Unity offers subscription

Love that you guys are doing this! One thing you may want to consider is why some consider Creative Suite a good thing. Currently I have 3 contractors on month to month of Creative Suite it is great. The really great part is that I can cancel subscription with no penalties.

So makes it easy to scale up and down. By making it 12 month commitment it makes it less great...

Here are a couple suggestions for subscription:

Charge a higher subscription fee for people that only want month to month without the commitment: $100 a month or $75 per month with 12 month commitment.

OR

Cut the minimum commitment to 3 months. Quarterly commitment is much easier to handle.


Honestly I think it is a great GREAT thing you are doing even if it stays as is, my suggestions are just suggestions that may make it more appealing to some.

 

In before hate:

1. if you want flexible licensing it's 90 dollars a month - check out the sub page properly.
2. if unity's upgrade cycle for major version numbers gets quicker then subscriptions make an awful lot of sense, particularly with flexible licensing. You pay $90 for a month of mobile deployment. You could just buy pro + ios pro then flex license at 90 for deployment to other platforms. It becomes very interesting, depending on various scenarios.

 

I would have to agree with hippocoder on this.

 

Yes, however you cannot do it without taking the 12 month plan first. The month-by-month plan is only available once the 12 month plan expired (see FAQ). That's not very attractive.

 

The flexible plan is not available. So far it is only mentioned as the fallback default once your year contract expires. So basically, not only do you have to sign up for a year, but you got to be attentive once the year is done so you can either cancel or switch to another year, else you start being charged a 15 bucks premium per month until you take action.

 

Suggestion -

In addition, if everything you've paid so far is taken off the price of the full version - say blackberry pro for sake of argument and you're at 900 dollars, it should only cost you 600 dollars to purchase. If you pay $1500 in total in subscription fees, it should only cost $0 to purchase. That kind of sliding scale just benefits the end users the most, however it does increase confidence in the subscription model - people don't mind splashing out if they know it's redeemed in a hire/purchase manner.

 

Now this is sweet especially if you got some asset store money every month.

 

That is very poor business for them. Even if they did this, you should expect to pay a premium for the flexibility. with a credit check, expect standard credit card financing fees (20%ish a year?) without a credit check, expect much more.

Ballpark guess off the top of my head, for something like this to make sense you would have to pay a total of 30 months to get the product for free (and by then you would very likely have jumped versions, meaning that counter likely reset or you get that previous version for free, not the current one.)

Why would anyone ever again buy their product if they can just "rent it" otherwise?

 

Or they could just make it $1, that's what's best for me as a consumer .

Seriously though, what's the point in buying outright at all if they offered that? Just seems silly to me. When I pay upfront I expect a better deal than the kid who pays his pocket money every month.

 

static batching, asynchronous loading of scenes (you know, if you ever wanted to show an updating or even moving loading indicator), LOD meshes, asset bundles

 

Not really, the bigger threat is lack of affordability and this being software that lack of affordability causing pirating. While in the industrialized west this is mostly teenage boys and college students in most of the rest of the world it's be professional or aspriring professionals. This is expensive penalty for finance and getting banks and credit card companies involved is what has sent the economies of the world in a tither. Big banks get free reign on government coffers while charging loan shark rates to the consumer and driving up costs because easy credit, even when they don't have the ability to pay back the money, causes artificial demand and wastes resourses where it's not needed. The governments and countries would have been much better served restricting credit cards and other loans to be 3% over prime maximum if they were going to give out taxpaper money free.

Unity on the other had, with Hippo's suggestions, can get a revenue stream where otherwise there would be be none. The thing they have to guard against is one month contracts and short contracts bought to legally publish after a app has been in development with pirated Unity Pro licenses so they need to find a good minimum duration for a contract. And this is why they decided on 12 months although you can pay off a Pro License in 20 months if they decide to allow that.

If they do allow a subscription to buy licenses outright then this is most advantageous to those that don't have a 100K revenue stream from Unity and have already bought Pro licenses for each of the platforms and a new Unity major release is ready, but they don't have the money to buy all those license upgrades at once. They can subscribe.

 

It might be better if it was $125 per month and at the end of the 12 months you got the licence so unity would still get its $1500.

Or maybe something like $250 a month but you only need 1 month at that time, so people could develop in non-pro and then when they are about to release they just pay the fee.

 

That would be a nice option too. Or make it flexible enough that the buyer can choose the duration and be done with it although I'd wouldn't allow a term longer than a major release cycle. A lot of people don't like an influx of bills every month just because of the annoyance of making the payments even when they have the money. I've been guilty of that.

 

Goat, this is not the right thread to go into this but credit card interest rates are high because of the risk involved, even after a credit check.

If the game was completely acquirable without interest or tax, no one would buy it up front. There will always be people that cant pay the monthly fee, lose their cards, vanish from the face of the earth, etc. Even with a contract, and even with credit stains, you can expect that Unity will get a percentage of it's yearly contracts unfulfilled.

Add on top the fact that (by making it rent to buy without premium) no one would pay up front, you are going to end up shorting their yearly revenues.

Economies are a complex thing, but credit cards card (and personal loans) rates are that high because of how much they have lost over time. If a government forced a 3% cap on interest rates, creditors would be forced to only give credit to the wealthy most and financially stable individuals, and even then, those that have never missed a payment on anything.

Want rates to go down? First step: convince everyone you know to be responsible with their credit lines and not miss their payments. Every time a credit line defaults, everyone pays the price.

 

Well... seems like nothing I personally need. Static batching may be nice, but after how large my last game was due to using scenes for levels, I'm now saving levels to my own file format and loading them my own way so that wont do me much good. May be nice to have in future projects, though.

Side scrolling and top down games (the stuff I do) wont get any LOD benefit either... so I guess I may consider just upgrading the core desktop license. Got a month to decide if the monthly contract is a good idea or if I should just pay the full upgrade from 3.x in one sitting.

Thanks for the reply!

 

One thing I am fairly certain is still the case is if you wish to use pretty much any of the networking middlewares (uLink, Photon, Smartfox, etc) for mobile, you need the pro license for it. You can use them for non-mobile with Unity free though.

 

Here is a question: What happens to your games after 12 months if you decide not to continue with your subscription? You make a game in 10 months and release it and 2 months later your subscription runs out, technically your not allowed to sell that game as you no longer have the rights to the engine. Think on it. Adobe is doing this with photoshop, you make pictures and other 2d images with photoshop but when you click save none of photoshops software is saved with it just your own image creation so when your subduction to photoshop ends and you can not use photoshop none of your creations are effected all there all your property. Yet with unity your using unitys game engine and software in your game, so when your subscription runs out your creations still contain unitys IP which leads to all sorts of legal problems even if unity adds in a disclaimer saying you have the right to continue to sell your games created in the time frame of your subscription there are still problems. What happens if a computer killer bug pops up in your game and you need to update it quickly but your subscription runs out? Do you still have the right to use unity pro to fix it? If you make a game and it will take 13 months to finish can you finish it as you stated it and made it during your subscription?

To me its a legal mess i would not like to take on, the price £1600 is not that much for a small company if you can not afford it could you afford $75 a month?

 

Thats bullshit. Unity please stop adopting suicidal business models from Adobe

 

Nop, you will still be able to sell it. However, should you ever need to do any updates to it, your next export will be limited to Unity Free features.

This should be a concern, but should your title not be making enough money by this point, well, you may as well just take it off the market instead of wasting time or money to fix it.

I would strongly argue you don't need to license pro at the start of your dev cycle. You can push as far as possible and get pro much later, when testing for pro specific features is required for any further progress or when you just want to publish without Pro logos. You still will be stuck with 12 months of monthly payments even if your game is a failure soon after this publishing, though, something that may burn a bit.

 

Except your not allowed to mix content produced with free unity and pro check the terms and conditions they included this to stop companies from using the free one for most of there work and buying just one license to publish from.

 

It is nice to have the subscription option, although I think the pricing might be a bit much.

But the biggest problem is the escalating number of add-on licences that are all the same price. In a game engine that has good dynamic and static batching, they should mirror that and have licence batching. Less overhead if you put it all together.

 

You are not allowed to mix the licenses within your organization (you cant have an employee working on basic and another working on pro). You *are* allowed to use stuff made in pro within basic, but you may have technical issues at first.

There was a thread about that a few months back.

 

You can upgrade to Pro for everyone who needs it and be fine.

 

As Aurore told it's for evaluation of a subscription model. Therefore you probably want to start with a high price tag first as you could lower prices afterwards easily. Increasing a price which was to low at first isn't very appreciated by the customer

 

IIRC, the first time subscriptions were mentioned, it was from multiple community members, some of whom felt burned because they upgraded to Pro slightly before Unity 4 came out but fell outside the window.

@noisecrime:

It's definitely cheaper to buy it outright and upgrade every 36 months, and that's probably what they prefer people to do.

However, for people who aren't sure or can't commit to such a large purchase or are just starting and aren't sure if they'll make money using Unity, $75 x 12 comes out much cheaper even up to the 24 month mark if we factor in the expected Unity 5 upgrade.

 

I like subscription models both in terms of their value and in how they release development from a strict schedule once you have a stable and reasonably future proof/backwards compatible base to work from, but I agree that the pricing seems pretty steep here.

If it were perhaps $70 for all pro licenses combined then it might make greater sense, or even if it were $75 for a one month no contract option although even that seems a tad high. But as it isn't either of those. Instead you're locked into a 12 month contract so why underestimate and patronize your users by suggesting that it's really just $75 per month when it's actually a $900 item? At least with Unity when it runs out you're not completely SOOL due to the availability of Unity free, but it doesn't feel like that great of a deal especially given the release schedule for Unity which happens to be around 20 months, i.e. the same time that you'll hit $1500 worth of contract, but with the contract once it runs out you'll have nothing, whereas if you paid for the product upgrade you'd still have it regardless of if you subsequently hit a rough patch. So you basically pay the same, but get less, which doesn't make good sense.

 

Personally I agree with Per on this. The price is a bit steep. Combine the licenses together and save.

 

i wonder if this means that unity is pushing for an annual release schedule, as i can't see the subscription making financial sense at the current version cycle rate. if you already own pro then upgrading is 750, though even that's less than the regular subscription license fee for one year (900).

i'm having some issues interpreting the signals this announcement is sending me.

 

There's only one concern I have so far: Please don't go Adobe on your customers if the subscription is successful.
Having subscription as an *option* is really awesome but at some point I probably want a perpetual license.

 

Can I presume that the basic iOS licence that I paid for (which is now free) would work under the subscription model?

 

Access to many great plug-ins that require pro version to work

 

Unity isn't a bank, it's a software business.

So if you go rent a car for 12 months, they won't give you the car. If you want to own the car, then go get a loan for it. But doing so means that if you ever want the latest model, you'd have to sell and repurchase.

For-hire models across all business products out there (pcs, cars, software, photocopiers) are great for business for tax reasons, not to mention, always having 'latest'..... If you don't understand this, you shouldn't be in business.

So I for one think this is a great deal and service from Unity.

 

Great news!

 

I do agree with you moonjump. And maybe this is a question Unity can answer for me. Why is an 'add-on' the same price as the core engine? Shouldn't it be say half the price? It's not a completely different engine after all, but an extension.

 

It's about time this came out (now that I own most of the licenses anyway )

One thing that bugs me though is that Adobe is charging $50/month for their ENTIRE suite, but Unity is charging $75/month for just a single target platform, and it doesn't even include Team License.

If I didn't already own the licenses I need, I'd probably subscribe right now, but as it stands I'll wait until Unity 5 comes out and subscribe instead of paying the upgrade cost.

 

You already posted the same point with your opinion - thanks for pointing that out. Glad we agree.

 

Great for the users, but would likely make Unity bankrupt in a year.

Why would anyone pay $1500 for a new add-on or Pro, when they can get away with just $600 for the first year? Even after 2 years Unity still wouldn't have reached the $1500. Perhaps it might work if as you say they gain 125,000 subs that stay for over two years, but that's a hell of a gamble. Not to mention all the existing pro users would be getting there upgrades to Unity 5 for dirt cheap $240 p.a. per license.

You can't simply compare Unity to Adobe. For one thing very few people use the entire suite, so Adobe aren't really losing sales from giving those out. Secondly they will know the numbers and I suspect they are counting and can count on a hell of a lot of new subscribers, probably into the millions world wide. What's more they've moved to an entirely subscription model. Meaning anyone who signs up, even at the bargain $20 p.m. for existing users are now locked in forever or face losing the software and most likely losing the ability to edit their work ( with some exceptions).



I agree the subs from Unity don't look very competitive, but they simply can't afford to offering them as a means of getting Unity cheaper, its purely as a means of spreading cost. I do feel from the sums I posted earlier that they've over-priced it a bit, but then as they've said this is a short one month trail so they are likely to be better placed after that to tweak prices or know if its even worth doing.

 

Why would anyone pay the same price as buying for a subscription?

UT certainly wouldn't go out of business if they offered a lower price subscription. The purpose of a subscription model is to make it easier for people to buy in, that's not possible if the price stays the same but you get less as a customer (i.e. you can't continue to use the product after you've paid your $1500).

The benefits of using a subscription model are that firstly you can lock people in to a permanent and constant revenue stream, it's cheaper per month so you're more likely to get people to buy in, but as it's only per month for access and not per release for features they're not expecting a brand new version each time they pay, so that also means you're not locked to a fixed development cycle. In addition as the software must phone home every once in a while it's a more transparent and less painful form of DRM which protects your own bottom line, by making the bar for entry that much lower you also bring in new customers who otherwise might have pirated or skipped.

I'd expect UT's profits to increase if they were to do this right, but trying to hold on to old business models while attempting to embrace new is just out of touch and likely to burn fingers. It misses the whole point and treats it like a loan rather than a lease.

Put it this way, Adobe has ceased to do anything but subscription model, I don't like how they've done it and I don't like that they lock you into a contract, but it's clearly working for them financially even though the subscriptions are considerably less than the price of the full suite or upgrades for the suite. The sensible course of action is to evaluate not whether a subscription can work, but what the benefits of a subscription are and play to them. Otherwise this seems like a half hearted stuck in the mud decision that's been designed to fail just so someone somewhere can say "I told you so"..

 

Oh, this is cool.

It's not something I'd suggest for work, where we know we have X developers working on Unity projects more or less constantly. But it's really cool for indies or startups. I know that if you intend to use it perpetually it's going to cost a lot more... but if you're going to use it perpetually then get a perpetual license. If not, then you're essentially buying a license for a specific project, and if that project is going to last 12 months or less this is a *really* sensible way to do it.

It also lowers the barrier to entry for small startup studios. 3 licenses plus say an addon each is $9000 up front if you purchase perpetuals, compared $450 of added monthly operating costs for subs. You could get a loan of course, but weigh up committing to 12 months of subscription ($5400) against paying back $9000 of loan plus interest and other loan costs, at the riskiest stage of your business when you're not even sure that you'll be around in 12 months to be using licenses... It's not just about the total cost, there's financial risk management along the way.

My first hobby game is less than a fortnight from release. I'm already strongly considering subbing to a couple of Pro licenses for our ongoing updates and releases if our opening sales are promising enough. I wouldn't drop $6000 on licenses for this, but $300 a month is quite doable.

 

Comparing Unity to Adobe is ridiculous. It's basic economics - Adobe has FAR MORE users than Unity.... and why wouldn't they? 1. They've been around a lot longer, but mostly 2. Their products have a greater reach across industries and uses. So of course Adobe can charge less for their products.

Hate to say it, but some people either need to go to business school to learn basic economics/accounting or get out of business, or just grow up.

This is a great deal from Unity and opens up avenues otherwise unreachable for some Indies.

 

Unity redesigned the splash screen as of 4.2 i think it was. It now looks like this:

 

I don't get why there are these fancy sleek looking Unity logos on the website with nice minimalistic designs then the splash screen is so damn ugly.

 

Two things i dont like at the current setup:
- 12 month subscription plan
- denying users with pro perpetual license to buy an addon subscription

Those 2 things will lock me up from using subscription plans.

 

I'll agree with this up to a point, which is why i've stated I think they've got the pricing slightly wrong at the moment, but there is simply way too much risk involved and potentially no way they could ever offer the subs at anything like the equivalent of what Adobe are offering. Overall I don't see subs as a means to offer cheaper software, just to make it more accessible. Unity is not a charity it is a business after all.

As for the benefits, while its true you lock people in, I don't think its as key as it is for many of Adobe products. Unity has far greater competition than Adobe, indeed in many cases its Adobe's software or nothing. There is going to be a much higher risk of people starting a sub then cancelling it after twelve months. Now if they are new customers thats fine, but if the subs are too cheap it will also undermine the revenue gained from those who use to buy licences.

Not sure about DRM being much of an issue, what with Unity offering the free versions. I would assume anyone who uses a pirated version of Pro is in great danger of being discovered once they release a product as its so easy to check, where as for Adobe products there is practically no method to do so (e.g. you can't check on a poster or an image on a website if it was made with unregistered version of Photoshop). Sure Unity may be 'losing' some sales, but realistically of those who would actually pay i'd imagine its tiny.

Unity cannot trade on a basis of 'expecting' to increase profits, especially on such a system where its unclear what your financials would be in 12 months time.

But Unity is not Adobe, they have entirely different markets and massively different number of users. However I agree its sensible for UT to trial this as they are, but they simply can't match the prices some people are banding about, without it being a huge risk to the business.

Have you factored in the investments and maybe debts that Unity have? They've frequently got investment last one was a couple of years ago at $12 million. That's not a loan, but an investment, meaning its not simply a case to pay it back, but to make a good return on top of it. Have you factored in the cost of credit card transaction on a monthly basis at what 3-5%, factored in potential fraud, or people defaulting on their monthly payments. Factored in that Unity need to make profits in order to continue to grow?

You're also basing this on what about 8% uptake of completely new users (using your original numbers, as they keep changing), more considering if its such a good deal that many existing customers may switch. That's a very high conversion rate especially of those who currently haven't bought a license. Though there is plenty of clamour in the forums for a cheap subs system, I doubt it was more than 100 people. So how far does that scale up past the forum?

Like I said I think the current sub pricing is a little high and that Unity may have got that wrong, but they are in a far better position to understand what is a realistic price point to make this work. After this trial they will no doubt re-evaluate, maybe even drop the cost a little, but I can't see them ever being able to drop down to the levels you're talking about.

For myself alone the $20 p.m for existing users would mean $480 p.a, $960 for 24 months (version to version), as opposed to the current $1500-$1700 an upgrade would cost. That's a huge difference and would be very hard to justify not switching to a sub for, so Unity would have to factor that in too.

 

+1

 

The only thing I really really really do not want or support is a subscription only.
Adobe will propbalby have lost a customer with me because of that (unless they either listen to their customers or no alternative arises over the next few years). I feel Unity are much closer to their customers and also have a different customer demographic. Still I cannot stress or repeat it enough.
As an additional Option it is brilliant as a Replacement for Perpetual Licenses it's a dealbreaker.