Search Unity

  1. Unity 2019.2 is now released.
    Dismiss Notice

New products and prices coming soon

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

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

    Obsurveyor

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Posts:
    273
  2. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,039
    There are plenty of legitimate reasons to pay for it without being at the point of having a legitimate studio. Plenty of freelance / contract work, for instance, would be ruled out by that splash screen. Or if you're a part of a team who gets some funding or income you might hit the revenue cap long before you're looking at physical premises ($100k doesn't go that far in a commercial game development).
     
    zenGarden and Master-Frog like this.
  3. Ostwind

    Ostwind

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Posts:
    2,775
    It's mostly always the same "we are hoping for..." talk they have done for years without good ETA. Even that post is 2 years old and mainly focusing on IL2CPP with mono and stuff as side subjects. The latest info suggests that it will take at least a year to have all the key parts, or one the most important ones, the GC.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016
  4. Obsurveyor

    Obsurveyor

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Posts:
    273
    I'm sure it was in the plans and set(It was on the Roadmap at one point) but the issue was Microsoft turning over the table first by releasing the Roslyn compiler for free, then the open sourcing of .NET Core and finally, making Mono free. It will just be super S***ty if they don't do it for 5. Especially with that last one since there's literally no licensing reason to hold them back now. But who knows how far they were into transitioning into each of these before the repeated rug pulls.
     
  5. gurayg

    gurayg

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Posts:
    226
    I understand "plans might change a bit" in software development.
    but Why does the release cycle end date stays same then?
    I understand you had some unexpected things on the way. At least, you can offer more time to people being effected by that.
     
  6. moonjump

    moonjump

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Posts:
    2,302
    Thank you neoshaman, that puts it in an interesting context. They are in a F2P sales model.

    The numbers might be slightly different. The usual figure for estimating costs is $10K per man month, so the numbers do go up. And the percentage for option 2 should be 2% if option 1 is 0.6% (it should be a little more with the 4.5M registered developers according to Unity).

    Even with these differences, Pro alone would mean monetising much less than 2% of the user base. Plus alone just over 5%. Half the money coming from each would easily be within the usual 2% to 5% range that F2P monetises, although that is active customers, not just registered. Only Unity have all the figures needed.
     
  7. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,233
    I am not just concerned about Unity 5.x Pro, what concerns me more(and probably the OP I quoted) is that after that date if you ever publish with Pro there is no perpetual, so you "pay forever" just to support anything you make. That is the main issue I see. I don't want to upgrade to 6.x to publish on Steam and then be stuck paying a yearly subscription for the next 5 years just to support the title even if I have moved to a different engine.
     
  8. Ostwind

    Ostwind

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Posts:
    2,775
    Yes I also believe that it was and might still be their plan but they are running out of time. The end date is probably based on financial things meaning they must have a new major version out by then to sell it to existing customer base to fund the development. They can continue adding important things to Unity 5 branch even after that date but at the same time it would mean there would be less incentive for people to "upgrade". However having all the Mono, profile, GC related changes only in U6 would be a dick move.
     
  9. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,233
    I agree with this, perpetual 5.x should be for the whole cycle not a arbitrary date, though that one doesn't affect me. The one I am concerned about is 6.x as that is most likely when I was planning on going to Steam. 6.x is in even worse shape because once you publish with Pro there you are locked into yearly pro subscription every time you want to update your project...

    Perpetual I can handle, yearly subscriptions that disable the product if I am not subscribed is a no-go for me.
     
    Ryiah, zenGarden and elias_t like this.
  10. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    Interesting. You are okay if you already earn a perpetual license but with a subscription, you are stuck paying $125 a month for the life of the game if you need to patch or fix. Kind of scary, since many games have declining sales over time.

    So if you make that 100k, you better put a big portion of it aside for future Unity purchases. :)
     
    Ryiah, orb and tiggus like this.
  11. moonjump

    moonjump

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Posts:
    2,302
    I remember Unity saying something along the lines that people on Pro thought it was well worth the price, those who weren't thought it was expensive. They didn't mention a middle ground. Plus seems to have tried to address that middle ground, but the response here (and other Unity developers I have spoken to) is generally that they value the splash screen and dark UI, the other differences between Personal, Plus, and Pro make little difference.

    I have a suggestion for an alternative that takes things that have been said here and add a little extra.

    1: $125 a month seems very reasonable if you are single developer making $100K a year. But not if you are a team making that same amount. I therefore suggest making the revenue cap per Unity licence in the company. So if you have for example 5 employees, and 3 use Unity, the revenue cap is $300K for the entire company.

    2: Just have a Unity Pro licence as the only paid option (Personal remains as free), but have the price start lower and step up at different revenue levels. Pay 25% for up to $25K income a year per licence. 50% for up to $50K income a year per licence. 75% for up to $75K income a year per licence. The licensing terms are the same at each level except such things as Multiplayer CCU free limits. Prices would be rounded up to the nearest $5 for simplicity, although it would be great if it looked like getting enough customers to make the top price $100 a month, then the rest would be very neat.

    I think that is fairly simple. You are valued if you are giving Unity money. You don't pay the full amount until you are benefitting fully from Unity, but the costs are shared by more of the user base.
     
  12. JohnSmith1915

    JohnSmith1915

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Posts:
    143
    I only prefer Unity over other engines because the Forward Rendering, but in this moment is arriving the new generation of GPUs, more powerfull, more efficient and more cheap, then a Forward Rendering will be not important, in few time almost players can have GPUs that play Deferred Rendering without problems, then in few months i will be migrate my indie projects to other engine, is rare that only the Unity users are in continuos dissagre with the engine team compared with other engines, with the new prices and model Unity is more a problem that a solution.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016
  13. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,233
    The splash should not even be a part of their pricing structure honestly. If you remove that then you have less personal users considering upgrading to Pro until they near the 100k mark. Percentage of users over 100k probably have more incentive to eat the price increase.

    So why is splash a major pricing element?

    1) It is not branding because generally the games displaying the splash are personal edition and lower quality thus perpetuating the idea that Unity makes crappy games.

    2) It is not because Unity needs to spread it's name amongst the gamedev community, anyone who searches for half a second about what 3d engines to use for gamedev will run across Unity's name.

    So what I am left with is:

    Unity makes splash required for personal edition to shame developers who have a good game into upgrading to Pro so they won't be associated with the Unity brand...Is that really the cornerstone of driving new Pro subscriptions? Is that who they want to be?
     
    Shaolin-Dave, Ryiah, orb and 2 others like this.
  14. Martin_H

    Martin_H

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2015
    Posts:
    3,868
    Putting it like that sound's as if they were aiming for a version that everyone can agree on is kinda "meh". ^^


    Whenever the community demonstrates how much we care about the splashscreen we entrench that removing it stays a pro only feature, imho. If they want people under the 100k limit to voluntarily buy pro, there has to be some incentive. Honestly I'm totally fine with dark skin and no-splash being pro only. I'd much rather it's this way, than go back to the old days where free and pro didn't have the same graphical features. Back then the free version was basically useless to me. Now it's great! I can happily live with splash screen and light ui skin if that's what it takes.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016
    Ryiah, mathiasj and Teila like this.
  15. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,348
    It only stays that because they don't offer a real feature that is worth the upgrade to a large percentage of people. This is their doing, not ours.
     
  16. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    Absolutely!! And when we make 100k, I will happily pay the $125 x number of team members....maybe not happily, but I will realize that by providing PE, I owe Unity that much.
     
    Ryiah and Martin_H like this.
  17. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,233
    Sure, I am not suggesting to go back to old model. I bought 3x, 4.x + ios Pro because of the stupid restriction on native libraries. All I am saying is it doesn't make sense to continue down this path with the splash, it's not viable with the new pricing and was barely tolerable before.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  18. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    Does your games you sell are impacted by the "personnal edition" splash screen ?

    In fact Unity didn't have choice, because people that succeed was using UDK for big games.
    And UE4 new offer made Unity change the features of the free edition, without UE4 you would still have no complete features, you can thanks Epic.

    No splash Screen and black theme in a mino way are the things that counts for people that will sell a game.
     
  19. Ostwind

    Ostwind

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Posts:
    2,775
    I think Unity having all or most engine features in free edition was known long before Unreal announced anything, like it was leaked in few games that "soon" everyone can mod the games (= use Unity).
     
  20. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    Honestly, I don't think this matters as much as you think. We are indie developers. My community is so happy we are no longer using T3d, that they think everything on Unity is awesome. :) I guess it depends on your game though. Maybe mobile games are different, but if you build your community while testing, they will either love or hate the game. If they love it, they won't care about the splash. If they hate it, not having the splash won't matter.
     
    Martin_H likes this.
  21. Ostwind

    Ostwind

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Posts:
    2,775
    On desktop many have to rely on Greenlight to get their game on sale there and it's known there that people hate Unity logo. Not having a game on Steam is a huge hit for possible sales especially if the game is multiplatform release.
     
  22. JohnSmith1915

    JohnSmith1915

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Posts:
    143
    This graph shows the reconfiguration of the pro game engines market.

     
  23. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    Not entirely accurate. Unity has a fully featured free version, no royalties at all. It is the cheapest of them all.
     
    pcg, angrypenguin, tango209 and 5 others like this.
  24. ArthurT

    ArthurT

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Posts:
    73
  25. JohnSmith1915

    JohnSmith1915

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Posts:
    143
    Sorry but the graph only include the PRO versions of game engines.
     
    Shaolin-Dave likes this.
  26. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    That makes no sense. LOL So how do you define pro? Lumberyard and Unreal only have free versions, right? Fully featured, just like Unity's?

    You are comparing apples to oranges and your graph is meaningless. Sorry, but it is not really data, but instead arranged to show what you already believe to be true.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  27. Ostwind

    Ostwind

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Posts:
    2,775
    They are all fully featured in the chart without limitations where as in forced splash screen or rev limit in personal is a huge limitation to many and can't be in the chart.
     
    Shaolin-Dave and darkhog like this.
  28. JohnSmith1915

    JohnSmith1915

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2016
    Posts:
    143
    You are rigth, some engines as Unreal, Lumberyard or Cry Engine have one only version, the Free version is the same Pro version, without restrictions as Splash Screens or Dark Skins, then the graph si 100% correct.
     
    Shaolin-Dave likes this.
  29. AntonBertelsen

    AntonBertelsen

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2014
    Posts:
    37
  30. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    Splash and dark skins are no obstacles to creating games. At the very least, you should fix your graph to show free with a * and note these minor cosmetic differences. You can create a fully featured game with the PE version of Unity.

    Sorry, but as a scientist, I find using graphs to "create" relationships that are inaccurate bothersome.
     
  31. Obsurveyor

    Obsurveyor

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2012
    Posts:
    273
    Just change the word to "Pro" to "Fully Featured". Graph would remain correct and be more accurate since "Pro" doesn't make any sense in three out of four of the engines.
     
    Teila likes this.
  32. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,233
    salgado18 and Teila like this.
  33. zenGarden

    zenGarden

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Posts:
    4,538
    LumberYard is Beta engine, and it costs lot more if you are making a multiplayer game.

    I still don't understand why subscription woud make Unity engeneers more productive or work better ? They got a fixed salary and they are not involved on what users pay or not.
    Are not they already making Unity better each week from lot of years ?
    On what sense subscription is necessary ? it has nothing to do with providing a robust platform.

    With our switch to subscription we can make Unity incrementally better, every week. When a feature is complete, we will ship it. If it is not ready we will wait for the next point release.

    Our switch to subscription is absolutely necessary in order for us to provide a robust and stable platform.


    Anyway, a majority of users only need Android and Iphone, or PC desktop. We don't need 28 platforms, so why paying 125$ when you juste need PC or only Android for example ?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2016
    TomaTantrum and Teila like this.
  34. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    You do realize that engine choice is a per-project decision, right? I definitely wouldn't use any of the other three for a 2D mobile game, for example.

    Also, Unreal has a revenue share model, which is a cost that must be counted. This graph only looks at one dimension, and it doesn't even take into consideration that Unity has a Free edition and wants to create a Plus subscription.

    So, Unity is not exactly losing to other engines in price, it's an entire business model that's hurting them.
     
    Ryiah likes this.
  35. Ostwind

    Ostwind

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Posts:
    2,775
    No. It does not cost any more than, say with Unity with their services. Lumberyard only requires to use their services if you plan to use any but using your own is free unless it has changed.
     
    Shaolin-Dave, Deleted User and Teila like this.
  36. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    Is it? If so, they should add royalties like UE. :p

    It is as good as a solution as lower income levels on PE and forcing them to buy when they have not yet made enough money to pay for Pro. You force people to lose free at a low income level, especially a team, then you basically take away the free option. You cripple them. But I have said that before. You must have me on ignore. LOL
     
  37. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    TomaTantrum likes this.
  38. Zuntatos

    Zuntatos

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Posts:
    522
    ...So we get a nice blog post explaining why they prefer subscription based payment ...but the subscription is not my problem, it's the 2-4x price increase ='(.
     
  39. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    It's all about "value" and "logic". What value means to one, doesn't mean the same to another but the consistent message is we all want value in relation to other offerings.

    Using a splash screen to essentially invoke an upgrade isn't logical. Firstly it's used to make people upgrade, so it's essentially saying we acknowledge a reputation issue therefore to avoid it give us money. It should be the other way around, you should be asking permission to use it (like with Unreal).. Secondly, I'd of thought from a company standpoint that they'd want to avoid being associated with games of a sub par nature, not enforcing branding on low quality products.

    Personally I believe paywalls should be based on the merits of the engine, including must haves and a great solid foundation. I understand that an engine will never be free from bugs, doesn't mean it can't have a pretty rock solid infrastructure. I've never once since the later versions of UE have issues with builds, neither do I spend much time working around stuff.

    There's some odd core issues, even @hippocoder noticed stuttering with nothing more than a cube in the scene. I thought it was the rather weird physics implementation, turns out I was wrong. When I load a portion of my game in Unity, the whole thing just grinds to a halt and we're not talking low end laptops or something. We're talking 2K+ dev machines.! Custom built / OC'd w/ watercooling / stacked with RAM / using M.2 disks.

    Again, I'd happily pay above the odds if the product was a must have..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2016
    Ryiah, hippocoder and tiggus like this.
  40. salgado18

    salgado18

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Posts:
    84
    This page is open since Thursday, and I read almost everything :p

    It's not a good solution for many. It works when a studio has little income and many licenses, but it is crippling when it has big income and little licenses.

    I personally prefer the subscription over gross revenue share, that's worse than having a 5% shareholder.
     
  41. SaraCecilia

    SaraCecilia

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2014
    Posts:
    675
    Update: Joachim has explained our decision for these changes, please see the response in this thread or head straight to the blog post.
     
    Ippokratis, salgado18 and Teila like this.
  42. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    That is the point. :) With the 100k income limits, royalties make no sense. If you lower it, then Unity can no longer compete with royalty models. It is why they will not lower it. ;)
     
  43. Ippokratis

    Ippokratis

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,514
    In a nutshell :
    "With this in mind, we want to be clear. There will be no major Unity 6 release."
    Because this way the engine can be injected with features progressively instead of holding back big features for next big release.
    Win - win ( sounds right to me).
    Pay to own available as option.
    Moar info from Unity later.

    Some thoughts :
    5.4 feature set is strong, bugs get ironed fats to meet the Unite San Francisco.
    Free has value and a cost (you stay in Unity ecosystem, it might shrink a little in the near future).
    Plus still disappointing, Pro still expensive.
    Waiting for moar info.

    "In the dev team we wanted to stop doing major releases for a long time".
    You could let us know before we preorder v5.
    This didn't happen.
     
    Shaolin-Dave and HeyItsLollie like this.
  44. chingwa

    chingwa

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Posts:
    3,348
    OK, Thank You. Not only do we now see some real reasoning behind the subscription model we can also see how it can possibly benefit us all going forward. This is exactly the type of logical communication we need now for the rest of the issues brought up here.
     
    salgado18 and Teila like this.
  45. ShilohGames

    ShilohGames

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Posts:
    2,467
    Exactly. I fully agree that a purely subscription based business model makes more sense for modern software development. Paying for major release versions was a business model tied to the outdated waterfall method of software development. So I fully agree with the blog post with regards to lining up the business model with the modern software development model.

    My complaint is the massive price increase for the new subscription compared to the previous perpetual license upgrades. Unity is literally quadrupling the price for staying upgraded. With perpetual licenses, we could upgrade a Pro to the next major version for half price. A Pro license was $1500 up front and then $750 to do the major upgrade. Those upgrade cycles were 3-4 years, and now are 2 years. Even at a 2 year cycle, the upgrades would average $375 per year. The new Pro subscription is $1500 per year.

    Unity 6 Pro: Now with Price Quadrupling Technology!
    (Pro users now spend 4 times as much money to keep updated)
     
  46. Player7

    Player7

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2015
    Posts:
    1,398
    lol ...Ignoring the complete picture of licensing/service costs with some of the other engines it is funny. Feel like it belongs in http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/game-dev-memes.258297 :D
     
  47. kburkhart84

    kburkhart84

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Posts:
    733
    I saw the blog post. It seems like they want to follow Microsoft Windows and Adobe Creative Suite. I can understand that. I made a bit of lengthy comment that was awaiting moderation, but the gist of it is that they have to somehow sweeten the deal for us. Microsoft for example allowed anybody with Windows 7 and up to upgrade no charge. I understand that Windows is different in that we aren't paying a subscription, but the "subscription" we pay every time we get a new computer. Adobe made the subscription really cheap relative to the perpetual price. What is Unity doing? We seem to have to wait for more information, and I can't make final judgement until we get that information. I still say that they are not catering to the customers very well currently, making people pay for things they don't want. Even Adobe is not doing that. They allow you get get a photography bundle thing at $9.99/m, single app at $19.99/m, and all apps at $49.99/m. I know that Unity and the CC are two different types of software, but my point remains. Photoshop was $700 at full retail. Now you can get it for $9.99/m, and even at the $19.99/m price, it takes 35 months to get to $700, about 3 years. If Unity's subscription was like that, or there was something else that offered to make it worth it for us, there wouldn't be so much complaining.

    Now, I understand the want to switch business plan. But note that even Microsoft still has a few versions of Windows, which in a sense is much simpler than Unity as far as "feature tiers" go. Unity on the other hand is not allowing you to purchase Pro for just desktop, rather forcing the whole thing on you. And the joke of "plus" edition doesn't remove the splash screen, rather adds a bunch of stop many people here have already stated they don't want. If they fixed those issues, it would help make this transition easier. They have to do something to "sweeten the pot" as can be said to make us happy and willing to change business plans. Most of the posts I've seen, though they don't like it, they understand subscription models, but not at these prices. Typically, even in the stock market, the guarantees are going to earn less, while the higher priced "risks" aren't guaranteed. It's a bit of an off tangent I know, but it is the same here. If Unity wants that "guaranteed" money in the form of subscriptions, they will need to lower the amounts in return.
     
    radimoto, Deleted User and tiggus like this.
  48. infinitypbr

    infinitypbr

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Posts:
    2,877
    Services. They're valuable and cost money when you use them. Subscription models cover that. Some are more valuable than others to some people of course, but collaborate will be great for me, even though j don't really work with others much. The multiplayer things too.
     
  49. Teila

    Teila

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Posts:
    6,719
    It is more like Allegorithmic. You pay the subscription until you own the product. The one thing they did though was allow you to pause if you could not pay for a while or you stopped using the product, and then resume. I can see why that is not a good idea with Unity.

    I rather like the pay to own deal and feel better about it than before. At least if we do hit the limit, we can buy Pro, pay it off and own it so we can use it for fixes or additions to our game. I realize we can't update it without subscribing, but at least was have a "frozen" copy to use. We don't have to subscribe forever.
     
  50. tiggus

    tiggus

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Posts:
    1,233
    I feel better about that part too, I am glad they clarified. Now the issue is if Pro is too expensive at these subscription prices. I think kburkhart summed up my feelings exactly.

    Also, I am not a fan of bundles. Getting levels of online services included that I may or may not want makes me scratch my head. If I want a cloud service, how about you set a price on it and let me buy it like every other cloud provider on the internet. Don't make us pay for stuff we don't want because you are afraid your cloud services aren't attracting enough users.
     
    radimoto and orb like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.