New products and prices coming soon

It's unacceptable to pay hundreds of dollars a year and still be stuck with an ad, no matter how customizable it may be. People like myself and others I know on Pro now will eventually stop paying completely, because the Plus tier is not offering much of value. Consequently plenty of others who aren't paying now would gladly pay $35/mo to remove the splash and access the benefits on Plus.

 

PRO USER SINCE 2009 ... FEELING LET DOWN

We have been using, paying and upgrading since Unity 2.x (2009).
The new pricing policy means a significant cost increase (4x) if you don’t need all the platforms and features.
We are currently focusing on PC and MAC only.

Since all pro engine features have been included in the free version now, we only would need the removal of the splash screen (for $ 1.500 per year, really?) .
The PLUS version has no additional value for us and the new PRO version is really expensive.
We want to pay for an upgrade (around $750 every 2 years) when we have the money at hand … no forced monthly $125 commitment.

So, downgrading to free version seems to be the only viable option after March 2017 … very sad … we loved being a supporting part of Unitys evolution, but UT now seems to focus on already established studios and not on fledgling 1 or 2 person studios with high hopes and tons of enthusiasm who brought Unity so far :-(

 

We are still evaluating the pricing for the pay-to-own options, and are also discussing internally the feedback brought up from the community after the initial announcement. Once it launches, we will have these details available. Now what we can do is listen and consider what the concerns are in order to make this decision.

 

Back in the days of XBLA on Xbox 360 you had 2 options for the XBLA splash screen (essentially white or black background), so maybe have a set of different Made with Unity screens so games can pick them to suit their design for starters.
As the screen is (normally) a fixed asset pulled in on startup, it would have to be fixed at build time. So further customisation to allow 'joint' splash screens may have to be different optional 'theme' designs (html layout for design maybe?) where the developer can add their own artwork for the editor to build out the final splash screen. As this could be a branding issue for Unity though, maybe add a minor validation process to this in that to release a game with a combined splash screen, you have to do a short approval process with Unity just to get the nod that it's not too obviously bad.

 

The distinction with 3DSMax is that it's still available as a standalone license. I've wanted to see the mobile add-ons bundled for years (as I know you have too), and I think the new price is good - I'll save money myself - but I'm kind of surprised to see the Standalone license being effectively deprecated...and at an ironic time, as I don't actually need mobile (or TV or WebGL or...) right now.

If Autodesk removed the ability to rent Max or Maya on their own, there'd be a hurricane in the Area forums. It's true that you can't please everyone, but it's pretty easy to annoy a whole lot of people

I'll play along, but it does seem like we have these shakeup announcements an awful lot (or maybe time just passes quickly as you get older). I'd like to see something stick for a change and leave it at that.

re Dark Skin, I agree it's dumb to differentiate with a color scheme. This is a tech product not a pair of jeans. And the splash...is it important? How does the Unity Splash work in Free/Personal anyway? If it's the first thing you see, then maybe let it be the second thing you see in Plus, i.e. Your Splash -> Unity Splash -> Game.

 

Right, but where exactly is plus focused? The target audience seems a bit unclear at his point. By the time people feel that they need to upgrade from personal to pro (such as when they ship a game), won't they need to upgrade to Unity Pro anyway? Since there is no upgraded budget cap, and the MWU splash screen will still somewhat hold the quality of your game to a minimum, it seems that most users will be upgrading to Pro. The only people I can imagine using Plus are the people that need to feel more special about using unity, but aren't willing to pay the price for Pro.

 

The only compromise I'd be willing to make is to credit the engine in the game elsewhere, but I think it's insulting to pay a substantial amount of money on a continual basis and still be forced to have logos at the front of my work.

The 'middle segment' is the majority of paying users, and those with the least amount of money to spare. Those who were paying hundreds of dollars a month already now get a great discount, but those (and myself) who saved up for perpetual licenses are getting screwed.

 

I upgraded to Pro back in the Unity 3 days because I wanted access to that sweet dynamic lighting. Since then, I have released a game, which is bringing in just enough to cover our Unity license. I recently just purchased a second Unity License for the artist I am collaborating with on my next game.

After seeing this announcement, I was confused as to what I was actually paying for Pro, and realized I was not using any of those features. So I will be downgrading our subscriptions to Plus, mostly because I'm not breaking even anymore ($327 Canadian/month for 2 licenses), but also I have no idea why I was using Pro for this long (other than not having to have that Unity logo).

I don't really understand why Unity wants their logo in front of so many amateur games. They should be finding the best Unity games, and paying the devs to have their Unity splash screen appear (if the goal is to promote Unity).

 

So: If free worked before, it works now. Free is fine. Plus doesn't offer anything of value comparable to the price, so Plus is a weird product, but whatever.

If you were on Pro with mobile addons, you're probably happy with the change, unless you have an inherent problem with subscriptions. IMO: No problem there.

I am on Pro perpetual, with no addons, because I don't care about mobile. Until March '17, I'm still getting exactly what I payed for. I'm expecting 6.0 to launch between now and then, because then the perpetuals for 5.0 runs out.
After that, I'll get an offer, telling me what Unity will offer, but basically, I have no idea. Maybe it's fine. Maybe Unity will tell me that I can get a subscription for 6.0 cheaper than new customers. If not, I'll feel cheated of the upgrade rebate.
Under all circumstances, I am probably going to pay more, and get some features I don't need (mobile).

Utech says, that the distinction between mobile and standalone has been "somewhat arbitrary". I disagree profoundly. Utech needs to pour massive amounts of QA into the mobile versions of the engine: Much more than on standalone, and a hell of a lot of it in direct addition to standalone. With the new payment structure, I'm going to be paying for that.

I wonder by the way: Is there anything preventing me from using the free version to develop my project, then buy a couple of months subscription around launch date, build and launch, and then cancel my subscription after that ?

 

I imagine that they probably had some warning written in the fine print (in size 0.001 font) that stated that perpetual license was subject to change, which is why I'd read the terms of use entirely before spending that much money on software.

On a side note, I'm glad to hear that Unity is trying to compromise with the community, such as making the MWU spashscreen partially customizable in the Plus membership.

By the time everything pans out, I'd expect that Unity will probably make enough changes to make the Unity plus membership more desirable to a larger audience.

 

Why all the hate on the splash screen? My only issue with it is that is says "Personal Edition" on it (which is going away). Every game out there is covered by at least 2 or 3 splash screens, so I don't under stand the "Having a Unity splash screen makes my game look amateur" argument.

 

Hi Sara. - It's both clear and fair that Unity seems to be in need of money. - Unity has added a ton of new features without the price going up, and even though I think a slow steady price increase over time would be way better than what has been done, it's fair that the price has gone up. Lot's of people here are very mad though, since they don't feel the Plus edition caters to anyone, and they don't use the extra platforms they're now paying for. - I dislike the subscription model, but it seems fair that you choose this direction.

The main things people are mad about are:

• Pro has become more expensive without new value for single platform developers (There is new value in Unity 5, but the price didn't go up until long after that value was added.)
• Plus having features that most users paying for Plus won't need. (Flexible Seat Management, Asset Store Project Packs, Unity Certification Course ware, etc.)
• Plus not having a customization splash screen. - It's entirely fair that you want your engine to be associated with the games made in it.
  
• The services offered are targeted at lots of different people, so you get less value than you pay for. The same people that use IAP will likely never us UNET.
• People feel cheated because details about new upgrade prices are unclear.
• Details about pay-to-own not being clear

The price increase is fair, if it's necessary. Also the new focus on subscriptions. If you offered more functionality in the Plus edition a massive amount of people, including me, would jump right at it. - I understand that you don't want to reduce the pro versions value by offering something that too closely resembles a version at a much lower price, but at the moment I don't think anyone are interested in Plus.

I know very little about marketing, and so do most people here, so it's probably silly of me to give my opinion on what should be done, but I think this would be the best to do, to tweak plus, and not add new tiers:

• Remove seat management from plus. - If you are going to use this, you probably can afford pro
• Sell course ware separately. - Few people will purchase a 35 $ pr. month software that they don't already know how to use.
  
• Remove the forces MWU splash screen, or at least allow it to be tweaked.
  - Either make it clear in your EULA that Unity should be credited
  - Or change the splash screen, so your logo appears in a bar at the bottom. - Make color scheme variants so
  you can match it to your splash screen. - Potentially make several versions of splash screens and let us choose.
• As several people have pointet out having a forced identical splash screen on all games made with Unity may hurt your brand, more then advertise it.

 

Discount or not, I've always preferred to use the method of "pay-to-own" when buying software. As I was planning on buying Unity Pro perpetual within the next couple of months, I'm not even sure if I'd go for the monthly subscription, seeing as it will amount to a far greater amount of money in the long run. It's sort of like taking royalties, without using the term 'royalties'.

 

I don't have or plan to have any splash screens for my game, even for my own company. I have a game that doesn't have a main menu. These sorts of things matter a lot to a significant amount of people, both from an artistic control and public perception point of view.

 

A minimum commitment of 12 months. Only Plus has a flexible option.

 

How is that an improvement if people need to pay more?
The only people who will pay less as the result of the new plan, are those that had a subscription (not a perpetual license) to more than 1 platform, and that is a tiny fraction of the entire user base.

 

I think this has been explained numerous times in the last 9 pages from multiple points of view.

 

I completely agree. Forcing any kind of splash screen even if it's customizable to some extent is completely unacceptable to me in a paid product. A half-assed customizable splash would still make me opt for free over plus. On the other hand, I would have NO problem with a requirement to put the Unity logo in the credits of my games.

 

The profit cap is probably a more practical thing to adjust in licensing options. Make several options starting at a 10k cap. Honestly though I dint know why they wouldn't just have a royalty option at that point since it's just as much of a pain in the ass to track down profits and probably not even worth the time and effort.

And why isn't each service a separate price and add-on? When I have meetings with software vendors at work to evaluate their packages this is the biggest peeve - we don't want all that garbage, we don't want to use it, we don't want to install it, we don't want to pay for it. We want what we need to deliver our product and service to our customer and the option to add other parts our software as needed. Flexibility and fairness - not the giant jumbo bundle just so we can get one thing that I'll actually use.

And like I said before, editor skins are not even something that should be on the table in a license package. The fact that unity holds on to that is widely laughed at in the industry and reflects as petty. Petty is not the way you want your licensing options described.

This is altogether completely off putting. This isn't anything new we're complaining about, this had been repeatedly emphasised by the community and clearly disregarded. And I don't want any special upgrade offer because I'm a pro user, I want unitys future plans to actually make sense for the end users.

The new plans offer me no reason to remain a "pro" user and ultimately push me into the free tier. The dark skin - with isn't a real thing to put in upgrade options - is the only reason I would not pick the free option in the future at this point.

 

I only just realized the likely reason that there is a splash screen in Plus: It's a flexible plan. - You don't have to pay for 12 months like with pro. - You can make your entire game with the free version of Unity, buy Plus for one month, build and release without a splash screen, and cancel your subscription after that.

 

Doesn't plus include a MWU splash screen, though...?

 

You're correct. I made a typo mistake in my post, I fixed it

 

My dream situation for a subscription model (even though I don't like subscribing to software) is a $35-$50/m version of Unity Plus that allows me to add my own splash screen. Save all those cloud and support extras for Pro - they really don't appeal to me at all. I think Unity has failed to create a product that markets itself at low cost of development developers like myself. We don't need advanced features - we just want an engine that can appear professional and allow us to break into the market successfully. Then, having made a good impression to our users (and made a profit), we can purchase Pro and expand operations.

I'm part of a two man team. We have the experience and skills to make our game a reality, but lack funding as we are both students. A cheaper option that could help us both launch into a full time career as game developers would be amazing. I think this is where the disconnect lies between UT and the current dissatisfaction with pricing.

I would happily pay for a reasonably priced package that's main focus was removing the damn splash screen!

 

Honestly, I would be fine paying for Unity Plus, if the splash screen were removed. Otherwise, Unity Plus isn't worth the price to me.

 

I think that everything has been said here. Let's see their reactions after all this massive negative feedback. I hope for the change...

 

I feel the same way, it is pretty much inacceptable.

 

This is a valid point. I think most people would be understanding if Plus went to a mandatory year then as needed like Pro if it had a complete splash screen removal, to combat people jumping in and out as needed.

 

I think Mercedes can afford a seat of unity pro for a contractor to work with to not have to deal with a splash screen. Also, I have to imagine, if you are contracting for Mercedes, since the project is theirs then the 100k revenue cap would apply.

 

I'm going to add to the "there's no point to Plus if the splash screen can't be removed" complaint.

 

I guess Unity should add an option to pay a certain amount of money to remove the splash in one game/platform for those not interested on anything else. ^^

 

It would be kind of interesting if you could pay separately just to remove the splash screen, even if it adds on to the monthly cost.

 

It is sad indeed...

---------

Yeah, as for the customisable screen... it could be animated... or a redesign of the logo? xD (I mean no one says nothing about having UE4 on their games logos... even more they want to show of that the game is done in UE4 or cry engine ).... you unity as a company should wonder why this happen .

-----------

What about pay for "delete logo"? per game? so that people on free $0 or $25 $35 can get a no logo game if they are doing contracted work? I guess people could pay a "no ads" extra fee (well, I will not argue about price... because that will be also subject to talking.

--------------

Anyway we where using subscription and go from 225 to 125 is nice... thought maybe buying perpetual would have been a good move if we knew 2 years a go we will still be using unity today.


-----



And also... the different prices based on colour skin and not have a splash screen... well, it has been pointed out... thought I like a very free version full featured!!!

 

This is not how it works. Also this is not the point I was trying to make. See my followup post.

 

maybe this....


so that people are forced to use the cloud xD... if you have a $0 unity, you can use the build system of unity to get rid of the splash screen... (so yeah, you will pay cloud builds for have no splash screen ... and now I wonder if they can deploy directly to markets like iOS, android, WP and BB... the main problem will be with plugins).


So yeah, we get to will be services (to get builds without splash screen) be payed and unity free in the future? xD... (I'm only giving bad ideas ).

 

I'm a solo developer who has focused on writing assets, where Personal works just fine. But I've been looking at taking the plunge and publishing a full game with a tiny budget, so the idea of a Plus version is intriguing. Here is what is and isn't valuable to me.

Valuable, Unknown:
Level 11 - I'm solo, so I need assets. Does anyone know if this is included with Plus?

Valuable, In Conflict:
Splash Screen - This needs to go. I can't afford Pro, full stop. So Unity gains nothing from me by having this in Plus (and probably very little from advertising to non-developers). Yet the perceived value of my game is diminished, and along with it the chance for revenue that could pay for Pro. We both lose.

Valuable in Plus:
Performance Reporting - I'm focused on Android, so this will probably be a big help with the multitudes of configurations.
Project Packs - Again, assets are essential.
Certification Courseware - I'd love to get certified, so this is great.
Analytics, Multiplayer - More is good.

Not Valuable in Plus:
Cloud Build, Editor Skin - I'll probably never use either of these.

Of these, by far the most valuable to me are Level 11 and a removed (or greatly improved) splash screen. If we got both of those, I will definitely subscribe to Plus. If we only get only one or the other, I may subscribe, depending upon the details. If we get neither, I definitely will not subscribe to Plus.

I'm happy to see that Unity is taking our feedback about the splash screen seriously. Here's hoping for some good changes!

 

My understanding, primarily from discussions with @ShadowK who has worked with Unreal, is that the learning curve isn't as steep as people are making it out to be. By the way Blueprint is in an entirely different league from the visual scripting systems Unity has available. That said it isn't intended for the programming team. It's intended for the artists and level designers.

 

It must be a difficult choice, but you have access to so many more figures to help you. It is a risk having some Pro subscribers dropping down to Plus because of the change, with some uncertainty over how many new Plus subscribers you would get.

You need approximately 3.5 Plus users to equate to a single Pro user. So for every one that drops down, you need 2.5 new subscribers. Looking at the price/volume curve on the Asset Store might give you clues as to how likely that would be.

My suspicion (which is all it will be without the Asset Store figures) is that it would indicate there is a good chance of the ratio being much higher than that, so making it worth the risk. Particularly as $35 is in the range many will spend on other activities each month, so making it acceptable to the hobby market, which is where it appears you have dominance over the other game engines.

As Unity want to democratise game development, is it better getting a larger number of people paying a smaller amount, or a smaller number paying larger amounts?

 

I'd argue that anything <3k is probably to an extent democratizing it as previously high end engines were way beyond the price of a simple house, let alone car - and let's be honest, the free version is democratization enough

Unity created this market that forced competitors and peers to adapt, and Epic forced Unity to basically upgrade what they gave for free previously. So we're at a position where it's pretty democratic regardless of the engine you choose. Now it's coming down to how much does it cost if we want more than what is available free?

 

Actually, if the splash screen is the original "Made with Unity" screen and not the terrible "Personal Edition" that it is now, then I'm okay with it.

 

Maybe a splash screen that let you also show your game logo alongside unity logo (like powered by on pages showing the things they use), with animation, characters... and so on... (a scene of your game that loads fast ).

 

Personally to me it also feels like a bad deal. I am not totally against it since there's the pay to own plan. That is a nice thing that could really save the whole deal for me. Completely.

My biggest beef with the whole subscription problems Adobe kicked off as the first company is that the whole marketing buzz around it is "it's better for the customers". Which in it's pure form is absolute nonsense. It has a few benefits for the consumer: smaller entry fee for everybody, can be taxed much better and more easily for freelancers and can be rented on a project basis for things not needed often. Beyond that it's more power for the creators of the software. And that's the main thing why it's being pushed by the big companies for others to follow. If one stops paying for Adobe products then that's it. Transitional period for converting files into different format where possible (good luck with complex Ae or Pr projects). But then it's pay again to be able to edit again. Also mostly you are bound to the update plan of the creator. For better and for worse. Also the prices can go up at any given time. And there's nothing anyone can do about it. They will never go up so much that everybody will stop using the software alltogether so for a slow increase everybody will keep on using it. What else is there to do as the whole workflow is created based upon the leased software. Total control for the company. Sink or swim for the customer.
That is my beef with subscription. Always. Will remain that way unless someone can give me some actual logical examples against that. "It just won't happen" is not a valid reason. It's blind faith or accepting the fate.
I would like a company to be honest to me. Autodesk made a video detailing how the new subscription is better for everybody and how happy customers will be for it. Pardon my language: Bullshit!

That being said I am not yet completely sure if Unity are on the same road. Pay to own is something I can absolutely get behind if the definiton of "owning" is right. So far I don't know it and I don't know the complete terms that apply.
I am one of those Pro users who would not have needed Pro any more after the features were opened up to anyone. I don't make 100k a year and I don't use any of the cloud any analytics features. I paid for Pro mostly because it was still affordable and I liked the dark UI and especially the Beta access. The splash screen thing was a nice addition but to be honest most of the time I left the "made with Unity" splash screen on anyways.

Now this has changed. With the new plan there is no need for me to go pro any more. I would like to. I really would like to use some of the features but ultimately I don't want to pay 4500 over 3 years mostly for things I don't need (if that will be the pay2own prices, after all).
Will I stick to Unity - yeah. Sure. Jumping shipt to Unreal is a stupid threat. If anything then this has freed me from paying for Unity for the time being. Beta access is now open. The only thing I really lose is the dark UI. Well. I can live with that.

Ultimately I still hope that this system will work for Unity and the customers alike good enough so that it doesn't have to get worse. BUT for me it still feels kind of wrong. I will reserve final judgement until all details have been revealed. If Unity will ever go subscription only I will seriously consider exit. It's not come so far yet and I hope it never will.

Allegorithmic are doing the completely right model in my opinion. Either buy completely or pay to own. Unity is a different thing than Substance - sure. But that's the thing I want as a customer: buy and keep at least a certain status quo. Not pay forever or bust.

TL;DR: Unity's model isn't what I hoped for and the features proposed are nothing I personally need. I will reserve final judgement for when everything is decided but will probably switch over to free from now on. Also - unity is treading a thin line between a good deal and "bye-bye" now. At least for me. I hope they never cross to the "dark side" (spooky music). Unity is too good an engine and have too good core values.

 

What's annoying is that they don't realise that dropping the splash screen in the plus subscription will convert a lot of free users to paid customers. I'd happily drop 35 a month to remove the splash screen.

 

I've asked this multiple times and haven't gotten an answer

 

I'm sure they do realize that... but if they dropped the splash from plus, then they would be converting more pro users down to plus than they would personal users up to plus. the way it's setup now is designed to keep as many pro users as possible and force them to pay a MUCH larger license fee. It's a cynical price structure. The bad thing for them is it's really going to backfire if they go through with it as is.

 

I'm sure everyone already knows this, but just in case I'll say it.

It is entirely possible to have your own splash screen AFTER the Unity splash. Just make the first scene of your game be nothing but a splash screen with a timed transition to the next scene.

 

Just wanted to add my opinion about pricing.

I don't want to compare Unity with other engines and to compare Unity no royalties vs royalties option.
Unity constantly suggest that they are democratizing game development and in the same time they are treating one man studios and indie studios in the same way as big studios.
So you have an option to use Unity Personal and once you go over 100k you must switch to Pro. But what if someone has a studio which has 5-10 game devs and they have just past their 100k limit but still not earning enough.
Requiring from them to pay 1.500$ per year per developer x 10 developers x 3 years is insane.
I don't say that Unity doesn't worth that money, but lets also be honest, it not even most stable/quality game engine.
Bugs are constantly coming back (and I don't even want to start with whole list of things that are outdated and/or broken and/or still in development after few years).

I think there should be price brackets by the size of the time and/or their income. I think that there should be some discounts for small indie developers. And also Unity Plus completely doesn't make sense. Unity Plus should be same as Pro with all the features but for example only for up to 1-5 licences (with price ~35). Then maybe there can be Unity Plus+ for studios from 5-10 licences (with price ~70) and last would be Pro (full price for studios over 10 licences).

Only then Unity could really say:
Unity was created with the vision to democratize game development and level the playing field for developers across the globe.

With the current state of pricing this quote is just cheap marketing trick.

 

I bought the pro perpetual licenses with the impression I'd be able to upgrade every ~2 years for ~$600 per platform for another perpetual license. That means fair pay-to-own pricing would be $75/mo over 2 years for all platforms.

But even at that price, after the disaster that is Unity 5 I thought to myself, "no way I'm upgrading to Unity 6 unless it includes source code like every other game engine, so I can fix my own damn bugs."

And now instead, Unity wants more money so I can continue to report bugs and wait a year for them to be fixed? And don't tell me "we're improving the QA department", I've already heard that too many times before. The problem isn't even the QA department. The problem is your code base which has been neglected far too long in favor of new features. I can smell the code from here. I need the source code so I can hack-fix the bugs affecting me.

 

+1
That's a really great idea!

 

So being able to publish games for free <100k is not democratizing? I understand that after 100k you pretty much don't need democratization.

Democratization means: make it possible. It does that.

 

@SaraCecilia
My simple suggestion:

Splash video screen when game start draft example:
Opening Game Splash Video Example

Splash video screen when game end personal edition draft example:
Video Close Game Personal Draft Example

Add the explosion noise audio that can be chosen from a list, to include it into the video so it fit better for each type of game.