Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

But first make sure that you charge 0.2usd per user on seeing unity splash screen as most users delete the game seeing made with unity

 

Problem is, no-one believes this when they can't accurately discriminate between new installs and re-installs.

 

how would they know its same user in different devices or upgraded pc? (even after some windows updates unity loses the license, since machine details have changed)

 

Wow, 2 days have gone by and this thread is nearing more pages than there are 1st generation Pokemon.

Hi Unity, I'm a post graduate who studies and worked on projects in your engine for 4 years, and I would just like to say: please revert this change. A lot of indie studios and publishers are packing up from the Unity engine and I fear for my future.

I'm not below begging you to hold off on your next f-up for... like 2 years, so I can learn a new engine and switch over to something more stable, but please let me enjoy this engine for another 2 years before driving it into the ground.

Best wishes,

 

"useless hate".
I think you don't really understand what is happening.
Devs are being forced to pay per install. That is like if some random glass maker had a fee for every "first time" someone drinks from the glasses he made and already sold.
In what world is this okay? Why is there a need for a fee per install in the first place?.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg, what you and other who also seem to defend this, dont seem to get is that they changed the already changed tos (when they even add a section saying they wont be doing this in the future, but they did). This means there is no legal protection for ANYONE, regadless of what version of Unity they are using or the success they have. tomorrow they can change the deal again, S***ting in already made games.

3 days ago, anything made with Unity was free of royalties and fees. Then 2 days ago, without notice, devs are forced to pay for unity pro or a fee per install.
Nothing guarantees that they wont raise the fee in the future and what is worse. this changes is in a gray area, it could be retroactively which is... beyond stupidity.

"this only affects devs with great success". No.
I work with multiple devs whose revenue comes from crowdfunding platforms. They make barely 20k per month, that is 240k a year. You would think "wow, that is alot" but for a team of 5 - 8 devs. 20k per month is barely making a living.
So, revenue threshold; check.
what about installs? welp, since they release their games through patreon, dropbox, subscribe star, itch.io, steam. Their player base count is arround 50k. assuming all 50k players install the game just one time in one device (they don't), and that they update the game (distribute newer versions compiled of the game) at least 5 times a year (they update the game more times than that. quick fixes sometimes come in the form of 10 updates in a 2 months span).
that means 250k installs per year. (Not counting leaks. LEAKS, not pirated versions. There is no way Unity can differenciate leaked installs from official realesed installs in this business model)
so, there you have it. Devs, barely making a living, now are forced to pay either 16k for 8 unity pro seats. Or risk going bankrupt because the per install fee S***ting on them.
and again, on top of this, there are no guarantees and legal protections that would protect the devs that this will remain that way. THERE IS NO LEGAL WARRANTY OR PROTECTION AGAINST RETROACTIVE CHANGES IN THE CONTRACT.

none, zero, absolutamente nada. なし.

I don't know why I'm doing this. You probably won't understand.

 

And that's not even the real point. The point is they can't just decide they're going to charge you retroactively after you have spent years developing a game based on a terms you accepted at the time of development. Why would cuphead developers pay them anything for their 2024 installs, if they are not using Unity anymore, and at the time of development and release there was no obligation for them in the terms? I would just refuse to pay if I was them.

These people (or PR accounts, or CEO cousins) defending Unity would probably love if their car manufacturer started charging them by the mile for the car they purchased years ago. It's fair because other brands like BMW are more expensive. Yeah, the law doesn't allow them to know or measure your mileage, but they'll sort it out. did we say mile? we meant nautical mile. Or kilometers. Trust us!

 

This is wron on so many levels that I can't even imagine xD Whats with humbe bundles, low revenew games, existing games that have solid fundations and are basing their existencs on current tos of Unity (that they have agreed creating the game).

And how it will work from legal point of view? You will collect data from users without their knowledge?

Unity pls, just tell us that you have April startin over there for some reason xD

 

If we suppose you only pay the installs after the 200,000th one then you pay 14% of your income to Unity. Unreal doesn't even charge you for less than 1 mil. Get serious.

 

Precisely, unknowns are not uncommon factors in budgets, but they will almost always have controls and rails put around them such that you cannot randomly receive an invoice for an astronomical number you had no way of predicting or preventing.

Unless Unity is planning on implementing a system whereby you can receive alerts when your number of installs is reaching a certain level, allowing you to pull your game from sale or somehow otherwise limit installs, its a totally uncontrollable and unaccountable risk.

 

okay ill try explain it in code

using UnityEngine;
using System.IO;
public class SaveDataChecker : MonoBehaviour
{
private string saveDataPath; // Path to your save data file
private void Awake()
{
// Define the path to your save data file. You should customize this path.
saveDataPath = Application.persistentDataPath + "/saveData.dat";

// Check if the save data file exists
if (File.Exists(saveDataPath))
{
Debug.Log("Save data file found. Loading game...");
// Load the game from the save data
LoadGame();
}
else
{
Debug.Log("Save data file not found. Charging for new install...");
// Charge for a new install (customize this logic)
ChargeForNewInstall();
// After charging, you might want to initialize the game with default values
InitializeNewGame();
}
}
private void LoadGame()
{
// Implement your logic to load the game from the save data file
// For example, you can use BinaryFormatter or JSON serialization
}
private void ChargeForNewInstall()
{
// Implement your logic to charge the player for a new install
// This could involve in-app purchases, unlocking content, etc.
}
private void InitializeNewGame()
{
// Implement your logic to initialize a new game
// This might include setting default values, creating a new save data file, etc.
}
}

 

What about WebG? Should we developers pay for each visit to the game? Could we pay for each puzzle that the user solves?!

 

Amended Service Suggestion (ASS) for the Terms of Service:

Per Dev Seat Runtime Install Licensing Fees

As currently proposed, the January 2024 Changes to the Unity Terms of Service treat games of a sole developer and those of large teams in the same way. Both will be charged the same rates. This is a massive missed opportunity to exploit significantly larger funding models and profit dependencies of those gaming studios with high staffing levels and significant numbers of Unity Dev Seats.

The calculation should be:

dev_Seats_Count X installs-per-game X game_Price

You know it makes cents.

 

That's what they said: you only pay for the installs over the threshold. Whether or not to trust them is up to you.

Unreal doesn't charge for less than 1M, above that threshold you pay 5% of revenue. In your example, that's 1M$ / 3$ = 333.333 installs, 133333 over 200k Unity's threshold, x0.2 = 26,6k. If using Unreal, you'd pay 50k. Which means you'd pay approximately double the amount of money if using Unreal, but at least you'd know upfront.

Godot doesn't charge at all. It's also up to you whether price/value ratio is good enough for you. In the case of Unity, it certainly isn't for me.

I am, I'm just stating facts.

 

Yes... but it is not an official and approved way of doing it. I suppose no one should focus on that kind edge scenarios.

 

well you are not using personal... what about my case? a 15$ game, why my case is not valid as a reason?

 

Is there any policy specified about DLC's?
Are they considered separate games or not?

 

webgl and streamed no longer count after a company said they would sue for damages.

 

I have already started
Unreal Engine for Unity Developers | Unreal Engine 5.0 Documentation

I know we all wasted time and money trusting this horrible company with their low-quality product we fell in love with, but it's not too late to turn away from this evil now.

 

I am sorry but you have comprehension issues. What I mean is not that you are paying for the old downloads again. The question is whether you are paying a rate which is reset back to $0.15 at the start of each month or if once you get down to $0.01 per download it stays that way forever.

Either way I am F***ing done. I just checked and one of the other systems I think will handle most of what I need in theory. I will install it tomorrow and start experimenting.

Better to rip the bandaid off now then get buried by this insanity. It will likely cost me months and I might need some custom code or have to contribute to the project (it is open source).

Not going to say the name because if Unity is going full totalitarian their next move will be to ban anyone who recommends an alternative. Not that it matters I guess if I am forcibly now done. Still.

 

your case isn't real your talking to real developers who make a living developing games. and what your saying is in no way a reality.

 

So will be my payment.

 

I'm also just stating facts so people can comprehend the atrocity of this.

Exactly this.

 

Ah yes, why worry about edge cases with our *squints* livelihoods...

 

int DetectCopiesNumberPerMonth(int numOfEmployees)
{
int copiesSold = Random.Range(10000*numOfEmployees, 100000*numOfEmployees);
int copiesPirated = Random.Range(500*numOfEmployees, 5000*numOfEmployees);
int installBombedCopies = Random.Range(100*numOfEmployees, 1000*numOfEmployees);
return copiesSold - (copiesPirated + installBombedCopies);
}

Done

 

Because Unity does not serve you alone, with commitments from TOS we used to trust it, and now we are on the brink of bankruptcy.
If it doesn't affect you just shut your mouth.

 

What about cross promotions installs

 

Runtime Installation fees overlook viewership of content created by Runtime Usage.

Herewith a couple of stopgap suggestions for Unity's C-Suite Geniuses:

Trailer Views Runtime Licensing Fees

We all know most often Trailers are recorded from Builds that use the Runtime.

Viewership of Trailers needs to be contributing back to Unity’s bottomline. Because the Runtime works harder for higher resolution and higher frame rate videos, views of a Youtube Trailer should generate tiered revenue for Unity based on the resolution and fps of the maximum resolution and frame rate of the video, regardless of the quality the end user decided to view the video at. This is democratically fair and balanced.

Review Views Runtime Licensing Fees

Reviewers, we know for a fact, are using Builds of the Runtime to Play and Review Games

Their reviews are then read and watched by umpteen millions of people. Unity’s Runtime rightly deserves royalties for this viewership and readership. The just way to do this is pay-per-view licensing of reviews. When it comes to written reviews, per word. When it’s a video, per frame. The longer the review, the more Review Views Runtime Licensing Fees (RVRLF) incurred. Naturally, the developer and/or distributor of the game will be billed. The reviewers are skint, we know that, hence their easy targets for payola corruption at bargain basement rates.

 

Definitely Unity should not count that as something that should be additionally charged.

 

you need a team to make a game that really makes you some revenue, sure you can make a game by yourself, in fact there are many 1 guy studio games made with unreal, a lot actually but how much are they doing?
yes maybe some games are making more than 500k, good for them how many years it took them for that?
to make a successful game on unreal you need a team + years of working on a pretty good game and being sure you will make big money with it, then you need to pay 5%
Godot, yeah sure, you pay nothing, is actually pretty good, but godot is not at the level of unity, you know that, even today where unity is strugling to be as popular as godot

 

Quick suggestion to Unity employees who feel attacked by this discussion: Join the thread about it on 4chan to get an uncensored taste what folks really think about this.

 

https://twitter.com/unity/status/1702077049425596900?s=20

Do you really believe that's gonna help? Looks like you are trying to hotfix failed from the beginning monetization architecture. Unity is dead. But you still can resuscitate it. Please do it, before it's too late.

 

They could have simply stated: We are introducing a runtime license fee, this assumes a copy of your game will, on average, be installed 3 times after purchase, and you will be charged $0.20 per "install".

This eliminates any chance of abuse, the numbers are predictable and will stack up. The idea of someone installing your game 3 times is not bizarre or unfair, even if it might seem steep. Its a way to charge for the runtime as separate from a total game revenue share.

Admittedly this solution is still essentially needlessly complex - when a simple revenue share is the standard approach for a reason - but the fact that the Unity execs have sat in a room and deliberated for god knows how long, and could not even reach a semi-workable and marketable solution such as this is just bewildering.

 

We need a class action lawsuit against this decision, they will have to face the law for lies and deception, affecting the jobs of thousands of people, putting many companies at risk bankrupt.

 

what about selling my game? is not that a valid case?

 

Yeah how they thought they could offer this with no cap on liability is ridiculous. No one could propose a business model where one of the possible best case scenarios if you have runaway success is ending up millions of dollars in debt.

Imagine going to investors and proposing to launch a game with this business model. They will look at you like you are insane.

The other problem with this entire concept is now Unity has to know EVERYTHING about your business. They will need to know your downloads, your revenue, every dollar on your balance sheet is now their business.

Who the F*** wants to tell Unity every cent of your business?

And who will ever trust them now even if they add a liability cap? They can move the goalposts any time and once you have launched an app it will be 10x harder to go recode it and switch all your users over to the new system without everyone noticing or things getting messed up so you are trapped.

Launching with Unity now is like jumping out of airplane strapped to a psychopath who is controlling the only parachute.

 

Cocos Creator seems a worthy alternative for unity mobile devs

 

then you have your store system

 

Just saw this announcement in my email. It has probably already been stated in this thread, but this looks like it will kill Unity's usefulness in mobile ad supported games, since the cost per install exceeds the expected ad revenue per install for most if not almost all games of this type. I find this insane given that Unity over the past few years had made a big push into the mobile ad delivery market, and this seems like it may kill that revenue stream.

This also seems like a disaster for independent contractors. You get contracted to work on or solo develop a game for a customer. You deliver the build using your account. Years later the customer hits 100k, 200k, etc installs. Now Unity thinks it is your game and your revenue. This applies to games already delivered previously, before the announcement, so no mitigation strategy like potentially switching to a customer owned account to generate the build was thought necessary to tie the owner of the game to the install count. Since the game isn't even yours (you made it under contract, so it belongs to your customer), you shouldn't owe that revenue, and the customer who contracted you to develop the game likely hasn't ever even signed any Unity EULA, so they shouldn't be bound by any install related revenue agreement either. This seems like an enormous oversight, since it should have been prominently discussed in the blog and FAQ how this situation was being handled.

 

Unity, let's have a heart-to-heart. After all the dedication and passion developers invest into their projects, the introduction of a new fee based on game downloads feels like a backhanded reward. While Unity Engine has been a monumental platform for many, this "tax on success" feels like a betrayal. The allure of your high thresholds gives a glimmer of hope, only to pull the rug from underneath developers just as they're making their mark in the industry.

It's hard not to feel that the "the more successful you become, the more you owe" mantra is a slap in the face to every developer who trusted Unity as their platform of choice. Yes, the 'added value' to subscription plans is a neat addition, but it doesn't mitigate the sting of this new financial structure. Reducing choice under the guise of 'simplification' by retiring Unity Plus? That's a hard pill to swallow.

What's more, instead of leaning into these potentially predatory practices, Unity should be placing its focus squarely on supporting developer communities. Remember the eternal preview packages? Developers are yearning for stability and reliability. It's about time you prioritize streamlining and finalizing features that have been in the "coming soon" limbo for years.

Unity, you were once the beacon for indie game development; the platform where the underdog could dare to dream big. But decisions like this cast a shadow over that legacy. Rather than capitalizing on dreams, how about nurturing and supporting them? Your strength isn't just in the software you offer, but in the vast community of developers who have chosen Unity as their canvas. Let's ensure that relationship is cherished and not monetized. Remember your roots. Don't stray from the ethos that once set you apart. Maybe you should have checked all this with your Dev Rels in first place?

 

• Release game for 10$. Get 6.5$ from Steam (after tax/rev share).
• After release phase, 95% of revenue comes during sales.
• Discount eventually reaches 75%
• Get 1.5$ from Steam per sale.
• Pay 20 Cent every time the player installs the game on a new device.
• Have no idea how many devices players install their game on during a games lifetime (which is ...30 years?).
• Have no idea how Unity tracks installs.
• Have no idea how Unity is going to change their monetization next year.

There is no scenario where this is a sustainable business idea. I know that, and you know that. What is your end game here?

 

If you sell a game, you will also have more installs than sales.

 

......But Unity is not tracking you in an official and approved way. They are using the "existing ads technique" to track installs.

"We leverage our own proprietary data model and will provide estimates of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project – this estimate will cover an invoice for all platforms."

 

But your game does not need to access the internet. Unity has a “model” of what your revenue is and how many installs you have, and will charge you based on that.

 

do you need to buy your games again after those windows updates?

 

rofl

Anyone who has ever disputed a bill with any company knows how this will go.

"We understand that you have concerns regarding your billing. We have reviewed the charges and have determined that they are correct and will not be adjusted."

 

Except they aren't taking a cut on sales, they are taking a cut on installs. You do need to install your games again sometimes when you get new hardware. I implore you to stop posting in this thread.

 

I used profit instead of revenue, my mistake. But my numbers are correct. 250k sales of a $20 game is $5 million.

Unreal charges 5% royalty on gross REVENUE, not profit.

First million is free is irrelevant, this is not a new game. They already got their “free $1 million”.

So 5% royalty on $5 million is $250,000

And, this situation is exempt from runtime fees with a Pro License because they sell 250k units a year, not 1 million,

With that cleared up we’ve also demonstrated another aspect of Unity’s system. An indie dev can generate $5 million (or more) in revenue and not pay a single royalty or fee, just the Pro license. A $5 million revenue in Unreal is at least an automatic $200,000 royalty

 

I seriously think you need help. I am a lone dev in Unreal and this is what I achieved in 2 weeks time. 2 weeks. In Unity you can't even get that level of details or rendering quality.

Godot is amazing for 2D. You have no idea what you're talking about, obviously. You just have this insatiable hunger for attention. An I'm gonna give that to you, cause it's also fun for me. UwU

 

On top of all the other very concerning issues, have you considered that:

• It creates a conflict of interest between developers & their publishers regarding: discount sales, 3rd party deals.

The costs will fall on the developers because you're only tied to them. This means for a publisher there's no fee for doing a 95% flash sale. They would love more installs because bigger userbase bigger spread. For devs this is a speedrun to meet both thresholds. In extension of that, given the flat 0.20 per install and the discount, devs could end up having to pay more money than they get per unit sold lmao. Sell game at 95% discount for $0.50 - 30% steam - 30~50% publisher -> $0.175 per unit sold. But pay $0.20 per install = at the very least > $0.20 per unit sold (because plenty of users will likely install on multiple machines). We sign to give publishers the rights to do these kinds of things. Now they could theoretically bankrupt you.

• It's going to lower the quality of games, because it stimulates devs to move onto their next game as soon as the LIFETIME threshold is met, instead of updating that game. It's pretty much unavoidable to work on a game for years after release if you want to compete with the best games in the industry.

• I'm also curious how you're going to gather information about developers net revenue? E.g. how are you going to disprove me when I tell you I have a 0% revenue share with my publisher and renting my office space costs 100k per second? I'm not showing you my bills or contracts.

 

Lol Unity does not know when you buy a game. They only know when their DRM reports an install.