New products and prices coming soon

Sounds like a different method of charging royalties, in which case I'd prefer the classic method in which you only pay money if you make money.

 

It's not remotely like royalties, no. It just gives you a different price for pro based on income, quite common for apps. Unity's problem is it can't effectively cripple parts of the engine to give it to you cheaper.

 

Simple as this, you don't have enough well known AAA hard hitters in the large 3D field (not 2D / Mobile etc.). It's not like there isn't rubbish / horrible looking games that come out of CE / UE either. It's just they have a massive track record of AAA games and nobody can say "you can't make good games in Unreal". Because it's so well known that you can, across the world.

You don't even have enough developers trying to make AA / A titles like us, it was a massive shame to let the developers of Eve online go. Let's be fair, comparing the two versions they definatley made the right decision. You can't accuse that team of being a no nothing bunch of beginners either, if I was Unity I would of fought tooth and nail to keep them on your portfolio if it was for nothing more than reputations sake.

I was helping some people out on a MMO back in Unity 4.X, as soon as Unreal came out they were straight out the door. I know some others liking some of these posts who did the same ..

It all comes back to what I was saying half way up the previous page, I'm more surprised this isn't a well known thing within Unity? For all the years asking why large 3D titles never come out of Unity and the worst thing is it's blatently obvious.

 

I appreciate the feedback.

However, for Plus splash screens; please make it highly customisable! Make it so that we can line up the Unity logo with our own logo at the bottom left or right - so it seems like we are rolling the credits of the software and developers involved.

A good example is Rocksteady's Arkham games. They have their logo, then a bunch of tech logos of the software involved in building the game (unreal/nvidia etc.). It looks like they are showing off the high end tech they utilise, not being strong armed as is the current situation with Unity Plus.

Taking centre stage is what makes it so unappealing. If it can be done over a custom backdrop and without being the biggest icon onscreen I wouldn't mind. Make showing the Unity Logo less about rubbish wannabe game dev projects, and more about prestige. It will be good for your brand and for game developers! Consumers will see a game developer showing the logo with pride, which in turn makes it more desirable to engage with your brand. I know for a fact that when I see the Unreal Engine logo on the bottom of a splash, I think "premium quality", not "Lite Game Engine".

 

Unity for the past few years seem to have put a lot of resources into making impressive 2-3 minute movies showing off the future potential of their tools. This is cool and all, but perhaps they should invest some of that research and development money into hiring a team of developers that can make a game showing what Unity can do in the hands of professionals. If you want to change Unity's reputation you can start by leading the way. Relying on your lower end customers is what got you into this branding mess.

 

Yes, but even with royalties you don't pay money if you don't make money, whilst with the system you describe, as long as you make less then a particular amount, you're paying a price. This works great for more successful companies, but not smaller studios still aspiring to become successful. However, if the minimum price is reasonable, I suppose it would be a better alternative. Whereas royalties would still dramatically affect larger companies, a small price per month would not hurt smaller studios (assuming unity does implement a reasonably small price for less income studios). It all sort of depends how it's carried out, I suppose.

 

This is very true.

But...is Unity really made for large 3D titles? It is an indie game developer's engine. There have been some excellent Indie games that have come out of Unity. They are not big huge blockbuster games, but they are good, artistic, different, enjoyable, and people play them.

Is an engine truly bad if it caters to Indies and hobbyists, says it does, shows in their business model that they appreciate these developers, and the games that are produced are not "large" games, but small, indie games?

Indie games are not measured on the same scale as games from big studios nor should they be. So maybe the problem is with perception.

We used to be indie gamers if we were developing games and not part of a big company. Now, it feels as if independent developers have to be "medium to large" studios to earn the right to be an Indie game developer.

Unity seems to get it. They appreciate that we are all developing games and have tiers of products/prices to make it easier to make games.

I think that good "indie" games developed by individuals and small teams do exist and Unity does their best to showcase those, such as Firewatch and others. But....they are not large titles, defined by the big studios and AAA companies.

So..is that why people think Unity is bad? Not because the games are bad, but because they are not AA or AAA...and not large studio games?

 

I'm just saying, cornerstone or not, its fight or die out there in the game of life.

In my extremely, extremely humble opinion, Unity would do well to put a lot of thought into their next moves and make sure this is the path they want to go down.

 

Given that they explicitly marketed the Unity 5 preorder as giving access to the entire 5.X release gamut, for those of us who pre-ordered at least, Unity Technologies has absolutely no legal leg to stand on if they withhold 5.X releases from us. One could attain recourse through one of the various consumer protection agencies (EU citizens are especially well endowed in this area), a small claims court where you can represent yourself without needing to pay for legal representation, or via class action.

For people who did not pre-order, or if Unity re-badges a would-be 5.X release to Unity 6 before the deadline, the legal situation becomes murkier.

 

Please stop talking for us. And please stop making false statements.

 

Dang it, really didn't mean that statement to be taken offensively, I should have said in general because I know what I said cannot be true. (By the way congratulations on publishing!)

 

So the thing is this:

- Right now, the splash screen is associated with low quality games, exactly because it is forced on the Free edition. So many good games I played made by Unity remove the screen, and when one shows up it looks like they went the cheap route, in the off-work hours or in college. It really is backwards.

- So, Unity needs to flip the image people have of the engine. It must be associated with high quality, but still be available for anyone to use, no matter how novice they are.

- Also, many contract professionals and non-game businesses need, not want, to remove the initial screen. They can't afford, in any way, to show an advertisement of anything else than the holders of the license, or associate their software with a game engine, as it looks very unprofessional.

What I think would work is this:

take away the forced splash screen from every license. Period.

Now, many of us are proud of Unity, and want to show the world we are using it. I do, many others in the forum said so too. For us, and for great games, UT should offer to show the logo on the game, maybe even creating a personalized one depending on quality or other matters. Offer many types of splash screens, watermarks, etc., so we can place them in the way it best fits our project. Can we show the Unity splash screen AFTER our own logo? Can we place a Made With Unity watermark on our main menu?

Maybe even offer featuring the game in the Unity blog, offer some free advertising, partnerships, so many other things for those who show themselves loyal. Incentivize people to do it, instead of forcing people to pay to not do it. Free marketing, who wouldn't want that?

 

Thing is, there are a lot of BAD Unity games (again, same goes for UE / CE etc.)

Although it's nothing more than a reputation thing, give tons of people access to a free engine where they can publish any old nugget of rubbish and what do you expect? There's not much on the other end to balance it out, doesn't make Unity a bad engine, it's just the cost of creating an indie development tool and forcing people to use your splashscreen.

Thing is, I can kind of see why some don't want the splashscreen associated. That's not Unity's fault either.. Again, if they had big gorgeous AAA games touting the "Unity" horn then people complaining wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

As @chingwa said, a two minute CG isn't going to change that. Plus doing that sort of thing adds nothing but confusion as to what Unity is supposed to be? Do they want to be a AAA level near CG game creation suite, or do they want to be an indie focussed mobile multi-platform / low end powerhouse?

It's a hey guy's look at what we made!. Cool, now make a 30 hour game out of it that can look nearly as good and run on mid range PC and Console.!

I don't think Unity is "bad", I've seen and enjoyed a fair few Unity titles. Although I do think it's confused, same with this whole pricing thing.. Again after another publication release, I'm more confused at what and / or why they think some of these things are a good idea.

 

agreed, the time I wrote it I was mad and had just seen it and didn't see all of it I am glad that they include all plafoms in new pro(the android/ios pro ect.)

 

Yeah, and a lot of that blame goes to Steam and Google for making it so easy to put those games out there. Used to be if a product didn't sell, then it was taken off the shelves. Now they are there forever.

 

Forever displaying "Made with Unity" upon start up.

 

You don't only have Unity license. You also have rent, accountants, taxes, electricity, internet connection, etc...
Unity price increase is an increase of your cost, and a decrease of your benefit.
On 1M of cost, if you earn 100K, Unity new price eat a big chunk of the benefit of your work.
And if you loose money, that's your debt that has just increased.
If one of your employee ask you for a raise, you will anwser what: "Sorry Unity got your raise, maybe next year..."

That's the hard truth, because 90% of game production don't break even...

The 10 people example is even not relevant for Unity, has most are small indie less than 5 low salary (less the 54k$, close to 20k$)

For me that's my vacation budget just been flushed into the toilet by Unity. And from the anouncement, it doesn't looks like the money is going to the Unity dev team...

 

No the point is to improve the brand 'Made with Unity' so it's not so much of a penalty for free or Plus users.
If Pro users who produce great games are rewarded for keeping the Made With Unity splash screen in their titles it helps improve the image for everyone.
I've no real idea what Plus is for myself. It doesn't seem to achieve anything for anyone other than confuse the issue.

 

If it were just the dark skin I would argue that it's there to shut up the vocal minority who complain about it on the forums.

 

I really like this. My artist daughter (the younger one) has Unity stickers on her laptop, her book bag, everything. She got them at a Unity Roadshow and is so proud to use them. She is a talented artist and I would have her make a custom logo for our splash screen showing our game and Unity's as partners. My guess is it would be awesome.

But..in the meantime, a nice dark screen with Made with Unity and the logo will have to suffice. Although I hear rumors the screen is white now. Flash of light?

 

This is where we have a perpetual loop, with all the stuff I said on the previous page. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of this..

 

Your own CEO acknowledged the issue last year.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...indie-gamings-biggest-engine-john-riccitiello

 

That is the key: many many users do not work in multi-platform setup, nor do they want to pay for the extra platforms they do not use or want. Pro users, including me, have to pay $50 extra for the extra platform access. That is no small change. Why not keep the $75 package for single platform and add the option of $125 per month for all platforms. It is simply a big jump from $75 to $125, and not very reasonable since to remain Pro we have a single option now. Regardless of Epic's EULA, they still offer a fully functioning version of their entire engine: all access. This encourages beginning game designers to really dig into the tools and really make something with no limits and if they make money great, they share some of the revenue with EPIC. Giving EPIC credit as a part of the EULA is no big deal, they do not force a splash screen on their games (as far as I know). Regardless of the splash screen, Unity's new subscription model is a bit of strong arming.

 

As others have said, I think the fundamental problem being exposed with the new tiers is that there isn't much of value the Plus tier is offering, and to a lesser extent the Pro tier. If the splash screen option was a part of the Free tier, a lot of people wouldn't bother paying up.

Performance reporting, extended analytics, seat management, random asset freebies (which I will reserve judgement on, but 'genre themed asset packs' sound like the last thing I want) are nice-to-haves, but for the small money I make in games it's not worth it at all. UT knows this, and withholds petty things like splash screens and dark themed UI behind paywalls because a lot of people like the theme and control over their work.

To reverse the perception of bad games being made on free versions of Unity, it'll ultimately need to let anyone switch the splash off, and provide valuable products and services that entice even the smallest devs to consider paying.

 

The price has not increase but the version cycle went from 3-4 year to 2 years. As license has to be paid with each version change, it was at least a 33% of the license cost. Today it's a price increase between 200% and 500%, and a decrease for a marginal number of dev. What can we expect in 3 years ?

Change your logo completely. It will cost you a lot. But you screw it, so you don't have the choice anymore.
Let people choose if they want it or not. If you still continue to force unprofessional Unity dev to keep the logo, it will always get the same result: Unity looks like to be for unprofessional.

But I understand that it's a way to "force" dev to upgrade their license If they don't want a logo that mean crap in player mind, you should pay more... The problem is that from my experience in AAA production (I won't denounce
), they don't choose Unity because of that. They start with the bias idea: Unity is for crap mobile games. And they snub it
They don't even know good production that has been made with Unity, becasue all big game paid the privilege for not having Unity logo...

You should ask your management:
Do they want more pro subscription of indie or do they want more AAA productions clients.

Good luck

 

Unity showcases Made with Unity games, but let's be honest, gamers aren't exactly hitting F5 on the showcase page every few minutes or anything. It's mostly other devs that see that.

The perception that Unity games are bad isn't because the games aren't big budget or fancy 3D games. It is indeed because many Unity games are straight up bad.

If players more generally associated Unity with Threes, Hitman Go, Hearthstone, Cuphead, Kerbal Space Program, Firewatch, Monument Valley, Lucky's Tale, Pillars of Eternity, and so on, rather than asset flip games and My First Game: The Game, we'd be having the opposite discussion/complaints about splash screens. "Why won't Unity let me enable the splash screen? My game is good enough!"

 

How many people watch the credits of a game? How many of those that do remember them? A splash screen is displayed every time you start a game unless it supports bypassing. Last I was aware the Unity splash screen cannot be bypassed by a key. Your players will see it every single time they start the game and remember it.

 

Okay, so Unity has to market to the players so they realize these games ARE made with Unity.

The problem is not the bad games, but the fact that it is the bad games that people see...partly because of the splash screen but also because Unity is doing a poor job of promoting those games outside of the developer community.

 

I do think the problem is primarily with the bad games actually. It's a two part problem in my mind, but I think promoting the good games, while important, is less the issue. You tend to remember the bad ones more, unfortunately.

I've actually seen a Unity tutorial published to the PlayStation Vita with no apparent changes. I didn't buy it (duh), so I don't know for sure if it had a Unity splash screen, but I think that's a safe bet. I don't imagine the splash screen does Unity any favors in those scenarios. It's just human nature to start associating that animated logo with a certain category of games.

It's entirely possible that devs are overstating the problem. It could be that most gamers don't really notice that logo. But we know that some outspoken ones *do* notice. Devs are afraid of guilt by association.

 

Wouldn't you need to be registered with Sony to develop for the PlayStation Vita? Last I was aware you got a free copy of Unity Pro for the device when you became a registered console developer. Thus the splash wouldn't be present.

 

LOL. An income based licence is another word for royalties which you seemed to not like. It's why I said previously that Unreal's royalty past a certain income is way more honest and fair, you don't pay anything unless you succeed and they get paid if you use their tools to make money.

 

At a Roadshow, a Unity guy told the crowd that it was okay to publish the Unity tutorials..he used Angry Bots as an example. He said to go ahead and make a game out of it and publish it, even without changes. I was rather surprised!

There is no way to stop the bad games. Even making every version pay won't help. They will just pirate. If bad games dropped off the radar, they would not be a problem.

I honestly hear people complain more about bad games, give examples, links to angry Youtubers and video trailers of the bad games..even here, than I do see good games.

 

The messages I get are :

" Get the Personal edition, we do not need your money, we've grown big now. If you need to publish something, it 'll have a small splash screen, no big deal. Let the people who make big money using Unity pay your time with our product".

Ok, makes sense.

"If you need to publish without splash screen, or make more than 100.000$ per year it will cost 125$/month. You get some extra services that make sense if you are a company too"

Cool. I'll keep that in mind.

"There is also a 35$/month tier for the people who need the urge to pay something anyway. You get a dark theme, plus some services".

It's brilliant that you cover this demographic too.

I cannot really put myself in the shoes of the people who have suggested the above pricing and have managed to pass it as the current Unity offer. I have no idea how it is to be responsible for the payrolls of 900+ people, to see big studios making millions with your product and giving you pennies, to try to balance the wishes of an heterogeneous mix of 1.000.000+ Unity devs.

All I know is that the best current option for me costs zero $.
Used to be much more.
Nice.

 

I have a bit of a dumb question that I can't seem to find the answer to, regarding the revenue cap.

If you make a game that sells more than 100k in a year, do you have to pay for a subscription every month the game is being sold, or just for the months Unity is/was being used for development?

EDIT: Unity FAQ seems really vague. It says "To continue using Unity you would have to purchase a Unity 5 Professional Edition license," but I don't understand if that means you need a pro license to continue selling the game, or just to continue developing with the Unity engine.

 

It's a good question.

 

While i understand that it may be easier for the Unity Devs to completly merge all the separated parts into one product. It is way over the top with the new "ideas".

I simply do not buy stuff i do not need. But i gladly pay for stuff i do need.
You are now trying to sell me stuff i do not need just because it is easier for you will not work on me.

Maybe the team should go back to the drawing board and start over from scratch.


As for the Splash-Screen:
There are clients that do absolutely do not want to see anything else apart from their own logo. Not only the big ones... also very small companies with extremly limited budget.
Me too... i would not like to see someone putting their logo on any of my products. Thats why i own the perpetual Pro.
(And since the release of this announcement i feel like i am not good enough anymore or even unwanted because in the future i simply can not afford the "Pro" anymore and have to use the Splash-Screen of Shame(which will not happen))

How you can get rid of the stigmata of the logo? Well, that will take time.
A radical and probably the fastest solution would be to remove the splash-screen/logo from every version and make contracts to sponsor/help studios that make high-quality/promising games and applications. Then you can place your logo in there somewhere ... and keep the control over the quality.

 

And this folks is how Unity goes from great to ridiculous. Ever since UT starting involving big time investors and funding injections its been one terrible decision after another. Can UT please fire all of the new board members and dump those venture capitalists. Restore the original founders in their original roles and make Unity great again.

$125 USD per month is stupid. Just plain stupid. Not even Adobe or Microsoft products are that high per month. For people from countries where they have to convert to currencies to pay for Unity that $125 is A LOT higher. For example for me it would be $170/month. That is a higher monthly price than what I pay per month for leasing my brand new car.

Unity is doing a great job losing their customers. You guys have totally lost touch with your user base. I hope you snap out of it otherwise you'll end up like Garage Games.

 

That may have been back in the PlayStation Mobile days. I don't think you needed Pro for that as I remember. On the other hand, the chances of players even finding PSM games when it was a thing was remote, so that was probably a bad example. I think there are many more examples like that on Steam though.

 

I would like a Plus version that removes the Splash Screen, with a revenue Cap, and after that income, you Have to go Pro.

and I also like a Pro fee based on your Income... if you make a lot, Unity makes a lot, if you don't make much, you don't have to pay much.

I'm not "technically" against the idea of royalties, I'm just against the burocracy behind that, but as a Concept I wouldn't mind giving 5% of my income to Unity if I make more than X amount.

So as suggested before, a plan based on income I think would be great.

That way many Free users will jump to Plus.

Some Pro users will go down to Plus, but only if they make less than $100k... so Actual Pro users will have to stay Pro.

And about pushing iOS and Android to Pro Users... I'm not completly against it, since the engine should be fully featured, and doesn't make sense to have it split... but it does sucks that if you're not using it, you should pay more... so here is where the Fee based on income comes handy, if you have to pay the license proportional to your income regardless of where it is generated (as long as it from Unity), it doesn't matter if you made $X money from PC, iOS, Android, if you reached some amount, you pay some Fee, if you reached a higher amount you pay more... that would make it feel fair.

so I would like:

• Free as it is.
• Plus as it is proposed for $35/month + Splash Screen Removal (I wouldn't mind having a 1 year commitment here, but I would also like an option to pay the whole year up front).
• Pro as suggested but with different levels based on your income:
• ----you earn more than 100k last year you are Pro Level 1 and have to pay $125 each month
• ---- you earn more than Xk last year, you are Pro Level 2 and have to pay $X each month
• ---- and so on.

 

Wow. You'd think he would have suggested at least minor changes. That's the sort of thing that the Jim Sterling's of the world rant about. Those games will generally have the splash screen, which is the equivalent of a flashing neon sign that says "this is Unity!"

 

Yeah, I found it shocking, honestly. Maybe he was a rogue Unity guy.

 

I bet there are other points a class-action lawyer would be interested in hearing. "Pro Community Features" were advertised as a feature of Unity 5 and now over a year later we still don't have it. Unity Analytics is another Pro feature that took a year to come out of beta which means we paid for 2 years of service and only received 1 year. Game Performance Reporting was originally advertised as a great tool for monitoring, well, game performance and other metrics and in the end got pruned down to the trivial task of logging exceptions. It doesn't even log native crashes, only managed exceptions.

Any Pro users know a good lawyer? I've got more examples.

 

**some kind of semi customizable splash screen for Plus** You say you are listening but clearly you are not, if we pay anything above zero for Unity the splash screen should go altogether, not be customisable unless that means theres a customisable option to turn it off altogether.

You already have a great way to make us go pro and thats when our revenue goes over 100k, but to ask us to pay anything and then be forced to show your splash screen on startup is ridiculous. I don't mind at all if you add something to the EULA specifying we must credit Unity in the games Credits and you can even provide the artwork for what we must show, but let us show it at a point that is convenient to the player i.e., when he presses a show credits button in the game somewhere.

All I hear from your end is that you are listening with your fingers in your ears when we say something you don't like.

So one again, listen to us, we will pay for plus at the current price but get rid of the splash screen and up the revenue limit so there is a bigger difference and incentive to move from the free version.

I know the real reason for all this mess with prices and options, it's because you know that most games published with unity will be very lucky to make $400 per year and so the vast majority of users are never going to hit the revenue cap. If you really really want free users to pay something then you have to listen and make the payment worth it and currently the only currency you have to barter with is the splash screen, revenue cap and the skin colour. If we are indie and making less than 100K there is a huge chance the services are of no use to us.

If you want my $35 per month which here in Australia will be nearer $50 per month then NO splash screen, not a customisable one, None Nada nothing.

 

Well .. that is not entirely true.

It is true for a 1st time buyer.

But for a big percentege of pro users who bought at Unity2 or Unity3 cycle (with ios Pro and Android Pro) the upgrade costs were 3x750$ = 2250$.

Now it is 3000$ and only for a 2 years period.

The pay to own option is not entirely true either. It is more like a prepay your subscription option, since it does not bring anything on the table to make a dev follow that route. Subscription or pseudo-pay to own option, you will loose the right for updates anyway after they end.

 

I completely agree. For smaller indie companies (which is the apparent demographic for Plus), $35 a month means a lot more, and we deserve to give our game a more quality feel to it with said price.

If our games look and feel like they retain a higher quality, that means more income for us and a better chance of upgrading to Pro.

That means more money for you.

 

I am sorry, but a quality game has nothing to do with the splash screen.

I understand why people don't want the splash screen...it is about perception. But a quality game is one that is well made, regardless of splash screen. Not all pro games are quality.

 

Yes, but you have to admit that the removal of a splash screen can atleast give the game an initial feeling of quality, especially because of the negative perception of the splash screen. Of course, you can talk about rebranding the splash screen as has been discussed recently, but at the end of the day the current perception is negative, and people do not want to pay for a product that is a minimal improvement asthetically from a free version.

However, I somewhat agree with what you say; quality games can be made with Personal. But when I pay an amount of money per month, I can't help but expect asthetic improvements such as the removal of the splash screen.

 

Something else to consider is accessibility to startups for money to access Pro licenses. For a small team $100k of funding isn't necessarily a lot. When a Unity license was an asset purchase you could go to the bank and get a loan to buy Unity licenses, with repayment plans tailored to suit. Now that it's subscription only I highly doubt that will be an option.

 

It is about perception, but that perception is not only of quality. We can't even choose to put it after our logo, when it is more convenient. Or can't make contract work for basically anybody. The thing is that it is forced on all of us, in one single way, unless we pay.

It all started when they released the entire engine for free, and decided to charge for services. I still think that's a good idea, but:

a) the services are not "must have" enough to make people want to pay for them, many have other free alternatives in the market; and

b) UT doesn't believe in the value of what they have.

Without solving this problem, they will keep the splash screen on everything but top tier, because if not, people will (or UT believe they will) all downgrade to the lowest splash-screen-free option. And until then, we can't argue the value that the splash adds or detracts.

 

UT needs to make Pro more valuable of a membership (without increasing its price) if they are really that insecure about people downgrading.

Furthermore, I feel as if a lot of the issues discussed in this forum, such as the rebranding of the splash screen, really should not have become such a hot topic of the community. It's disappointing that such issues got this far, and I do hope that UT works efficiently with the community to solve these problems. The feedback from this forum is a great tool to get started on a solution.