There's no such thing as free

Facts:
- Unreal gets 5% of revenue after the first $3000
- Unity gets $1500 after the first $100000
- Source requires you to release on Steam, so Valve gets whatever the Steam royalty is
- I did not include CryEngine, because they only advertise their subscription price and subscriptions are hard to chart as they involve big assumptions about how fast a developer makes money

Assumptions:
- These charts assume a single developer
- These charts assume that the Unity developer uses Unity Personal until they reach $100000
- A verifiable source on Steam's royalty percentage was nowhere to be found. I saw percentages as little as 10% and as high as 70%. I assumed a percentage of 30%. If you know what it is, please let me know.

Conclusions:
- Unity is always the cheapest option if the developer uses Unity Personal until the $100000 cap
- If the developer uses Unity Professional from the start, Unreal is cheaper until revenue exceeds $30000
- If you are a Unity developer, there is no such thing as free if you want to make more than $100000
- If you are an Unreal developer, there is no such thing as free if you want to make more than $3000
- If you are a Source developer, there is no such thing as free.

I am human. I may have made a mistake. If you know for a fact that I did, please let me know and I will update the data.

EDIT: Edited to say that this assumes a single developer.
EDIT 2: Source "requires" you to release on Steam, rather than "only allows"

 

There is no such thing as free. There's always a catch. Always.

 

Most developer happily pay $100 just for the chance to be on Steam. I'm not sure that particular requirement is going to offend anyone. But if it does, you'd still have to add the costs of retail outlets to Unity and Unreal to make the comparison even. Games don't distribute themselves.

 

Thanks for that, but it really is free up to 100k. If you don't have 100k income, then it really is, no strings, free. With UE4 it ceases to be free the moment you earn 3k for that period. I guess though, with source, it technically is 30% but only on one of the marketplaces.

 

Don't forget the $1500 each for Android and iOS if the developer targets those platforms too.

 

If he adds them to the chart then Unreal and Unity needs the 30% average added too since it's pretty hard or impossible to sell without Apple, Google, Amazon, etc taking their cut

 

From articles I have read about royalties, Steam is 30% and Humble store is 5%.

I doubt anyone is upset about the requirement for S2, everyone wants to be on Steam with a PC game anyway.

 

May as well throw in taxes too.

 

Also to note, where as Source 2 does require publishing to Steam; it is non-exclusive, allowing you to publish via other distribution streams.

 

The asset store has free items.

 

This also assumes a single developer. As you add more developers, things change significantly.

 

Does that mean that any game with source automatically gets on steam?

 

No.

 

I'm pretty sure that the Source cost is wrong. Are you referring to the original Source Engine? or the newer Source 2?

Iirc the only cost you had with the original Source was licensing Havok which was around 50k per platform. Could be wrong though.

 

I like all the feedback. I have edited the post to include that there is an assumption of a single developer. I'm hesitant to retract anything about Source's inherent Steam royalty. The difference between that and a Unity or Unreal developer paying an Apple, Google, Amazon royalty is that the Steam royalty is absolutely REQUIRED to publish at all.

As much as it may be necessary to put games into those marketplaces, Unity and Unreal do not require you to do so and is therefore not included in their cost.

 

Yes, the requirement is that if you use Source 2 then you must publish on Steam, but you can publish to anywhere else as long as you do publish on Steam.

 

Edited to reflect that Source requires you to publish to Steam, but does not limit to just Steam.

 

I wonder if that would have been the case if Hatred was made in Source2. Epic wanted their name off it, what would GabeN do?

 

Hmm...what if you use Source2 but don't get approved onto Steam, can you still publish elsewhere?

 

I think we need to get away from the word "free".

People go to work trying to earn a salary to provide for themselves and their families, producing these game engines - and it requires a lot of people to make them.

Its time to get away from this assault on "not free" and focus on "fair price".

 

I think paying 30% to release on Steam, which is THE pc sales platform to be on is fine.

 

I guess that's where my opinion comes through in this post. Is "free-until-[enter event]" really free? I don't think so. It's free with conditions on your success. Am I saying that I think these engines should be free? No, actually, I think Unity in particular has a very generous model (I don't care for royalty-based pricing models) and I'm all for hard-working people getting paid. But, in my opinion, they're just not free.

 

There is also the "asset marketplace" business model that Unity has in spades. Give the tool away for free and sell/broker endless add-ons and sales "events" and now even a buyer's club, like DAZ3D.... I love having access to scripts and editors and tools, but when it's another medieval village playset I get a little skeptical.

 

Well, both UE4 and Unity are 100% free until a threshold, while Source is never free (assuming you intend to sell it).

 

Unless you were always going to release your game on Steam.. In that case it would be "free" IMO.

 

I don't think it's fair to compare Source 2 "royalty" to the one of Unreal.

 

I did some maths and I have a couple of scenarios:

Game Company A with 5 developers publishes 3 games within its 5 year span.
(Lets assume games make the exact gross revenue which decreases every year to keep the numbers consistent, as well as assume that the company closed down after the 5th year and no longer makes revenue.)

Game 1 makes $200k 1st year, $150k 2nd year, $100k, then $80k, then $60k
Game 2 published 2nd year, makes $200k 3rd year, $150k 4th year, $100k fifth.
Game 3 published 4th year, makes $200k 5th year.

Total gross revenue is $1.24million. 30% cut to publishers is $372k, 5% royalty is $62k.
Game Company A net profit is $806k.

Lets assume in a parallel universe, Game Company B had the exact same developers with the exact same 3 games, exact same gross revenue and 30% publishers cut, except that they paid using seat based license upfront and games did not have to pay 5% royalty.

Gross is $1.24million.
30% cut to publishers is $372k
$4500 full pro license x 5 seats = $22.5k
Game Company B net profit is $845.5k.

That's $39.5k of savings.

In fact you can increase the amount of developer seats up to 13 in order to match Game Company A net profit and still have $3500 left over.

So there is a balance between the amount of developers and the number of games published to make revenue.

But its very difficult to predict how successful a company will be. Sure lets make 10 games to make the most money with little developers as possible. Or make a AAA game and hire many developers, but either way you cant really predict the success or failures of either game and say this engine was or isn't the best decision.

As a sole indie developer, Unity is a WIN if you decide to publish more than 1 game. Even if you publish 1 game, and becomes a cult classic in 5-10 years, re-released to future platforms, Unity benefits you in the long run.



TL;DR
Increasing developer seat? = Unreal is cheaper.
Publish multiple games? = Unity is cheaper.
Depends on you as an indie or a growing game company on how you want you to define success.

 

I assume you're counting the percentage Valve takes from your games income when you calculated the Source cost? I'm not sure that's fair since a huge percentage of games with other engines would be released on Steam anyway.

 

Unreal Engine seems better for me because I have no guarantee that my game will generate any revenue. With Unreal engine I don't have to take the risk. If my game succeeds,I am happy to pay Epic 5% of the profits. If my game fails, at least I haven't lost any money.

 

How is that different than Unity or Source?

 

Though you could use Unity and "fail" up to $99,999.99 in revenue and still not pay a dime

 

You all do understand that everything costs money right? Or are all of you too young and don't need to work for a living?
To publish on any platform costs money. Or that didn't enter your head?
my kids think I S*** money for all that they want. Too bad I bust my ass at S***ty job 50+ hours a week to provide not to mention side jobs just to keep my head above water. Speaking of which. You don't pay that bill water is off. Everyone loves their computer and internet. Don't pay that no electricity nor internet. Don't pay the mortgage or rent.. well either you move back with mommy and daddy or I have a large box you can have.
yes companies like unity and unreal are giving their engine for free. Guess what? They have to pay their people to make it. They don't pay their electric bill the office gets closed.
so before you all jump up and down about "free" just look at all what is associated with things.
Or better yet.. Grow up and tell the mortgage people to shove it you don't want to pay anymore and see what happens...

 

http://www.pcgamer.com/source-2-will-be-free-wont-ask-for-royalties/

 

I am literally sick and bored with all this engine comparison, specially when unity guys made ut5 engine features free.
Guys, just make the game already! If you are new, get unity5. If you are pro already and have enough confident and love for ue-cry-source, then get it and make the game. How do you guys have that time to compare?

 

OP is totally missing the fact that Unity is per seat. This can get expensive fast, and is worth adding into the mix.

Its only relevant to studios making less then 90K per seat. But its still there.

 

I think this is not quite right, because if you were expecting to earn $1,000,000 you might negotiate a license where you don't have to pay royalties of 5%.

A million dollars would pay a team of 25 people for 1 year on $40,000. So lets suppose they take a year to make a game.

Oh yes and as above, a team of 25 people would pay $37,500 in Unity Pro licenses (assuming the company is honest).

So that would be Unity cost: $37,500
Unreal cost (assuming 5%) $50,000

Still Unity comes out better but it doesn't seem that much difference.

The correct formula is then for a company that is breaking even:
Unity = 0.0375*revenue
Unreal = 0.05*revenue

Conclusion is that Unity is better for value for small teams expecting to have a breakout mega successful game. But for large teams probably doesn't make much difference.

 

BM is totally missing the fact that all previous Pro features are now in Personal - you get the whole engine and editor for free now. This can keep costs low, and is worth subtracting from the mix.

 

All three engines are offering pro features. This is a moot point, and is included on the OP.

Unity generally wins across the board on pricing, except for low income-high dev teams.

 

You said:

"OP is totally missing the fact that Unity is per seat."

Yeah. It costs $0 per seat for the whole engine and editor. That sure adds up quick... to $0.

Some quick math on 4 seats:

$0 + $0 + $0 +$0 = $0.

 

Damn kids! Get off my lawn!

 

With Unreal Engine, I have the complete professional version in my use. With Unity, I'd have to release my game with a "Made with Personal edition" splash screen. To me, that is a difference worth noting.

 

If that is important to you, then it is important to you. Not important to me. But if it bugs you that much, then yeah, mark it down as something worth noting. That's more of a personal decision than an across the board belief.

 

Remember if the team makes more then 100 k you must get pro.

For a team of five people making 101 k then each seat is required to be paid for. This adds up quickly. Say you are developing to mobile it comes to 4500 * 5 = 22500. That's over 20% of the sales spent on licences. Sure its a one off fee. But its worth remembering as part of the price mix.

 

That will be me when I retire! Wait.. I do that now!
Now go make something! All this energy wasted (yes I added to it thinking someone might get a clue - I'll add a blue paw print on it for ya too!)

 

And how many people in this thread have made over $100k?

How many people in this thread have a 5 person team working on a game?

But yeah, if you in fact do have a team then yes, it is something worth considering. At the same time all this is laughable, having worked for one of the largest AAA developers and publishers for years, you are talking about $20k here and $50k there when I've worked on games that have cost in the $50 million to $100 million to make. It just makes me sit back and laugh looking at the figures you are throwing out. Its like peanuts.

 

Please read my post before accusing me of missing something. I included that I'm assuming a single developer in the edits and body. I did this to compare the cheapest option for each engine.

 

No.... you will will have start much, much higher than that, and you will have to pay up front.

1 mill doesn't pay 40k to 25 people, not even close. There would all the costs associated with running the business, health care, insurance, marketing, software, hardware etc. You are also only basing those numbers on if the company only makes 1 million. every thing over that Unreal takes a cut on, Unity doesn't.

A 25 person team is huge, especially if you are talking mobile. A team that size should be generating 1 million a day not a year.

 

People are jumping on the Source 2 bandwagon already? Correct me if I'm wrong but they haven't released any info yet aside from the "free" price tag right? There's nothing on the engine out there other than the fact that it's using Valve's own physics solver now.

 

Why does your chart start at $250000 revenue? How many Unity games do actually make that much money, maybe 0,0001% of games released or less?

You should compare full professional versions of both engines and start the chart at $0 revenue and go up from there in $10000 steps, then the chart might actually be helpful and not just an ad for Unity.

 

A team of 25 should earn a third of a billion dollars a year? Are your serious? So each of them has a salary of $10 million? Are you sure you are not counting in rupees?