Should Unity stop it's Free version and just go with subscription based pro?

By that logic what's the point in upgrading to Unity 5.0 anyway? Unless you're on a sub which you get the upgrade as part of the deal.

Forget other engines, if you have no use for realtime GI and advanced audio. The biggest selling point for Unity 5.0 is that they've upgraded a buggy version of physx and it can be debated whether or not that should have a paywall.

64 bit editor should of been in by now anyway and you need to be doing "them" sort of games to leverage it, PBR is all in the shaders as shown by Lux.

For Unity 5.0 to be really worth it across the board, they'd have to distance it enough to be a must have. Like material editor / cinematics / terrain system overhaul / upgraded VFX system.

So in the end, a lot of people will realise that Unity 4.0 pro is more than sufficient. Might as well make money from people who won't upgrade anyway.

 

No, actually, the point ends up being continued feature support. Unless they held off doing this well into the 5.x cycle, there'd be no point in upgrading to 5.x at all.

Honestly? Not really. I don't know if you've actually looked at most of the games using Unity, but improved PhysX support isn't really a huge deal.

Ridiculously untrue. Right now Unity will outright crash on large scenes that are well and away from approaching advanced games. I've had it happen on a game I'm working on that is little more than a simple simulator game.

Unity is never worth it at the beginning of a product cycle. It isn't now, it wasn't at 4.0, and it was barely at 3.0.

This is the problem with your idea.

 

@Murgilod

No, actually, the point ends up being continued feature support. Unless they held off doing this well into the 5.x cycle, there'd be no point in upgrading to 5.x at all.

You'd have to be crazy to keep holding out for new feature support. It's not like Unity stops supporting Unity 4.0 the day after 5.0 is released anyway.

Honestly? Not really. I don't know if you've actually looked at most of the games using Unity, but improved PhysX support isn't really a huge deal.

If you'd seen some of the bugs that I and other developers have come across you'd think twice on that. What about cloth sim etc. etc.? PhysX without a doubt needed some work!.

Ridiculously untrue. Right now Unity will outright crash on large scenes that are well and away from approaching advanced games. I've had it happen on a game I'm working on that is little more than a simple simulator game.

I managed to make a pretty big hack and slash without it and it's not like succesful games haven't come out without it. Look the 64-bit editor or lack thereof was crippling for my main project, but not everyone needs it.

Unity is never worth it at the beginning of a product cycle. It isn't now, it wasn't at 4.0, and it was barely at 3.0.

Which backs up my statement.

This is the problem with your idea.

You seem to be missing the point here, if there is little reason to upgrade people won't. Therefore Unity 4.0 can be an additional source of income.

It's fine to disagree and end of the day it's only an idea.

 

Based on bbinators replies I think Unity understand the market they are losing, which is hobbyist and really small indies with no budget.

I purchased Unity 3 and 4 Pro because at that time it was clearly the best deal(at least to me) to work on the types of games I like to play around with. Free has too many limitations for me not the least of which being no support for native DLL's and .net sockets. I didn't even play with the Pro post effects until late last year because that was no the selling point to me, then of course I found out they weren't even as good or performant as the stuff sold on the Asset Store so that was a complete waste anyways.

If there is no price change then clearly the market they are losing is just not that important to them and people need to come to grips with that. Seems like a bad move to my biased view since I like using Unity but I am getting to a decent level of skill at UE4 at this point, enough to do some animations and feel better about leaving Mecanim behind.

 

Except it is more than simply hobbyists and low budget developers. You also have to factor in those such as ShadowK who are investigating UE4 due to the inability of Unity 4 Pro to compete. Unity 5 better be very impressive for the cost.

 

Yeah was speaking purely from a cost perspective, if UE offers features you need that UT can't match then those are customers that are lost no matter what the cost so shouldn't factor into the discussion I think.

 

I love Unity, so i will just follow them like a sheep.

 

That's the problem in a nutshell, it's two part. Justifying the upgrade cost to certain people and justifying why it's better than X, just like a hobbyist would with themselves. This applies for all tools, it's not Unity specific here.

@tiggus thing is, they need community flow. New students with mass knowledge of the product and I'd gather a fair amount of hobbyists buy pro too.

But we'll see, lets hope Unite is the missing link. Unity 5 free could be awesome, and UT5 Pro might have an ace up it's sleeve. If not I'll wait for the subs to expire..

 

Let's Unity Free continue , because many people use it even knowing limitations tools and features, they like the ease of use and capable of making some desktop and mobile games as they don't seek best graphics and phycis. What UT could do is lower the monthly payment for Pro (75$/month) or keep 75$ and have people beeing able to stop and restart subscription any time and keep the software like UE4.

Epic with Blueprints are giving a good tool for non coders , some peoplpe already jumped fropm UT in UE4 wagon with Blueprints
https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?23054-Growing-Up-Adventure-Puzzle-Side-Scroller
This has many advantages could it be complete game making to artists able to make game level design and gameplay without needing a coder.
Plugins are 90$ or more in UT, after V5 they will need to bring such tool.

 

@zenGarden

I'm bored of hearing about UE4 and I use the thing, lets keep on with Unity and subs. Anyway, I take it we'll hear something between the 20th - 22nd of August when Seattle Unite happens?

Even a yeah we'll speak about Unity 5 free / Pro @ Unite from Unity would be nice.

 

Why not have all three options?

1. You can buy Unity3D
2. You can rent Unity3D for a price of 19 or less m/o for access to Pro but you will never actually own the product until you pay the full amount. It will revert back to the free version once you cancel your membership.
3. Keep Unity3D free version for a broke peasant like myself.

Eventhough I'm a free user, I do agree people who have licenses need to have their own VIP area where they can have their questions answered and prioritized.

While this might divide the forum, I believe if you're paying, you deserve a little more.

 

Indeed, and Unity is not only users of Free but many PRo users and small to big companies.
I think UT Free is great as a totally free product as you receive free updates for your free perimeter.
The price discuss is mainly for Pro uses.

 

Not really, this is about free users and the jump to Pro being too steep. The discussion on Pro users and what we expect from Unity Pro has been covered in great depth may I say.. Hence the official threads asking for feedback.

 

We use the Free version to indoctrinate kids into Unity at Coder Dojos.

 

I've always felt that a monthly subscription for one version of Unity would be the best model.
Most other software has gone this way and it has proven to be very effective for those software companies.

Although back to the price point...

It would need to be cheap enough for all the free users to convert.
But still pricey enough for Unity to make its money.

I'm thinking $29.99 a month as a good ballpark.
If your studio earns more than $100k per year, then your licenses should go up to $49.99 a month.

Note there will need to be only one version, with all platforms.
This is to prevent people from subscribing to say iOS pro for a month, release title on iOS, then revert their subscription again.

Having only one version with all platforms solves this problem.

 

I agree. Unity Free already competes with Unity Pro to some degree through 3rd party plugins. If Unity sold Unity 4 Pro cheap, it would also compete with Unity 5 Pro to some degree using 3rd party plugins. That would further fragment the market, which could potentially weaken the ecosystem. Things like videos and tutorials dramatically strengthen the ecosystem. If having many different versions leads to videos and tutorials only working for specific users, then that fragmentation would lead to a weakened ecosystem.

And things like PBR based models will only come to the Asset Store if the huge mass of users can use them. Fragmenting the ecosystem with a cheap legacy Pro option would drastically decrease the demand for PBR assets.

What I think Unity needs is to come up with a step between Free and Pro that would be largely feature parity with the most current Pro version, but at a very hobbyist friendly price point. That would lead to more revenue for Unity and a stronger overall ecosystem.

 

I see what you are saying now. You are saying that the cheap Unity 4 Pro option would be a new source of revenue because it would appeal to the users that were not going to upgrade to Unity 5 Pro anyway. You might be right about that. There probably will be a lot of people in that boat, at least for a while. There are still some users running Unity 3 Pro, which is an example of what you are talking about.

 

Exactly, the foremost issue is that people believe Unity 4.X is competition to the 5.X range. That alone would place doubt into potential sales, Unity can leverage that by continuing 4.X Pro as a fiscal gate.

I heard something about plugins, get a quote from Geomerics and see how much Enlighten sets you back. Middleware of that caliber is expensive. Sure you can add plugins but it'll never be on the same playing ground, it doesn't support speedtree.. There is still a fair amount of reasons to upgrade IF you need that functionality.

If Unity 5.X Pro is going to be their flagship product, it should dwarf it's predecessor and also be able to stand up to it's competition. Have Unity 4.X fill in the rest of the gaps and keep the eco system alive for hobbyists and students..

OR they could do a damn good Unity 5.0 free.

 

Which given the differences that appear to be between Unity 4.0 and 5.0, they could probably restrict Unity 5.0 Free to the level of features found in Unity 4.0 Pro and still have enough incentives left to entice people to 5.0 Pro.

 

Exactly or like I said they could monetize Unity 4 Pro for a cheap rate. It all depends if people want it?

 

Bad idea imho, you yourself have repeated many times, Unity 4 Pro is way behind UE4. UE4 will only improve over time. Unity 4 Pro will not, but if that will be the version matching UE4 price, it should also match or exceed it feature-wise.

 

Except there is also no guarantee that UE4 won't be at or close to Unity 5's level when Unity 5 finally manages to ship. They are only missing Enlighten from what I have seen. There may be more that I am not aware of.

For hobbyists, small time indies, etc the only real features truly missing from Unity Free are those that are pretty fundamental for modern engines such as render textures. There are even a lot of people who simply want the other skin for the editor. Or the profiler.

 

We went over this on the last page, from what has been advertised so is Unity 5.0 in areas and we've been through that over and over. Sure it might not be the best idea, but I've still yet to see A good idea.

Fine it is what it is, Unity 5 free with whatever features it gets. $225.00 a month for Unity all in, or $75.00 for the PC version!.

What's your idea?

 

I'm afraid if we start mentioning ideas on Unity's pricing again, hippo will lock this thread as he did with the other popular threads. I've mentioned a couple of my ideas on pricing on those.

 

Is this an official thread? I want to tell you my thought.

Please look ahead a bit.

Free users like the fishes in the pool, you need lots of fishes in your pool, not in other's pool, when your fishes grow up, they will upgrade to your products, why? because they are familiar with your products.

What you need to do is to provide full product line to your users, all your users can select their products which fit them.

Stop free version and just go with subscription is a near sighted idea, are you catering for users?

 

I agree the Free version also helps people mastering Unity to make games, when they are successfull it means lot of chances to upgrade.
Second point is the Free version is something that makes Uity popular, used by any one or any groups, so it invites more people to use it, so again more possibilities to make money for Unity could it be upgrades, and specially Asset Store where lot of people even using the Free version will put money for models or tools.

If you make something where you must pay monthly payment it will impact on Asset Store sales and all users of Free versions will use something else.

People should stop trying to want to shut down or bashing the Free version , it is good as it is with it's own goals and pruposes, let it continue to bring people to Unity and make money for Asset Store.
The real issue is Pro version and prices, the title of the thread should be " please consider a lower monthly payments for Pro" , this is totally independent on Unity Free, this is not Unity Free fault if Pro version is too expensive for people askinhg a lower monthly payment.
Pro version can stay at actual price or change to lower monthly payment, this has NOTHING to do with Free version.

 

It has EVERYTHING to do with the Free version. The only way a cheaper Pro version can exist and be profitable, is if a huge percentage of Free users convert to that cheaper Pro.

 

I'm not sure Unity will make more money proposing only one Pro using a mid ranging price, it could work only proposing some 50$ maximum with subscription cancel option, otherwise people will turn to UE4 for 20$ and better tools.
This would mean Unity would loose lot more money form companies and bigger clients if they would lower the Pro version.

If only one Unity version would exists, this would mean UT would no more benefits big companies paying bigger prices , you owuld no more have separation between amateurs and serious users. I think this is a point Unity want to keep, a bigger price for serious projects and teams.

If only one Unity version would happen they would loos many amateurs using Free version and using Asset Store , and new comers depending on price would go for UT or UE4.

Wanting one version for Unity could be dangerous as it would be exactly same offer as UE4, it would be direct competition this time For now UT differentiates itself by separating hobbyst from serious users, so that's some offer different from UE4, each engine offer having is strong points.

 

Doesn't really work that way.

First you assume that many of those hobbyists are going become successful developers. There is no reason to think that, clearly that isn't happening. With each year it becomes harder and harder for the low end to succeed. You don't need "lots of fishes", you need good ones. Not everyone who learns how to play guitar goes on to play stadiums and get recording contracts.

Secondly, and more importantly, you make the assumption that because they started in Unity, they will stay in Unity. Again, nothing supports that. Pro developers use the best tool for the job. Look how many of the free users switched to UE4 because they believe it better (or at least claimed to). I love Unity, but if something ever comes along that is better and saves time, I'll switch in heartbeat. These are business tools not your favorite band.

In the pro world, more and more mid to large studios are adopting Unity as their primary platform. (we just basically committed to it as our only platform, even over internal engines). Cost is really the smallest concern, productivity is the big one as labor costs are the biggest part of the pie. Right now none of the competition is even a consideration for us and many of our peers at other top mobile studios, but they are clearly moving in that direction, and moving fast.

I'm not going pretend, like many of the other posters here, that I have valuable insights on how to run a successful game engine company. I don't. I make games. But Unity clearly knows what they are doing, they have become a valuable and successful partner in that, and I hope they continue on the path they are on and keep their tool on top. Everything they have said so far supports that. As long as they hit those targets and keep improving their tool to keep ahead of the competition. Switching business models to chase an audience that by definition doesn’t have the resources to purchase your products seems unwise. They have catered to the pro and still provided free (or previously cheap) solutions for the hobbyists, and it has worked. As they say, if it ain't broke..

 

Making statements and giving results are two different things. We've heard details about Unity 5 and from the various official feedback threads, but will we see much in the way of actual results? Every company capable of climbing to the top is also capable of plummeting to the bottom.

 

@zombiegorilla

It doesn't matter to Unity if you're a success or not, it matters to Unity if you can afford to buy pro. 10,000 hobbyists buying pro is far more valuable to them than one AAA with 300 employees. Even factoring in support and consultancy costs. Reason I know this is simple math .

Royalties rely on success, but that might be a fools errand? Whatever works I suppose.

Also what platform are you working on? Whenever I hear the words AAA and Unity, it's always nearly mobile games (if always).. I have never heard a peep in the direction of we are X AAA and were developing games like Witcher / Batman / Crysis / Metro / COD / Dragon age etc. in Unity.

But that's ok, it's not an issue as you say. Right tool, right job and I'm the biggest tool I know of.

 

I think the idea of offering Unity "Current Gen" Pro for a certain price point instead of forcing new sales on to Unity "Next Gen" Pro is a good way to go.

Most "current" software released is considered "new". The previous version is considered "stable". Right now, that would mean Unity3x is stable/current and Unity4x is next-gen/unstable/bleeding-edge. The moment that Unity5x is released it means that Unity4x is "stable" and Unity5x is next-gen and Unity3x gets put out to pasture. When Unity6x is released, 5x is "stable" and 4x is out to pasture and 3x hopefully never sees the light of day again.

Why not offer customers the option as well as an upgrade path with a pricing option? If you're a subscriber, you get access to a version of your choice and if you want to run 2 different versions that takes 2 licenses, and it only 'sucks" if you work on PC and Mac because you need to release one of the licenses in order to run the second version.

For corporate/bulk licensing purchases, it wouldn't matter at all. Each license is tied to whatever is installed on a machine. Version does not matter, as an install is an install. One-to-one relationship.

Users benefit from choice in versioning, Unity benefits from offering what the users want/need, and they can also claim upgrade pricing on upgrades. After the current deal surrounding 4x purchases is over (buy Unity4x and you auto upgrade to Unity5x), I'd switch over to doing something like the following:

• Unity3x Pro = $700
• Unity4x Pro = $1000
• Unity5x Pro = $1500
• Unity3x-4x Pro = $500
• Unity4x-5x Pro Upgrade = $750 or whatever it is
• Unity Subscription Latest Version = $50/mo
• Unity Subscription All Versions = $70/mo

Obviously all version numbers increment when Unity6x comes out. Different pricing for multiple version support simply because it does cost more to support multiple versions. Not that UT does that much bugfixing in out-to-pasture versions, but still... it takes time and money to run this. The increased cash could potentially allow for older versions to get bugfixes as necessary.

 

Of course Unity Free should remain. Someone who is interested in trying game making, but unsure if it is for them, is absolutely going to try the free option first. But long before they are considering laying out $1500 or $4500, they might well have considered laying out $19 to try another option.

The problem isn't the entry point, it is where does the user go from there. There is a chasm before they reach for Pro, a chasm that is now filled by another appealing option.

 

I believe that most Unity Free users have dreams, create good games ---> upgrade to Unity Pro ---> create great games.

 

Making great games is not a matter of Unity Pro, it's a matter of your ideas and skills.

Yes you're not be able to make certain games without Pro. But that doesn't mean you need Pro to make great games.

 

Spot on.

 

That is what I meant by success, in terms of free users progressing to by pro. Indeed it is simple math, but you know... GIGO. Are there are 10k hobbyists dropping the 1.5-4.5k as a hobby? Dunno, but I would be surprised. There might be that many or more hopeful indies going pro. But there is without a doubt more than one big studio with hundreds of licenses. Sure, we have a bunch (a fair bit more that 300), but I would guess that there are 1000 or more licenses in just a 10-15 mile radius of our building. Probably many thousands as you move farther up north. Many of the big mobile studios are or have embraced Unity. Zynga, Rovio, EA, Storm8, PopCap, etc...

But I wasn't drawing a distinction between small/single indies, only between professional and hobbyists. I believe (again, no experience running a massive software company) that lowering prices, tweaking licenses, adding more layers of managed services to try to rope in the a few more to pay a few bucks a month (or ever) is flawed. Especially the price cut, trading $20 to gain 100 nickels may seem bigger and shinier... but, well that simple math comes into play here too.

Personally, I'm not a fan of using the term AAA with regards to mobile. With our upcoming slate, we may be closest in terms of budget, scale and marketing, but even so, a pretty small fraction compared to traditional AAA. Also I would say that the traditional AAA is far more mature and much more stable in terms of successes. Even the best mobile companies have a low hit rate. But yes, we are mobile, and though I may not always clarify, all my direct experience and reference is specific related to mobile.

But your point is totally on the mark, and directly supports my original point. To (badly) quote Mick Jagger, your profession is what generates the bulk of your revenue (the Rolling Stones were apparel merchants). Unity makes an engine for mobile games. As much as I dig Unity, I just don't see them competing in the AAA market. It's a tight and entrenched market with a lot of solid tools already. And their workflow isn't built around that. But they are owning the mobile market and growing. Their only real competition is Apple right now. As long as they don't drop the ball there is no reason they can't hold onto that lead for quite a while. Epic is no real competition there, (they haven't even beat Flash yet), and the main things that Epic brings to the table don't really apply to mobile.

But what I was getting at is that a vast majority of mobile developers fail (low barrier of entry). Fail to a degree that the price of Unity Pro isn't going to impact that. And more importantly, if Unity Pro were free or available to all those devs failing, obviously it wouldn't change a thing. So in my opinion, for a company like Unity with a clear market would be unwise to change their strategy and pricing to target a market that mostly likely won't be game devs the next year.

Again, only my opinion. Unity has all the numbers and has made their call. Trying to convince them with pure speculation is just wasted effort that will lead to disappointment. Time better spent building games.

 

People who learn guitar dream of being huge stars one day too. Neither a better guitar or better engine will help.

 

Or even that you have to stick with Unity at all. Its all about making games, not what games can be made with Unity.

 

@zombiegorilla

Can't disagree, the only issue I have is Unity advertise on the back of AAA visuals. Which automatically brings up a lot of questions.

As for numbers, It's going to be a couple of years until the dust settles. UE4 is still in it's infancy in many ways, Unity 5.0 hasn't even been released yet and could be a viable product for AAA 3D games dependant on how they grow.

Thing is it's a little touch and go at the moment in the 3D market whether or not to press the go button with everything going on.

 

To use the words of a famous general... Unity does provide AAA visuals. "...from a certain point of view."

 

Just dropping some feedback:

Subscription doesn't really appeal to hobbyist developer like me mainly due to not being able to fully utilize the monthly subscription as I only get to work on our projects occasionally when I'm free. So paying for something that I only use a couple of times a week feels kinda wasteful.

Currently the only thing preventing me from upgrading to Pro is the steep price. I don't mind paying for smaller upgrades though, like $150 for Render to Texture, etc. but forking out $1500 is a bit too much as I don't need all the fancy features in Pro.

My suggestion will be to either leave it as it is, or have smaller purchasable upgrades/plugins for the little guys like us. I do buy stuff from the Asset Store, but I'd love to be able to buy individual Pro features too if they are set at a good price.

Cheers

 

You know that the subscription model being advocated by, well, everyone is the UE4 style model where you can drop it at any point and only pay to gain access to things like the asset store/updates, right? Not the S***ty "you're obligated to pay for the whole year" thing like Unity is using now.

 

You mean the Adobe model?

I can understand UT's reasoning. Financially it makes sense... for them.

 

As I pointed out earlier, the entire discussion is moot.

The free version of Unity won't be going away anytime soon. The reason why? It's already being monetized. You don't need a Pro license to use the Unity Asset Store. Everyone who uses Unity Free is a potential customer for the Unity Asset Store. And Unity takes a nice cut of everything sold on the Asset Store. The Asset Store makes it possible for Unity to make money off of Unity Free users.

So long as the Asset Store continues to be a success, the Free version of Unity is here to stay. The more people who use it, the more potential customers Unity gains. Even if they never upgrade to Pro, Unity can continue to market to them.

 

Does it, though? I'm willing to bet that a lot of people won't go through the bother of constantly cancelling/renewing their subscriptions unless they're very consciously aware of how much money they can't be spending. Not only that, but I'm willing to bet that at a lower price point than $75, they'll get more people biting, especially if they incentivise the idea of having a running subscription.

 

I think you'll find it's a "moo" point.

This is a none point even more because their as a viable alternative to Unity if you need the functionality. I'm just glad there is one.. Was looking pretty grim at one point.

@richardh "short and sweet, love it"

@Murgilod I'd love to say let's see what happens, but it'll be more of a case of see what doesn't happen. You might be right / wrong or in-between but end of the day it's in Unity's hands.

 

$45 per month subscription and I'm in.

 

We aren't the only company that have a timed lock-in for subscription to a service/product.

I have a 2 year lock-in on my phone contract.
My Adobe Creative Suite is a 1 year lock-in.
My Maya Subscription is a 1 year lock-in.
My subscription to Edge magazine is 1 year.
My flat rental is 1 year.
All of which I read the T&Cs before taking out, which is really something everyone should do before agreeing to a subscription model.

And im sure that there are thousands and thousands of other examples that others can come up with.

 

That's your culture, mine and some people around culture is buy a car don't rent it, buy software don't rent it like Zbrush and other software. I won't pay Autodesk to pay 30$ to use Maya to finally never own the software, same for Unity and it monthly system wher you don't own nothing at the end of your subscription.

UE4 at least leaves you with the engine when you stop the subscription, it's a big advantage, even if not upgrading you can pursue your game during month, then upgrade when you need some feature or to have bugs corrected when your game reaches some good level.
I doubt we will see some monthly reduced price for Unity as they main interest is serious game makers and companies, less amateurs, but they let Unity Free for these amateurs like a chance to shine making something good than upgrade.