A Unity ID allows you to buy and/or subscribe to Unity products and services, shop in the Asset Store and participate
in the Unity community.
Discussion in 'Announcements' started by SaraCecilia, May 31, 2016.
I hope Unity team, you have negotiate a big salary increase this year. We are going to pay for it !
As Wild Factor just stated:
I think the Intro Screen is actually hurting the Unity Engine. - Players see it appear on bad games made by people who have just started using unity, and haven't purchased pro, or on buggy bad Game Jam games. This causes players to associate the intro, and through that Unity, with poorly made games.
I think it would be a smart move by Unity to, not necessarily remove the title screen, but to allow it to be customized with a smaller Unity Logo in the lower corner.
(If this was the title screen for unity I almost wouldn't have a problem )
It's checked off in the feature comparison table under "Pro Editor UI Skin".
It is a bit of a "dirty" move..
Big companies spend thousands/millions a year on advertising.
So Unity wish for users to pay to advertise there company.
If they do pull this off then wow good for them, it was brave move.
If not then I think they should join the line like all other companies.
Pay a agency to advertise the engine out in the wild.
Yep, charge $35 a month and get rid of the asset packs, flexible seat management, lower the cloud build priority queue or something.
I would honestly pay 50$ a month for a version of Unity Personal edition without that awful splash screen. It's such an eyesore and so unprofessional.
And yes agreed, when I see it I think "this is some game dev noob" and tend to discount the project to the indie garbage pile. It's becoming stereotypical of a poorly made game. Perhaps a negligible price increase per month for a version of Plus without the splash? It would separate the casual devs from the slightly more serious ones who aren't big companies and can't afford $135/m per seat!
I'd prefer to pay the current price per cycle (the ~750 upgrade) to have just free features + no splash screen + dark theme than to pay 2500-3000 euro per cycle to have all those features I won't use anyway (cloud build, multiplayer, analytics, flexible seat, asset store project packs, level 11, team management, certifcation courseware, team license, IOS, android).
That would take away features from what I'm used to (I have a perpetual unity 5 pro license), but I'd be happier than with the current offers presented.
Please do. I don't mind a mandatory splash screen so much, but being able to customize what appears in the splash screen would add some much needed value to Unity Plus. I'd be very happy with the ability to use a custom splash asset alongside/after the MWU screen, maybe options to customize the MWU splash itself somehow. (Custom colors? Trigger audio? A shorter MWU splash animation?)
I wouldn't even mind forking out for Pro to remove the splash entirely, if it offered a month-to-month price alongside the annual subscription. If indie developers and small-time studios are given the option to pay a hypothetical $150 month-to-month to be able to release splash-less Unity games, and determine that this would fit their project needs better than the incoming $125/month ($1500 annual) subscription, chances are they'll be fairly open to making that decision.
This is bad!
We're a team of two, but the other guy is a 3D artist, so he doesn't use Unity. With the old Pro license for desktop deployment only, I'd have to pay $750 + $750 = $1500 for the next 2 major release upgrades. That's 4-6 years of Unity Pro.
With the new subscription, that'll be $6000 - $9000 for 4-6 years! Jesus Christ!
I started considering switching to Plus, which will be $1680 - $2520 for the next 4-6 years (still more than $1500), but I simply can't, since there's a revenue cap. I didn't surpass the cap yet, but it might happen in a couple of months.
I don't care about the dark skin or the splash screen. You can deal with them. But you can't deal with the revenue cap.
What the hell am I supposed to do? How is this fair?
Well, sadly times are changing, we rent music/books/software now. The move to Creative Cloud had the same uproar, but in the end you are getting a more sustainable deal than buying all of their software out right.
Like @KnifeMedia I'd pay $50 a month for Plus, as long as you can remove the splash screen and increase the revenue cap to $150k a year.
Subscription model is not that bad...if the price is ok.
I'm not against subscription. But the increase in price for some people is HUUUGE! I'm in a position where I either pay or change engines. Personal or Plus is not an option for me due to the revenue cap. So I'm practically forced to buy Pro. How is that "democratization"?
And no, $50k increase in revenue cap is not enough.
i think unity needs to build a wall between player and unity splash screen and have trump pay for it!!
Wait a minute : my lifetime subscription for Unity 5.x is no longer a lifetime subscription?
So, if you launch Unity 5.9.99 after March, I am not able to update my version?
We trust you when we have bought Unity for 2.5k$, just for love of your tool, without commercial using but to get the dark skin, shadows, level11 & shaders… And now, just to thank us, you stop our "lifetime" version and ask us to pay way wore BY YEAR to get the same tool?
Don't you fear the butterfly effect?
I am REALLY, REALLY disappointed.
Mod notes: please link to twitter feeds, don't post them as huge pictures (or use spoiler tag) as many people want to read this announcement thread without the drama as the prices are very important to them. If someone wants to see someone else's random twitter feed, they can read twitter.
There never has been any lifetime version as far as I know. I've been pro user since 3.x and it has always been known that major releases as perpetual have limited support time but you can use them forever. On subscription you have access to the tools as long as you are subscribed and this has been also known since they made it available.
Ahah, great post, I haven't even see that the plus version is now more expensive that our current pro!
What a shame!
Yep, this is my example, our lifetime is mean that we should have all minor and patch versions for the Unity 5. If I understand, they will block all minor and patch versions avec march, even on the fifth version.
It was ok if they release Unity 6 on march ^^
Well my employer just abandoned Unity as a viable option for desktop development saying paying double just for splashscreen removal is not acceptable. Oh well, back to using Unity personal as a hobbyist again
I'm a hobbyist who has paid for perpetual licenses for Unity Pro 4 and 5 (desktop only), not because I'm ever going to hit the revenue limit, but because I liked supporting a product I love and I liked getting rid of the splash screen.
So it's going to feel a little weird going to the free edition when Unity 6 comes out and paying $0 to Unity. Getting rid of the splash screen was the only tangible benefit of Pro to me, so the Plus tier isn't appealing if I have to have a splash screen anyway. The Pro tier is way beyond what I can justify. Though I will say that "Made with Unity" on the splash screen will be a huge step up from that "Personal Edition" thing.
hippocoder: It's an improvement on the subscription model in the way that you get all the platforms for 125/month. But it's a regression for the perpetual license: To be able to OWN a x version of Unity to can opt for the Pay to own option after they are locked in for 2 or 3 year of the Pro Subscription http://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/05/31/new-products-and-prices/.
I payed my 12 month subscription back in the days of Unity 4 and found out I did not own it and that really pissed me of as it seemed like common sense to do.
Believe me I love UnityEngine for what it means as a game engine how easy is to create a game, but this new PR/Marketing attitude seems so obnoxious, that I have to say UnityTech looks like the new Crytek (some of you will understand what I mean).
all of this negative comments would be avoided if the plus edition have no UT splash screen. Come on, Unity! I leave swift for you. Meet me halfway!
I think UT missed a version between Plus and Pro, containing:
_ unlimited revenue,
_ fully customizable splash,
_ priority queue for cloud,
_ plus analytics,
_ 50 concurrent users,
_ etc … mainly the same that plus.
AND NOT FOR 100$/Mo, way less!
When I look at this from an "outside perspective" this would seem to be a real concern for Unity the company. I think you (Unity) are actually in danger of losing more revenue from these shifts than you'll gain. Having the same amount of "income restrictions" and the splash screen for a paid subscription means zero incentive for personal Unity users to start paying for the middle tier subscription. And the price increase on the Pro side means that if you're a desktop only developer and your income is close to the threshold or just below it you're likely going to jump ship come 5/2017 and become a Personal User.
We use Unity to make Subnautica and overall we like it a lot. But for around 25 seats, this represents an extra $1,125 per month, or $13,500 per year.
Don't get me wrong, Unity is certainly cheaper than Unreal for us (that 5% on gross would represent a whopping $500k+ per year!). But it feels like Unity is trying to spin a price hike into something good.
15 Minutes ago (May 31, 2016 at 5:22 pm) some guy called Peter Makula posted the following in the corresponding blog article:
I have to say, that i really like this idea. I'm a desktop-only guy and would buy a PLUS subscription if it would be like this.
The article can be found here: http://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/05/31/new-products-and-prices/#comment-328328
As someone who's bought Pro for over half a decade (non-sub), it sounds like you're just raising my price by 2-3x, which is pretty insane. Guess I'll wait till you give pricing for the pay-to-own versions, but I'm pretty scared I just won't be able to afford Unity Pro any more and I'll have to downgrade to the free version. I just don't think I'll be able to afford an effective 2-3x jump in engine costs.
Either way, this might kill the freelance work that has allowed me to remain an indie dev all these years. When the engine stops getting updates, I'll eventually be unable to deploy to iOS, which is what most of my contract work is for. Not sure how clients will react to the splash screen. Pretty crazy to think this new pricing structure is what may finally force me to get a normal job and stop being a modest indie dev.
Don't forget after the 24 month period it's possible to keep the license and stop paying (for example you're mid dev or don't really want unity 8 or whatever). That was a common crit of the old sub model that's now addressed.
Splash wise I'm torn. On one hand I know it's a pain but on the other hand I do know that splash doesn't matter because if you're not earning enough from it to buy pro, 100% your game would not make a slightest bit of difference without a splash. So there's that to rub the chin over. If you earn 3k with a splash, you're not going to suddenly earn 100k without it. Nope. It'll still be 3k.
So it comes down to personal preference and if people will pay for that. I think I like the suggestion that it should get customised.
Will it be like the current perpetual license, though? Do you get all the updates until Unity 8 or whatever? Or do you just keep the license but updates stop right then and there, so the iOS license becomes obsolete a lot quicker?
Everyone gets the same support as far as I know but updates for older versions stop don't they? So 4x updates aren't really happening so we need 5x... and so on. I understand why, I mean they're a business.
Obviously there has to be compromise for success, if Unity doesn't make money, I don't make money because my tools might have less staff working on them, or I might get less updates or whatever, so I have a vested interest in Unity being as successful as possible... just not at cost of customer welfare.
My question about support is... so we start paying for a 5x license under the new scheme but 6x rolls around. I can't migrate to 6x and need to keep paying for 5x which does not receive updates any more. That is logical, as you locked yourself into paying for that. But if it grants you a perpetual license at the end, where does the license fall? 5x or 6x? it's confusing slightly - but fair enough if you choose to pay for that and know what you are paying for.
Splash matters when you are doing contract work for companies who care about their branding. Companies like Mercedes or Hugo Boss do not accept branding other than their own. Then a splash is the difference of getting payed at all.
If you earn 50k, you will earn 60k without the splash screen + a bigger chance to be picked for a feature by Apple.
Unity logo = crap in player mind.
I think Unity should change the logo, to reset this bad press they got.
What about all the free advertising Unity will be getting from the splash screens?
Any thoughts on this?
OK you have said that. But there is still no proof that it affects sales, because the moment you earn 3k you get perpetual and the splash is gone? If you are doing this for business and you are aiming at less than 3k sales it is worrying.
My thought is that it is not free advertising, it is paid advertising... you pay for unity free by allowing Unity to advertise. As for plus, I think it should be customisable so both parties win. That's just my random thoughts. I have paid for many Unity licenses in the past so I know the feeling.
It's kind of like starting your own company and asking for a free van because you earn <100k but then getting upset that the company providing you with the van to do business with dares ask for a little bit back.
This is why plus can be a nice compromise, if maybe the splash can be tweaked a bit, but for removal, well Unity thinks that is currently worth more.
Maybe the whole concept of Unity free is really Sponsored by Unity.
Regarding splash screens in general: Yes. Domains like mechanical engineering, professional simulators and education programs can't have splash screens. That simply looks unprofessional. Also, I'm the developer of the program, why should any other company besides myself be on MY product? I also use Modo, Substance Painter, Substance Designer and Visual Studio and neither of those belong onto my product.
Yeah I guess what I'm looking at is
For the sake of discussion let's assume this is Unity 6 I'm paying for. Why would I pick a 36 month plan over the 24 month plan? After the 24 months are up, do I get all the updates for Unity 6 (as is the case with my Unity 5 perpetual license)? Or do my updates stop as soon as my 24 months are up? Meaning as soon as Apple has some new requirement that my Unity 6 version can't comply with, it's now obsolete?
Compared to the perpetual license I've been paying for, it seems like I might be getting less value but I'll be paying a lot more money. I've happily given thousands of dollars to Unity over the years, but now I feel like I was tricked into investing myself into their engine while they were planning to raise my price all along. If I could afford it, I'd keep paying -- but I don't think I can afford a 2-3x jump in engine costs.
Take a look at Xenko engine http://xenko.com/
Or the new CryEngine V, they are trying to be more like Unreal, not like Unity (free to work with it, open source though the editor source is not there, yet, twitch videos to present new features, etc.). It has a Lot of work and things to improve, but the directions is good.
Yeah this is another major problem, I don't think their revenue cap has kept place with inflation both financial and the increasing requirements to produce competitive products in the market. It is pretty easy these days to hit $100k revenue for commercial projects, due to the actual costs of production, but the amount of profit or take home pay is a tiny fraction of that, which for indies or one person business is a big problem as the increased cost of Pro subscription effectively means taking an equal pay-cut.
It would be nice to see this revenue limit raised, certainly on Plus, to say $200k, though personally as I occasionally do mobile apps for clients I'm still stuck due to the MWU splashscreen.
I bet the Unity UI folks would be shocked to know that, despite being a Pro user for many years, the first thing I do after an upgrade is go into Prefs and shut the dark theme off. I prefer the light theme — nearly every other app on my Mac uses black text on a light background, so I find it less jarring to have Unity do the same.
And, yeah, looking at the Pro feature list, it's a whole lot of stuff I won't use and don't care about. I've got my own analytics; I use svn; etc. Except the splash screen... I do care about that, somewhat.
With regard to the splash screen, Unity is struggling with a reputation problem very similar to one at a previous company I worked for. They made a development tool called RealBasic, which was a modern, strongly-typed, object-oriented development environment that was powerful and easy to use. So easy to use, that a lot of complete noobs with no engineering skills or aesthetic sense could quickly crank out crappy apps in their spare time. Though RealBasic apps didn't have a splash screen, there were ways to tell (by poking around in the resources) when an app was made with it, and utilities appeared just for that purpose. Then people with axes to grind started posting bad reviews on VersionTracker of any RB app, just because it was made in RB. That's completely stupid, of course, but it happened.
It sounds like Unity is facing a similar situation... because it's so powerful and easy, noobs can crank out crappy games, and so the "Made With Unity" logo has become a shorthand for "probably a piece of junk made by some noob." It would be much better advertising for Unity if only professional developers could have a Unity splash screen! But it's probably too late for that.
But if there's going to be a level in between free (which I think is important to keep, mainly to be usable in schools) and pro (which I hope won't be dramatically more expensive than it is now), then it should be removal of the splash screen. Nothing else matters.
This is truth!
Not trying to be an asshole but, if your clients are Mercendes and Hugo Boss then surely you should be able to afford pro?
He was explaining that there are domains which can't have splash screens, which is true. The costs were not the point of discussion here.
I have pro. What I was trying to say is that there are cases where a splash is not a matter of loosing a few sales (if any) but actually not getting a job/contract at all.
There are also small companies with a CI which does not allow for third party branding.
Now there are 3 tiers. Can different licences be combined on a project? That could work against the new collaboration features.
So you mean they'll take 5% of my gross revenue?
Have the same question.
I lost a job because I couldn't afford Unity Pro for a 3 week contract with a big client. I may have got more contracts elsewhere afterwards, but would have been in big trouble if I'd paid for Pro and didn't get anything else soon.
Unity's big problem has been for those trying to work their way from free to paid versions. Plus could have been the solution.
It can be worse than that, depending on whether you do mobile or not. The upgrade to Unity 5 Pro (desktop only) for me was $600. $125/month times 24 months is $3000. So that'd be a 5x increase for me.
However, because so many crap games use Unity, the advertising comes off as "you want your game to be crap? Use Unity". As somebody said earlier, it's the exact opposite from Unreal. Its users proudly proclaim "made with Unreal Engine" but Unity users pay just to get rid of the association.
If that doesn't tell you "get rid of the forced Splash Screen" I don't know what will.