Open letter to Unity...

I bought UT5 pre-order, and I'd like them to come up with some solutions to stay competitive, because if they don't, then the engine and assetstore suffer, and If they suffer then I suffer.

If it means that they introduce a better pricing model AFTER I have spent full price, I look foolish, but that's still better than them not staying competitive.
The pricing model is one thing that needs to change, but it's not the only thing that needs to change.

 

I think I am starting to support Unity raising prices.

 

Wait, I din't said it's stupid to compare both of those engines (even if they are quite different), I've only said It's stupid to say one is better than the other.
And yes, you have the right to complain about anything in Unity and/or UE4 (heck, you've paid for it). It's your right to complain if things doesn't work the way it should.

 

Indeed. Things like publish a Road-Map?.

 

Unity still has Free. Free with no watermarks or royalties or anything and supports exporting to mobile. To say Unity is no longer competitive in terms of price is disingenuous. That's not saying that Unreal isn't a good deal, it absolutely is obviously. But Unity Free isn't something you can just ignore either. In fact it's because of Unity Free that Epic made this new arrangement at all. It's because of Unity Free that UDK became a thing. That's not something you can just dismiss, no matter how good of a deal Epic offers. Epic is competing with a free product.

And Unreal's better support and service...it may be great now, but I frankly wonder at how long that will last. They may be really enthusiastic now, but when their userbase expands and becomes large enough, we'll see if things change in a year or two. Just as it did with Unity; the devs used to be more active and as the userbase grew they started commenting less and less (and understandably so, given how reactionary some users can be). Maybe they can maintain that enthusiasm though, I'll certainly applaud them if they do.

 

The problem extends well beyond whether or not specific people or businesses can afford the Pro license. The real issue at hand is the strength of the Unity ecosystem. Once it looks like an ecosystem is doomed, developers will move to a different solution. That even applies to developers who can easily afford to pay for Unity, because they don't want to invest in a potentially doomed ecosystem.

Some guys are currently saying things like "I'd buy Unity at any price", but I doubt that is really true. If the Unity ecosystem contracts too much, then the last few businesses using Unity will need to pay big bucks to keep the lights on at Unity. How many users would be willing to pay $100,000 for Unity? If enough people switch away from Unity, that is where the price will eventually end up for those who stay with Unity. We have seen that pattern occur repeatedly with IT software over the years.

Unity could still turn this to their advantage. For starters, they could copy Epic's UE4 pricing and terms for a new Unity Pro subscription, and then market that new subscription to existing Free users. Unity could easily make millions of dollars per year off that new subscription, all without hurting sales of the $1500 Unity Pro product because most professionals would still opt to pay $1500 instead of losing 5% in royalties. Indies and hobbyists would love a $19/month plus 5% royalties option, because it reduces up front risk. Most indies and hobbyists won't pay $1500 (plus $1500 per platform) or the $75/month (plus $75/month per additional platform) with a one year lock, but would happily pay $19/month plus 5% royalties. My gut feeling is that Unity could make an extra $100 million per year simply by adding a new subscription option that was identical to Epic's UE4 pricing and terms.

Beyond that, Unity just needs to communicate better. Nobody outside of Unity knows what is going on. There is no public roadmap. Betas (such as the GUI, UT5, etc) are done privately instead of publicly. Unity employees act like the GUI is a done deal, but the community feels like absolutely nothing has been done on the GUI. That is a glaring communications failure. A lot of work has been done on the GUI, but nobody outside Unity knows anything about it. Unity could address that issue with blog posts, videos, forum posts, public betas, etc. This problem is even more obvious right now, because Epic is actually doing an awesome job communicating recently about every little improvement in UE4. It is 2014. We expect companies to do an awesome job of communicating with users.

In a similar issue to better communications, Unity could do itself a service by not holding back solutions. A 32bit editor is a problem when trying to build large, complex scenes. Supposedly, Unity has a 64bit editor and plans to include it in UT5. Is there some compelling reason to hold back a 64bit editor until the next major waterfall release? If there is a technical reason, Unity needs to explain it so users can understand why that is being held back. If the reasoning is solely marketing related, then Unity should re-evaluate whether the waterfall method is the right solution. Users expect small, but frequent updates/improvements.

 

Not to just anyone.. just the ones who feel they are above reading before posting.. As for your "observation", I think I covered the whole price thing at length, not sure why you're just picking up on it now (assuming it's the whole reading thing)... Guessing the burger flipping thing was supposed to be a stab? (silly you, wondering why I'm telling people to f**k off?). I clearly have something against Unity because you and every other douche say so, obviously. Because the fanboys use flawed logic to defend their golden calf and I rebut with an opinion and/or fact that counters I obviously have an axe to grind; congratulations on your assertion!

But it's cool. I assume I'm being too unprofessional at this point; beating away the trolls on an internet forum... I fully expected them to come out of the wood work at this point; suppose they will keep coming. This community has too many torches and pitch forks. I got the answers I needed (in a sense). Perhaps it's all for the best anyhow.

 

I've been reading these threads with interest, and I had yet to see a pricing suggestion which might interest users who prefer UE4's new pricing model while also allaying the concerns of current licensees, who only want to pay a set amount without royalties. I think perhaps you've hit upon a potential solution. To expand on your idea:

• First, keep the free version free. That means no royalties and no subscription. Unity Free is one positive way to distinguish UT from UE4 and CE.
• For the pro version, charge a small monthly fee for access (pick the amount), and add a 5% royalty on any income earned beyond $3000 (or pick the amount), but CAP that royalty when 5% of all earnings (per Unity version) equal or surpass the cost of a pro license, which could still be bought outright.

This would provide a more affordable point of entry to pro features for hobbyists and new developers, while also allaying the concerns of current licensees who only want to pay a set amount.

In my opinion, if UT simply keeps its pricing model as is, the user base will (continue to) shrink. This means the Unity we know could be very different, with a smaller user base and, by necessity, a smaller team of developers, a year or 18 months from now.

And I do hope they aren't waiting for Unite for any potential pricing announcements, because by then, much of the damage will have already been done. By that time, UE4's mobile tool set will have improved, its WYSIWYG GUI tool will be out of beta, and its 2D framework will be available. Users don't always come back.

 

This is a great post but this particular point I especially agree with. I'm envious of what has been going on in the UE camp with completely open communication and frequent minor fixes. I hate that small issues I encounter in Unity will not be fixed until a major feature is ready. I hate the lack of communication as it is hard to budget whether coming up with a work around is worth investing the time because there is no way to tell when or even if a fix will suddenly appear.

 

Then I may as well just invest in Unreal. One of the big draws about Unity for me is that it is completely royalty free.

Who says it's shrinking? from my POV I'm seeing more new users popping up. A tiny vocal minority on the forum, does not facts make.

 

Read it again. Once the cost of a pro license is reached, it becomes royalty free. In other words, the cost to you remains the same.

The number of users in these (very large) threads who specifically say they are moving projects to UE4 is indicative of shrinkage, whether you care to admit it or not. This is especially true when we hear from multiple licensees and respected community members like Gigiwoo. Characterizing their views as just part of "a tiny vocal minority" certainly isn't helping.

 

If the cost is the same then this still amounts to Unity financing your purchase, only it puts even more risk on them because it's not even an enforceable loan.

Also, why would you ever purchase it outright if you could get it so much cheaper and only ever end up paying full retail if you happen to get successful later? It's not the same, and it pushes all of the risk onto Unity. You might say that Epic are taking all of the risk, but it's the fact that they're taking royalties that allows them to do so - sure, the people who don't make money don't pay any, but on the other end of the spectrum the people who are successful pay far more than a Unity license costs.

That's why it works, because it's balanced out. Unity balance it by spreading it per-person, Epic are balancing it per-dollar-of-income. Both have their pros and cons.

Your suggestion is that Unity takes all of the cons and we get all of the pros. Only, nobody gets anything once we've choked the golden goose.

 

My suggestion probably won't be better but I am going to say it anyway -

So why am I saying this? 5% Gross Revenue on a lower priced subscription model would allow unity to get more money in and fund R&D of new features and Fixes. If you are dead set on Using Unity3D without royalties pay for a 1500 USD license perpetual.

This would settle allot of problems right away about "Free" versus "Pro" Just saying... As it would put unity pro pretty much in everyone's hands.

You should have access to the Asset store regardless if you have a subscription or not

 

Ho ho! I have some information on that: http://www.tasharen.com/forum/index.php?topic=7567.25

ArenMook ranted a bit, then did some damage control a few days later. From what I can gather, I don't think there were necessarily right or wrong sides there, only disagreements on the development methods. I certainly hope there was no bad blood, at least, not anymore.

 

This is all true, but to look at it from a customer's perspective, currently UT gets all the pros (providing sales don't dip) while customers are left with any existing cons (delayed bug fixes/features, up front burden whether successful or not, etc.). Is that really a better business model? What happens to the golden goose if she no longer has enough food to eat?

UT's Pro pricing does need some sort of change. The model keeps UT focused on release sales more than user success after the sale, which leads to a myriad of other problems already discussed. By contrast, Epic only succeeds when the user succeeds. GMM and others have already expressed this particular concern quite well:

And from Chariots, per the Unity model:

I just think it's time that UT adapts to the changing marketplace.

 

Why does the pricing need to change? The problems you list aren't necessarily linked to pricing at all.

WIthout commenting on whether I think Unity should change or not, some people's reactions about their requirement to change are crazy considering their track record so far. They've been leaders in the low-cost game engine space for ages. Then they made their base engine free. Then they made their base mobile addons free. No royalties. Just... free. See a trend there? They do change, and they do it constantly.

But people are suddenly getting uppity that they "need to change" because one competitor did something similar, once.

Do they need to change something? Maybe, but I see no reason for the anger that some comments seem to be loaded with, as if it's already been forgotten that Unity has been a part of shaping a marketplace where things like current events take place.

And... it still comes down to the right tool for the job. Both engines are cheap enough that I honestly can't see that being a deal breaker either way (5% royalties or $4500 per developer - have you seen the price of, say, 3DS Max or a non-limited Maya?) for any project with a significant budget.

 

Well I never said you did say that , then again it's not stupid either to say one is better than the other.. Albeit it's more personal to what your project is, point being they are both tool-sets based on a renderer, if one can't do a job the other can then said engine has the advantage.

@ AP, Unity used to be wide open and do what Epic does now. Something changed along the way and now it is what it is. A lot of people are stuck with Unity and heavily invested in various ways, they don't want to change to UE4 so they are just being honest.. Nothing wrong with that, the real key here is now people actually have a choice for once. The only cost that really matters is time, you'd be silly to keep constantly switching between the two.

@ Daydreamer, Chariots is spot on IMO. These walls need removing, technology will be ever changing so Unity can still charge upgrade fees. It doesn't mean they need to halt production for major releases we've fixed stuff isn't a selling point. Quite the opposite..

My actual thoughts on the whole thing is on page 2 http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/243555-Open-letter-to-Unity/page2

 

Thanks for sharing that. I was always curious what all happened during those couple years; felt it out of place to directly ask.

 

^ This .
Gigi

 

You are absolutely right that Unity's current prices are fine for any project with a significant budget. But there is a lot of room for improvement with indies and hobbyists. Right now, the pay wall is too high for most indies and hobbyists to climb over. So you see people using Unity Free forever instead of upgrading to Pro, or you see those Unity users switching to UE4. Unity has a huge opportunity to make money off that group of people if Unity added another subscription option that copied the pricing and terms from Epic's UE4 subscription plan.

Here are the options that I would like to see Unity offer:
1) Unity Free (same as it is now or possibly with slightly adjusted feature set)
2) Unity Pro Hobbyist Subscription - $19/month plus 5% royalties (same technical features as Unity Pro; same pricing and terms as UE4)
3) Unity Pro Professional Subscription - $75/month (same as it is now without any royalties)
4) Unity Pro Perpetual License - $1500 (same as it is not without any royalties)

What I am suggesting is merely the addition of a subscription to give hundreds of thousands of existing Unity Free users the chance to send Unity $19 every month. It would likely be an extra $100 million dollar per year in revenues for Unity. It would not cannibalize existing Unity Pro perpetual license sales, because those users won't want to be subjected to the 5% royalty.

Unity would not even need to worry about how to collect the 5% royalties, because nearly none of the hobbyists paying $19/month would ever make enough money selling games exceed the $3k per quarter in revenues that would trigger the royalties to start. If one of the hobbyists ever accidentally struck it rich with sales, then Unity could simply chase that user down to pay the 5% royalties or pay for a perpetual license. The primary function of the 5% royalties would be to encourage the $1500 perpetual license holders to continue to upgrade their perpetual licenses.

 

There are so many licence suggestions, but oddly enough, this one doesn't give me the "not again" feeling... But I think that "extra 100 million dollar" is a few magnitudes too high

 

The $100 million per year number is my gut feeling. I do not have access to any of the internal numbers that Unity has access to, so it is very possible that it would be a different number. But it would be easy for somebody inside Unity to figure it out. Unity Free users that have never spent any money at all in the Unity Asset Store would likely continue to use Unity Free. Unity Free users who have bought something through the Unity Asset Store would be likely to pay for the $19/month "Unity Pro Hobbyist Subscription". Unity already collected this information. It would be easy for them to analyze this data, and this data would be a very reliable predictor of how many existing Unity Free users would be willing to pay for a $19/month subscription.

If 438,596 existing Unity Free users paid $19/month, it would be worth $100 million per year to Unity. I have heard there are over 2 million Unity Free users, but I have no idea how many of them have bought at least something through the Unity Asset Store already. It could be more or it could be less. Even if it were a lot less, it could still be a lot of money. For example, let's say only 44,000 Unity Free users were likely to subscribe to the $19/month. In that case, it would still be worth $10 million per year. I'd have to imagine that would be enough money to make it worthwhile for Unity to add that $19/month subscription option.

 

Seems reasonable except... as stated someone could stay with the Pro Hobby subscription until their game gets big then switch to 3 or 4 to prevent paying royalties. If Unity could figure out some way to prevent that I do believe your suggests are a win for both Unity users. ( not 100 million win but still big )

I assume Unity is considering all their options.

I actually don't think $1500 is too much for Pro however the $4500 + to do Pro on mobile is a killer.

 

If somebody made a bunch of money with option #2 and then switched to option #3 or #4, then Unity would make even more money. Unity would basically get paid twice by the same person. (once for the hobbyist subscription and then once for the perpetual license) That should not be considered a problem for Unity. That should be considered an opportunity.

Don't think of the 5% royalty as something that Unity needs to collect. Just think of the 5% royalty as something Unity could use to protect sales of the existing options (options #3 and #4 as I listed).

 

^ This.

It's a business decision. Sure, UE might only cost $500 for a 2-year cycle, and yet Unity is still worth $1500 to me. However, after purchasing Pro iOS Pro, I wasn't willing to chunk another $1500 for Android, so I released my personal products to Android using Unity Free. And now that I'm looking at a huge upgrade to 5.x, I'm stuck wondering if I truly need iOS Pro. Certainly, the optimization, a splash screen, and render to texture features are not worth $4500 for my personal projects, even if they are needed by my primary dev team.

When a valued customer like me is having a dilemma like this, it's bad for Unity. And to be honest, it's bad for me too.

Gigi

 

LOL, I read that and Unity what is wrong! You don't mess with a GUI developer and his sense of pretty.

 

That's forums for you. Insults instead of intelligence is a tactic you try to use to quiet dissenters. The workers at Unity don't take it personally, at least I hope they don't (on that note I'd be really tough to be a real cop). I put in the ignore file when the histrionics gets too ridiculous and directed at myself, in other cases with threats of violence I have reported to moderators that can ban and censor.

 

People think you can't do a $20 plus 5% and the $1500 upfront as options but I'd don't seen why you couldn't. The big restriction I think is in Unity's case you'd want to make the subscription length 12 months.

What we can't know is how much revenue they'd loose from the those buying Pro licenses and upgrades as moonlighters vs. how many people would subscribe at $20 a month. One thing for sure, the user base will erode $1500 licenses upfront, $75 subscription per 'add-on', or $20 plus 5% subscription and eventually only hobbyists, artists, and successful, even if most are small, businesses will remain.

You can be pretty sure they gained revenue with the $75 subscription model while loosing practically no upfront licenses. A $20 plus 5% subscription would certainly drain the income of the upfront licensing. They'd need to restrict it to individuals to avoid collapsing sales to institutions. It's not as easy a proposal as you'd think but let me qualify that with saying I know nothing about the rules Unity uses to license to places like educational institutions or Disney.

All this being said they'd have a flood of revenue at $20 a month plus 5% if restricted in to that the moonlighter, hobbyist, and artistic element that are using Unity. And isn't that's what's called the bottom line of a business?

 

Unity or UE4 in that situation is going after the 5%. They'll have done the math to know how much a games need to make before the lawyers are sent after you.

I take that 5% fee earnestly and you can bet UE4 does and Unity would. I don't know how UE4 intends to police that.

Perhaps, because you have only a license to use but don't own the engine, Epic owns the engine, it's within Epic's legal rights to require the various App Stores and Publishers to give the Epic sales data of all applications published using the Epic engine. I'm guessing though. Does anyone know?

Another thing. The asset store income will start to dry up. There are only so many code based assets you need. I am almost there and I venture to say I've spent far more than most Unity Free users and less than most Unity Pro users. There is opportunity in art assets and maybe a big one for quick and talented artists still yet. In big I mean to be able to support a family not to become independently wealthy.

 

I highly doubt that Apple, Google or for that matter Valve would freely give them earning reports or for that matter have systems in place that scans every installable package on the individual stores to flag things running Unreal Engine. I would suspect that Unreal Engine (and for that matter Unity too) have systems in place that makes individual software installations phone home to check for larger active install bases. The processes could also be when a developer builds the project and the software phoning the app ID back to Epic.

It's not exactly hard for Epic to get approximate data on how much software built using Unreal Engine, unless they really are the most honest people on earth and not have the system phone home at all only to rely on developers to freely pay them.

 

It doesn't matter what Google, Apple, Microsoft and the others prefer it matters what the software license says. The Unity engine and the UE4 engine remain the property of Unity and Epic, game published or not.

What you say is conjecture as well and what you say is technically feasible. But once the UE4 and Unity pings back to UE4 and Unity and they know the names of games that are doing well how to they obtain the sales data? Remember the 5% is pre-App Store cut? How would they know that exactly? They'd need the app developer to reverse engineer their profit cheque after the App Store's cut and after taxes because many app developers opt to have the App Store take out taxes before they are issued a cheque almost as if they were employers of the App Store. Yes it's not rocket science to reverse engineer those figures but ultimately in cases of non-compliance the game engine owner must have the right to remove applications using their engine from the various app stores. You can't tell me they haven't foreseen the need to write such clauses into the software license. And with the essential need to be able to do that it makes much more sense to be issued the sales data directly from the App Stores that being Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and so on. And in that way you don't wind up with sensational spying articles about your company spying on schoolchildren in the news media.

So if that is the case I would think it's a rather run of the mill thing that these App Store owners cooperate with the game engine makers and keep their apps, app stores, and game engines from looking like NSA wannabees.

 

The 5% royalty is enough to prevent existing $1500 users from switching to the $19/month hobbyist subscription.

 

More than likely because you'd almost certainly have to be a rather big company not to cringe at that and biennial upgrade fees for all of that. Even when I was working in places with very good salaries over 100K I'd cringe at and wouldn't pay that much although I'm there are probably some that have. If this is a case of being far in licensing to places like Disney it's silly. LOL, just read the legalese warning next time you watch a Disney DVD of exactly how you are and are not allowed to watch that DVD. Sorry, Bill, as hubby's boss you have to leave our home while my children watch this DVD as your presence might cause that to constitute a public performance. Mom, can we watch our Disney DVDs at Yellowstone? What if the neighboring campsites can see? Will Ranger Smith arrest us?

 

I am not saying they wont be requesting numbers from the various outlets selling products made with Unreal Engine 4, i just don't see all these stores giving Epic total access to all revenue stream passing through each store. And Epic absolutely have some kind of agreement where they can withhold a piece of software from generating future revenue if the license isn't upheld.

As both Unity and Unreal Engine 4 move more into web executable space, the line between reseller and developer will ultimately end up being blurred, how would Unity Technologies or Epic track revenue generated from web advertisements since there are no active reseller in between that could monitor revenue? They can't unless the software itself were to log these web sites.

Getting the data directly from the stores make a lot of sense, but it would be impossible for them to have such a deal with every outlet around the world that could sell such a product. Epic knows that people will try to cheat them out of some money and they have systems in place to track how packaged products are being used, but we just do not know how.

 

+1
Only way I'm going to update to 5 is if they get rid of the add-on crap and just include it.
Never thought it was fair to charge the same price for each platform as the main app.
It should be Pro or Free, not Pro + let's nickel and dime you with add-ons.

 

I whole-heartedly agree with this.

Do away with Unity free and put in a more affordable subscription fee that gives you access to the editor with all platform functionality.

Users can only sign into and use the editor if they have an active subscription.

It will be a win-win situation.

 

Yes I agree with this! However, I would like a few thing to be avoided If this was done.

1. If a User is not subscribed to the service then they should still be able to use the asset store. Like it is now.
2. No authenticating levels or other assets - If something goes wrong with the unity backend (For Example: A Hacker ) then we risk losing all of our work.

 

I don't think Unity should do away with Free, since it brings a lot of people into the Unity ecosystem. But I definitely think there needs to be a low cost subscription that existing Unity Free users can pay to upgrade to.

 

Oh, they know the big ones but if they have embedded SW with police pinging they better keep the information pertinent restricted to the developer/company that published or they are breaking the law. And even if they are it's still legally questionable in many jurisdictions.

I just read they FAQ page and in fact they say the developer (i.e. company / publisher) is expected and required to report themselves. I can tell you from my 'LLC' that even with $0 in income I must still file a tax report. Of course, Epic isn't doing that.

OK, I'm reading their EULA and let's be frank: if there is a ping utility I doubt it. A SW engineer can easily disable such facilities. Also furthermore such companies must consider that policing and 50 character license keys and SW am I legal pings and all these police actions only serve to insult and drive off honest customers and does nothing to deter hackers and warez.

Businesses would better spend their efforts treating paying customers like adults. You need support well then Unity should have a receipt of your purchases and you should save your receipts. Don't be like Adobe or VMWare or Digital River (a company whose sole purpose is digital sales, digital receipts, and digital licenses for goodness sake but can't seem to keep track of them!!!) where both myself and those companies no longer had records of my receipts (although I did find 2 from 2003 eventually).

Does Epic rely on Apple and Advertising companies, e.g. Google and such companies reporting to enforce? I doubt it, but with this type of licensing model it's likely to evolve but only if notable violations of Epic's licensing occur. Until then the easier way is to simply watch the sales charts but mostly they are relying on the honesty of the users. Epic also points out they aren't interested in your intellectual property. Nor are they interested in your taxes or an app store's part. Plain and simple $20 a month, 5% on gross profits exceeding $3000 per quarter, 2% late payment fees, and keeping your filings current on their web site.

 

App stores are only a part of the revenue, for smaller projects they are probably much more interested in your kickstarter funds which you also have to pay 5% of as soon as you receive it.

 

Well I can tell you they aren't probably ain't going to troll KickStarter looking for violations. As and if notable (notable as in profitable) violations occur we'll probably see police and EULA enforcement policies evolve but for now it's be a waste of development and company resources. Their goal isn't to catch cheaters. Their goal is to make money plainly, honestly, and legally.

 

Then a subscription model won't work. Because people will use Free, then when time comes to publish, they will subscribe to Pro, build, then revert back to Free.

Having access to one editor with all functionality is simple, and effective, and avoids any exploits.

Most industry standard software has gone this route, and it's proven to be extremely effective and financially successful for companies who have adopted this model.

 

Correct. Unity wouldn't do away with Free because it would reduce profit via the asset store. The only motive I could imagine for some wanting to do away with free is because one makes the mistaken assumption that those that use Unity Free are responsible for all the opinions and games they don't like in the forums and in the app stores. As if paying a subscription or license fee to Unity was a big factor in the success of those games make in Unity that have been successful. That's like insisting you have to buy water for it to quest your thirst.

 

Everybody keeps getting sidetracked debating how the 5% royalties are going to be enforced, but the real money is in the $19/month. Every 4,400 users paying $19/month is worth a million dollars per year in additional revenues. That is the big money, and that gets paid regardless of whether or not any game gets made or sold. The 5% royalties is just to make sure big developers don't go the $19/month route.

 

Pretty much this!

 

I wonder what monetary income streams that Epic has, Autodesk has, Adobe has that Unity doesn't. Epic surely isn't licensing UE4 to places like Disney or similarly large institutions for $20 a month with the ability to turn on and off the subscription monthly.

 

Yep, and UE4 even includes exclusion of intellectual property in their EULA as implicitly stating the if you wind up getting a huge game hit with UE4, the sequels are in no way bound to use UE4 under the same $19 / 5% EULA. They have a link for you to talk to their sales and licensing folk. Why would they include that if $19 5% was all they offer?

They get extra suggestions, extra beta testing, and publically accessible (though varying levels) free technical 'community' support with this model. A huge time and costs saver. And they don't have to waste much time at all on hunting done warez.

 

If you're licensing stuff to organisations like that then who cares about the $20 a month? It's the 5% you want, and that's not turn-offable. Alternatively, you want to cut an up-front deal that's far more than the sub would cost but less than the expected royalties would be, for cash up front with a different risk balance.

Re: some other stuff discussed, I really don't understand what people think Unity will get out of a royalties scheme if they let anyone buy out of it at any time for a normal purchase price. There's a reason that Epic aren't interested in amounts under $3000/quarter, and it's probably not the $150/quarter it might save you. If a minimum of $3000 is to small for Epic to bother then why is a maximum of half of that worth Unity's time?

 

Well I've not privy to the closed doors deals that Epic makes but you reckon they include royalties? I couldn't imagine Disney or a company like that submitting to that given Mickey Mouse Co's popularity.

Unity would have similar closed door deals. I remember visiting a large upscale retailer in Manhattan once and even though I was only there to install security SW everything was closed doors and secretive because of the season's fashions on slate. The doors was as big and heavy to go to that meeting as I encountered entering the Pentagon. And a friend of mine told me when I lived in Zurich all that expensive jewelry you see in the shop windows on Bahnoffstrasse is costume jewelry (but real jewels) and the really good jewelry was kept in safes in the back for when their really important customers came calling.

Put it to you this way: Unity wines and dines the likes of us (no offense to us) via these forums, their web site, and events like Unite! but when the big businesses come calling Unity would I think really wine and dine them. Or loose them to the competition. I think if I was Unity I'd add the royalty, even with Unity Free, and let those that have the money buy their way out of it. LOL and not for $6000.