Perpetual license going to be ceased in March 2017?

ok let me explain a bit better.. lol I'm being lazy..

So lets just say for people that wont accept having Unity splash screen.
They would have to choose.. do they accept paying 200$.
if not then they stand to lose 1000$.

do you understand?

 

How many of those people you talk of are there, that have a guarantueed 1000$/month income from doing gamedev? I can't follow your train of thought. Either you are below the 100k limit, can work with free and already make 1000$+ a month to meet your theoretical example in which case they don't need to choose, because they already pull in the 1k in spite of the personal edition splash screen. Or you don't make 1000$+ a month and nothing in the world can guarantuee that this will change once you get rid of the splash screen. But to do that you have to commit to paying 200$ a month for at least a year (am I getting the minimum subscription times right?). Or you are above 100k and don't have a choice either way.

 

I had a feeling you were referring to the splash screen. There are some people who feel like removing it will make a significant improvement in their sales and that may very well be true. What it won't do is make a failure into a success.

If you're at the point where you are losing $1,000 from the splash screen you're likely close to or beyond the $100,000 mark.

 

hmm ok .. the 1000$ was just an example .. lolz.. nevermind then. some people will get my meaning.

 

Ok let me try again. still not clear enough.

So I hear many Unity customers (other threads) using unity would say that they make games for clients and those clients would not accept having Unity splash screen.

Now some of these Unity clients make around $1000 a month (rough figure could be 800, 1000, 1500, 2000, +)
If they was left with the choice of having to pay 200$ per month to continue to use Unity without a splash screen or no longer be able to continue making games for clients. what would they choose.

am I making sense? lol I know I could explain it better but I'll give up after this one lol

 

You must not be lazy enough. You could have just said "contractors" and everything would have been clear.

 

In that theoretical case, if the client wants a custom splash screen, include it in the price. But that situation is going to be rare, and will depend on the exact situation. For example if the client is actually publishing, and you are being hired to deliver a project, license will be dependent on the client anyway.

 

Lol yes but I was originally meaning if I'm making X amount from my games and contractors bla bla bla but I was being too lazy and ended up doing more work..

 

No, until i make a great game and have some money income i won't pay anything. If free personnal edition would no more exist, than Unity would have a serious challenger named Unreal 4 and i would jump to Unreal where you pay nothing to use the software.

I don't understand Pro users asking to stop Unity free edition ? are they jaleous ? why they don't use personnal edition if they are not happy ?

 

I think what would be reasonable is:

1: bring $100,000 mark down to $30000

Subscription based

without splash
Desktop only = $100
Android only = $100
IOS only = $100

Desktop + Android OR IOS = $150
Desktop + Android + IOS = $200


without splash + All other services ex multiplayer services
Desktop only = $120
Android only = $120
IOS only = $120

Desktop + Android OR IOS = $170
Desktop + Android + IOS = $220


With Spash

Desktop only = $50
Android only = $50
IOS only = $50

Desktop + Android OR IOS = $75
Desktop + Android + IOS = $100

what are your thoughts?

 

Lol we cant be jealous we have PRO

I'll explain another time why "I" say what I say... sorry I have a game to make.
I don't hate free users.. Free users make great fanboys

 

I just pointed that no more proposing a free version will move lot of users to Unreal 4 and some to Cryteck 10$ subscription.
No need to explain yourself, i don't understand your big explanation ? Until you work directly at Unity or your have something related to their buziness directly why are you so concerned about the way they gain money or if they would not gain any money ?
And why should you know what is the best for Unity company ?

 

That's simple.. I rely on Unity as a tool to make my games.The more money unity has the more money they have to invest in it.

I never said I did know what's best, but you know that already.. I could say the same thing to you but that would make me petty and childish.

 

Are you aware they win enougth money perhaps ? the Asset Store is a very big part also, without free users it would never have the success and the income it generates.

Well i just explained that lot people will leave Unity boat if full subscription would happen.

 

If Unity would be $200 ANNUALLY, then I probably would get a sub, otherwise I'll just move over to Unreal or Source 2 when I'll get close 100k mark.

 

The current subscription offering is way to expensive and definitely unfriendly to small organisations.
Does a serious Indie require a team license included in Pro? Why pay for it?
What if only a Custom splash + Cloud build is required?
Basically it's all or nothing if you take the subscription route.

For subscription they should offer a 'pay what you need' option.

Assemble your own Pro version
1. Full engine + beta access (testing) - free (Personal Edition)
2. Custom Splash - US$ 9.99 per platform
3. Level 11 - US$9.99
4. Team License - US$19.99
5. Analytics Pro - US$9.99
6. Cloud Build - US$19.99
7. Other stuff

 

I'd probably only get custom splash and maaaybe lv11, don't need other stuff (it's pretty easy to make own build server, even my current PC could do that if I manage to get new one. And I don't really need rest.

And I agree, a la carte option would be best, even for perpetual option (if it is kept after backlash in this thread).

 

I don't work in Unity accounts department so no I'm not aware, are you?

And if some free unity users left to go to another engine I don't think it would have much of a negative impact on unity.

 

Really lot less money from the Asset Store. Ask them.

 

Yet the Asset Store only really makes enough to sustain itself. Ask them.

 

+1 wish/vote for indie pricing..

And like mentioned on other posts, allegorithmic pricing plan was perfect, purchased Substance live without hesitation..
would had bought unity pro long time ago, if there was similar indie pricing, as in below 400-500usd or so..

 

It is something to be concerned about if someone is considering buying a perpetual licence now. A good reason for choosing perpetual is it works out cheaper long term because upgrade pricing is lower than a new purchase. But the payback time is much longer than 1 year.

 

Don't forget that they changed their plan and told practically no one about it. We likely won't know anything until that day.

 

Well, asset store items can be used with different engine. Not sure how that works with 100k/year limitations.

Either way, it is against unity interests to lose ANY free user. Enough of those will draw attention to competitors, and some of the free users may start paying. "Oh, those guys are free users, we don't need them" kind of thinking is a good way to sink, IMO.

 

Can you use assets in other engines? I never was positive despite reading the license.

 

Kind of reminds me of when people push their religion on me..."but you will go to hell!" Sorry, but I don't believe in hell so it doesn't work.

I don't care about the splash screen or the dark skin so tell me that Pro is better is like telling me I will go to hell. It simply doesn't work. To be honest, a part of me thinks some folks are self-punishing when they worry so much about the cost of the subscription, but make little money, or rarely publish a game...or they publish games where people won't even notice the splash screen. As for the dark skin...really, if your eyes bother you, go get something that cuts the blue light out. Much much better. Why worry when you can use Personal Edition, get the same engine and then pay when you make some money. My guess it is about status.

Those folks with clients, I get it. My guess is though that they make at least some money, enough to pay for the subscription...although as I have said before, I also get why they don't like that.

As for paying for Personal Edition in the future, maybe it will happen but I doubt it. Had Unity wanted to go that route they would have done so. Much harder to suddenly, in the middle of development, tell folks that they have to pay to finish their game than it would have been to charge $20 a month to begin with. Unity has always had a free version and I suspect they always will.

Jealous? No...and in fact, I laugh! I am delighted with Unity Personal Edition and not because it is free but because it does everything I need it to do.

 

Exactly. Unity will do what Unity will do, and will unlikely announce anything till the last minute. Speculation at this point is unneeded stress. I doubt Unity knows for sure what they are planning, a year is a long time in tech.

Historically though, if pricing does change, it will be better than current not the other way. They even offered refunds for preorders. The have a pretty good track record on that.

 

Asset store license:

That's within "End user rights and obligations", section 2.2.

License says that you're allowed to use assets for creating games, but does not specify the engine.
There's no restriction that says "Unity only" anywhere in the eula.

There are some exceptions, like blacksmith assets, which are unity only, but those are rare.

 

If they don't do perpetual licenses with Unity 6 then Unity Subscriptions become a more expensive version of UE4 Royalties for just about everyone that pays for Unity Pro.

I think maybe what price one can charge monthly subscriptions to get people that are essentially hobbyists using free to subscribe is a relevant consideration. They price it right and they can remain competitive and those subscriptions would probably wind up being the number one income stream. However they now need something more compelling than Plan 11 or whatever it's called for Unity Free users to subscribe. Maybe all the Unity Analytics and Unity Cloud builds and such would be compelling enough. Depending on the monthly subscription price point they might need to insist that a subscription be for 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 12 months at a time.

I do think that Unity is much beyond the point of needing people that have good paying jobs buying Pro licenses as a means of moonlighting so they have a lot of flexibility there. I'd try and make Unity much more relevant as an educational tool and business presentation tool but for that the editor must be completely reworked so that a school teacher or school child or business presenter can manipulate the editor environment with parameters such such that those parameters match up with what is being taught - essentially the course materials. There is no logical reason to have these bizarre implementation specific data structure languages interfering with creating an environment and the behavior of things in that environment in Unity as it wastes the teacher's or student's or businessperson's time with learning materials that aren't relevant to the course material.

This is back to the same type of discussion before Unity 'Pro' became free but much like ourselves and the games and apps we make, the price point of what Unity charges isn't near as important of the usefulness of what Unity offers to it's paying clients. Unity is essentially a service company to those paying clients and charges appropriately to pay for itself manpower and make reasonable profits. If Unity's future depended on a few of us independent moonlighters getting rich from a Unity made game they'd be in big trouble now. Their interest in that is more a measure of Unity's interest in the ease of use and the validity of their product to do what it is marketed to do - democratize game development. It's not really there though until it becomes an easily skinnable ultra-sophisticated version of simulation software that can be used for education, business, and scientific presentations by subject matter experts and students learning those materials in the terms of language those subject matter experts use natively in those specific fields. Such educational, scientific, and business frameworks could be developed by third parties with the proper resources one Unity becomes API stable.

 

We would pay for services on subscription if they were offered. Right now, we are not in need of Unity Cloud, but if we are and the cost is comparable to other solution we would choose Unity first...as long as it is reliable. Same with the Analytics. If they eventually are able to handle a higher user base for Multiplayer, we would pay to use that as well per month..again, if it is reliable, and if it is comparable in cost.

Comparable doesn't mean cheaper, but it does mean that the extra cost gives benefits that outweigh paying less than somewhere else..such as easier integration with Unity, better support, more reliable, better quality, etc.

We would prefer to do things through Unity rather than elsewhere if we could and would pay for it. However...we would pay for it if it were add-ons to what we have now.

One really big benefit of Unity Personal is the ability to add people to our team. We have young people who come and work with us for a while and then go back to school. So buying them a Pro license for a short time is simply not sustainable.

 

I know one of the community managers said that but I don't believe it for a second. If it was true they are grossly mismanaging it.

 

OK lets do some theoretical maths. If asset store team are 10 people earning a mediocre (this is made up) salary of $30k a year this means $842 is spent per day on staff. If a typical asset costs $20 and 30% of that goes to unity, they need 140 copies sold of that, every single day. Then there's tax.

I'm guessing it's not going to sell 140 per day, but there are a lot of assets. But people generally buy a killer asset and not much else in that month. I guess buying behaviour is pretty much divided between the people waiting for a sale, and the people waiting for the first of each month who own pro.

That's not too bad but it's not the runaway profit expected. Then there's the endless downloads, server upkeep, server staff, general whatevers and legal costs.

Does it seem like asset store could support Unity? well, no, it couldn't ever support 500 staff. 10 staff it reasonably could even with wild guesses.

I'd guess that the asset store is turning a profit, but it's not safe enough of a profit to ever bank on using to sustain Unity.

 

I dont understand why this thread was opened.They clearly noted in the begining that unity was going to be supported during its 1.8- 2 year life cycle.Its no new info.The research thing in the roadmap is obviously for unity 6(which i bet stated development more or less the same time u5 was released).
By speaking about licenses,prices and stuff you only encourage/give them ideas to take the more drastic cash route when the time comes.

 

People are worrywarts is why.

 

Yeah I don't think it is enough to run the company. Just saying if it is not making a profit then it is being done wrong, there is no reason you cannot make money simply running a digital marketplace and taking a 30% cut. Some of the assets are quite pricy, for instance the substance database etc($800+). which I know people bought.

 

And even if it makes barely enough to sustain itself, it's even more reasons why Unity shouldn't let Free users go, as they also buy asses (I did it with Master Camera). So less Free users buying assets=less money from the asses store= more chance of Unity actually losing by having an asset store.

 

Would it really be done wrong though? The primary purpose of the Asset Store is to supplement Unity in areas the official team couldn't or wouldn't get to in any meaningful time frame. By providing those resources you're bringing in developers who may have otherwise chosen another engine.

 

I am not sure there is a primary purpose ? What about all models packs , animations, template games for non coders , textures and sound packs ? they matter.

 

Wouldn't those be areas Unity cannot provide resources themselves?

 

It is not always the job of a 3D engine to provide such ressources (CryEngine).

 

Okay. What was your point again?

 

Ok, closing this thread to prevent anyone taking speculation as fact.