as much, for one reason or another. Maybe GODOT's physics doesn't work the way they hoped. Or Unreal's C++ becomes annoying and they want to go back to C#. Etc. Obviously not everyone will come back. It might even be a tiny minority of those that left. But worth pointing out.

 

Would love to see a documentary based on insider knowledge on how Unity largely stalled on innovation even while having billions to spend on buying companies and drastically increasing staff. Obviously things like going public, and a change in company culture, and the difficulty of implementing DOTS, and being undercut by Unreal making game dev less profitable for them are all factors, but it's still difficult to believe how they managed to grow the company so much while reducing innovation and undermining engine development so much at the same time.

 

This is indeed a big mystery. Given the engine was at a near perfect state in Unity 2019, with Standard Pipeline.

They hired a few thousand people to destroy that perfection with the pipelines and a slower (while still vastly faster than Unreal) editor.

Recently has become much better though, with URP in a more finalized state and some major editor bugs addressed.

Hopefully they now focus on what really matters to move ahead and that is stop destabilizing development and breaking our projects as a major and spend more time to make changes transparent to users before release to public.

 

By your own reasoning they've lost a lot. Remember their original toxic plan cast a wide enough net to snag those big whaling vessels operating on older Unity versions. That's why they made it retroactive. This new change of their really hurts them a lot. If they were banking on an immediate inflow of cash from install fees then this walkback is crushing and I assume they may further increase their per-seat license to make up the shortfall.

2 weeks ago they were aiming to knock big piles of cash out of MiHoYo, out of Niantic, out of Nexon, out of CrunchyRoll, and on top of that kill off AppLovin and hoard the entire ad market. Today, they have retreated on all those goals for at *least* a year, and it may not be a year they have realistically, without a different drastic change.

 

My point is that it is not irreplaceable and is not absolutely necessary, especially if you're not targeting high fidelity. It is an optional feature that has some uses. But that's the extent of it. I would say that this is not a Killer Feature level.

People aren't stupid. And they realize that things might not work out or that there might be problems, and that those may be unsolvable. However, in some cases there's simply no going back, no matter how attractive the engine might be in comparison to everything else.

 

Even disregarding all the other BS, something about rev share and subscription coexisting still rubs me the wrong way. It's double dipping.

These two monetization schemes applying simultaneously is something that should not be. As I've said many times, I'm extricating myself from the Unity ecosystem to the extent and speed that I am able, but, in the theoretical universe where Unity did not irrevocably breach trust and is now proposing this new fee, here's a suggestion:

Make it a graceful transition from subscription to rev share, not a double whammy. Rev share should be prorated based on the amount you are paying for subscriptions. For example: If a company is paying $40K a year for subscriptions, and based on the new rev-share calculator they would owe an additional $90K, then the first 40 of that $90K should be exempt. That's the double-dip zone.