New products and prices coming soon

Joachim once said :

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/li...er-and-looks-worse.287073/page-3#post-1977095

I no longer trust his word.

You change pricing when you change your product. You kept your product the same and then changed the pricing, because...

...

I'm drawing a blank.

I'm sorry, the blog post did nothing for me.

 

Rather glad Unity is stopping with the "big release" philosophy. The switch from Unity 4 to Unity 5 was a major jolt to our production as there was a lot of re-working to make our projects work in 5 and it took a long time after its 'full' release to get properly stable. Just constantly fixing things and making it better is a much better idea.

 

Nice! We already knew the text no longer mentioned PE, but I'm happy the racism inherent in the system is gone

We'll wait and see what you implement. If you go for the whole crazy thing I wish for, this isn't done in a week

 

Will the new splash screen also come to 5.3? I am finally comfortable with Unity 5.3 after waiting to switch from 4.6 for so long, so I would like to wait to make the switch to 5.4.

 

I'm pretty sure they won't backport the splash. "Eternal" versions usually also means all or nothing when it comes to changes.

 

If you read the latest blog post you will all see that Unity are not listening at all.

 

See that would have gone down much better for the Unite Europe week... I still think Plus will need tweaking to its perks to really make 35$ a month seem worth while for those under 100k ... dare I say maybe make Plus mandatory for those inbetween making 50k/75k-100k, only problem with that is the leap from 35$ to 125$ is pretty steep once you pass 100k. And the licensing costs seem to sway in UE favour when you add license costs per employee especially for indie and teams only just making it past the 100k threshold. So I don't think the Pro license cost for desktop developers is all that great yet. The whole thing still needs ironing out to make everyone happy with it.

 

Semi customizable splash screen for Plus? Remove the word 'semi' and all will be fine.

 

I am not happy to constantly check in which turnover margin I am falling now to adjust my license accordingly. Sorry but no. That only makes things a lot more complicated again.

 

It's something you'd only have to do once a year (and you'd pretty much be doing that as part of your accounts anyway). Plus it's exactly the same as the current license/turnover limit for Unity Free, so no real change or extra complication.

 

Not really. Currently I either am in the margin or not. I don't have to check which margin I am in and license accordingly. Also in the lower marings people actually still are somewhat affected by the prices. So yeah - the current 100k / Zero structure still sounds kind of right for me. Pay or pay not.

Also keep in mind that it's much easier for individuals to keep track of these things. As soon as you have to manage that kind of license up- or downscaling for more seats it gets annoying and messes with running costs over a fiscal year.

Sure it is doable. Everything can be done but the question is whether it is a good idea or easy. personally I think not.
Has much more cons than pros, IMO.

 

Main problem with Unity for some time now is the communication issues, lots of padding, waffle, not helpful replies.
Its like when people send them criticism, they make some post for the sake of things, just so its a tick box done and wait for the noise to go away.

When ever they become challenged by the community this starts happening.
This happens every few months, firstly build performance issues, QA testing threads, and now pricing - subscription.

People wish for some solid answers and reasoning behind things, if the blog post mentioned splash screen and dark themes maybe there would be more calm.

 

Awesome, good choice!

 

I think they mean a light or dark version of the splash screen and not the editor skin.

 

That's sad something that makes the editor more comfortable to use to not be availabel to anyone using Unity.
Because it is about making users more at ease with the editor like Visual Studio what a shame decision.

Sometimes we forget that Unity is the only one engine able to deploy games on almost all existing devices, i think this is not an easy task.
They make some errors like anyone , sometimes it's bad choices they make that won' t suit users, and we are here to give them feedback on what is ok and what is not ok.
Unity is not making games unlike Epic or Cryteck, so the only way they have to improve is with our feedback and looking at what is done elsewhere unfortunatelly.
I think they really listen and see what is possible to do and sometimes they can't do a lot about it unfortunatelly , there is priorities.
If you read this article about how Epic evolved it will give you some other insight
http://www.polygon.com/a/epic-4-0/the-four-lives-of-epic-games

Anyway, about the pricing perhaps the best is Unity to test the new offer and see how it goes before taking new decisions ?

 

Most companies have a good idea of where they are financially. But anyway, a pay or pay not system puts the burden on too few customers, meaning they end up paying more than necessary. There are people who cannot afford Pro yet but want more than is available below that and are willing to pay something for it. The simplest solution would be to say anyone below the revenue cap can buy Pro at half price. Other solutions have been suggested in this thread, many of which would be an improvement.

 

I have to say this is making me reevaluate my choice of Unity. I'm really slow at producing anything and have shelled out for perpetual licences for pro versions and ios and android versions - which now don't look that perpetual at all. Having to then shift to another pro version and another huge cost just to get updates and remove the splash screen is too much. I fully expected a cut off when unity 6 appeared - but this just seems cheap and nasty. Asking $125 a month is too steep after shelling out thousands, and a slightly customizable splash screen is quite frankly ridiculous. I used to subscribe to 3ds max as well - but Autodesk also got too greedy and I found cheaper solutions for what I wanted. Subscription is killing users nowadays - it's un-affordable for those on low budgets.

 

This is maybe the only problem here, Unity is a company that never listen their users, when change their politics is not for the users, is for the market, if Unreal had not down their price to us$19 monthly and then to $0, Unity never had create de Personal Edition. This is a critic moment, Unity Pro is not the best choice as game engine for Indie developers, today can cost $75 monthly and tomorrow $300 monthly.

 

All they have to do is to make Unity's own services better than competition.

Ads? Better payout/ad than other networks.
IAP? Smaller cut but still high enough to sustain Unity.
As for multiplayer, it's already so easy to use that even a noob can make a multiplayer game using network transform and whatnot. No MMO by any means, but something akin to Quake3 should be easy to do with it. So it's better than Forge, Photon and whatnot.

So yeah, I am fairly confident that Unity could sustain itself via services subscriptions alone, given they remove or severely limit free tiers of these (including all services, like Cloud Build and others that are almost fully featured in Free tier).

 

I don't see how that's different to

I know you're unhappy but S*** is happening for you and everyone in your situation. It's only resolved your end. Companies are generally all moving to billing, it's not just Unity. So at some point your country is going to have to get with the program.

The problem is change only happens if enough people ask for it. Is there an alternative you can manage that won't be so bad? how about paying for 2 years subscription in advance? I think that can work. A block sum of subs. Buy 3 months. Buy 6 months. Would that fix it for you?

Maybe what you're really asking for is to be able to do less payments?

 

3 different versions isn't simplifying anything.
Why not you just keep it to two (that's even simpler - especially given the minimum differences between the propsed pro and plus versions):

• Free/personal with the restrictions already posted
• Pro $75 a month (minimum commitment say 12 months at a time - but with a monthly option to extend thereafter) (ok maybe a bit higher to allow for inflation).

I could get behind a roughly $75 dollar subscription , but charging $125 price is effectively doubling the previous subscription which seems pure greed - just to add features such as a customisable splash screen.(And a partly customisable splash screen is ridiculous).

Stop paying for pro and you get to keep your pro version at whatever stage it is currently - but without bug fixes - this sucks big time - and is possibly illegal. I've no problem with having versions locked if subscriptions cease, but if that leaves it with significant bugs then software isn't fit for purpose. This wasn't an issue when dealing with specific versions as the difference between a bug fix and new feature is relatively clear cut. This could become a can of worms and grounds for a financial claim.

I chose Unity because it seemed a good deal at the time, but I haven't actually released anything yet (despite paying for a pro subscription and ios and android extensions - that's my fault I know as I'm slow) , but I have no income from it and if it goes to $125 a month I won't be paying it - in fact I'm starting to look elsewhere as of today as I'm not feeling keen on investing more time in unity with this hanging over me. Suddenly a royalty only scheme starts to look very attractive compared with one that seems to be trying to fleece me longterm.

 

I recently stumbled over the "Unreal Engine 4 For Unity Developers" section in their documentation and I was wondering why Unity doesn't provide something similar for switching from UE4 to Unity? That sends a weird message from Unity's side. Even if there should actually be no demand for it, I'd have thought it would be a no-brainer to comission such a guide, just as a marketing tool.

 

So the above posts indicate that Unity has decided not to remove the splash screen from plus and just provide a semi-custom splash screen.

After all the complaints and rage that is a shame the feedback was not taken to fully remove the splash screen.

 

Seems like a waste of time. I'm pretty sure no one from UE4 will be switching to Unity now.

 

Yeah, they never created an affordable license or then changed that to free. And, it costs NOTHING today. If you really think a splash screen AFTER they've bought the game or $125/mo will take to big a bite out of your profits, then vote with your wallet. Especially if you think they will never listen to its customers (I'm sure the other engines lowered their prices out of the good of their hearts).

Look, I get it. It's a price hike for those who want Pro, and even more so for non-mobile devs. But, the hyperbole just distracts from the conversation at best.

 

That's... never happening... As I said, every time I have to deal with banks and authorities and need to explain why I need to pay for something, since we need approval for most things, I get the blankest stares ever. (we are also under scrutiny by the local tax authorities because they don't understand what we do). In general, things have been maddening here. But that's a where-I-live problem though, not a Unity problem.

First of all there is a small chance it *might just work*, it will just count against our monthly limit, which kind of sucks but is workable. There is simply no-way to know right now. Buying things on the Asset Store does not "just work" currently though, so I don't have high hopes.

I have in mind that I'll ask Unity to pay for a year in advance. That's doable for me, jumping through hoops once a year to pay for something is ok. If Unity can't do that, there are workarounds, but they add to the cost. I can try talking with the bank manager and see if she can come up with a solution? There is a solution somewhere, good or bad, it's not an unbeatable issue, it just adds to my frustration at the moment.

But the project is still stuck to Unity 4.x so why would I pay for Unity 5 subscriptions? To do what? The lightmapping issues will have to get fixed first, otherwise I simply cannot convince myself to spend all that time upgrading the project and then have it look *worse*. Good news is, some of my bugs from 2014 and newer are finally getting looked at, so, maybe? But I've been saying maybe and being hopeful for a year now...

They showed network render support, that might help, but is it ever coming out? Who knows (maybe it'll come out together with the vertex painting tool they showed back in 2011? )

And the progressive lightmapper looks interesting, but who knows when that will be in a production ready state? (if I judge based on Enlighten, then... never?)

In the end, if I was working happily with Unity 5, I would whine a bit about the subscription changes, but I wouldn't mind that much (although I do think 125$ is too much, you keep bringing up US salaries, but that's irrelevant for me here, Greek salaries are much lower and 125$ is not insignificant).

But I'm not happy, I'm increasingly frustrated for over a year now and the switch to subscriptions feels like a slap in the face.

In any case, I've already expressed all that I can on the matter on here multiple times, I have nothing else to add. I'll just take a wait and see approach. I have work to do on Unity 4. I'm also learning Unreal in my spare time. I'll be busy.

So, for the time being I'll go back to passive aggressively helping newbies with lighting issues...

 

The new blog post was not interesting for me.
They seem to have made their final decisions. That's fine.

But we are pretending that the Unity5.x branch is stable enough so that a price increase would seem logical.
Well for me, not.

I am a Unity Pro (+ios Pro + Android Pro) user since late 2.x versions up to Unity5.
I upgraded to Unity5 as the upgrade price seemed logical and I wanted to support the Engine.

I still do all my projects in Unity4.7.x because it is the most stable Unity version for me.

I will not follow the pseudo-pay-to-own option. This is not 'pay to own' if you are stuck with unresolved bugs.
I will use Unity 4.7.x for as much as I can while evaluating other engines.

I had to go back to c++/java coding anyway to add extra functionality to unity4 with plugins.

I know, many people are in the same situation like me.

 

Speaking of evaluating other engines... Stingray 1.3 has been released:
http://help.autodesk.com/view/Stingray/ENU/?guid=__stingray_help_release_notes_readme_1_3_html

 

From the second paragraph:

"I especially care a lot about this group of developers, who effectively funded this company with us and have been with us on this journey for a very long time. So we will figure something out. Needs a bit of time but we’ll follow up soon…"

Doesn't sound very final to me. I reckon they'll either make pro cheaper in some way or have some very customisable splash screens for plus.

 

If Unity 5 were a stable release and had continually pushed out the features they had promised, I think this price increase would've gone over a lot smoother.

Instead, every release of Unity 5 has been a crap shoot whether or not it breaks your project. You have to find just the right patch release that has a set of bugs and performance issues that don't affect you. Features on the roadmap keep getting pushed further and further out. Back in Unity 4 I had believed that the .NET upgrade would be coming in 5.0 or release soon after that. That was over a year ago. And now it sounds like it's going to be at least another year. And Nested prefabs, director/sequencer, 2D improvements, lighting fixes, performance fixes...

As if the product quality issue wasn't bad enough, they now want to charge more for it. This is the type of momentum that ends a company. That is more of a reason for transitioning to a different engine than a price increase.

 

I saw that page too, and the link is really easy to find from their launcher.

One of the things I have really enjoyed over the past few days since the licensing change announcement was to actually have the source to Unreal's equivalent of the character controller (called the player controller in Unreal), and being able to actually modify it to suit our needs - although its actually really good right out of the box.

 

Would you say it's a good point of reference to look at how they've done it and write your own one in unity from scratch based on those concepts?

 

I believe that some years ago, each release of Unreal didn't need to be compatible with earlier releases. Unity does what it can, but that's not just them.

I don't recall them promissing a .NET upgrade until this year or very late last year. Besides, there are delays and setbacks in transitioning an entire framework that is the base of a huge engine. That's like almost every AAA game that gets pushed back (GTA V?). They have the right to that, like every other developer.

You have to agree with me that it's a lot of stuff they need to work on, right? Have you seen their roadmap page? It tells what did they work on, what's on schedule and what isn't, and there's a lot of stuff there. It may not be what some of us want, but they are working hard.

I just want us to be fair: UT is doing the best job they can to deliver us a great engine, but they fail sometimes like every other developer. I don't think we should say it shouldn't be more expensive because of bugs and not-promissed features, but instead because it's just not a good deal for existing users.

 

And in some cases like Unity it makes sense. In other cases it doesn't and is just taking back more power for the developers. Refering to Adobe: No option of perpetually keeping a license. Having pretty much a monopoly on their top programs. No free license. Pretty bad bundeling options (pick more than two programs and you can rent just anything).Can adjust prices any time they want to (and probably will do). Many don't even need most of the updates for a lot of their software because the most important features are already implemented for a long time but don't have a choice.

It's not just Unity but I really think consumers should counter unfair offers wherever possible because otherwise things won't change ever.

That being said: I don't think Unity are one of those unfair companies. They are even saying they are open for ideas if they are reasonable (try getting that from Adobe or Microsoft).

I think I even proposed a similar thing earlier. And I'd support it. Just like memberships for many other things: Why not give the option to pay in larger blocks in advance and get a discount for it?

And, say, with the 12 or 24 year plan you can keep the Pro license. Just the updates stop after that if not renewed or going over to a subscription. Would certainly work for me if I went for a paid option. That system isn't much different from current perpetual licenses just without the critical patches afterwards.

I can see pay to own and discount advance payments could work very well for me, actually.
It still has all the benefits from axing the Version/Feature model as well because anyone can enter or leave at any time.

 

She talks about Unity pricing and has a lot of valid points (starts with 24:25):

 

It's been over two years(May 20th, 2014 was the blog post) since they said they were upgrading .NET with absolutely no movement. I've already listed the reasons why it's probably been delayed but it's still a long time with a lot of talk and no results. It's practically Unity Technologies' modus operandi at this point: promise a feature and deliver years later, if they ever do.

But Adobe gives you that choice. You can pay $20 a month($10 for their most popular product) for any one of their products or 2.5x that for all of their products. That's a much better value than Unity's $125 a month with the joke Plus option.

 

@Obsurveyor Really? Adobe let you use Photoshop non commercially for free? They let you keep on editing your data if you stop paying the price they set? They give you an option for a perpetual license? They give a wide range of options other than "pick one or all" essentially? Just on paper. And just theoretically. Just as much as you can use unity absolutely for free.

Adobe is just better if you are looking at nothing but the price alone in no context whatsoever.
For Unity you have to pay when you have the money. Otherwise it's optional.
So you pretty much should compare 20$ to 0$. Otherwise you are comparing out of context just the best option to the worst.

 

very good podcast about new Unity prices, and the girl is hot.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say any of that.

 

+1 I agree with here 100 percent. Well said and in fair manner.
I would really like see a official reply to her thoughts!

 

SO, guys, go vote on what you want, please:

https://feedback.unity3d.com/sugges...ash-screen-and-pro-editor-skin-for-unity-plus

https://feedback.unity3d.com/sugges...ro-subscription-price-for-single-platform-use

 

I don't agree there is lot fo software not based on subscription and people using it because of other software subs based.
And Open source software is also a way to avoid all software based on subscriptions.
Anyway Unreal 4 and CryEngine don't apply to subscriptions and they are very popular AAA 3D engines.

He also can choose another 3D engine if the price is something that really bother him.

 

Thanks for that! I totally agree with her, very good points!

Unity's new pricing model is a disgraceful joke, you know what, Unity users can't laugh about it!

 

regarding the video - I think she does have some fair points and she reasons factionally. But I don't necessarily agree on all the things she says.
Epic gives the confidence to use the full engine while unity charges for collaboration and multiplayer.
- Not true. Collaboration for example via Git is free, I am using it at work and it costs us nothing except if we aren't using Git internally but maybe on GitHub or BitBucket. Multiplayer costs if you want to use Unity's managed servers and guaranteed performance and player matching. If you want to setup your own server - go ahead and do it. Both services which cost only for the easiest integrated version but not forced.

Source Access is standard - even Crytek are doing it.
- Crytek are doing it because they have no choice. Crytek arguably is still in y weak financial position and they just missed the train completely. They pretty much have no choice at this point because they need selling points desperately as they are in the weakest position of the three engines. It's by no means a standard and I don't see many people really needing it on a daily basis, either.

The Splash screen has a bad reputation and should not be a pro only feature.
- I kind of agree on that one. I don't care for it personally but I understand it and can see that people want to change it if they pay the mid-price.

Epic is absolutely fair in pricing while Unity is not.
- It makes sense if you aregue from Velkrysa's position. Yes - with unreal you don't pay for anything except if you are having success. And then it's 5%.
Let's math that theory:
1.) 12k per year and you have to pay Epic 5%.
So if you are making 12.000$ (the minimum) then you have to pay Epic 600$. Which amounts to 50$ per month.
That is the minimum. Make for example 50.000 and you already have to pay 208,34$ per month (relative to the fiscal income). At 100.000$ it's 500/month which equals ...
2.) ... Unity charging 125$ for the pro version from 100.000$ and above. Or in other words: For 100.000$ Unreal you can buy 4 seats of Unity. Or in other words if your team is 1 - 4 people then it's a break even between the two with the Advantage for Unity because you pay nothing before that point.

This calculation takes not into account if someone wants to pay for extra services, of course. unity has some of those covered in Pro. Some, like mutiplayer servers not.

Okay - let's assume you are really successful with your game. 250.000/year with an indie title.
I say indie title because the dreaded AAA would require a production budget in the millions. I doubt that in that price range unity seats are of your topmost concern. So back to 250.000$ a year.
Hooray. You are making a lot of money! congratulations. Epic takes 12.500$ off of that, BTW. Equalling to 1̶0̶0̶ 8.3 unity Pro license seats per month (12.500$ / 12$ / 125$ - thanks for pointing it out ). Q̶u̶i̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶.̶ ̶I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶a̶f̶f̶o̶r̶d̶ ̶1̶0̶0̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶l̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶c̶e̶r̶n̶e̶d̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶u̶n̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶P̶r̶o̶ ̶l̶i̶c̶e̶n̶s̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶m̶o̶r̶e̶.̶

So yes. The two plans intersect at some point and before and after that the subjective fairness distribution is opposed for both. Is one really better than the other?
I don't think so. I am more concerned with two other factors:
Firstly does one or the other one give me production options I really need that the other one cannot offer to me?
And secondly is one really priced unfairly - so much so that I am not willing to buy into it and support it any more?

Personally I don't think either of the engines is unfairly priced, yet. I can see the benefits of both models and I can see the downsides of both, as well.

So really: If you want to make your voice heared then make it reasonably. Not with empty threats like "I'm gonna jump boats!" or "This is the worst. we DEMAND to hear answers. U suxx0r unity!"

My personal proposal for adjusting the priceplan of Unity:
1. give advanced payment option with discounts including owning plans for Pro in some way.
2. give reasonable ways to go back to free if the user's business can't support or justify Pro any more.
3. set the splash screen free for the 35$ Plus version. It's really not that much of a deal.

Optionally I'd also agree that the dark skin could just as well be in the free version even though I feel this point is the silliest of them all and doesn't need to be discussed as there's no real gameplay, development or marketing point to it in any way.

 

It depends on what offer they give us as a perpetual licenses holder through 3 major versions to this new subscription thingy.

 

This is a good initial step in the right direction. Free/personal users will appreciate those changes.

But the Plus plan is going to be completely ignored if it forces a splash screen, even if it lets people tweak it a little. You are asking people making less than $100k/year to pay $35/month ($420/year) and still forcing them to display a splash screen. There are are free options those people will use instead; Unity Personal, Unreal Engine 4, Amazon Lumberyard, etc.

If you want the Plus plan to be a big seller, give Plus users the option to disable the splash screen.

 

I think the math is a bit off:

- If you make $100.000 in one year, you owe Epic $5.000, which translates to $417 a month. That is good for 3 Unity Pro, or 10 Plus subscriptions. But you rounded, and that's fine.

- But if you make $250.000 in one year, you pay Epic $12.500 in one year, which translates to $1.041 a month. That gives you 8 Pro subs, or 26 Plus. You took the yearly figure and calculated as month

It still makes the conclusion valid though: they are about the same, depending on your revenue and team size. For example, for a team of 4 Unity coders and $250.000 a year (not impossible), Unity is half the cost.

But I would like to add another thing: they have different features, so some games are better in one than the other. There's more to it than just cost.

 

The difference is with the subscription model you are paying Unity on the basis of *profit potential* - meaning, if you do not ship a product or if that product does not sell well, you still have invested / dropped money into the tech.

On the Unreal side, you are paying Epic on the basis of *actual profit* - meaning if you do not ship a product or if that product does not sell well, you haven't lost any money from having to pay for the tech.

The revenue share model protects developers and development teams who might create a great game but doesn't sell well, which happens A LOT more than the case where a game becomes profitable.

 

The new Pro subscription plan is a lot more expensive than the previous perpetual license upgrades. The upgrades were available at half price, so a perpetual license that was $1500 up front was only $750 to upgrade. The upgrade cycle used to be 3-4 years. Then Unity switched to a 2 year upgrade cycle, which was a type of price hike. Anyway, the 2 year upgrade cycle meant perpetual license upgrades cost $375 per year. Now Unity demands $1500 per year for a Pro subscription with a pay to own option. That is effectively 4 times the cost to keep Unity upgraded.