Official Important updates to the Unity Runtime Fee policy

This is a start, but it's a far cry from a solution.

It's been a week and a half and nobody's even answered what percentage of these fees or revenue shares are actually being reinvested in engine/runtime development rather than lining shareholder pockets. I expect we're not going to get any clear and direct answer on that, today or in the future.

It's beyond meaningless to say that these fees will only apply to 2023 LTS or later, because that's how it would've played out in court, in one major jurisdiction or another. It's also beyond worthless to insist that you want devs to be able to stay on their current terms of service when you promised the same thing years ago, only to spend most of the last year deliberately undermining it. What sort of protections are you offering to prevent the same from happening again?

I also like how well you've buried the fact that the Personal splash screen removal only applies to the upcoming 2023 LTS - very clever misdirect, really makes it clear that you're trying to be open and honest with devs, you F***ing clowns.

 

Just so everyone is aware, 2023LTS is coming at the END of 2024 - https://forum.unity.com/threads/uni...updates-for-graphics-and-performance.1482069/

This is really unacceptable. You should be able to remove the splash screen on any version of Unity. Like it was mentioned, you are forced to upgrade to pro ($2k) on anything less than 2023 to remove the splash screen.

Not a good faith move.

 

Can we consider making the removal of the splash screen retroactive. That, or make Unity Plus available for all old Unity versions only? Because now people will be stuck on Unity versions before 2024 with an upgrade to 2k $ Pro to remove it. Whereas people on 2024 and more get it for free. But, if someone could still hit the Plus license, they would not have to pay 2k to remove the logo on pre 2024 versions. Whereas before we only needed to pay ~500 for that option.

So it's like a 1.5k increase to the cost of that option, which still feels like a bit of a greedy hit to some people.

 

But the fees don't apply on anything less than 2023 so I think its a fair tradeoff ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Now instead we'll get install tracking spyware included with every unity game via the developer or some 3rd party that's for sure gonna pop up to cover this exact thing, so that companies can make sure they're paying the "lesser amount".

 

i'm disappointed and borderline disgusted. not only that they got away with the ridiculous install fee, but the way they made devs look like they won something. in a classic way first sell totally out of this world terms, then backtrack "significantly". AND left the backdoor open to exploit the install fee in full capacity. leave, stay, pay, do whatever, but be warned, that there is billion dollar gap in their books, and it has to be filled. soon.

 

Why? Just talk here, in an open forum. I am stating that 2023LTS should not be part of this. Why would we have to talk in private?

 

We should not be choosing time lesser evil, unity itself should have as a CEO a person who actually understand their customers and game development market

It's not Ritechelo and certainty it's not the guy from the malware company.

 

When does 2024 tech stream start though? Figure most will just upgrade to that for the splash screen.

 

Who approved this plan? Who approved the IronSource mergers? Who approved the idiotic buyouts?

It's not about feeling better, the guy has been failing for almost a decade.

 

No, its for versions released in 2023, not Unity 2023. Basically, we are cut off around 2023.2 no 2023LTS.

Also, Unity why are you so desperate for this installation fee? Seriously, this can only be seen as your attempt to bring this bs scheme back in the future.

 

So if I use Unity 2021.3.20f1, the install fee won't affect me or what?

 

And you're wrong. It's a complex topic. There are jurisdictional components, corporate bylaw components, contractual components, etc. There's no one universal standard for the hiring and firing board members (presupposing firing is the only option).

 

"We will make sure that you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity editor you are using"

This has been promised before; why should we believe it now? What assurances provide for this?

 

Is this still Unity’s stance from page 45 on the previous forum?

https://forum.unity.com/goto/post?id=9297488#post-9297488

“Our terms of service provide that Unity may add or change fees at any time. We are providing more than three months advance notice of the Unity Runtime Fee before it goes into effect. Consent is not required for additional fees to take effect, and the only version of our terms is the most current version; you simply cannot choose to comply with a prior version. Further, our terms are governed by California law, notwithstanding the country of the customer. ”

I’m still migrating my game to Godot. We’ve been with you Unity since 2015. My subscription is canceled. And this statement is what solidified my decision.

I see your new stance is you can stay on the old version. But given the above, is there anything in place preventing you from retroactively changing that stance?

 

The lawsuit-prone and business-model-ending changes like uncapped fees and applying to games built on previous Unity versions are gone, along with the vague and unworkable "installs" metric.

This is what it should have been in the first place. But just as you can't "un-punch" someone, the damage to reputation and trust is done and caused many to at least begin to rethink their engine choices.

I have one question: what is the role of the Pro/Enterprise subscription after a game is released?

In the old version the fee depended on the subscription tier, implying we (or our publisher) would have to maintain at least one active Pro/Enterprise subscription for as long as our games were above the thresholds, even if nobody at the company is using the Unity editor. Is this still the case?

 

Unreal, here we come.

 

We will make sure that you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity you are using as long as you keep using that version. We will post these changes on our GitHub repository and https://unity.com/legal.


That's a quote from an other of your messages.

 

I don't know if anyone thinks we "won". We are paying Unity more. But I think a lot of people understood that Unity needed to make more money. They didn't charge much for the first 18 years of existence. And a walkback would be more like saying, "We're going to charge 8% fees", and then walking it back to 2.5%. Not destroying your entire reputation and trust, only to come back with a deal that is better than we could have imagined originally. They sure as heck didn't plan to ruin their reputation like this.

No one's forcing you to stay. You are welcome to go to another engine. But any other company can change their policies if its not a fully-open source product like GODOT, so I don't see how you can trust Unity significantly more than Crytek, Unreal, Valve, etc.

But it does seem like some people don't want Unity to come up with a noticeably better deal, because they sure are angry that they did. I think more people than not will like this and be cautiously optimistic that Unity won't shoot itself in the foot again a year from now, because if they didn't care about the backlash, they wouldn't have done this. So why do it again later, why not just keep the bad policy now?

 

So you delay LTS first, then executives sell stock, then throw us this bs scheme, then backtrack, but still hold us hostage with 2023LTS.

Job well done.

Oh wait, to maintain my already released games, now I have to pay 400% more!!!!

Wow.

Just wow.

 

Sticking with 2022LTS is no warranty at all, for the very same reasons...

 

You need something binding. I mentioned it in previous post. They could have a TOS and EULA combo where EULA would be applicable after certain time. I'm not a lawyer but I think something like that could work.

 

Did all those pull some TOS related bullshit in the last couple of weeks? Because that's not nothing.

 

I mean pay per install was stupid, especially uncapped. But if their AD network gives them income and us. It could become a win win situation, where Unity gets tons of income by people using their AD network, while lowering fees for everyone else.
Part of their original policy was more under the lines: "if you do not want us to bankrupt you, or get up to 75% of your income pre tax, come use our AD network."

If their AD offer competes with other AD networks, while lowering the payment of the editor then its a win win.
AD buisness pays more

 

And that's why I'm still moving to godot.
But I'm still glad many developers who are shipping and are production ready can at least do that.

 

Heres what I gather, please let me know if I am wrong:

Everything 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:
- 2.5% rev share after 1 Million revenue

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

I think this was fair terms in the end.

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

 

Wow, where have I seen something like that before?

So why should it mean anything more this time than it did last time? Blind platitudes aren't great trust-builders.

 

Who is stopping them from doing that? They easily could. That's why I don't put much trust in any large corporation, but doubly so if they are a public company. That's my point. There wasn't much trust to shatter, much less repair (from my point of view). It's more of a "what have you done for me lately" relationship, and what they did lately was fix their awful policy.

And I understand that I don't get to define how everyone trusts a corporate relationship, so obviously not everyone agrees. I am just saying that maybe people shouldn't trust these companies. When they screw up, you will be less angry and more pragmatic about what to do about it as a result. That's really what my point is here.

 

Which is itself a bit of an issue. After LTS is out, you don't want to attract people towards the older non-LTS builds.

 

Are there additional situations where you wouldn't charge the runtime fee on 2023 LTS? If so, can you please document this?

Edit: Never mind, I suppose this is documented already.

 

It's not up to you to decide the price of signing the new TOS.

The fact that Unity is charging Plus users four times as much if they refuse them says a lot about a good that deal is...

 

Well, this is much more reasonable than last week's announcement. So if I'm reading this correctly, as a 2022 LTS Personal user, I'll still be bound by the old $100K threshold, and if I reach that point, my choices will be to upgrade to Pro, or migrate to 2023 LTS, which will bump up my threshold to $200K before I have to upgrade to Pro? I can live with that.

 

...the awful policy that they came up with in the first place.

"My husband gave me a beating, but he said he's sorry and brought be dinner. Who's stopping a new husband from doing the same? I'm staying with him!".

 

Actually not. Plus is gone.

 

They already have.

The price isn't fixed and they will use it to twist your arm into signing new TOS.

 

I'm just saying "they easily could" is different from "they've already done that".

It's like saying you have an abusive husband, but you won't divorce him since other husbands could be abusive too.

 

Yeah .. read that and thought "well, here comes the price increase"

 

And how is that tracked? When you deploy a build for each specific project? Or when you download that version of the editor and theoretically accept its TOS unprompted?

Mind you, I don't trust Unity anymore. I'm not planning to use Unity for future projects, so at this point I'm more asking for those that choose to remain.

If there are major changes to the TOS in the future, what guarantees can Unity make that they will actively communicate those changes and gain affirmative consent to them, rather than hoping that they go by unnoticed? Assuming Unity is actually being truthful this time (there is no reason to make that assumption though), I think you need to above and beyond tracking TOS changes on a github page.

 

I'm not sure how to make this more clear. I DO NOT TRUST large corporations. I don't love them either. And I don't expect them to have my best interests in mind. If you share that approach in your marriage, then that's terrifying. And again, I still don't trust them. The point is that maybe you shouldn't trust them before they screw you over, much less after... Comparing a bad revenue model to a wife being physically beaten is... impressive.

 

actually is not bad in my opinion... (well someone said that i have a personal mission to have the worst opinions possible, so maybe is that) You choose to respect the TOS, sadly, is too late for that but is the correct thing to do... Now, my question is, based in its current situatrion)
Are those terms enough for unity (the company) to be profitable in the future? or is this a semi-desperate move? The reason for that question is because those who decide to stay, they don't want to go trought this again (i guess)...
Can they be sure that the future TOS changes are stables?
(at least i can finish my main project with unity)

 

You mean like 10 days ago when the installs fees would be reduced if we used these services?

 

So good so far.

best for me:
"Old Versions".
Great.
Because: Update ?
Before i will amputee my legs and arms together.
No way.
2019 today and in future.

 

The numbers look decent enough I suppose.

But you guys simply aren't off the hook like that. What legal protections are you preparing for us? I think we need to see the actual TOS that will be applied to older versions of Unity as well as newer versions going forward - with some kind of legal guarantee that they will apply for all time to each respective version. And non of this arbitration business better be hidden in there. It needs to be a hard contract that allows for litigation both individually and class-action should it be broken.

Don't get me wrong. I am really glad to see something actually resembling a real offer has been made but simply put I will never trust anything Unity ever offer again at face value. Furthermore, even if I do decide to continue my current project in Unity I will very likely also be pursuing other technologies as well both for long-term security as well as simple diversification of skillsets. If nothing else, I guess you have certainly taught me a valuable lesson about placing all of my eggs in one basket.

 

This is not correct

A fee is charged per unique first time purchase/download. The total accumulated fees cannot exceed 2.5% of gross revenue. I doubt the vast majority of Unity games will even exceed 1% in fees, if they even make it to that threshold to be charged at all

 

One thing this thread proves is that you can't please everyone. Especially people who just want to be mad.

 

I'm the only one here getting my post removed for being off topic?

I've commented that they removed the runtime fee requirements for the current unity versions because they would had lost in court because the changes are against TOS and the Licenses developers agreed upon.

why is this offtopic unity staff?