Official Important updates to the Unity Runtime Fee policy

I wonder why my post about unfixed issues has been deleted. Does it violate forum rules?

 

To anyone who interested, it looks like Unity have fixed the endless "reloading domain" issue, tried with 2023.2.0b8 beta.

 

they will never tell you why, they delete the posts without specifying the reasons. They permanently banned me a week ago from the previous thread when I've mentioned that unity had fired part of its workforce not so long ago. Everyone knows this, they did this, but you can't talk on this forum about it. No explanations why they removed the message.

I will be the adult here and I will say that I can understand that messages can be deleted by unity moderators on unity forums but not having the decency to write why is "a spit in your face" attitude. Just so we all clear on this behavior.

 

I see this thread as a business related discussion about the new pricing structure and less so about technical topics, HR decisions, alternative engines, etc.

 

The problem is all those things are related to the current topic, the whole pricing would be quite out of context if you do not mention what unity does and offers.

 

No problem, I didn't see a quote in your comment and thought I could respond. I saw it in a previous comment, and following the links, there was an answer to your question from DairyFan28 (quote bellow), and maybe he didn't answer you for so long because he already did it, but seems he forgot to mention whether "when you upgrade to Unity 2023 LTS" is related to the editor, or to the game (as he did at the end of his comment), and this is the reason for your confusion. Considering FAQ and Runtime Fee Estimator, the upgrade is related to a published game or published upgrade of the game made with 2023 LTS or later version. Until then you don't have published product that make money under the new terms, and you are not required to pay a fee for these terms. Someone asked about crowd funding, but with crowdfunding you just profit from dreams and promises, not the product that can be consumed and therefore the Runtime Fee shouldn't apply. That's my logic, but as DairyFan28 from Unity staff mentioned in one his previous comments, "The FAQ is a living document and we will be updating it regularly", so we can't be sure what will be the "final ToS LTS" version for the new changes.

 

Not possible in the latest version of the 2018 version ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

You are correct that there is a lot that can be considered as part of the context, however, I don't think the topic is about rearchitecting product roadmap, the organisation itself, etc. I don't know what you were referring to in your post about unfixed issues. Every software product has lingering issues. I was left with the impression that this thread was started so that we can be on topic for the particular differences between the original plans, the initial new offerings and the latest plans. It was surprising for me to read so many pages where people expect Unity to lay off people, discuss other engines, point fingers at features which have not been implemented, unnecessary acquisitions/mergers, and other totally off topic replies (including this one).

I really want Unity to stand behind innovation and create more opportunities through their licensing offers.

 

Unity Plus is being discontinued so as a result they are offering a one-time upgrade so that people who paid $400 don't feel like they're being screwed by it. Personally I think they should have just refunded the amount but that's their call.

 

Reading the new terms carefully, it looks like any version between 2022 LTS and 2023 LTS is in limbo.

 

Just be aware if you set up variables to be exposed in the Inspector (Godot calls it "export") that the values won't automatically clamp to anything other than those specific scalars. For example a byte should clamp to 0 - 255 but in the Inspector it will clamp to 0 - 2^64. You need to manually set the range of the variable to fix it.

Any assets you have from the store that have the standard license may be used outside of Unity. Code and any other Unity specific files will have to be translated to the equivalent for the new engine, but any artwork, music, sound effects, and so on can just be copied over.

 

I see, this makes adding freelancers to the team rather hard, strange decision for sure.

On the other hand could avoid Pro entirely if freelancers were not required to have it, so partially makes sense.

 

As anyone experienced a sudden and significant surge in refund requests?

Until two weeks ago, my refund rate had been relatively stable at around 5%. However, in the past two weeks, I've noticed a surprising spike, with the refund rate jumping to 17%. This surge has pushed my lifetime refund rate to nearly 8%.

The game itself has continued to function perfectly, and there have been no reported issues with analytics or crash reports.

I've heard discussions from other developers in this forum regarding concerns raised by users about Unity's "installation fee," introduced on September 12th. Some users speculate that Unity might be collecting data in a way that some find intrusive, leading to discussions about boycotting Unity games due to privacy fears.

While I personally find these claims to be unlikely, I'm struggling to come up with a plausible explanation for this sudden surge in refund requests.

So, I'd like to ask if anyone else has encountered a similar issue recently. Have you noticed an unusually high refund rate for your games?

 

Seconded!

Given the new decision that has been made, I will stick to Unity for the foreseeable future.The revenue sharing model I find to be favourable and very fair. Of course, I do still feel some amount of uncertainty related to Unity sticking to this plan in the long term, but as of now I feel confident in continuing to use the engine I love. The proper incentive for all parties seems to be there.

Of course, people will still be upset because of the initial breach of trust, which I get. We need to stay vigilant, but that goes with any big company.

Peace!

 

I try Godot frequently and like it but need some years more to be a real option to Unity, Unreal is better than Unity but need better hardware for work and for run final builds, then i decide how many others made my own engine called Funity, is Unity but fun and you only pay when you blink, I call this a blink fee.

 

You're still paying subscription, though.

 

Personally, I think they should leave the door open to people to get on the Plus plan at any time until the new 2023LTS is available with the corresponding price changes. Or they should rollout the new plan starting from the current 2022LTS version, and allow creators to remain on whatever plan they are on until they decide to switch to 2023LTS...

 

That will increase very soon as well, as they told us.

Price hikes are "very fair" apparently.

 

Or, crazy idea: Let people choose any 2023.x version.

 

try mono game engine. I left unity for monogame engine and I never looked back I love it. I might occasionally browse the forum still out of habit and see the problems that people have and limitations they face. Unity Engine editing program from my experience produces garbage and drops performance rate of all games ( at least in the free version) so that it is practically unusable beyond basic low performance prototyping. For experienced game Dev seeking perfection monogame is the way to go.

I personally have never seen a game with a unity splash screen indicating that a game has never actually been made and released using the unity free version. Whereas you see a tonne of unreal games. Unity is not really good at what it does to justify paying for it is the truth of the matter. Likely due to A( the community and B( the scale of the company. It is more profitable as an investment scam.

 

You're right. Not supported on old unsupported Unity versions.

 

2023.1 is available but I'm not sure if it is stable for production. Unfortunately 2023.x until LTS is not covered by the new plan otherwise I would be installing it right away and be done with the topic.

Also, if there was a grace period for Plus plan until Jan 1 2024, I will subscribe to it right away.

 

it seems to be "very fair" for those who don't see themselves paying it. i could also pay 50% revenue share if my game made 27Billion. no problem.

 

50% revenue and 200 bucks a month pro is sign of financial desperation.

 

Before this nonsense I was working with it and it was fine.

 

There are just a few 50% in a 100%. Considering app stores take 30%, then there are taxes and a few other services also charge revenue %, salaries, etc, etc -> you could easily be paying a few billion to other companies for the chance to build a successful product. It's not a feasible solution.

 

Thanks for taking a shot at answering, but we still just need a clarification from Unity. There is absolutely nowhere in the FAQ or Runtime Fee Calculator that clarifies that terms initiate once a game is "published". Anything else is pure speculation. The language used is 'create a game in' or 'upgraded to', this does not equate to published, created or upgraded are terms that are completely open to interpretation. Yes, Unity take revenue on engagements for a published game which is clear, but that's not what I'm asking about. We are seeking clarifcation on exactly "when" and "what action" means that the terms of service and ie. revenue and engagment thresholds start counting. I'll refer back to my previous post which outlines the questions in more detail: https://forum.unity.com/threads/imp...ntime-fee-policy.1494761/page-32#post-9363728

EDIT: received an answer here for anyone reading this: https://forum.unity.com/threads/imp...ntime-fee-policy.1494761/page-35#post-9366437

 

you are right. but the logic seems to be here that it doesn't matter. for many, 200k seems to be so life changing money, that it doesn't matter if someone takes a big piece of it. OR it's so unreachable, so it doesn't matter if someone takes 100% of it.

 

I don't think they are ready to answer these questions, at least publicly. You might have better luck contacting them directly through their normal support channels, or some representative assigned to you or something.

 

If they move to a royalty only model they will have a few years of very poor income.
If they earned enough from royalties probably they will do that, but now I don;t think that's an option for them business wise...

The Plus plan was cut because I doesn't make sense anymore. Splash screen removal is in free, 200k revenue share is in free. the only thing plus offers is some services that a very few people use.

as for unity's future... depends on what the management learnes from this. IF they understand that they should focus on engine features then maybe this disaster was for the best. If they will not learn that and new features (DOTS, UITooolkit a lot of on-hold/in preview/experimental features ) will still take years, then, unfortunately, the engine will slowly die out.
I hope that's not the case, but i will see in a few years if unity is still the best choice for me.
Until then... happy coding

 

So is it the case that the new Asset Store management vetting system is not as profitable as before? The companies income is not stable? And this is an attempt to stabilize it?

Because didn't we add that new asset store management vet team to act as a filter to restrict asset producers from selling on the asset store? Are they as a result losing money and making more radical attempts to reclaim lost revenue?

 

Yes I agree, and that's why I'm asking these questions because it's apparent due to the terminology used that it's either not been fully thought through or has been kept deliberately vague so they can work out how to implement the terms at a later point.

I don't expect an answer immediately, I'm more just wanting to make sure the right questions are being asked so that it does trigger internal discussion, so Unity understand what "we" need to know to fully understand our obligations and hopefully it helps to tighten up defintions and specifics in the policy around when the terms apply.

 

Thanks for the link. I am impressed with the visuals.

I will continue looking into Godot to see how it handles multiple characters for MP.

 

I like it too, but the performance is a real issue. I rewrote the CanvasScaler, the TouchHandler and have a script that smartly toogles alle the performance eaters (VerticalLayoutGroups, static scales on TMP_Pro Fields, Animators).

If you have a big UI with scrolling. Or just touch your screen Unitys UI will drop your frames

 

And to stay on topic is to miss the real issue.

I don't think it is a matter of how much or how they charge us.

It's a matter of how they mismanage the money they have. It's a management issue.

Solve that problem and all the rest of these issues drops away.

 

For me if legally we are covered that is good enough for me. At this point I have not seen any ironclad legal changes that will protect the developers. Reinstatement of the line in TOS and TOS in GitHub do not afford any legal protection. It's basically how it was before this mess started. And you saw how much protection that provided.

 

I can't agree with this statement. Getting a Pro plan (2K) above 200K is fair because it is (1%) of revenue and covers until 1mln. Also, the proposed threshold of 1mln in revenue before a tax of 2.5% on the revenue is fair considering what we are getting from Unity. I think their product is the best for a certain type of games and I want to see it become even better.

I've looked into, and I'm using, a few other services which are revenue based. Unity's 2.5% is on the low end for the value they bring, in my opinion. Much better than the 4% from the leak. The general shift toward revenue based models and subscriptions is a broad topic, which I won't have the time to explore in this thread. Such models are becoming the new normal across industries. Question is if everyone takes a large % what will remain for the creator... The current reality is acceptable for me. If it was say 5-10-15% I would be very concerned. App stores taking 15% below 1mln and 30% above 1mln is way more concerning.

Also, if this proposition feels too much there are many other options, some of which are free. From the research I did, I can't afford the switch to another engine, which will either cost me more % on the revenue, come with a whole other set of problems, or will not have integrations with services which I already use with Unity.

I fail to understand how is paying 50K/month such a big issue if you are pulling in 5mln (based on the calculator for enterprise clients). Sure there are other costs, too but overall it is acceptable.

As you said - some people see 200K as such life changing money that they cannot comprehend the idea to give that away even if they were pulling in tens of million in revenue.

 

I doubt trust will ever be regained until Unity leadership is changed. As long as they are in charge there is too high a risk that the rug will be pulled again.

 

I would think folks would judge on the quality of the game itself..it's mechanics, engagement, appropriate grfx. But then there is the skulldeath666 contingent who are perpetually aggrieved and would criticize a saltine cracker for not being a wedding cake. And yeah..we have been underwhelmed with all the new joiners shouting from the rooftops how they will never use Unity now. Fine with me. I remember when the Flash professional scene got overwhelmed with grfx school grads who couldn't write a damned button listener but filled up prospective clients emails with undercutting proposals. It is why I switched to Unity after 9 years programming Flash in 2010.

 

I speak as a Gamer, that makes purchasing decisions based on business model, before game.

My lifetime ban list keeps growing, due to MICS (Microtransaction Infested Cash Shops).
Mobile Everthing banned approx 20 years ago, (banned for, tiny screen + touch screen controls, before the MICS could.
Online Games, banned approx 15 years. (All MICS hellscape, I GTFOd).

Stores
Ubisoft, banned for NFT Ponzi-scams, 17 games Destroyed, account deleted
Epic Games, banned for NFT Ponzi-scams, 8 games Destroyed, account deleted

Publishers
Zenimax Media (Expired), banned for the most unforgivable offence in my book, adding a MICS to Fallout 4, and Skyrim SE, after release.
Both games removed from my Steam Account, Bethesda Gaming Studios get a 2nd chance, but I expect MS to soon get banned.
Techland, adding a MICS to Dying Light 2, Game removed from my Steam Account,


Given the the most unforgivable offence in my book, is adding Unforgivable Monetization methods to games post release, and even the rollback, doesn't roll that back completely, their can only be one verdict.

Game Engine
Unity, banned for adding Unforgivable Monetization methods to games post release.

Any Unity game that I own, that is also subject to install fees, will get destroyed, removed from my Steam/GOG account.
Publishers, and Devs won't get bans for Unities action, but I will only buy games that do not use Unity.

Unity hasn't implemented this YET, so it could change.
What will not change.is the rampant greed of the scumbags in charge of Unity.
I done with Unity, and I won't miss it, since the EA CEO pond scum, took over it's got steadily

 

This reads like a young person raging on Xbox Live. It sounds like you are fishing for likes here rather than adding anything to the conversation. If Unity has upset you, by all means don't buy Unity games. You can choose to hurt the developers who dared to not switch engines (You won't hurt Unity, just the devs). I am not sure how you are "Destroying" these games. Especially the Unity ones since they are basically all digital. Seems a bit dramatic.

 

Can someone at Unity tell us when can we expect to see these changes and protections against runtime fees on the current Unity versions actually written down on the general terms of service?

 

The only way that Unity will be a rich company is with Richcitiello

 

Why?

 

Because possibly Richcitiello have a legal agreement as CEO of Unity and if he is fired the company is obliged pay him many many millions and if this happens Unity will be a poor company.

 

Honestly Unity _is_ a poor company, they're bleeding for years now. But no wonder, money is going into strange "buying malware companies" and into bonus payments but not into tech.

 

Millions of dollars isn't that much in the grand scheme of things for a multi-billion dollar company.

 

ironSource wasn't a malware company. Malware creators used their ads to deliver malware to unsuspecting victims. The same thing was done with Google Ads, and probably every other ad supplier on the market. ironSource was not a great choice for many reasons, but the reason everyone latched onto is not what defined them or separated them from the competition.

 

Doesn't sound like a strong reason to me. I don't buy it.

 

Yeah that's not a strong reason to hang on. More likely, he is very amenable to the whims of the board, and doesn't push back on their demands in a meaningful way. That makes him a desirable CEO for a powerful board. And there's no guarantee that the replacement will be as amenable. Why change unless there is a mighty need for a scape goat. It probably got pretty close to that, but not required for the company to survive. Now if massive investors threatened to pull out unless he was removed, that would be an easy choice for the board.