Search Unity

New products and prices coming soon

Discussion in 'Announcements' started by SaraCecilia, May 31, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,185
    My view is that it's probably better to make a simpler game to propel your income higher then it's not an issue, ie build up to it. Some people don't agree, as they want a perfect game early on, without splash and I understand that.
     
  2. Devil_Inside

    Devil_Inside

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Posts:
    985
    Yeah, but what were they thinking when they made the entire PRO functionality free when 5.0 came out? I assume they had people, who's job was to estimate the losses and come up with ways to monetize the engine with the new personal plan. Does it mean they failed miserably if 2 years later they have to change the pricing so drastically?
    Or was that a move to get everyone on board so they could then force a x5 price increase down our throats?
    This whole situation is really frustrating. Why do people that pay, have to pay 5 times more so Unity can provide a free tier for those that don't pay?
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  3. Zwilnik

    Zwilnik

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Posts:
    62
    Ok, so without wanting to sound negative towards Unity. That's *their* problem.

    From a developer's point of view, I can get the engine entirely for free if I want now, write games with it and make up to $100k per year from it. Unity made the choice to make it free for all. As a developer, that actually makes the engine *less* valuable to me because there's now a lot of extra spam in the market in the form of lesser developers able to get in and dump poor content on the market with the free engine. That makes the ability to disassociate my games from it more important, thus the importance of the splash screen.

    From a humanitarian, democratising game development point of view, what Unity Technologies did was very nice. It's great that a lot more people can have a go at writing a game. It's just that business-wise, it was pretty stupid as there's a lot less reason for anyone in the up to $100k a year bracket to bother with the Pro model now.

    The only actual differences between Unity Free and Unity Pro are the splash screen and the revenue cap. So for sub $100k revenue businesses, the only thing you're paying for in Pro is the splash screen. The engine is provided free whatever you do. Which is why I still see Plus as something there to confuse the issue rather than a useful product.



    On a side note. Something I do find rather funny is that most of Unity's focus towards developers seems to be on telling them to give their games away for free and make money on ads and micropayments. Which appears to be entirely the opposite of what Unity Technologies is doing in asking devs to pay up front for the product in a traditional manner ;) I don't mind paying for a product in that way, but it is rather hard to justify when you are just paying to remove the splash screen.
     
    Ony, quantumsheep, Steve-Tack and 9 others like this.
  4. nicktringali

    nicktringali

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Posts:
    23
    UT dug themselves into this problem of overvaluing the splash, the way out is to provide services that even hobbyists want to pay for, not to gouge people to pay for splash screens and UI themes. I love the engine and I think its fantastic (and makes business sense) to offer all of the client-end features for free, and while the services they have are useful, few small devs think they are necessary or enticing. Now we're in the situation of desktop devs paying more for less desired features, or doubling their costs just to get back to where they were.
     
    Chariots, Teila, Ryiah and 1 other person like this.
  5. SprinkledSpooks

    SprinkledSpooks

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Posts:
    117
    I definitely agree. But in that case, Unity Plus is useless. This membership is obviously targeted for beginners to give their games an edge, as it is a minimal improvement from personal. But the issue is, it isn't enough of an improvement. A payment plan that removes things such as splash screens to increase the quality of your games, just to make them look a little better for a smaller price, can really help people get extra sales with their products, thus helping them reach the point in their career that they can afford to upgrade to pro.

    I don't know if everyone feels the same way about Unity Plus' purpose, but it certainly seems this way to me.
     
    quantumsheep and hippocoder like this.
  6. Ippokratis

    Ippokratis

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,519
    So much missed potential. Lemon popsicle movie should be used to communicate the benefits of using the back seats.

    The alternatives are out there, being loyal to an engine is tres banale and discussing about that is kinda out of topic.

    New products and prices, I confess I eat popcorn while reading this thread.
     
    hippocoder likes this.
  7. tyoc213

    tyoc213

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Posts:
    166
    Make a plus and a pro license for only PC with 10 USD and 40USD (or something a people have argue about the price for a single PC version)... and with no addons possible to use or download, so you use this tier, or the full tier.
     
  8. f4lke

    f4lke

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Posts:
    35
    I understand you. I mean, I'm Unity user after all. The problem is that Unity decided to only sell the whole package or nothing and i think that's one aggregation too far. The major reason i decided to use unity was the "old" modular licencing system, which, in my opinion, was just right.
    What Unity is trying right now is to sell me a golden pen with 4 cartridges (red, blue, green, yellow), a purple eraser and black eloxal-finished springs. What i asked for is a pen with red cartridge. ;)
     
    Ony, SprinkledSpooks and hippocoder like this.
  9. SprinkledSpooks

    SprinkledSpooks

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Posts:
    117
    If not enough people purchase these addons, then it seems that UT would lose too much money implementing them in the first place.
     
  10. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,120
    You cannot go that cheap when you (a) don't make money from royalties and (b) have a large company to support.
     
    Teila likes this.
  11. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,120
    Right, like choosing a mechanical pencil instead where you can select the thickness of the lead you want, the color of your detachable eraser, the method of extending the lead during use, etc. A similar principal might be difficult to apply to Unity but are there any reasons you couldn't have different ways to pay for it? Royalties and non-royalties?
     
  12. SprinkledSpooks

    SprinkledSpooks

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Posts:
    117
    I'm starting to think that the whole pencil analogy is getting out of hand.

    After all, Unity is much more complex than a pencil.

    And so are its pricing plans.
     
  13. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,185
    So, $125 works out at $4 a day, something like that. Question is, is that too much for level 11, the engine (for all platforms), no splash, and all the services? hmmm...

    Will your game with a splash make more than $4 a day? Assuming you did port to all platforms.
     
    salgado18 likes this.
  14. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,120
    We used to have car analogies but the Unity developer behind those seems to be absent lately.

    It may very well be too much if you don't need the majority of those. That Unity wants to retain some form of the splash screen for Unity Plus is very telling. They clearly understanding that is what a great deal of their customers want.
     
    Teila likes this.
  15. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,185
    I also have a cooker and car analogy above if anyone's really keen on it :D
     
    Ony and Chariots like this.
  16. Zwilnik

    Zwilnik

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Posts:
    62
    it's $1500 a year more than the engine and all the services (which are all available free from other vendors)

    The basic definition of the value of something in economic terms is "What else could I have purchased with that money?". In this case that's a month's rent.

    From the professionalism point of view, the money's still possibly worthwhile to be able to properly brand our games, but the argument for Pro gets harder to make the less it's differentiated from free.
     
    Ony likes this.
  17. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,185
    You spend £2.70 a day on rent? :/ I get what you mean though. In my case I suppose the question is... why not use personal version first? If it earns well just upgrade the splash at that point. There's no need to do it first thing.
     
  18. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,120
    I live with my parents (they're getting up there in years and need help - I'm not just an attic/basement coder) and the mortage on the house is $1100 per month. It's about the average price for apartments and houses in the area too.
     
    quantumsheep likes this.
  19. QFS

    QFS

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    301
    Its not that simple. UT and people are forgetting NOT everyone pays only $125. Its $125 USD (and the two or three other currencies available).

    If your currency isnt available it means you have to purchase it with a currency that isnt your own. So you are at the mercy of of the conversion rates and the fees tacked on top of that by the institution that converts it.

    So while it may be $125 to you. To me (and others in my situation) it will be anywhere between $170 - $220 per month depending on far the conversion rates swing and how much the institutions conversion fees are. And those numbers are ridiculous. They were ridiculous at $75USD/month which is why I cancelled my subscription and bought out the license instead.
     
    HeyItsLollie likes this.
  20. arkon

    arkon

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Posts:
    1,097
    They already have a rock solid paywall in the form of the revenue cap, they don't need to put the splash screen behind the pro wall.
     
    quantumsheep likes this.
  21. Adam-Sowinski

    Adam-Sowinski

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Posts:
    129
  22. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,120
    What's better from Unity's standpoint though? Having you pay at least something during the period your game is making less than $100,000? Or being paid nothing and hope your game(s) makes it to that $100,000 mark? My impression from other posts in this thread is that there are a lot of people who still haven't hit $100,000 that would pay to remove it.
     
    quantumsheep likes this.
  23. tyoc213

    tyoc213

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Posts:
    166

    It is only because I see people not liking to buy all the full package... so they need another package!!! xD so dividing between 3, you can support 1 specific target with the already know price... and that is the number it gets.

    In fact they could make a only 1 cartigdre it can be PC, ios or android, with no addons for the others... or you are on a tier of only 1 platform, or you are on a tier of all platforms, so you have now 2 options.
     
  24. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,120
    Buying the full package only makes sense if you need the full package.
     
    Teila and orb like this.
  25. f4lke

    f4lke

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Posts:
    35
    Yes, it is too much. Not because the whole Pro package isn't worth it, it's actually more than worth it. It's because i don't need 85% of it and i won't pay for unused features. Let's name it: It doesn't matter if i make money with Unreal with only 2 features or 27 features. If I make money, Epic gets paid and everyone is fine with it. Unity forces me to buy subsystems i don't want beforehand and argues with "but you COULD use it, as you get the whole package!". I do not need these features right now and i will not give you money for them. If i need the other features at a later point in my life, i should be able to buy them at a later moment. And this is where the current subscription plans fail horribly.
    Before i was a computer scientist i was a mechanical engineer and we used Siemens NX as CAD. One licence costs 35000€. If the engineer needs more functionality, he pays per feature. End of story. Of course this is a valid licencing model. I really don't understand why Unity, a huge software company, has such big problems to get the licencing straight.
     
    Farage, Teila and orb like this.
  26. Zwilnik

    Zwilnik

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Posts:
    62
    Because we're a professional games development company with a history of great games. I switched to using Unity a couple of years ago because we'd previously been rolling our own engine and Unity was just about at the point of maturity and usability that suited us. This let me change the balance of my workload towards actual game development rather than engine management/development, so a big plus.

    At the time, our revenue was over $100k a year and there's no way we (or potential publishers) would want Unity branding at the start of the game, so we went with Pro.

    Right now though, our revenue is under the $100k mark, so technically we could get away with the free version, but it just doesn't look very professional. So we're sticking with Pro. It's just that with the difference getting less and less it gets harder to justify (actually if Unity Technologies managed to do a PR campaign that magically overnight defined "Made with Unity" as a badge of greatness rather than "oh dear another hello world app", we'd jump to free in a heartbeat).
     
    Ony and hippocoder like this.
  27. tyoc213

    tyoc213

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Posts:
    166
    Thought I agree that you can get it for $0, it is a pain in the ass... (I mean Im not even able to post answer to their forums.... and dont say a thing about on my laptop and PC run the C# examples... they dont work).


    But there is the one that Amazon did buy.... I think they have a better build of this engine.... and you dont need to choose, they give it for free.

    In any case... if that is the matter, go to godot, torque, ogre3d (and all the engines based on it... heck there are even with C# support).... make your own.... and so on.
     
  28. arkon

    arkon

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Posts:
    1,097
    I really should thank Unity really, When 5 came out they pushed me away from upgrading to 5 Pro and saved me just over $2100 in upgrade fees which I promptly spent on a nice new Mac, which meant I now didn't need Cloud Build which then meant less need to pay for Unity Pro and now plus. I still release stuff on Unity 4 Pro albeit with some hacking around to get it to publish to IOS properly.
     
    Ony likes this.
  29. zyzyx

    zyzyx

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Posts:
    222
    From my point of view it is not the $125 (it is actually really cheap compared to other licenses) it is the increase by 100%-500% without getting any additional benefit to what we have/pay for now which I have to justify to my employer.
     
  30. aliceingameland

    aliceingameland

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2016
    Posts:
    143
    I saw a couple people raise the issue that paying monthly from a country that has a fluctuating exchange rate is problematic for them (sorry I couldn't tag you in this post -- couldn't remember who it was that posted it!). It's been a bit slower to get information from people because of the activity around Unite this week, but I'm really happy to say that Plus and Pro subscribers will be able to prepay their subscriptions in 12 month chunks if you wish.
     
  31. camel82106

    camel82106

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2013
    Posts:
    306
    I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding. Basically there a lot of developers like me that do not like new pricing model. (desktop Pro version price will be 5 x times higher) But I have a problem with it? No, I can simply switch to Personal edition and do not pay anything. (I'm not beyond 100k revenue cap. And in fact I do not have problem with splash screen)

    I'm writing here on the forum because I'm afraid that Unity will loose my money and money of people that are in similar situation like me. And that means that Unity will be weaker in future.

    So please try to understand it in this way. We are afraid that Unity is making a mistake. They are literaly forcing me to do not give them my money. Because they just want too much for no added value. And there is some limit that I cannot excuse even to myself...
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    tyoc213, arkon, mathiasj and 6 others like this.
  32. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    It'd be a very interesting explination why they couldn't, but there's a huge difference between technical application and business application. Many can probably relate to "red tape" issues that happen in large companies, where ten hours worth of actual work can turn into a full three month project etc. Not saying that happens in Unity, it's baseless speculation but one can guess.

    @hippocoder

    $125.00 PCM depends a lot on where your live. There's Stingray which has some of the best middleware available, has more features and includes Maya LT in the bundle for $30.00 with no fiscal limitations. It's fine for PC / Console / Mobile..

    You have UE which is much more powerful and feature complete, with no initial outlay (which can do PC / Console / mobile / Linux / Mac OS / Web and supports 2D). You have CE although harder to use has no initial outlay and if you want it doesn't cost you a penny (also supports fringe console like Wii U). Then there's things like Godot for 2D etc. which doesn't cost a penny..

    In terms of platform development, comparing between the other engines only advantages you get is Android TV / Samsung TV / PS Vita / 3DS and Tizen. If they're the platforms you need to target, then you have little choice..

    At the moment, with Unity's plan's it will become the most expensive initial outlay on the market. Although one of the least feature complete, let's face it most of the inadequacies are patched by the sheer awesome community and via the asset store. Although far from all of them..

    So it's the most expensive initial outlay out of the "major" engines, it's the least powerful out the box. Level 11 is pointless in UE because most of the tools are already there for you, splash screens not an issue in any of them.

    So I'll ask you, is $125.00 too much?

    P.S, if Unity could beat the competition hands down I wouldn't mind slipping them $200.00 + per seat, but I'll not pay more for less.
     
  33. DarkArts-Studios

    DarkArts-Studios

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Posts:
    385
    Exactly this! It's an effective 400% price increase for Pro if you're a Desktop-only developer or team.
     
    tyoc213, Ony, chingwa and 1 other person like this.
  34. auld5150

    auld5150

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2016
    Posts:
    8
    Obviously we don't have access to Unity's books, but I can't help but feel the consensus here is right: they are sending extremely mixed messages with their pricing model. To some extent this has been happening for a long time, and the new announcements just put a finer point on it.

    Given that a vast percentage of their user base has to be hobbyists and very small shops, with very modest (or no) income from games...

    Given that a vast majority of hobbyists and low earners cannot fiscally justify the pro tier (even as it is currently priced, and definitely not in the new model)...

    And given that the $100,000 limit means that the vast majority of users will never be legally compelled to pay up...

    What you end up with is a staggeringly big pool of free users and a (probably very) tiny percentage at the top paying for pro. Not unlike a free-to-play mobile game. And since Unity doesn't take royalties, the amount they can make from those top-end users is capped. This means no "whales" for Unity, to extend the analogy.

    But really, the whales are what make most free-to-play models work. Without them, those games fail. Assuming that Unity is not going to rethink its policy on royalties, I think they really need to focus hard on getting some cash from that vast percentage at the bottom. Nominally this is the point of the newly announced middle tier, but as everyone says, it is profoundly unattractive in its current form.

    What if they threw away the current middle tier idea, and replaced it with an even cheaper option -- say, $99 a year, much like Apple asks from its developers, and along with that they offered something genuinely useful? Splash screen removal is what jumps to mind, but there could also be some Unity-made asset packs with the most general-purpose assets they can think of, to appeal to just about everyone. Fairly low-level infrastructure stuff.

    My reasoning is simple: I think a cheap yearly subscription with genuine value-add would allow them to capitalize on a vastly higher precentage of users than they currently do. Yes, the potential take per user is less than the propsed middle tier. But I believe the sheer number of users who could really justify a $99 annual fee -- just the cost of a couple new AAA games per year -- would convert far, far more free users into paid users. And in the process, if splash screen removal was on the table, it would have the side effect of removing some of those questionable games with splash screens from the app stores and Steam, making the splash less ubiquitous and less of a "thing". And then, after a few years like that, meanwhile possibly trying to actually get the splash INTO a few top-quality productions over that time, the stage might finally be set for a complete removal of the mandatory splash, and an eventual reversal from "Made with Unity" as a badge of shame to "Made with Unity" as a point of pride.
     
    Ony and quantumsheep like this.
  35. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    Just to let the Unreal talk go away:

    if you make over $2500 a month with it, you are paying them more than you pay Unity for a Pro subscription. Multiply that for the number of Unity licenses, but I still think it's way below what an indie studio should make to survive. So, Unreal is more expensive if things go right, which means Unity is cheaper in the medium-long term.
     
  36. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    About the desktop-only price increase, I see it from another perspective: the Android and iOS add-ons are left-overs from the old business model of Unity, who added new platforms every year without making new add-ons for them. It is natural and logical to merge all of it in a single package, it is the way it should have been a long time ago.

    Asking for a "desktop only" version is asking for a custom solution for you, it benefits no one but your use case. Yes, it costs more, but the majority (I believe) of developers also go mobile or VR or console, and for the majority it is cheaper.

    I also hope you all get some contract work in mobile to fund your desktop projects (ok, just kidding) (unless you need, of course) :rolleyes::p:D
     
  37. f4lke

    f4lke

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2013
    Posts:
    35
    There are more figures and considerations than the licence costs per engine. And therefore the "Unreal talk" is not off the table, not even close. :)
     
    Farage, Chariots, Ryiah and 1 other person like this.
  38. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,120
    Exactly. If we're basing our decision solely on the price we may as well choose Godot. Or any other engine that is open source or simply free. After all why pay a subscription fee when you can pay zero, right? Except that price alone isn't sufficient to choose an engine that will suit your needs.

    There are other far more important factors like the degree of support provided by the company and community, the features provided and their ease of use, the documentation, whether or not it has an asset marketplace, whether source is available, and the list could go on for quite a ways.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
    Ony and Chariots like this.
  39. knr_

    knr_

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    257
    It is most certainly not going away.

    Does a developer end up paying more? Perhaps. But the answer is not that simple. It also doesn't penalize the developer that makes nothing. It grows in direct relationship with how much revenue comes in.

    Since dropping Unity (at least temporarily) after the announcement, I've been quite impressed going through the C/C++ source that they have. In particular I've been looking at how the files are organized in the engine project (the game project is clean), rendering code and player movement so far.
     
    arkon and Ony like this.
  40. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,456
    The Asset Store is Unity's "Whale".
     
    Ony likes this.
  41. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,185
    Unreal becomes more expensive when the expense doesn't matter, that is the key reason why people are attracted to it. Nobody likes royalties, but it does have the smallest barrier to entry if you don't want splash.

    What people appear to be upset about is that the unity plan doesn't scale from a small enough level. Merging platforms was the only sane move from Unity. You can't have separate platform pricing in 2016. It doesn't exist, no competitors do it. So that needed merging. But from plus to pro, the price scaling is off vs what you get / want.
     
    katoun, mathiasj, Ony and 9 others like this.
  42. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,456
    Does the whole company really atrophy when Unite is going on? All this stuff needs to be addressed and quickly... why do they insist on announcing these ill-considered changes at a time when they can't respond in a timely manner? I've been slowly starting to dread any announcements from Unite the past few years and this one seals it... from now on whenever Unite is coming to town I'm going to be boarding up my windows and stocking up on duct-tape and canned beans. There should be a "S***storm imminent" warning plastered across every tv-screen. (sigh.)
     
    arkon, Ony, quantumsheep and 13 others like this.
  43. knr_

    knr_

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    257
    I think this is probably the bulk of it.

    and to Ryiah's point, I checked out their roadmap - and its impressive how organized and fast they are getting things done.
     
    salgado18 likes this.
  44. sngdan

    sngdan

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Posts:
    986
    Opinion of a hobbyist, working with Unity Personal.

    Overall, it is a great free product that I enjoyed working with for the last 6 months
    - I have it longer but only started working with it the last months
    - I am not directly affected by the price changes
    - I ultimately would like to see Unity successful to be able continue to have fun with my hobby (a good tennis racket is more fun to play with than a bad one).


    I don't know how Unity defines success, but I would assume in the end it is profitability and they need to find a way to maximize profit, possibly in a way that still supports a diverse customer base (this democratization talk). So they need to take the maximum of what each of us is willing to pay. And i guess that is defined by how much return (money, fun, etc) we make with what we develop.

    I could see something like this working:

    1. Personal / free edition
    - Full featured version to allow testing + allow hobbyists to have some fun
    - Potential benefit to Unity: convert to paying customers, bigger community, beta testers
    - Restrictions: I would understand strong limitations like (a) splash screen, (b) in app unity banners, (c) no ability to offer in app stores (but being able to deploy to own devices, etc. for testing or own use), (d) app quits after 30 minutes, (e) restrictions with regards to the pro features like # of net, analytics, etc.
    - This might also help with the brand image (i.e. less low quality games in app stores, etc.)

    I understand that this suggestion is not to my personal benefit, but hey, I am trying to be objective here + the minimum fee, I am suggesting next, should be low to keep the entry barrier reasonable.

    2. Paid edition
    - minimum fee (from 0 - XXX revenue)
    - scalable fee (% of revenue from XXX - ZZZ) - we accept this also in most distribution platforms like app stores
    - ZZZ is not infinity but a cap, after which Unity is no longer participating

    Ideally this would provide a low entry for hobbyists, small teams + not alienate more professional teams as they can calculate the maximum % * ZZZ that the license would cost.

    To make live more complicated, the minimum fee could be an all features in fee or a scalable fee, dependent on how many modules (i.e. analytics, deploy platforms, network users, etc.) one selects. One benefit could be that Unity sees, what features actually are in demand. But i think in the end, its making things more complicated and they participate through the revenue people make, no matter what features they use.

    3. Credibility - for both personal + paid edition
    I think this is what they need to work on most. In the end, we all want to know what we are committing to with either our time and/or money. The whole reliability with regards to the roadmap, release cycle, stability of core features has been more frustrating than it should have. I wish they would focus on key things, have a realistic release schedule and stick to it. Features I was looking for have been pushed back again and again (2D, Retina, etc.). Happy if they leave other features to 3rd parties or start selling very specific things on their own unity store once they are ready.

    A revision of supported platforms might also be beneficial. As nice as it might be to support many platforms, it seems resources might be used for something that has very little revenue potential for unity.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  45. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    That's only a tiny portion of the entire picture though, end of the day Unity want pro users right? I've said this before but let's go again. I'd need 10 licenses, that's $125.00 X 10 X 36 months (roughly) and that comes to $45,000.. Cool!.

    In royalties @ 5%, I'd have to earn $900,000 to incur the same cost. Then how much will it cost me in man hours to make the tools that are defacto in other engines (if I can) and / or buy from asset store (some per seat)? We're talking well over a $1Mil before it starts to even matter..

    Then it's a closed source engine, which means if you don't want to bee left up a creek without a paddle you're going to have to pay for decent support facilities from Unity. Last time I checked that was $250.00 or so a month. Which is an additional $9000.00 over a 36 month development period.

    Yes, maybe this is a larger case example for an Indie. Although the base principle still applies to teams of 5 / 2 / 1 as well.

    The point being, you have to look at how much it's going to cost you for an entire project. Not what it's going to cost you next month, what are the "hidden" costs? At what point do royalties matter?

    P.S I hope you'd be smart enough to arrange a custom deal with Epic when you start getting towards the $1Mil mark. They will do them and they're not that expensive.
     
    arkon, Ony, Ryiah and 5 others like this.
  46. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,808
    From the UE website:

    No, you pay nothing unless you make 3k each quarter, which is 3 months. If you make over 3k in 3 months, you pay 5% on the amount over 3k.

    So you would have to make over 12k each year to pay...but of course, some quarters you would not pay at all if you were under the 3k.

    Just thought I would clarify. It is up to each developer to decide what is worth it for their budget and their billing/tax structure.
     
    Ony, Deleted User and f4lke like this.
  47. darky

    darky

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Posts:
    173
    As someone who cares about only one platform (Desktop) I feel dismayed by these news. I've been on Pro with Unity 4 and again on Unity 5 even though I didn't totally need it and just barely could afford it. It just felt good to be free of the limitations and I did not take the refund that was offered for the 5 License at the time in order to keep supporting it and because I felt it still retained enough value. Now though, the price went far above my comfort zone and I certainly do not like subscriptions (as a whole, including prepaid). I think Plus is intended to catch users like myself, but if you're like me you get less value with it than before (including the Splashscreen, but not only) and there is too much ambiguity. It's not really appealing to me at all. The old model is much more to my liking. Now next cycle and forward I'll stay on Free until I'd hit closer to that revenue cap and live with the drawbacks, so they sadly won't see any more money from me for some time. I'm also really not convinced that Unity can make up for losing the paying users like myself with these new plans, since I believe we are many in numbers. So yeah, I don't really like these changes, I think it'll only make a gigantic Free user base that contains many that would be willing to drop some cash if they are able to but now won't anymore because it's either too expensive or doesn't provide enough value (Plus) :confused:
     
    arkon, Ony, Farage and 4 others like this.
  48. tswalk

    tswalk

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Posts:
    1,106
    wow, what another kick in the balls for perpetual license holders.

    * Unity 5 was basically a beta program
    * Level 11 was ok like the first month or two, and now it will be per Quarter? (and only two assets?)
    * You basically force us to pay a sub at 500%+ cost? (upgrades were ~50% for early adopters, now? 125$/mo.)
    * You have not even announced any costs for your "rent-to-own" plans (seriously, rent to own?)

    You all seriously need a bigger differentiation between "Free", "Sub", "Pro", and Enterprise then what you are offering... throwing a bone in for a free asset or two every 3 months is a joke, and we all know you will eventually give in to the "theme" issue.

    Disappointing.
     
    arkon likes this.
  49. Wild-Factor

    Wild-Factor

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Posts:
    605
    Simple game have less chance to make money. And you will most probably loose money. (don't loose your time searching exception..)
    90% of chance that your game make 1$ a day. And you need to pay Unity but also your rent, food etc.. during the time you are making the game. Stop pretending that making a small game is enough to pay Unity.
    In the current market, even a good small mobile game don't make you enough to pay for Unity plus...
    And you have to make a Good game. Stop trying to sell a product by making people dream that they will make a ton of money easily, and Unity is cheap compare to what they will earn, when you perfectly know that the current market crush 90% of them.
    The current market is not in the same state that you got when you start !
    At 1500$ perpetual license (700$ upgrade) 2 years, unity is cheap. At 125$ a month it's in the normal price range, like every other engine...

    Unity is an official sponsor of the indie apocalypse :)
     
    arkon, Chariots and Zwilnik like this.
  50. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,808
    Unity has always used this line. "Make a game and use the income to buy pro". It used to be worse when the free version was so limiting. It means a lot less now. :)

    However, the vast majority of Unity users make enough money with any game to use that income to buy pro, especially if they have more than one team member.

    I think the intention is to inspire and motivate users to actually make games, no matter how simple, rather than get in over their heads immediately by paying a large cost for Pro.

    But..it feels someone condescending, doesn't it?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
unityunity