UE4 3k price drop and democratization

It's nothing to do with the money for me, great toolsets / quick bug fixes.. As an added benefit some nice post etc.

 

And its attitudes like that, that are the reason the forums have turned to S*** compared to how they were, and why people dont want to participate like they used to.

His predictions are not nonsense. They are realistic.

Unity thinks they are in some protective bubble that cant burst. But the fact is that Unity is at the mercy of its users and to survive it must entice the users to stay. The users can choose which product to use or what to support, but in the end when the users see a menu of different choices in engines, they can be choosey and they can be picky.

Unity was the prime choice because there werent other options that even came close to what it had to offer on so many levels. Now that has changed. Its not the only option. So they will have to adapt to the current environment and counter their competition.

Think about it. Unity would not have been so successful if UT still had their original $200 Indie version and $1500 Pro version when Unreal released UDK. They would have suffered badly. So right now Epic has made the gutsy move and it will be up to Unity to try and even the playing field in their favor again.

Really? So what perks and bonus things do you get from UT to bias your opinion? Hm?

 

It's the open and transparent nature of the development process first and foremost. That they are offering industry leading technology just makes it all the more sweet and delicious. $1500 per platform for the infrequently updated Unity black box starts to seem a little bit backwards in light of the new market reality Epic created.

Epic is making themselves more accountable to the community of developers that use their engine. They work every month to earn the sub fees, it's an actual subscription by the way, not a lease like Unity.

 

1. you can't really outshine Cocos2D for 2D. 2D is 2D. What do you want, motion blurred whatever? You can do rayman legends just fine in Cocos with Spine. There's no need for UE4 for small things. That is just being silly. UE4 is ideal for it's original intended design of doing next-gen games.

2. 5% ... for 2D? really? no.

I'm not of any specific mentality that Unity's pricing is *good*. Saying one thing does not make me against the opposite. That's really tiring trying to get across to people. I'm saying (again) Unity needs to revise it's subscription. And again, I don't think unity lacks value.

So where's the Bias? I've said I'll use UE4 if our projects require it. I've also criticised Unity on their sub pricing fees. I was the *first* one to do so. A lot of the nonsense parroted around these forums actually comes from my critical unbiased opinion. People think I'm somehow taking away their rights or whatever just because I have an opinion that both Unity and UE4 have pros and cons.

I don't really understand why this is. Why is it if someone says Unity 4 has value, they're somehow biased all of a sudden!

Because it's something that can be improved that's why. There's a lot of improvements to be had across the board for all the tools in game development.

But it's getting tiring trying to make people understand why Unity has a lot of value. It feels like these people are just saying they make stuff in Unity, as opposed to actually making stuff in Unity. I don't know. Maybe I really like Unity's component based model? Maybe I love the royalty free stuff? Those are good perks in my view.

Put simply, my current Vita and PS4 game would have cost us a lot of money before we even sold a single copy had we used UE4. I'm not saying UE4 is bad. I am saying that 5% is *more* expensive for us, and does not give us improved graphics or anything for this particular title.

So in my case, Unity has more value to me, today.

 

According to that interview, it doesn't seem UT will change their business attitude at all.

I don't want to predict how UE4 will affect UT's business. But I doubt that it's just a vocal minority that will leave Unity.
Not everyone can utilize UE4 due it's demand of high-end hardware and the more complex workflow. There will always people that find Unity more appealing for simple indie games. I'm one of them.

However there is still a good chunk of people with more ambitious projects, that will leave Unity eventually.
He said Unity's user numbers are stable as always. But I assume that most Unity licensees will still keep Unity installed and use it, since they paid for it. Or because they are in the middle of their projects. And Unity free users will also stick to Unity because it is, well, free... $20 is cheap, but there are a lot people that don't own a credit card, or even have that money to get a UE4 sub.
That doesn't mean that many people won't spent money on UE4 too. It's also too early to to draw any conclusions. Let's wait one year.

As for Hippocoder. You should take a step back.
We all know you're a big believer in Unity and that is fine. But don't try to paint people here as pure UE4 fan idiots without a clue. You're not the only one who runs a successful business.

 

Sorry, but to me this is naive and the entire point of my comment; UE4 is good at some things now and with all the workforce behind it there is nothing stopping it from being better (or best) on other fronts as well when compared to its competition.

Also 5% may not work for you, but publishing a game to any digital store is a gamble; id rather gamble on the backend then fork out thousands of dollars for a game this is more likely to flop then succeed when it comes to markets like iOS and Android. Not to mention UE4 is 5% once you make 3k/quarter, so at least they are letting the little fish only pay their 19/mo.

 

Amen!

 

Fair enough. But there's been a lot of Unity bashing on Unity's own forums, and there comes a time where I've had enough and I've pushed back, so amen to that too! Meanwhile the golden sun rays shine out of other engine posteriors and we're supposed to not comment on it?

 

I agree with most of your conclusions (and also that the amount of Unity bashing here is way over the top), but I think arguing the points themselves should be adequate. A couple of your replies verge on personal attacks which doesn't set a great tone, particularly when coming from a mod.

 

But Hippocoder is right here.

Unreal is a native 3d engine. Mostly with big budget projects in mind. You'll never get the same performance and easy workflow with Unreal, compared to a native 2d framework/engine. And it simply makes no sense to use Unreal for such games, or any simple games.

It's like flying with a jet to the next groceries store.

 

You could make most of the same points about Unity and 2D (particularly if you made them a year or so ago). Despite this many people successfully made (and made successful) 2D games in Unity.

I can think of at least two good reasons for doing so:

1) Familiarity. Its faster to work with tools you know.

2) To gain experience. If you plan to release a big 3D game in the future (or to work at a studio that uses UE) it might be worth creating some smaller projects in the tools to gain experience.

 

That's completely subjective; every aspect of any game engine can be optimized to the point that there is virtually the same overhead as one that's designed purely for 2d or 3d. This also disregards the fact that performance is relative and if it's not slow it's fast enough; otherwise your simply speaking in terms of premature optimization. Not to mention the ever improving hardware capabilities of mobile devices.

Lastly workflow can always be improved as well and is subjective based on what a person is efficient at using.

 

At least in my opinion, $19/5% is too cheap for Unity. A single-pay license and a pro version are the way to go, but not at $4500 per seat (for the 3 major licenses). And their current subscription model, in addition to being a tad overpriced, locks you into a 12 month agreement, which is a deal-breaker for many.

The other major problem I have with their business model is leaving so many core features up to asset store vendors. My worst experience was with Ex2D which was abandoned in a non-working state for like a year. My best experience was with Daikon Forge, but even then, the integration with new versions and features, and bugs was a major issue in my workflow (as it would have been with any of the other options).

Don't get me wrong, I love Unity and UT for what they've built. I strongly believe that the only reason we're having this conversation is because Unity lead the industry in this direction in the first place, but the industry is moving fast, and with competition closing in on their formula, they need to stay lean and agile, not retreat into their ivory tower and pretend it'll go away.

Edit/Add: I understand and agree that Unity is and will remain a top contender in the mobile space. It seems to me, as I mentioned before, and based on recent acquisitions, that they intend to dominate that market. The question is: is it sustainable? Unity always talks about installs and users, and while it's a valuable metric, let's be real about the china market--how many are paying customers? UT knows this number is small, hence the add network and services stuff they're rolling out, but it hints at the engine and tools serving merely as a vehicle to sell the other stuff, which may be a viable move as a business, but not one that screams "innovation" as it had in the past.

 

I hope I'm wrong but judging by this they don't feel they have to respond!

"Bizarrely enough, it’s not showing up in our numbers at all. Nobody actually left, it seems. Our numbers are just as stable as they’ve always been."
Unity CEO David Helgason


http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/217426/Unity_CEO_reflects_on_the_companys_move_to_embrace_mobile.php

 

"Nobody actually left" is a strange comment. How can people "leave" when we're talking about lock-in subscriptions and/or outright purchased software licenses?

 

Buying Unity? Is he saying that people are still paying 1.5k for Unity pro.

It wouldn't make sense anyway to move to UE4 yet as its not proven and they have said its not ready yet. It will only be a visible issue during Unity 5.X life cycle, not now (If its an issue at all). And when Unity responds(If they need to) I have no doubt that they will offer something better then UE4 or CE as thats just how they roll, they leapfrog the competition.

 

I assume he's talking about the rate at which people are buying pro licenses. With a userbase as large as Unity's people are no doubt buying pro licenses every day, so I'm guessing he's saying there's been no change on that front. Plus there's also the asset store numbers. If there was a mass exodus, even if people were locked into the purchase/subscription, they'd be buying less on the asset store since they'd be switching in Unreal. People can own both Unity and Unreal at the same time, but if they were all switching to Unreal there'd be a drastic change in asset store numbers.

 

No, he just said that nobody's left and that numbers are stable. The link is there for anyone to read...

I don't think that "better" is really an issue. For the stuff I'm doing now UE4 literally isn't even a consideration. I can see how it is for other things, though, many of which I wouldn't want to do with Unity. They're different, and while there's some overlap I think it's fair to say their strengths mostly lie in different things.

 

Unity tracks metrics via the editor. He would have made explicit mention of licenses if that's what he was referring to, but I'm thinking he's referring to the same metric they have always used, which is people opening and using the editor on a daily basis, which doesn't actually represent any trends one way or another as it pertains to paying customers.

 

Well, for my part I was/am in the middle of a project. The project had some requirements which actually *forced* me to purchase the Android pro license 8 days ago. Because I didn't want it to get void in a couple of months, I also dropped the U5 upgrade price onto the table. So, telling people that there is no change in the numbers might come to the fact that people pay because they have to to make sure they continue to get updates throughout their project...

I delayed the purchase of the Android pro licence as much as I could, and I'll do the same with the iOS pro licence...

Also, given the huge userbase UT states to have (2 million?!?), a couple of hundred people switching engines doesn't even show in the statistics...

 

Agreed.

Alone the fact that he carries away to such pointedly calm statement, makes it quite suspicious to me. And the attempt to sell UE4 as one of the most expensive engines is outright ridiculous. Sorry. Helgason lost me already there.
5% of your sales is really not much, considering how much you share with Valve, Apple, Google etc. Not to forget the quarterly $3000 threshold.
And while UE4 comes with the 5% royalty share, how many stuff do you have to buy in the AssetStore, on top of the already pricey licenses/subscriptions, to fix Unity's shortcomings?
It's like buying a car without backseats. "Oh you want advanced stuff like backseats? That makes $500 extra"

And if your game is good, you can be sure that Epic will try to help you to get the right connections and marketing, as they said by themselves. UT on the other hand does not care about that. They care only about their license sales.

 

I can understand why it might irritate some people, but it's objectively true if you're making more than $100k per developer. The thing that makes it attractive is that it's a deferred cost.

It's funny how the human brain works. Already having given away $30k of every $100k you make, you're somehow more willing to give away the next $5k.

And while "$3000 threshold" sounds pleasant to our brains, what it actually boils down to is $150. I'm not saying I'd be upset about having another $150 in my pocket each quarter, but it's hardly a big deal in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly not a deal changer in a commercial context.

UE4's pricing isn't competitive because it's cheaper. It's competitive because it's a lower barrier to entry. The cost of that is that it isn't cheaper if you're successful.

 

If you make more than 100K, then 5K more or less don't make much of a difference for most people. And of course, it's the low entry price that make UE4 attractive.

But besides that, Unity gets expensive really fast when you need multiple licenses for your whole team and multiple platforms. Not to mention the 3rd party stuff you have to buy extra, to get Unity on a useable state (for some projects). And then the whole 100K math won't already work...

 

I'll say it again, it's not because it's cheaper or because the barrier of entry is lower (Unity free is even lower, and CE's is $10), it's because of the value you get for $19.

 

All of that was already taken into account in those numbers, though.

The $100k "per developer" already takes into account having multiple developers.

The $5k already takes into account Pro + iOS + Android + $500 of Asset Store stuff.

I've often pointed out the Unity Free version, but it seems to get discounted out of hand because of its lack of Render Textures and related effects.

Precisely what value does the $19 alone get you that's useful outside of a hobby developer / tinkerer use case?

 

That's sort of impossible to answer, since everyone can get something different out of it, and people are already making money with plugins, books, tutorials ,etc. There is also the wealth of materials out there to learn UE4, which is obviously a good thing to have on your resume (thinking beyond just indies and business owners). The fact is that the subjective value is undeniable. Now, what people do with that, is another issue altogether. Not one any one of us can answer.

 

#chariots: I'm not denying that the tools are better, and I didn't actually suggest that they're intended for hobbyists / tinkerers. The "the $19 alone" was the crucial part of the question, and is why I clarified that I wasn't talking about hobbyist / tinkerer use - because outside of hobbyist / tinkerer (ie: non-commercial) use you can't actually go too far with "the $19 alone". Yes, you could build cool stuff, but for "the $19 alone" you can't commercialise it much.

I'm not debating one engine vs. the other as I see great and different value in each, I'm just interested in why people think what they think about this stuff.

 

I'd be surprised if UE4 didn't spark some (short-term at least) interest in Unity.

With Epic entering the indie market, I imagine thousands of people with general interest in games would suddenly come up with the idea of learning an engine and making a game. Unity is often mentioned alongside UE4. And there is a free version they can download immediately and start dabbling in....

But I expect that Unity will start losing some of its stream of new users. Especially those of them who don't mind spending some money for something more than Unity Free. And assets.

 

This is great to hear David! So why don't you offer the same package ($19/5%) for Unity and 'get more expensive' as well? You'll make more money and we do our own math and be happy as well!

 

If I'm allowed to pretend I speak for a small segment of the tinkerer's and hobbyists, I want to say that the nineteen dollars is meaningless. It might as well be free, from my perspective. I'm sure that Epic gets a lot of income from this though.

For Unity Free the formula for deciding is x = 0 + y, where y is mostly unknowable, or the answer to y is a fairly complex formula in itself that depends on information which I as a hobbyist do not have at the moment of investigating which platform to learn.

To make a decision involves knowing how much I have to buy from the asset store, and how much functionality is in fact required for learning. To be honest, the only answer I would get if I were to decide today to start learning to make games, would be that Unity is probably not as free as I think, and that I don't know which questions to ask to arrive at an approximate answer to exactly how much Unity Free would cost me for a decent level of functionality.

With UE4 the formula is x = 19(n) where n is a simple factor of time. There is no guess-work as to which functionality you need extra because it's already full-featured. It is not required that I buy extra functionality for UE4. It is however, required that I buy extra functionality for Unity Free.

 

So it comes down to the perception that Asset Store purchases are a requirement for Unity, where they are not a requirement for UE4?

Aside from the much discussed GUI system, what other things do you see as requirements from the Asset Store?

Again, that's a question borne of genuine interest. I had many completed Unity projects under my belt by the time the Asset Store came around, so to me it's always seemed like an added extra, icing on the cake. I was already succeeding without it, when it came along it just meant I sometimes had the opportunity to do it faster, better, and/or cheaper. The impression I'm getting (and not just from the above post) is that newcomers (people who've come to Unity since the Asset Store was put in place) see it as something that fills gaps that Unity should already have addressed themselves?

 

But you would only know that in hind-sight, I think. When you first come to Unity (or UE4) you're operating in a cloud of ignorance, and have to rely on fuzzy things like perception of the engine, fuzzy logic, instinct and gut feeling.

Unless you're one of the brigade who wants to make the next triple A MMO Slenderman shooter all alone in your bedroom... and if you're that, engine perception and engine renown is all the input you need.

But if you're a serious newbie who realise your limitations, there's just a lot of clouded stuff to work out. But, if I remember back to my first days here, what struck me first was that I needed to buy extra to make Unity Free full featured. I didn't know what, but that it was required. The comparison chart elsewhere on this site between Unity Pro and Unity Free shows a lot of differences between the two versions, and as a newbie there's no way to know which you need and which you don't need.

You have to assume, though, that your point of ignorance makes it hard to make a decision, and that you should just assume that a lot of stuff on that list is required learning. Then you have to decide if you can 'replicate' that functionality off the asset store, which is another thing you'll learn about very early. It's still hard to know which is actually replicateable, and which isn't.

Anyway, that's just how I try to analyse it. Personally, I'm with Unity because I've been at it a while, and have a big code base in C# now, and I don't want to throw all that away. I can still learn from that base. But if I were to arrive here today, I might not make that decision.

 

/agree

Exactly what I would expect him to say though

 

So what do you (and others) mean when you say "full featured"?

 

Exactly.

Up front vs. deferred.

Also, doesn't the concept of foregone income apply?
Can we consider out of profit the same as out of pocket?

 

Yes. Not a desktop project.

Our mobile project can just focus a bit more on server side for a few months while the big boys battle it out.

Maybe Epic will get Android up to speed by then. Crytek might offer mobile in the $9.90 tier.

Ahhh... choices

 

Right on.
That should be the follow up question. It would, maybe, give an opportunity for David to shake that condescending vibe along the interview for the competition. Anyway we know now Unity wont change anything.

 

Didn't want to be the one to say it.

 

Unity matching $19/5% would be fine, but I think Unity are right to avoid royalties. I would rather the subscription was a bit higher, having put on a value that translates the average worth of the royalties, and that value isn't $206 a month ($225 including the mobile licences minus $19).

The value of Unity feels similar to the Adobe Creative Suite, and that is $50 a month. In know that is comparing apples to oranges, but despite appearance and taste, the nutritional value and cost of those is not that far apart.

 

When I see these sort of posts it really hits the nail on the head, we aren't attacking Unity actually far from. I want to see it succeed, the question on my mind is does Unity?

It's rather obvious to people making console and desktop games what the issues are, it's been rather prevalent for many years. What I don't want is to get another six to twelve months down the line, hit another game breaking or customer quality issue. Amongst all the other things Chariot has wisely said., so why am I here? Well we still use Unity for concept and smaller projects, it would be nice to have one defined location so I don't have teams split all over the place.

Unity advertise AAA visuals, but what I'd really like to know is where they stand. Are they strictly aiming down the mobile / 2D route? Or are they going to give the AA / AAA segment a crack? I think they should have a go at a AAA tech demo and release it as part of UT5, something like Infiltrator with voice acting. It would be good for them and us...

The main issue is, you can't constantly keep your customers in the dark.

 

I think they should try making a game with their engine. I can imagine if they had to personally deal with a lot of these frustrations they would be providing more features/improvements which don't have marketing buzzwords.

 

I know this one is minor but not having to pay $500 for "Team License" just to use integrated source control in the editor like Perforce/SVN/Plastic. You can manage your files outside of the editor but it just seems like a meaningless pay wall especially if you're a solo developer using revision control(which everyone should).

 

/agree

but...

"The not-so-often-told story is we started out as indie developers. We were going to make our own games, but there was no tool like Unity out there, so we had to make it for ourselves," said Helgason. "Then we realized we weren’t great game developers."

 

The infiltrator demo makes me desire UE4. I want Unity to show me a demo that blows me away, like the infiltrator demo does.

 

The issue is they will never know exactly what's required unless they have a go themselves, for most people every word I say is irrelevant because they may never attempt it but for the few who do they know what I'm on about. You can't deny that Epic have been there, done that and bought the T-shirt. They know exactly what's involved..

Nobody could turn around to Epic and say hey, you can't do X game in UE4.. They'd probably just kindly refer you to their AAA tech demo's, the massive back catalogue of AAA games made in Unreal engine, with a polite message saying all these people can do it why can't you?

@ Dabeh, I think they should have a shot at it too.

 

I totally agree. Creating a game would be a great move by Unity.

Plus as someone mentioned here or in another thread, a $50 to $75 subscription (Desktop+Mobile) would be great value.

 

The point of the 5% royalties is to protect the sales of higher costs offerings. Epic wants to offer a $19/month subscription to indies and hobbyists without losing the expensive sales to AAA studios. Tying a 5% royalty to the $19/month offering makes the $19/month subscription unattractive for big studios, so the big studios continue to use the other (higher fixed cost) options. Unity could use 5% royalties to protect the sales of $1500 Unity perpetual licenses. It would make it possible for Unity to offer a $19/month subscription to hobbyists without hurting sales to professional users. $19/month plus 5% royalties is the perfect price point for hobbyists.

 

Listen guys. UE4 cannot make a profit with only 20 dollars a month ,(subscription per guy)! trust me! i feel that this has a marketing catch, making people switch engines to UE4 and get used to it and be better at it then suddenly BAAAM! they change the price to 1000 dollars!

thats my opinion, you guys have to expect it

 

Yes, they actually can make a profit on $19/month. Every 4,400 people who subscribe generates another million dollars in revenues. And there is no added cost to Epic to expand the userbase. None of the users even need to release a game. All they need to do is subscribe by the tens of thousands, and Epic has a nice additional revenue stream. The $19/month subscription plan will be worth millions of dollars per year.

 

That is if you are counting people to continue the subscription. Who knows how many paid once and then dropped it. You can't count on revenue where people aren't guaranteed to pay each month.