Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

True that. The Unity logo already has a bad rep with some players for reasons that technically weren't their fault. But now it will have a worse one that definitely is their fault.

 

No, it does not go both ways. Unity is the guilty party here, they are trying to extort people out of more money with bullshit fees and bullshit measures. There is no both sides here. Unity F***ed up. Bigtime. Period.

 

They did sneakily confirm in that same answer that Early Access games don't count as demos, though, so those installs are ripe for the exploiting.

 

I think we have cause for financial damages from this. Steam users are already leaving negative reviews on Unity games on Steam stating the product contains spyware, DRM, and tracking features to phone home and requiring always-online.

This is already impacting developer and publisher revenue based on this blog post and it will only get worse. As Steam review ratings decrease the Unity games get buried by Steam's recommendation algorithm quickly. Even fantastic Steam games are now being punished retroactively for something outside of their control and implented via a hastily and illegally modified TOS.

The case for damages is strong I'd suggest people who have the means start engaging their attorneys ASAP. Share this with anyone who needs to know.

 

I'm in a similar situation and these are exactly my thoughts as well. Would be nice to get some clarification about what happens in this model if your fees exceed the generated revenue. Let's look at the following example:

Someone is above the threshold of 200k installs and just passed the threshold of 200k revenue in the last 12 months. This makes the fee apply to his game. Now let's say the revenue is generated by very small transactions so that the profit is only $0.10 per install. This would mean the developer is actually losing money for every additional install as soon as the game is applicable for the fee.

What happens now? Is the fee he pays to Unity now deducted from the revenue in the calculation whether he is above 200k in the last 12 months? That would mean he just pays his fee in the first month and this puts him back below the 200k threshold. It takes a full year now until he's back at the 200k threshold. All assuming stable revenue of exactly 200k a year, distributed equally over 12 months and constant profits of $0.10 per install.

So in this scenario, the the $200k revenue with $0.10 profit per install means 2 million installs per year, which are approximately 167,000 installs each month and results in a fee of about $33,000. However, he only pays this in a single month in the above scenario.

To the contrary, if the fee is not deducted he has to pay the $33,000 fee every month from now on, which actually makes him lose money since his revenue for the 167,000 installs per month is only $16,700.

This seems to me like they really haven't thought this through. So which scenario is it? Can someone please clarify?

 

According to this, it was discussed internally BEFORE updating the TOS that this TOS can cause devs to lose money and go negative.

 

If they go with revenue percentage (which I'm also against, but to a lesser extent), they will still get money from F2P games.

 

They will sell your debt to debt collectors, depending the region you're living in, it can be VERY unpleasant experience.

 

But clearly it was released anyways…

 

most of you miss the point.. TOS changes are now what they will do everytime they want more.. just cause you dont meet current criteria doesnt mean you wont meet it on the next TOS update when they need just a little bit more from their lootbox ..sorry i mean ammo micro transaction.. S***.. CEO gold parachute... stock sales.. well damn ...

 

For anyone interested, here is a full copy of the Unity Terms of Service before they edited it and the blog post from Joachim Ante for future references:
https://imgur.com/a/SBRFrl6

 

Even worse if this gets more invasive may outrigh have Unity games banned from platforms and would make sense they do so, if contain essentially a virus by default.

 

Remember everyone

We have to pay $2000 to remove their logo now.

 

https://kotaku.com/unity-developer-fee-installs-john-riccitiello-sold-stoc-1850834439

 

Unfortunately, this like turning off a nuclear reactor after it has exploded. Taking legal action against Unity might make things worse, which would only put the devs and publishers relying on the tech in an even worse position. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I suppose it could pressure them into taking immediate action but if they call the bluff and you're forced to pursue then everyone is going down the drain together.

 

100% the real issue here.. TOS means nothing anymore..

 

Your reply is a perfect example of why I went with Unity to begin with its flat purchase fee per Unity version and begrudgingly afterwards their subscription.

Ultimately I have no idea who is right between the two of you and for my point it doesn't really matter, the point is anything other that a flat upfront cost adds complexity and I just want to make cool apps, I don't want to be an accountant!

Which is another aspect of Unity's plan change that is rubbing me the wrong way , more so if they have used this as a prelude to rolling back and then adding a royalty system instead!

PS - I know you aren't arguing for the install tax, or which is better between engines etc and most likely agree with the point I'm making. I'm just using reply to illustrate how complex things can get.

 

wow you are right, i remember that

 

It could force the board into taking action to remove the CEO for authorizing this as he is not acting in the best interest of shareholders.

I see a lot of really dumb comments here that show most people know nothing about how corporations actually function, but this is an actual realistic avenue that can be pursued.

 

lol I completely overlooked this. Yes… this here as well

 

Stakeholders should also sue who was responsible for this decision, this is complete ineptitude that will harm the entire brand irreparably.

 

Which in the US means a reduced credit score, interest on the debt, late fees if you miss payments, etc. You don't want to be involved with it in any way and I say that as someone who took a temp job working as a receptionist at one. It was awful. A ton of deception on the part of the debt collector.

 

Greedy, Dishonest, yes.

Incompetent, no.

He's a very very competent extractor of money. Doesn't matter how many war crimes he commits, as long as he gets to cry himself to sleep on a big pile of money he sleeps very well.

Yes, it's known as the "Door In The Face Technique!"

 

This is also true.

 

Exactly, that was one of my main point too. I hated the idea to deal with post-launch accounting stuff. And here we are. If Unity introduces a post-launch fee, then there is no more reason to choose it. At all. Because let's be honest, we aren't here for the vast number of excellent features. Even I know that, although being a developer myself I can bridge that easily too.

 

With a good lawyer, yes, you'd probably get away with it.

Not sure it would be worth it though since all your games might need to be a reskined version of the original with a new intellectual property associated with it each time.

 

In other countries means daily phone calls with threats and even worse.

The very fact that Unity made us talk about dealing with local mafia and potential prison time for making a game is insane!

 

They said that but don't have any reliable way to know these numbers.

 

Unity said

Unity said

Unity said

Everyone will need to get used to telling themselves that. Because that's all you'll be able to do is what they said.

 

yes but unity is a company lead by morons.

 

Unity will now include installCore... if it's not doing it already.

 

they should pay us that much to use it by now. because their logo is damaging (ok im in pitchfork mode)

 

Oh, haven't you heard? Unity has finally solved a problem that has plagued the game industry for as long as its existed: they can now tell with a 100% certainty whether or not any given install is legitimate.

Just ignore the fact that Unity has a financial incentive in that determination.

 

They can't stop the piracy though. Oh no. Can't do that.

But they guarantee they will not count it as an install. They promise.

 

I know this will happen sooner or later when I read this ToS, that's why I started to learn unreal a year ago.
from
Unity Terms of Service

 

We understand that public companies need to make profits, but the new pricing mechanism is absolutely counterproductive; it's like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. Charging for installations does not guarantee profitability!

What are your thoughts if Microsoft were to charge for installing Unity?

 

I don't understand why they named ceo someone with so little talent that his best ideas are a variation of patenting the wheel to get rich.

Anybody can come up with extortion ideas. That's not special.

The role of a ceo is to get ideas that make money without killing your business partners.

 

Don't worry everyone uNiTy will provide a way for you to dispute anything you believe is a fraudulent install.

I will need to hire someone to go line by line through by itemized "install" invoice and compare it against....sales I guess? And then contact each customer and ask them how many times they installed. And then submit that to Unity as my proof that I've been overcharged. Every month. Forever.

And they will have one employee dedicated to fielding and managing every request from every developer every month since every single one will be submitting a dispute every month.

Great business model.

 

There is absolutely no way this is legal OR enforceable. See you in the inevitable class action suit.

Guess it's time to learn Unreal and Godot.

 

Developer: Hello Unity I'd like to report a fraudulent install!

Unity: *phone line goes dead* or "you are caller number 2,320 in the queue. Your call is important to us please wait patiently and we will be with you shortly"

 

If they can do this retroactively, then there is no way to trust them. How do you know the amount won't be double by the time your game is ready? Or worse, it affects your already deployed game.

You may think that's outrageous but so was the 20c, and remember, this CEO wanted 1$ for reload in battlefield.

 

Don’t forget. It was also under Riccitiello’s leadership at EA that EA got voted worst company in America, twice in a row. He left EA in 2013 and EA won the award in 2012 and 2013.

 

They won't base it on anything because they have no way to do that.

If they did, they'd sell that technology instead as it would be much much more valuable.

 

I'm writing in a historical post!

A leading company in the sector is destroyed by a decision to get more and more money. Ignoring the developers and those who use their systems.

I'm a sole developer with income 0 (or minus for paid for publicity and don't get good numbers), I paid you the Plus subscription ($420) for not having the Unity home screen and now you want me to pay you $2240 for the same and also have to pay for installation?
Well, from now on, you are going to charge 0 for my subscription. Let's see what you think of not having money.

At FANTIUSEN, all our current and future projects are going to be developed in other engines NOW.

Yes, we may be screwed for 3 or 6 months, but after that no one will continue using Unity.

I feel sorry for all the Unity workers who are going to be fired because they won't have the money to pay them.

On the other hand, if I were a Unity worker, I would be in the head office with signs, blocking access and calling for resignations. Where are the Unity workers? I haven't seen a single one complaining, neither on Twitter, nor here or anywhere else. Are they going to give them extra pay for every 1000 installations?

 

I just recalled some propaganda from Russian TV. They said that only 1% of the population would be conscripted, nothing to fear.
For me, this situation is all about lost respect.
I adored Unity for a decade and invested a huge amount of time in it just to be called a fkin idiot by some ex-EA CEO and to be forced to pay for installs and reloads.
I believe the community would pay even higher subscription prices and share royalties, or even donate to make the company more profitable if we were asked nicely without tricks and multi-moves.

 

After rereading my own post, I just realized that this payment model could be so much improved by just a single, very small change:

No matter what happens, you always keep at least the threshold as revenue. So if you've made $210k revenue during the last 12 months, your maximum fee is $10k, no matter how many installs have been made. The fees you pay each month are then deducted from your revenue calculations in the following months.

I'd be much more okay with this kind of model. However, there's still the problem that we can't verify that the number of installs is in any way correct.

 

You know, the great irony was that yesterday I decided that I needed to bite the bullet and learn some ECS stuff so that I could spot optimize some things that were performing terribly due to more recent changes to the engine. I was absolutely not looking forward to it since it meant I would have to halt all actual progress on the content of my game. Never dreamed I would instead be dusting off my old-ass C++ books and installing a whole new engine

 

In all seriousness isn't the first step in paying Unity to self report that you have reached the revenue threshold?

This really incentivizes people to be as scummy as Unity and just lie.

 

The Sep 13 update makes the new plan nearly acceptable (although still bad). Unfortunately it is still flawed at the base level: we, the developers, have no way of verifying the numbers you charge us for. Don't get me wrong, I don't even assume any malicious intent on your part. I assume accidents, which WILL happen. Obviously, if you say for example, that the product was installed more times than we sold it, it's at least easy to detect. But what about all the other situations...?

Just give us a distribution platform we can use, and all the problems will go away.

Yes, all people speak for themselves. That's how things normally work. I never said I'm talking for the whole community, or even for my team. There's no reason to single me out. You can disagree freely.