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. AlanMattano

    AlanMattano

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Posts:
    1,114
    You can vote my petition for strong branding improvement splash video here:

    VOTE LINK
     
  2. orb

    orb

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Posts:
    2,960
    At the current price it's even more out of the question than $75 for one platform (for the people who don't release desktop+mobile). They're almost making it more attractive to jump on the current sub to be locked in until 2018, but once this "grace period" ends, what is there to move to but Personal Edition?

    Plus is a solution looking for a problem. While reducing complexity for themselves they added another tier we have to compare, and it's possible they could snatch up some suckers who don't read. But it's not removing the splash, it's not increasing the revenue limit and I have my own server. My 100kB/s upload makes most game projects too large for constant cloud builds.

    Pro by itself is nice for those who are currently paying $150 or $225 per month, but it's only upgrading the price for people who are paying $75/month today. I already thought $75 was too much anyway, and we have no idea what form the new perpetual option will take. It might be a huge pre-payment which puts it out of my range, or it could be a monthly commitment. I'd like to see more about that before I bitch & moan about the other options.
     
  3. Zwilnik

    Zwilnik

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Posts:
    62
    Well, their analysts would have to work it out but I suspect they'd pick up a lot more of the smaller developers that were on the shelf. The pricing (or "paying for anything at all") is more towards the bigger studios that are going to have to buy a lot of copies anyway, so they're probably going to gain as a whole.

    The Ad bundle is something that's feasibly scaleable. So they could do a smaller bundle for Plus users.
     
  4. Zwilnik

    Zwilnik

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Posts:
    62
    You do realise that the splash screen is a fixed screen right? It's the screen displayed while the app is physically loading, so can't be animated or changed in any way once built into the app.
     
  5. mdrotar

    mdrotar

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Posts:
    377
    I like that idea. Last I heard, Unity Ads wasn't worth getting into when Admob and others do it way better, but extra exposure certainly wouldn't hurt. It might get more people using Unity Ads, which will hopefully snowball it into a better service.
     
  6. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,456
    You just lost all credibility hippo!

    As for what can be done about all this the easiest solution, though obviously unpalatable to Unity, is to drop the splash screen from plus completely. This will give a reason for it's existence and while many current pro users will downgrade to it there is still incentive (for some) to go to the new pro level. This would solve about 50% of the complaints here and prove that Unity is "listening" to their community and win back some credibility for them.

    As for subscription-only licensing... I hate it, but am willing to wait to see what Unity will offer to current perpetual users.
     
    Ryiah, Ony and hippocoder like this.
  7. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    That's what I think is missing. Is this an offer to buy into the 5.x only? Or is it like a subscription, where you get all upgrades, but one it ends you get the last engine you paid for? All that can change the discussion about perpetual licenses going away, but for some reason they only want to talk to each of us on the phone, like there would be some secret about it (and like we wouldn't come to the forums to talk about it ;))
     
  8. 00christian00

    00christian00

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    Posts:
    818
    Because you mentioned 36 months of subscription, and that should be for the single game development, otherwise you should lower the months amount for a fair comparison.
    36 months of development for a 10 person studio is going to cost more than 1million usd even in a third world country.
    I can't comment on the tech side of Unreal because I haven't used(never felt the need since I am working on a mobile title), not in general.
    I am sure Unreal for AAA desktop titles has many more ready advanced tools, but from what I read it's also much more complex to work with so what you gain on one side you lose on another, so the scale is always balanced.
    Both of them has its pro and cons, and have different business models without a clear winner or everybody would be using the same.
    In my opinion Unity has a much better offering in economical terms, can't beat totally free, but everybody is so fixated with the splash screen when it's the last of the worries for the users.
    Make an original game or a cool game with awesome graphic with the Unity splash and nobody will care, make the thousandth clone of flappy bird, crossy road or whatever is hot at the moment and people will be bothered by more than a logo.
     
    Devil_Inside and hippocoder like this.
  9. Ony

    Ony

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Posts:
    1,917
    This is my case in a nutshell. I've been a paid Unity user since 2009, with Pro versions right up until version 5. I was over the $100k bracket so it was necessary to purchase Pro.

    It just so happens that when I finally switched from v4 Pro to v5, it was the first time in a long time that I hadn't passed $100k for the last fiscal year. Regardless, I still would have purchased v5 Pro, since I needed the extras the Pro version offered. Thanks to Unity's generosity, I actually didn't have to, because they gave away the farm for free. I don't care about the splash screen, a lot of my users are long time users and they don't care. So I used Personal Edition for my latest game, and saved $750 (upgrade cost). Only real downside is I sure miss that dark editor UI, but, meh, it's not worth $750 to me.

    So, here I am now, about to sign on to do a job for a client, and because of that I'll be moving to Pro. The job is already lined up to do in Unity, so Unity it will be. My next game might not be, to be truthful. Things are getting too confusing around here.

    Honestly, when Unity decided to give everything away for free, I thought what the hell? What about the good money I've put into this engine? Are free users (the loudest and largest group) going to be catered to now and us paid users will get put on the sidelines? I think giving away free engines is the worst thing to happen to the industry, for multiple reasons, but then again I'm old school so it's just how I think. There's no way to turn back now. It's like an arms race to see who can give away the most to the people who pay the least. Bizarre. But hey, what do I know?

    Was going to say more but I'll stop now before I get tagged as an elitist, haha.

    Unity, you're awesome. Please stop screwing around with different tiers and splash screen do-overs and confusing everything. Figure out who's going to give you money, and make those people happy. I've got my wallet ready.
     
    mtornio, pcg, KnifeMedia and 22 others like this.
  10. Zwilnik

    Zwilnik

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Posts:
    62
    can you post that again so I can like it more than once please? :)
     
    Ony likes this.
  11. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,456
    This is so true! This is like marketing 101, why is this not happening? LOL. We're living in the twilight zone.
     
  12. Verathez

    Verathez

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2012
    Posts:
    1
    The only problem I see is that indies/small teams focused on standalone platforms would have to pay up to 500% more without getting any additional benefits (lets be honest - those services are pretty useless if you're not a mobile dev nor a big comapny).

    The 'Unity Plus' offer translates to "pay us 35$/month for the dark skin" - say it out loud and you'll hear how ridiculous it sounds :)

    I know that UT has to make money but those subscription plans proposed doesn't look like the right solution - many of standalone devs will probably downgrade to Unity Free (or other engine which would be even worse from UT point of view).

    Free users are happy?
    They should be - don't see a reason to complain from their point of view.

    Mobile devs are happy?
    Hell yeah they are :)

    Indies focused on standalone platforms are happy?
    Not so much.
    So why not make them happy with a modification to the Unity Plus subscription plan.


    Unity Free
    Add Dark skin (seriously almost noone will pay 35$/month for it).
    Reduce the revenue limit to $75.000/year


    Unity Plus (primarly for standalone-only devs)
    No Splash Screen for standalone platforms
    MWU for other platforms
    Increase revenue limit to $150.000/year
    $35/month with 2 years commitment (rent to own would be nice ;) )
    $50/month with 1 year commitment (no rent to own)
    $75/month with 6 months commitment (no rent to own)


    I think UT would benefit from such subscription plans a lot more. I might be wrong but I don't think that mobile devs would have anything against it.

    Also it would be nice if the MWU from Free version would be different from the MWU from Plus version just to differentiate between paying and not-paying customers.
     
    nicktringali likes this.
  13. knr_

    knr_

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    257
    Here's an idea.

    Unity Standard License
    x% after the first y revenue. Revenue from Unity Ads is not counted as a portion is already taken out from that revenue.

    Unity Royalty Free License
    Contact Unity to discuss royalty free licensing options tailored specifically to you or your development team.

    Support
    - Learn: Rework the Unity Learn section of the website to have free and premium tutorials. Free would cover just the basics. Offer a premium support subscription that includes all tutorials.

    - Put all the feature request, bug tracking, etc... into the premium support package. While it is nice that everyone has a say right now on these things, really only people who are more committed should be having input now.

    - Possibly divide the forum space into free forums and premium support forums, where the free is more of the community interacting with the community and the premium forums are where Unity interacts with the conversations as well.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  14. BrUnO-XaVIeR

    BrUnO-XaVIeR

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,687
    "And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad..."
    I think there's a song that goes like that.

    I'm sorry for you, unity users.
     
    koblavi likes this.
  15. moonjump

    moonjump

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Posts:
    2,336
    The game engine market is switching away from subscription, not to it.

    Unreal Engine 4 have dropped their (much lower) subscription fee and become more popular.

    CryEngine have dropped their (much lower) subscription fee and become more popular (from a very low point when they had a subscription).

    Amazon have entered the market with Lumberyard without a subscription and are being talked about positively.

    Autodesk have entered the market with Stingray with a (much lower) subscription fee and are not being talked about.
     
    Chariots and Ony like this.
  16. pango

    pango

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Posts:
    7
    Seems a good idea to me. :)

    Personnally, i don't mind paying to get rid of the splash screen (like the Plus plan, only for that splash screen), and i'd say i don't mind the splash screen, even on mobile, except for the "Personal edition" statement which is clearly not good image. It never occurred to me to stop using an app because of a few seconds splash screen. But I understand some people could.

    I don't really need the pro feature (for now though), neither the plus features, I was happy with the free version before, I'm happy with the new features it got, but well I'm from the 80s videos games so, you know, a few pixels with great ideas and gameplay are enough for me!

    I think i also don't totally agree with Ony, although yeah i think wanting always more for free is not viable. I'm into music as writer/musician, and well it seems that there's no way to make a long term living with music because people tend to think the work you did is somehow not worth paying. But the tendency in music was the opposit for a long time, paying too much (and too little to artists, not talking about hugely successful artists of course) only because there were no other way to broadcast the music than majors. Now you can somehow do it for less costs. So I get your point, but less costs can also be good to a certain extent.
    But I like the idea that you can start something (a project) professionnally with just an idea and investing little to almost no money. Because your ability to invest money at the beginning is not related to how great your idea is, therefore, to a certain extent, to how great your game can be. I guess it's all a matter of finding the right balence after all.

    Was it too out of topic though? :D
     
    Teila likes this.
  17. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,164
    Some players may have preconceptions based on the splash screen but many more people are familiar with watermarks being attached to trial software. Besides removing the splash is about hiding that logo and not simply putting it elsewhere.
     
    f4lke likes this.
  18. ZJP

    ZJP

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Posts:
    2,646
    orb likes this.
  19. pango

    pango

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2013
    Posts:
    7
    I agree for watermark, but not if it's on your custom splash screen, providing you thought about it while making the splash screen.
    Honestly I know no game with substantial content to be loaded without a splash screen, and often a loading screen after the splash screen.
    I don't think I was talking about removing the splash screen though. It just seems to me that your own logo with the unity logo in a corner is no big deal. But I see your point.
     
  20. mdrotar

    mdrotar

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Posts:
    377
    Remember, most mobile devs are seeing a price increase too. Almost no one actually pays the $225/mo subscription for all platforms. Most are on perpetual licenses with an effective cost of $75/mo or $94/mo going forward.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  21. landon912

    landon912

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Posts:
    1,572
    I might be misunderstanding, but there is no reason he need to leave simply because he doesn't actively use Unity. If he wants to talk about relevant stuff here, by all means he has that right. @ShadowK doesn't use Unity as his main engine anymore, yet is still a respected community member. Do you want to tell him to get out?

    (Sorry to drag your name into it @ShadowK, you're simply the most respected member who speaks out the most about using Unreal that I thought of. Hope you don't mind. :p)
     
  22. orb

    orb

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Posts:
    2,960
    Attitude and tone has a LOT to do with it.
     
  23. landon912

    landon912

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2011
    Posts:
    1,572
    Hmm, I didn't seen anything wrong with his post. But hey, there's always the ignore button if it does for you! ;)
     
  24. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,244
    No. The minimum for pro mobile dev previously was $150/mo or $3k. It's the same or less. You can't mix and match licenses, and the desktop one was mandatory before. Which ever way it's sliced, the new deal is a win for developers into mobile. I had to purchase Unity pro desktop + Unity pro iOS just to develop on iOS and so on. This was something that I was always unhappy with.

    The only people who lose out are those only interested in desktop development from what I can tell.

    I would, but I might forfeit my fantasy holiday.
     
  25. nicktringali

    nicktringali

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Posts:
    23
    You're right. I was thinking more broadly in the high-end software market, Adobe, Autodesk, etc.
     
    moonjump likes this.
  26. nicktringali

    nicktringali

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Posts:
    23
    Going off that migration graph, this is the largest share of paying customers, right?
     
  27. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    6,378
    No it's not. It was 3k for two years and then there are upgrade prices which were generally half.
     
  28. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,244
    Yeah they may still win though with the offers they get when it runs out, we'll have to see when the time comes. Of course something like 2018 or later may see no more upgrades, but that's sufficiently far off I think.

    It's the desktop only guys who get short straw.
     
  29. AcidArrow

    AcidArrow

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Posts:
    6,378
    Like you could make them make you a better offer if you were buying more than one perpetual license? I don't see how it's exclusive to subscription.

    Subscription is more expensive. This is a price hike disguised as a new "service". The end.
     
    elias_t and Devil_Inside like this.
  30. knr_

    knr_

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2012
    Posts:
    257
    The offer they make to me and my fellow teammates for being loyal perpetual license holders since the 3.x life cycle has to be exceptionally stellar to stop looking at other engines now - not that one small team switching technologies makes a big difference in the grand scheme of things but its significant for us obviously.

    We would be fine with a revenue-based model as long as the percentage is competitive with the rates that other technologies are offering. Giving the option for switching that to a royalty-free license, even if the royalty-free license is far higher than $1,500, after the product has produced enough revenue to justify the royalty-free license price, would seal the deal and we would stop evaluating other options.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2016
  31. mdrotar

    mdrotar

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Posts:
    377
    NO! :p I think you misunderstood. I said perpetual licenses. It's been said a few times now, but let's do it again because this thread just keeps going and going. Upgrades of perpetual licenses have been $750 per platform normally and $600 for a limited time. $750 * desktop * ios * android = $2250. Perpetual licenses get updates for ~2 years, so $2250 / 24 months = $94. As I'm sure you know $125/mo is higher than $94/mo. And if you use $600 figure, it works out to $75/mo.

    Sure, there was no guarantee Unity was going to continue that pricing. Unity has the right to change their prices. But as it stands right now given the information we have, it's going to cost most people (including most mobile developers) more in the future.
     
  32. moonjump

    moonjump

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Posts:
    2,336
    I will start positively. We are talking about this so passionately because we like developing in Unity. It is a great piece of software. We need it to work for us on all levels, and for a wide user base so that it will survive. We want Unity to succeed.

    The misstep could have been giving away all the engine features for free with Unity 5. The Pro licence was no longer about giving you the top features, it was about giving you services. But those services were not finished, had to compete in some cases against market-leading free competitors, were not a complete set (where are the cross-platform leaderboards, achievements, and cloud game saves?), and you still had to pay for them beyond small limits. If Unity had bought a company like GameSparks, integrated all their services, and gave unlimited access within the Pro fee, then that could have worked well (and could have had non-Pro customers paying for services).

    Unity raising, rather than lowering, their prices for the first time means the change to services probably didn't work. Mobile subscribers are the big winners here, but it appears the vast majority of the paying customers were on the perpetual licences. I don't blame them, it is a cheaper option long term, and has no future commitment in an uncertain world. Adobe and Autodesk are the only companies I can think of that have made a switch to subscription work, and they have done that by making it far better value than a purchase, and so opening them up to a wider market.

    This thread suggests their Pro numbers will reduce as a result of the changes, possibly at a scale that outweighs the additional income per Pro user. So it appears that Unity Plus is the saviour, and it has been said many times here what people are willing to pay for.

    Plus currently has nothing for me. I prefer the standard Unity interface to the dark one. I just wish the Unity Forums were as easy on the eyes as the standard Unity interface. A package of assets? The same ones every Plus subscriber will get free? I'll look like an asset flipper if they are identifiable. Many of the other features seem more suited to teams.

    Unity's advantage over the opposition is at the hobby end of the market. Those customers will not pay large amounts individually, but small amounts will build up at scale, and Unity has a customer base at a scale never seen before in game development.
     
    float, Ony and mathiasj like this.
  33. tswalk

    tswalk

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Posts:
    1,106
    it would be nice to know what exactly they're going to offer perpetual license holders of 5.x at this point.

    I'm not really seeing a reason to buy-in at the moment. Considering groups1, 2, & 3 on their transition roads are primarily that lot.

    I would have to be an complete idiot to buy-in on something they haven't even released specs on (I'm supposing Unity 6, or will it be Unity 5.5.xxx, for another year?)

    Would it be that much of a PITA to pickup C++, and move engines at this point?.. or even just stick with 5.x cycle for another year or two and wait for the Unity 6.x beta to finish... THEN get a subscription?...

    not really.
     
    Ony and Deleted User like this.
  34. steego

    steego

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    912
    My suggestion would be to make all the editions the same, dark skin and custom splash-screen for everybody! And then only differentiate on services and revenue cap.
    • Personal: Dark skin, custom splash, basic services, $50k revenue cap
    • Plus: Dark skin, custom splash, more services, $100k revenue cap
    • Pro: Dark skin, custom splash, all services, no revenue cap
     
    Devil_Inside and salgado18 like this.
  35. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,813
    How about an option to use dark skin. I prefer the standard skin. I have eye issues and dark screens make it worse for me. :) Don't take away my skin! :p
     
    quantumsheep likes this.
  36. hippocoder

    hippocoder

    Digital Ape Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    Posts:
    26,244
    I'm pretty sure David Helgason is thinking right now "I told you guys." as he knows you can lower your prices but you can't raise them.

    It was mentioned in an interview somewhere, a remark he made about pricing can go down but not up. I think this is kind of proof of it. Unity needed to explain openly it's more products in one so suffers a higher price. Not sure what to say really.

    Perhaps they can do the first year at $75 as a shock absorber, with $125 in the year to follow. Kind of like you know, an upgrade.

    Had Unity said "hey guys we're going to give you a present. All licenses in one!" and they'd have been heroes at the same $75.

    But as they just charged $125, it's a shock I guess.
     
    AlanMattano, moonjump, Ryiah and 4 others like this.
  37. steego

    steego

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    912
    Light skin will only be available with the Enterprise option, contact your sales representative for further information.
     
    Ony and Teila like this.
  38. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,813
    Why not just leave Desktop only at $75? If they really want us Personal Edition uses to pay something, then offer us things we can use.

    I find the 2 flexible seats funny. With free, I have unlimited flexible seats! I can invite anyone to help us! Of course, I would feel differently if I really wanted that dark skin. ;)
     
    Ryiah and orb like this.
  39. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,813
    :eek:
     
  40. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    I see now that placing all the eggs in one basket has finally made me regret not learning other engines/languages. I am and will be for a long time a main Unity developer, but this has led me to make standard apps in it (for example), which not only is not ideal, but needed a feature (splash screen) only available in the most expensive package. That's not Unity's fault, that's mine.

    I still advocate for a removal of the splash screen as a pay-wall, and using it as a marketing and branding tool. Also, a better value on the Plus and Pro subscriptions, to make it really worth it paying for them. And, for all those who prefer it, a good cost-benefit on perpetual license.
     
  41. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    On the other hand, it will be unfair to iOS and Android developers.

    If all platforms where standard like they did, and the Plus subscription was good enough, could it make you transition from Pro to Plus?

    Also, why not just make Free, and Pro unified at $75? Why make some people pay a bit less for very little benefit and force others who want more to pay more than they used to? Wouldn't $75 normalize and bring about the same revenue, while making every licensee happier (no price increase for desktop, more affordable for mobile)?
     
  42. steego

    steego

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    912
    What'd be ideal though was if we didn't have just the light and the dark skin, but that it was fully customizable with themes. Not just because it's fancy, but there are people who need high contrast because of poor eyesight for example, and color blind people etc.
     
    mdrotar, Ryiah and Teila like this.
  43. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,813
    Why? They used to pay more, now pay less for all mobile platforms. I would think they would be happy. Not everyone begrudges others, you know. Desktop users will only have Desktop. Seems perfectly fair to me.

    If mobile users are unhappy that Desktop only pay less, they they are rather selfish, imho. It doesn't affect them at all.

    As for the Personal Edition, you can fight that one with Unity. Unity has had a free version for many many years. Their mission is to Democratize, which basically means they want everyone to be able to make games. I imagine they took the free version fully featured because it was too difficult to divide free from pro with Unity 5.

    I am not worried at all that they will touch the free version. I think everyone here knows they will not. I do not think it is a bad idea though to entice us to spend money on services...but those services need to be something we want.

    The best way to help is to give suggestions that really will help.

    In our case, I think $35 for a low cost "pro" version like Plus is a good idea...but, what they have offered is just not the right "stuff" to entice us. We have a small team, so are not a single developer. For us, the cost would be $105 a month, which is not bad, comparatively.

    BUT, we don't care about the dark screen. Really are not concerned about the splash at this point, don't need the two flex seats right now...and that would cost us more money so probably not until we have revenue, are not making a multiplayer game with using Unet's servers, and certainly don't want asset store items that we can't pick (we probably have all the good ones anyway). Many of the services are really for mobile, not for a large desktop game, so useless.

    I could see maybe it being useful if we change our mind before release and want a custom splash screen....AND our community is large enough to make spending the money not so risky....but that won't be for a while. Might happen though, who knows. :)

    Do you honestly think the free version is the reason for the increase? Maybe Plus, but my guess it is all the complaints about having to pay extra for mobile as well as competitors offering all-in-one packages. We used free before it was fully featured. Had we really ran into the limitations of the old free, we would have just tried another engine. C++ has never been an obstacle for us.

    One thing we have contributed is buying a lot of assets. :) Had we bought Pro, we would not have been able to do that.
     
    quantumsheep and Ony like this.
  44. Jaimi

    Jaimi

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2009
    Posts:
    5,017
    I agree - Unity is a business, and can't give everything away for free. $35 a month isn't a deal breaker for me. It doesn't make me excited to be paying more (I currently pay the upgrade fee every 2 years), but hey, prices go up, that's just life. I personally don't care if it has a Unity splash screen. I think it's no different then the 85 other splash screens that developers put at the front of their apps that say "havok", etc.

    But what they're offering doesn't seem like much better than Free. So my choice is "Pay more for something I don't use?" or pay nothing? Maybe they should have made the pro mobile features a feature of Plus. Or give better ad revenue.
     
    Ony and Teila like this.
  45. Tanel

    Tanel

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Posts:
    508
    Only the people that are subscribers to one or more add-ons will pay less. For everyone else the new Pro will be more expensive.

    And it kinda would be unfair if you only want one mobile platform for example (if there was an exception for desktop only at a lower price).
     
    salgado18 and elias_t like this.
  46. alejobrainz

    alejobrainz

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    Posts:
    250
    I completely agree with this. We are mobile developers, and in our case few folks work on a specific platform, and the majority of programmers actually work on tools and don't deal with platform specific stuff. In fact we only use one seat with both platforms and very rarely do use both platforms, especially given the pain of switching platform (now its a bit easier with the cache server, but still). We have been perpetual licence customers since 2005 (yes, unity 1.0 back in the OTEE days) and this change is, in our case, significant compared to upgrading each unity pro plus each add-on for $750 each every 2 years (from our current spending of roughly 55/mo/seat to 125/mo/seat). In our case, and in practice having all platforms for all dev does not give us any specific advantage but it does increase costs by over 2x.
     
    elias_t and Devil_Inside like this.
  47. Onsterion

    Onsterion

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2014
    Posts:
    211
    Well, resuming and doing my final opinion about the focus of the Unity Products.

    Unity Personal (Unity Starter i guess it's a better name):


    This product have to be focus in training new people and help them to discover the potencial of Unity like doing Demos. Resuming:

    1- All Feactures (ALL).
    2- All Platforms.
    3- Obviously Updates.
    4- MVU Splash Screen.
    5- Multiplayer: 20 users are fine for learn.
    6- Editor UI? Why this have to be limited? o_O.
    7- And all related for people who needs learn, research and make demos for discover the potencial of Unity.

    Unity Plus (This product had to be named Unity Personal):

    This product is for the Indie People, persons who some times and with lucky can sold a Unity App (Games obviously and aplications) and gain money for paid their needs and with that part of their earnings to pay monthly unity.

    $35 dollars it's a Good Price.

    1- All the Feactures in Unity Personal.
    2- Custom Splash screen for get money i have to sold apps out of the box not demos.
    3- And all the necessary tools for buy and maintenance a Game / App.
    4- Asset Packs and discounts same as Unity Pro because Indies needs more help doing successful sales.

    Unity Pro:

    Professional people who work for a intermediate companies but have a few people working with Unity.

    $125 i guess for a intermediate company it's fine.

    1- Unity Personal + Unity Plus.
    2- Unity Multiplayer with 200 Concurrent users i guess it's to poor. 500 it's better for start.
    3- And tools for focus the work with a Team.

    Unity Enterprise:

    Companies dedicated to work making games so need a dedicated support.

    And with the users with perpetual Licenses like me (Unity Pro + Android) i guess we need to discuss how to balance the value of the commitment that had unity on these perpetual Licenses with the new monthly products.


    and that's all.

    Sorry for my english, it's not my native lenguaje.
     
  48. koblavi

    koblavi

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Posts:
    49
    "When John R is running running the show It's a very very.... Mad World!
     
    BrUnO-XaVIeR likes this.
  49. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,368
    To be honest a huge part of the shock is the way it was presented. We were being told about this great new thing, but simple maths in our head say it's not great for some of us.
    Not quite. Desktop users and long term perpetual customers. The people who've been around the longest. The people who formed Unity's intial user base. Until recently, when subscriptions came, the entire customer base of Unity.

    The people who've been around the longest by far get the worst of this.

    Yes, their initial payments were more than the new sub on a per-platform basis, but the upgrade pricing they've had ever since as long term customers has been significantly lower, and that's without even taking into account that those of us not targeting mobile didn't previously have to pay for it.

    Once again it kind of ties into the whole "cliffhanger" feel I have about this, too. It's great that they'll have special deals to transition different customer groups over but, just like with the new perpetual pricing, why couldn't that be a part of the initial announcement? "To help everyone move over to the new pricing model smoothly, and to minimise interference with existing projects, all current holders of Unity 5 Pro perpetual licenses will be offered <insert compelling transition deal here>". I again find it hard to believe that this stuff wasn't worked out in advance, and by choosing not to tell us they've just made a whole bunch of people really worried and spurred on a whole bunch of negative speculation.
     
  50. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,368
    Again, I feel the need to point out that by this I'm speaking comparatively, and in the context of current projects.

    Overall I do still feel that the value is reasonable. It costs nothing until we've got income, which is amazing, and once that income is flowing then the price isn't really a big deal. As others have pointed out, if you're doing things properly - paying wages and rent and so on - then $125 a month for all that Unity offers shouldn't be an issue, and Unity surely provides many, many times that value per developer per month.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
unityunity