New products and prices coming soon

Well thats another issue. Depending on which country you live in, if you are a business and are buying a single purchase license vs. a monthly subscription license it can play very differently on taxes. A single purchase license is a capital expenditure whereas a monthly subscription is not. A monthly subscription would fall under a service expenditure rather than a capital one and could mess with certain write-offs available for small businesses.

 

That has nothing to do with my post. I was countering the argument that splash screens affect the game quality. I agree that perception may be a problem.

 

Hey Alice, thanks for posting!

I’m working on my first Unity game, and I’m excited! My previous games have a distinctive look and feel to them (I like monochrome!) so I like to present my games in a very particular way, i.e. no splash screens but my own.

It just gives the player experience more, er, ‘unity’, if you’ll pardon the pun

The $125pm to get pro *to remove the splash screen* just isn’t do-able for me right now (and it truth, is not at all an attractive proposition as I have no need for the other features).

And that’s fine. I’ll use your free version, publish with your MWU splash screen, and make X amount of sales, and will probably pay you nothing at all as none of my games have come close to making $100k alas.

If splash screen removal (not customisation) was included in Plus (with a mandatory 12 month sub to make up for it on your end) I’d be very tempted to give you those few hundred pounds for Plus.

I’d be happier. My players would get a more unified experience. And you’d get hundreds of pounds off me you wouldn’t have previously.

But it looks like you want to go the customisation route. That’s fine! I’ll have a look at the options, and then decide if I think it’s worth it or not.

SPOILER: Probably not! Sorry!

Thanks for taking the time to read!


QS =D

 

And there it is. Someone needs to coin a new Godwin's Law type thing here.

'As an online discussion about a software product grows longer, the probability of mentioning a class-action lawsuit approaches 1.'

 

I'm sure UT has reviewed their legal rights before making such a controversial move (otherwise referred to by perpetual license owners as "screwing over.")

 

I think Occam's razor points to the relevant people just plain forgetting that the original preorder for Unity 5 Pro guaranteed that the purchase would cover the entire 5.X branch. Now that it's been pointed out, I sincerely doubt that they'd brazenly make liars of themselves not to mention the potential legal ramifications.

What I'm more worried about is to that rectify the oversight, they might just re-badge a Unity 5.X release as Unity 6, and then release that prior to the deadline, even if such a move would be obvious and would basically amount to giving affected customers the middle finger. While they could potentially make an exception just for people who pre-ordered, I doubt that would go over well with those who did not. Unless they have (a proper) Unity 6 in the wings, I don't envy their situation.

 

The way I see it, perpetual owner or not, these kinds of moves UT has pulled recently inflicts the feeling of disrespect upon the community. Using legal loopholes makes us feel like they are taking advantage of us as a community. No customer appreciates a "fast one" being pulled on them by a company they'd prefer to trust.

 

You guys are asking only for the splash, but the new "Plus" plan at $35 per month is already more expensive than the current Pro upgrade if you consider a 2 year life span. With that price, why should it have less features than the current Pro? Because it has manageable seats?
I vote for Plus to be either:
- A fully functional Pro subscription for small teams (all platforms, no splash, no revenue cap). I'm pretty sure a loooot of individuals or small teams would switch to this one.
or
- A fully functional Pro subscription for either Desktop (and all related platforms that are currently included in Unity Pro) or Mobile (just the mobile platforms that are currently sold separately). A lot of individuals or studios that need only one or the other would switch to this.

 

What "legal loopholes" are people on about?

This is a new offering for future purchases. I understand (and share) a degree of concern, but I wouldn't accuse anyone of going back on promises for prior sales until it actually happened. They've already said that existing perpetual licenses will stay perpetual (the support end date means they're not obligated to perform further updates, not that they'll necessarily refuse people access to them if they do - consider their track record with Unity 4 updates), and current subs can be locked in for longer periods. Personal is staying exactly as it was. So I see no reason to jump to conclusions about using "legal loopholes" to our detriment.

They were never obligated to release new products or pricing at old rates.

 

This thread has taken on a life of its own. Relax! You have what, two years before it takes effect?

 

They are absolutely obligated to update 5.X preorder customers for the remainder of the 5.X branch, because that was what they promised at the time of sale.

A potential "legal loophole" would be taking a release that would otherwise be 5.something, and arbitrarily slapping "Unity 6" on to it without substantive changes worthy of incrementing the major version of the software. That kind of move would be done to cover up the fact that they changed the terms of sale between preorder and launch without any kind of visible announcement.

 

The above message is poorly constructed.

Need more of what? CCU?? How many more CCU do you get for $0.49 per GB? (as the paragraph structure would imply) Or is the $0.49 bandwidth you are paying for?

Why is such a simple topic made confusing?

Say I move forward with Plus (which looks attractive), what happens when I need more than 50 CCU but it still doesn't make sense to upgrade to pro?

Most cloud offerings are elastic. This limitation of CCU between the separate tiers seems odd. What if you need 300+ CCU for your release but that quickly normalizes down to only needing 50 CCU? Then months later you get featured in a major sale and quickly need the 300 CCU for a week or so? Does the system cut you off at 50 CCU and leave gamers angry that they can not find matches? Do you buy the pro license to get the appropriate amount of CCU for 1 month of revenue but then spend the next 11 months underutilized and underwater?

Why is there not an easy way to scale up and down CCU wise?

----

Right now Plus looks most attractive because pricing is in line what I've paid amortized over a 2 year period. (Unity 3 and 4 Pro versions at 2 licenses each)

Previously the $750 perpetual license (or a negotiated rate) could get you through 2ish years. Now $840 (35 per month x 24 months) for 2 years seems like a very reasonable price increase considering inflation and additional services.

On our current project we have been on Unity 5 free version. Within the current and upcoming price plans, we will most likely stay on the free plan for as long as possible depending on future economic outcomes. The main reason for this is it really looks like our only options are to either choose the free or pro version, and pro has some serious sticker shock. (Keep in mind we have to pay for subscriptions to image editing software, 3D modeling software, etc on top of the Unity subscription)

However, there are a couple factors that would tip me into immediately pulling out the wallet and purchase Plus licenses:

1. 1 year commitment allows for the removal of the splash. Or at least some kind of splash screen that gives strong differentiation between free users and plus users.

2. Communication related to multiplayer cost is very poor. Some clarity around the multiplayer services cost would help out quite a bit. As of right now I am investigating if it makes more sense to roll our own matchmaking/nat punch through or use the built in services. I would much more prefer to use the built in services but the unnatural tiering of CCU makes it a tough call.

3. Bump up the revenue limit. Plus really looks like the sweet spot for what we can afford to pay yearly if game revenue is < $200,000. Remember, we have to pay for all the other stuff like (artists, electricity bills, food for our children, taxes, other cloud services) / number of members on the team all within the above revenue range.

----

I understand there are some people in Unity who are working hard for us Indie developers and I thank you for that. I can tell the sincere effort is there with these changes (plus tier). With a couple of tweaks I think we can find a good balance between what us developers can afford to pay and what Unity can afford to give and still be profitable.

Hopefully the feedback above can help get us there.

 

Nothing I said disagrees with that.

All I'm saying is that my interpretation of the clause everyone is referring to is that they're not obligated keep the 5.x branch going past that date. Hopefully, as they did with 4.x, they will keep making and releasing updates.

My point is that we've seen nothing to indicate that this is likely to happen, and it would be out of character based on prior behaviour, yet people are getting upset because it might happen.

 

Clearly the suits think the current pricing is too low. Maybe it does need to go higher to be sustainable, I don't know.

If they change their minds and end up allowing the splash screen to be disabled in Plus, for me, $840 over two years would be close enough to the old $600 upgrade price to consider it.

 

Maybe this is the reason behind the cliffhanger of the perpetual replacement details - they want to see where we might settle for a middle ground in its absence.

 

Well, you could say that about anything. Including: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of mentioning Godwin's Law approaches 1."

 

I think people are just upset over the blatant money grab. The rest is, I'm sure you'd agree, speculation. That the language being used is somewhat suggestive of the 5.X branch continuing after the deadline, combined with the lack of information about Unity 6 (especially contrasted with how things went down leading up to the Unity 5 launch)... well... that makes for interesting speculation. The truth is probably that the Unity guys seem a bit cagey because they don't know for sure what will happen come deadline, and/or they forgot that the preorder terms were different. In any case, it certainly doesn't hurt to discourage them from going down a path that would harm us and them.

 

It's price per gigabyte of bandwidth. It's mentioned near the bottom of the page for the service.

https://unity3d.com/services/multiplayer

My understanding is that the number they're giving on the chart are the free CCUs you get with each tier.

 

Excuse me for being naive, but shouldn't Unity be able to keep up? If Wikipedia is eight, UT is a much larger company, and all of their employees are working on the core product and its services in one way or the other. Epic Games works on games, which helps them gather valuable experience but also distracts some development resources from the engine itself.

 

A lot of people have lost a common sense and logical thinking. Many of you say that 100 000 $ annual revenue cap is very small and most of studios will have bigger revenue. At a same time you say that unity is too expensive with 1500$ per year in subscription plan for pro and Unreal is cheaper. Have you done a math? If 100k revenue is exceeded by the most of studios than 5% revenue from 100 000$ will be 5000$ annually for Unreal, even if you will add 3000$ of royalties free per quarter than 5% from 88 000$ is 4400$ per year still almost three times more Unity's subscriptios. Unity is more than times cheaper than Unreal in this case. Unreal will only be cheaper if you earn less than 42000$ annually, so less than 3500$ a month, which is not so much even Poland where dollar exchange rate is approximately 4 to 1. Calculations are done for single developer. One advantage of unreal is that you pay per game not per seat. But still bigger studios will have bigger revenue than 100k.

 

OK long time pro Pro user here. Was going to write a long moaning essay about how you are ripping me off by making me pay $125 USD (~$200 AUD) per month to keep getting access to Pro. Personally I think $75 is better. However truth be told I will probably pay... only if and when U6 is useable or when U5 stops working with my OS of choice or something in Xcode breaks it. As most of my work is Mac/Win or iOS based. Nothing more.

I'm disappointed that your decision makers at UT arrived at this pricing structure after all the feedback over the years you have been given and requested!

Firstly Unity is the BEST tool for day to day work, congrats, the integration of your services spot on, and how compiled apps just run all day everyday without fail, fantastic! Just disappointed with the new pricing structure. Now some tough love...

Ball is in your court as nothing I say will change things. As I feel come March 2017 I can pay you nothing and keep using U4 Pro, U5 Pro or if I really need to U6 Free and just shrug my shoulders at my clients and blame you. As there are other options out there now. You main competitor seems to be going from strength to strength and making their offering more and more attractive (Eg jack-of-all-trades) to me... even for now, just for specific projects. Other projects I can still get away with using U4 Pro (beast baking) or U5 Pro. So your loss really. I'm a seasoned professional I can always make do! Sorry if that sounds like a threat. But maybe it is? But as a consumer that is my only power... taking my money and moving on. I've used every major multimedia authoring software released since 1995 so I'm cool. Bring it on. Love a challenge.

Watching with interest. Who knows U6 might be a killer must have version of Unity from initial release. Doubt it. Sorry. If you made subs cheap enough for me not to care I wouldn't care, e.g. like Adobe?

Cheers.

 

We always paid for Unity Pro since 2009, but please do the math. Unity just quadrupled the PRO price for PC/Mac only users. Until now the 2 year upgrade fee was $750 and now it is 125/month = $ 3.000 for the same time span.

As soon as you pay anything for Unity, a splash screen indicating/suggesting your amateur status is no option.
Let the developers pay for the features they really use ...

 

I really hope it's that simple but I'm just a tad pesimistic. E.g. there's no small claim court where I live (and if there was, I still would have to put a lot of resources (time) into it). And even if I had a legal leg to stand on: If Unity 5's life cycle is something like that of 4, I'd probably miss out on 12-18 months of support if it ended in March. So, about 1500$-2250$.

Depending where you live in my country and what kind of lawyer you need, a good one costs somewhere between 250$-700$/h. It would even be an international lawsuit which makes things worse. And UT is a company with over 500 employees.

Also, I'd absolutely like to stress that I don't think it should/would come to this. I'm not grabbing my pitchfork and screaming for a class action lawsuit or whatever. I'm just musing on my hypothetical chances in such a case. It just most probably wouldn't be about who's right but about who can afford a lawyer for more than a week in the end..

Anyway, the important point is, that we were promised all 5.x updates and I really hope we'll still get them and that they'll also not just switch the number to 6 to get out of it.

And on a completely different and more constructive note, I like Ony's idea of what pricing tiers there could be.

 

I'll try to take a shot at the splash screen topic too. I am skipping the price discussion, because with the Plus and Pro products priced as they are now, I'm totally fine with that. I understand that Unity needs some money to keep operating as a company. My concern is more about the value offered in these products. Let's keep it short - the "upgraded" services in Pro are not worth $125 per month. I can see me making use of them at some point, but going the Plus route is more than enough, in my opinion.

Regarding the splash screen:
As it stands now and how Unity is currently looking at the whole thing, it would make sense to have the splash screen disappear the more you pay. As the Plus product is the thing in the middle, I like the idea of having the splash screen gone, but having to credit Unity somewhere in the game - be it in your own splash screen, main menu or credits window. A semi-customized splash screen is still a splash screen, which doesn't change anything.

So to summarize:
Free: Forced Unity splash screen
Plus: Forced Unity credits
Pro: No splash screen or credits necessary

It doesn't solve the current issue of low content being published with the splash screen of it at all, though. Which is probably the reason for this whole discussion. I would even say that my suggestion, while being somewhat between Free and Pro, promotes that low content made with Unity impression even more. It should really be the other way around. Let the splash screen constraint go completely, and place it in games of companies which are above the revenue cap.

 

Pricing discussions aside, my main issue with the Plus plan is the splash screen.

As a developer, when I see the Unity splash on a really great indie mobile game, I think wow, these guys aren't making enough for Pro.

OR I download free games that are really bad quality and full of interstitial ads, or just republishes of asset store projects, these are the ones I most see with the Unity splash.

So I think there is a perception of the Unity brand, by forcing the splash screen on free users, they end up associating their logo with often very bad games. The great games are more likely to be Pro users (because of bigger budgets & teams), so you never know if they used Unity.

Instead the Unity logo should be a mark of quality, only being on the front of great games, like Disney or Pixar. How they would work with developers to support them in this I don't know.

I think removing the splash all together in Plus (not just customise the Unity splash), but requiring that Unity is mentioned in the games credit screens, is a good idea. Hard to police, but if people are getting what they want in Plus, why would they not?

Besides, outside of the industry, my mum/nan/uncle doesn't see the Unity logo on a game and know what it is. The general public know the brands of the creator Disney/Pixar/Paramount etc, they don't see logos for film cgi software and get it.

Personally my apps start with a white default screen, so the first thing they see is my intro animation.

 

In my opinion, the new price scheme has only great benefits for game developers who develop games every year AND for many platforms (incl. ios, android), so they NEED permanent updates. Such game studios make permanently profit to refinance the costs.
But what about one-man-studios? What about developers, who not need multiplayer-, cloud- and team-features? What about developers who want to publish games only on pc and - later - on _one_ mobile platform and - much later - on another mobile platform? If you take a look at the economic side of a business, you should only make costs where you get a fast refund. So I should only buy one license to publish my game on pc. Later - if I get some refund - I buy the next license to publish my game on the next platforms.

It's like I rent an apartment, with 500 square meters, incl. two pools and twenty rooms - but I live alone.

Why I have to buy all features when I don't need them? Okay... you may say, Adobe do it, too. Yes. But for a monthly price of $49,- you get the whole Adobe CC, that means, many full applications - not only "extensions". In case of unity I get only _one_ application, plus some extensions. And that for a much higher price level (1).

I think, the idea of a "plus"-version is nice - in comparision to the "pro"-version. That could give us indies more options. But the idea that small developers can occur professionally, collides with the fact that the unity splash screen is imperative. I agree with coshea - publishing the "made with unity"-logo in the credits is okay.

Why don't you let decide the devs to show the unity logo? If we all glad with unity, I think we show it voluntary!

(1) This means the "pro" version of unity - in comparison to the adobe cc where you don't have to use "adobe brands".

 

Here you go, custom Splash screen in Plus and dark theme in free

Can't please everyone, some will win and some loose out in this shift to subscription.

(to be clear this isn't real, I just changed the image with copy and paste)

 

Is. That. Real. ?

 

I love using Unity, and I have no problem showing that to customers, but I don't wan't it to be at the very beginning of my game. I wan't that to display my company or name. Unity can be second. - I've heard multiple people who believe that Unity is a company that creates games, because they see the logo in the beginning of so many games.

If removing the splash screen isn't an option I think some options would be:

• Allow people to have a scene before the Unity splash screen
  
• Allow a large amount of customization. - Position, colors as well as other logos on the screen at the same time
  
• Allow people to remove the splash screen after paying for 1 year of plus (so people don't pay for 1 month, builds and releases, and then unsubscribes)

 

I wish. I just changed the image with copy and paste, the was implied

 

You broke me

 

If you have a budget higher than 100K, you don't have the choice. Pro only
I think many people just forget this.

 

Is anyone looking at the Steam page? A lot of games are either getting discontinued, requires a new kickstarter or moving to a different engine. God this is such a messy decision.

 

Link?

 

You mean Unity-only games or what ?

 

I thought this too. But isn't the pricing model saying exactly the opposite? Unreal's pricing model is perfect for small guys making a handful of bucks(99% of us here). Whereas, if I was a huge AAA company I would absolutely love Unity's model because it's so much cheaper for big earners, but tough for hobbyists or small fish. Kinda weird.

 

I believe I speak for the majority of Unity developers when I say that UT needs to get its priorities straight.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month

 

I absolutely agree. I was so angry, annoyed and disappointed 2 days ago that i downloaded Unreal Engine for the first time in years. And boy oh boy, it doesn't look good for Unity now to be honest. I was impressed by absolutely everything Epic has to offer. They even published an impressive update yesterday which blew me away, see here. I'm a Unity Perpetual Licence Pro holder for many years now and i don't see why i should stay with you if it goes on like this. Get your licencing straight and get your technologie back on track.

 

I've actually used Unreal Engine first, but I switched to Unity because of two reasons:

• Unreal Engine can be very difficult to use
• Unreal Engine is more powerful graphics wise, so since I use low poly, there's no need for me to go through the trouble of using UE4 when I can get the same effect in Unity

However, with Unity pulling stuff like this, I'm almost ready to go right back to Unreal Engine. Sure, using the engine can be a pain, but that pain can't be worse than the pain Unity is inflicting with their new pricing plans.

 

I have no problems with difficulty or complexity regarding this matter, as i have a degree in computer science. I want a good, reliable and well written engine. And I'm more than willing to give 5% gross value to the provider of such a platform. I also have absolutely no problem to pay a bigger amount of money upfront if the product is right and i get a perpetual licence. But having to take a Unity subscription with the current conditions to get a technically inferior engine is not on the table and never will be. Unity Plus without MWU splash is on the table, but everything else is off.

 

That's the problem most people have working out though. You're not actually paying for the splash screen, it just so happens it's the wall that gets people to pay for the engine they should be paying for. In reality you're paying for the engine, the licensing (you probably would need to license various things like fmod) and so on. So all of what you're really paying for (the engine, it's not free) has a paywall that so happens to look like the splash screen.

When you buy a car and never use the back seats, you still have to pay for them, it's a similar concept. What is really happening here is you feel that the price of Unity isn't worth $125pm to you at this point in time. It's not really about the splash although you want it it gone.

The splash itself probably isn't worth much to unity, but the engine is worth a lot. But the splash is the only "feature" they can lock behind the paywall that's left after making all of the pro engine features available for "free". This creates artificial value around the splash screen, when really the splash shouldn't be used for this and you should just be purchasing a license for the engine itself.

That's my take on it at least, and why it's difficult to justify complete removal on plus. The situation without royalties and having a free version, makes it hard to monetize.

If Unity were to license all the bits separately, I would hazard a guess they would go out of business. In UE4 terms it would be having to pay a royalty only based on a % of the engine used, so if you avoided 75% of the engine you would only pay 1.25% royalty. It seems fair to you, but it's not enough cash for anyone to make the engine you use to begin with.

Or maybe I only use the top part of the cooker, never the oven. I should only pay for the top part, but everything else that makes that top part work, would be missing. Then you have no cooker, and they have no business.

(This is IMHO, I don't know Unity's official stance on the matter of course, but it is logical).

 

I think people feel as if they're paying for what they care about most.

People honestly don't care about most of the features plus or even pro has to offer. But one feature many people (including myself) do care about is the splash screen.

And when everything else in plus is insignificant in the long run, the splash screen is a major factor for people. When the one thing people really care about isn't the way they wish it was, it really prevents people from being sold on a particular pricing plan.

Because of this, a more customized method of payment plans could be a great solution. Imagine a pricing plan that allowed you to individually select which features you want and which features you don't want, in order to form the perfect pricing plan for you. This is certainly optimistic thinking, but I believe UT should consider it nonetheless.

 

I imagine that's the fastest way to go out of business.

 

I went and read that page and I think I finally get it. CCU only matters when in development. Once anyone who has a credit card on file 'goes live', the CCU limit is removed and then you are billed based on bandwidth.

If that is the case, then CCU isn't a really a big deal at all.

The big disconnect for me was not understanding CCU limit is removed when going to release.

 

Well, another great way to go out of business is to offer pricing plans that people are simply not going to give in to.

Especially when great alternatives exist.

 

Good example. Because it makes everything much simpler:
I don't want the back seats, i also don't want the additional tires. I want a product that i want to use with the features i need. I won't give the car manufacturers money for stuff THEY want to sell ME. We still live in a free market economy. If you don't have the product i want, then we won't become commercial partners. Easy as that. It is not the job of the customers to accept the products how the manufacturer wants them to sell. It's the job of the manufacturer to deliver products the people want.

 

You should try the great alternatives. You shouldn't be here out of loyalty, but because the engine gives you the results you want.

Exactly, yes. It sounds dramatic, but the reality is the same wherever you go. The only case where it isn't true is when you hire someone or do it yourself.

Within reason if every manufacturer gave everyone precisely what they wanted, they wouldn't be able to afford to do so, and you would not be able to afford it.

Maybe I want a pencil, custom. I want little ridges just like so and so around the tip. I don't want to pay for the eraser and I would like it blue. That would actually cost me more ordering custom, not less, because it would require the company to do specific work for me. It has to stop somewhere, so in today's market we usually find ourselves buying the nearest compromise.

 

They need to change the number of free CCUs to a number of free gigabytes. It would make things far less confusing and have more value to the tier as well. What's so good about free CCUs after all when you can just host the server yourself and bypass the limit completely?

 

I've already tried all of the alternatives.

All but Unity. And so far it's disappointing. Unity offers great tools and services (emphasis on services) that other engines do not offer. But, to obtain access to many of these, a controversial price is required.