Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

GREED

 

Therefore the Unity pricing announcement came after, and not before, the timetabled sell.

 

Let's put it all together:

- Yes, it may be that only 10% are affected by the Per Install Fee, but for the remaining 90% the future is unpredictable or involves a lot of bellyaching.

- As for the 90%, @Unity I've noticed you're letting this slip... What about those who had / have the Plus subscription? How many of those teams / one man shows can afford a Pro version? We for our part can afford it, but have no interest to pay so much money for such a bad software. It hurts to pay the plus price. If we calculate how much time we spend on workarounds to get around the problems or to localise them first and then send them to the Unity teams to be told later: we can't, we don't know, etc. (no words)...

- You're just bashing the community in the head and pushing it all around as it suits you, and on top of that it's called this in one statement and that in another... People aren't stupid, or is that the opinion of the management?

- Fact is, Epic has improved a lot in the mobile area and offers a constant set. What many also don't see, full code and no subscription, so the 5% is perfectly ok.

For us, the decision to leave Unity and switch to Epic was made last night. After 20 years back on the UE ^.^ yeehh....

 

And let's call it Unity Plus just for kicks.

 

Dude is straight trolling

He’s racking up $0.2 posts. He probably has enough to buy a Big Mac by now.

 

This is a S***storm that's not going down.

This is the 3rd day of complaints (even the moon would have fallen in MM by now) and Unity simply has nothing more to ad(d). It's hopeless. I advise anyone still hoping for a change to move on to Godot or Unreal or even O3DE (the FOSS Lumberyard continuation - which hasn't been mentioned up to now but seems rather promising).

It's the end of all times for Unity. Switch ships or pay the price.

 

I heard about the change last night, I am now sitting inside the Unreal editor... boycott this clown show, at least until they get rid of the monkeys in control... You know it's not true that an infinite number of monkeys pressing random keys infinitely will fix Unity eventually, only one press of the delete key will... Take care everyone and go vote with your empty wallets.

 

What about games that are refunded after being installed ?

 

They sat in that boardroom so long they have lost sight of reality. Imagine Microsoft suddenly demanding a cut from the book you wrote and published because you used Microsoft Word

 

not a lawyer, but here's the plan. If you have revenue- stay the course. do not pay.

when they request the money, don't pay. If they sue, they lose because in most every country it's widely considered fraudulent and deceptive to change TOS in order to retroactively claim ownership of another party's assets.

If I handed you a contract on a tissue, and you signed it, and signed that I may change the terms of our partnership at any time, it's probably legally binding. if I then changed it to add that you owe me a million bucks for that soda I gave you last week, basically no one would hold you to that because you can't make me un-drink that soda, just like you can't un-release the game. it's out there.

There are hundreds of developers with millions of downloads who will be hit by retroactive debt. Unity cannot selectively enforce their rules or they are to be agreed as unenforceable, same as copyright (if you don't pursue, you can't claim it's legitimate)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, an excerpt from an actual lawyer service:
"Businesses often try to find exceptions to the above rule. A business' TOS could include a clause in which the user waives the right to be notified about future changes. This would allow the business to change the TOS without notifying users.
It is possible that this would be enforceable. It would depend on whether users genuinely understood that they were waiving this right when they originally agreed to the TOS. Otherwise, it might be considered unlawfully deceptive."

because the TOS did not exist in that form and had no mention of incurring debt or retroactive liability when you released the game, or when you started to develop it (there should be a case for changing TOS between development and launch, as a rug-pull scam) it is therefore almost definitely unenforceable in a retroactive manner, and going forward is so unpopular that shareholders can sue Unity's CEO and top brass for breach of fiduciary duty (AKA sabotaging the company via making grossly unprofitable moves).

 

Yes, how can any free to play game survive this, this is madness!
Plus, the fact every month the threshold of install resets, so you always hit first the most expensive threshold, is madness as well.
I can not believe what I am seeing.

 

People, seriously. There will be no real tracking of installs and refunds. There will be statistical analysis with half-baked AI-support. In other words: random numbers without merits. Doesn't matter if the user uninstalls or refunds. It's called install-fee anyway, so the purchase or the refund wouldn't affect it anyway if it was real.

And here is what happens in reality: they sell your debt to a debt collector and you will be lucky if they don't break your left hand so you can still use a keyboard properly...

 

So.
If I create A.LLC, which buys Unity Pro License, and then sells its "project" (game) to B.LLC for $20K, which then sells it and earns $2M. Did the game make 20K or 2M?
If the game made 2M, the downloads are going to be charged to A.LLC, which then goes immediately bankrupt as it spent its 20K to pay my salary and has nothing left.
B.LLC owns the rights of the project. Can it still sell it even though Unity has nobody to harass to get "their" money?
If I owned A and own B, am I at risk of being sued? I mean, many big companies have subsidiaries just for the sake of avoiding taxes (hello Luxembourg and Ireland) and that's perfectly legal. Surely there would also be a way to get around that fee?

 

It got me thinking.
I was playing many EA games back then JR becomes EA CEO. Ruins EA.
I was making games with Unity then JR becomes Unity CEO. Ruins Unity.
I am moving to Unreal Engine....JR becomes Epic CEO?????

Long live Tim Sweeney.
Please.
Live long.
And prosper.

 

They didn't comment on that, but there's a good chance you'll pay the fee anyway, because the focus is on "installation", which means whatever happens before or after the purchase, they don't care.

 

Is not clear, and the fact that unity staff doesn't clearly clarify this point is strange. I will provide two scenarios and you think about this: Why unity doesn't clarified this like I'm about to do? Only when devs will get hit with the fees next year one can know for certain how it works.

For the examples bellow we will use the personal license only to not get crazy with the details.

Conditions that trigger the fee:

Game has $200,000 revenue past 12 months and 200,000 installs life time​

Scenario A

Developer get hit with $40k initial fee. (200.000 installs multiplied with $0.20)
Then every month each new install will be taxed $0.20 as long the $200,000 revenue past 12 months is true.

Simple scenario:
month of January: 80.000 new installs multiplied by $0.20, amount to pay 16k.
month of February: 150.000 new installs multiplied by $0.20, amount to pay 30k.
and so on each month​

Scenario B

The 200.000 lifetime installs are free of charge and dev doesn't need to pay for these installs. This fixes the "retroactive" legal issue that can bring lawsuits against unity. Is just a metric number, nothing more, the lawyers will say.
Then every month each new install will be taxed $0.20 as long the $200,000 revenue past 12 months is true.

Simple scenario:
month of January: 80.000 new installs multiplied by $0.20, amount to pay 16k.
month of February: 150.000 new installs multiplied by $0.20, amount to pay 30k.
and so on each month
​

Is each month because they expect you to pay monthly obviously. Even if you had only one new install this month you may get an invoice for $0.2. But they will probably carry on for the next month any amount you own them under $50 or $100 because banks fee are a thing.

So which of the scenario above is the correct one? Before you chose don't forget that would had been easy for unity staff to provide the examples as I've did IF the scenario B is the correct one. Pick your choice.

Additional Question:

How the $200.000 revenue threshold and 0 to infinity installs each month will be calculated?

• unity answer: trust me bro and we will work with you if you think numbers are wrong
• my answer: makes sense, they will throw numbers around, get feedback from devs which will provide real numbers to defend themselves, fine tune the "guess the revenue" model. having the flexibility of support people talking with devs ensures less probability of getting sued for inventing numbers. "Oh dev, sorry, is not $200.000 revenue for the past 12 months is only $189.000? Ok, sorry about that, see you next month". And this tactic will work, is risky but I know how people think. Four months from now the rage will be forgotten and people will be willing to work with unity on "getting the data correctly" and "show it to them using private developer invoices that unity has no right to see"

 

Wow. They don't understand what they're doing in the slightest. They have no idea that it's not the engine costs, but the volatility of Unity as a partner that is causing the current reaction.
Let me spell it out for you again, Unity: Picking an engine to make a game with is a long-term commitment. Volatility is pure poison for the kind of relationship that developers and studios need with their engine.

 

I am a solo indie developer developing on Unity-free.

Let's say I published my imperfectly monetized F2P game and had a car accident shortly after. What happens if the game receives 5M downloads and generates $1M revenue while I am in treatment?

Doesn't it mean that I would have to give all of this 1M revenue to Unity only because of not being able to stop the downloads or switch to the pro version?

 

I still don't get why Unity doesn't get an own Game Store in addition to an asset store. That would be far better, than just milk developers more and driving them to Unreal or Godot.

 

This will mostly impact the mobile market. Please force unity to reverse this. Otherwise, leave Unity and choose Unreal or Godot.

 

That's actually almost crazy enough to work. 'Three Stooges Syndrome' legally speaking. If literally everyone said no they couldn't possibly pursue them all.

 

Further to that point, a clause in a contract isn't always binding. Unfair clauses aren't legally enforceable. eg. You cannot create a contract that entitles you to everything someone ever creates; such a clause is just ignored, and contracts then add another clause "if a part of this contract is deemed unsupportable, the rest still stands" to worm around putting in hopeful clauses. A contract that says they can change the contract including backdating fees would be unreasonable and so rejected, even if Unity made people agree to it when they sign up.

 

Remember in Demolition Man, Simon Phoenix is programmed to be unable to shoot the bad guy. So he just ask one of his friends to do it for him.

Does anyone believe that Riccitello wouldn't do that?

 

The best way is to make Unity free for development, but, if you want publish a game on Steam/Android/iOS - Buy subscription. This will resolve all issues with Unity's revenue.

 

precisely. you knew the risks, by not paying for pro, says unity.

 

Another question : are we billed monthly, or annual, or every ten years, or what?

 

the thing thats so gutwrecking is the way they implement that. you basically lose trust in this company and you feel disgusted to have the unity engine run underneath the game.

the cost per install is so unbelievable, i dont understand how anyone still wants to work at unity. they dont even say how these metrics are calculated and how they are going to spy on it.
if they want more money and a heigher cut, fine. but everything about this is just evil, incompetent and borderline illegal. i honestly start to hate this company. shame on unity

 

This is interesting:

https://x.com/runevision/status/1702259250985124115?s=20

 

This point is where the confusion begins..

 

Apparently they just backpedaled on the retroactive fees part. It seems like they have no idea what's going on.

 

5% is so extremly fair, just imagine after all your hard work you mentioned to go the extra mile and develop the engine itself.

But if you still think it's not fair, just imagine you have now finally finished your game and go to any store to sell, they take 30%! Now after developing your game, and of course your supa dupa engine you can start your own shop. And when you want Payment, guess what? You will still have to pay 5% or even more for the needed payment options as creditcards, etc. + of course additional costs like for server structure and bandwidth fees, and so on.

So I have to correct myself, it is not fair, it is generous.

 

Hmm. What a betrayal... I've seen license terms get changed on newer versions of software but never anything like this. Switching engines takes time, so effects of this will not be apparent right away. Most likely the immediate outcome will be increase in revenue for unity and it will be hailed as a master move by the execs, bonuses for the top staff, huzzah. Execs by the way, who won't be there when the company is a shell of its former self. At witch point whomever is in charge will make announcements to the effect of going back to its roots, etc. But the trust will be gone. In the long run you know this will destroy the company. It will take time as it always does when you have market share but as long as decisions that ignore core customer are made, this outcome is inevitable. Not sure what is driving these decisions, complete ignorance of the company core customer or greed. Probably both. Very infuriating and unfortunate.

 

That's because they don't really make any money with Unity either or are just hobbyists, at least it's not enough to justify buying a license. But they might buy assets or use Unity Ads. And again - this is what business model they've chosen, it's not really our problem. If the company can't stay afloat or profitable then just sell it to a bigger fish - maybe that's just how it must be? Just don't do schemes like this because you are just shooting yourself in the foot. We as developers and business owners are taxed enough already - somehow everyone feels entitled to our income, yet we do all the hard work and take all the risk. Sorry Unity, Unreal - you are just a tool. If you want a share of my revenue, do some of the work for me. Being an engine with all its quirks and bugs I constantly have to fight with is not enough.

 

Even better if he had them ALSO take a short position right beforehand...

 

Am I crazy thinking they either didn't think about this at all, at least the people with power to make decisions, or they just clearly "didn't give a ..." about the feedback.
There is no other option, this goes beyond the "we will charge one dollar per reload", this is much worse.

I thought maybe I can just update to PRO to get 1 million limits, I will never reach them, right?
But, what if I do? Since it's a free to play game, it will eat my previous earnings fast.
Should I de-list my game when it's close to the 1 mil thresholds? I think that is the only option for me.

They really will kill free to play games, like, even big studios won't probably go with that.

 

None cause the people they’re targeting are the giants, and they already have custom contracts and/or a custom engine that doesn’t let Unity pull this crap on them, and a war chest big enough to take on Unity in court. No middle-size studio is going to use Unity anymore. So you have $15 solo devs left that will stay with Unity till death or when there are no thresholds and the fee per install is $1.

 

Okay, I've worked it out. Given the terms keep changing, Unity clearly don't have a plan...to monetise. This is clearly a PR campaign to get Unity in the news instead of UE5 constantly hogging the limelight ever since Lumen and Nanite first appeared!

 

ahaa, less that, more that if even one of these cases is found indefensible the entire thing gets drawn into question.

and let me tell you- the moment a broke 19 year old is sued by an international video game company for $400,000 in revenue that never existed because he made a funny free to play game, is the moment it all falls apart on unity, in basically every legal or ethical way.

 

see thats whats so enraging. UNITY YOU ***** DO WE NEED TO STOP THE DOWNLOADS OF OUR GAMES. PLEASE ANSWER THIS SOMEONE WANTS TO INSTALL MY GAME. I CANT STOP HIM FROM INSTALL MY GAME

 

This is a completely unthought-out move anyway.

 

Yeah, Unity's strong position was always with the small devs and hobbyists. At some point a few years ago it seems like they wanted to get in on that AA and even maybe AAA action and that's when noticeable changes started happening. Suddenly it was about big tech and features lists and high fidelity graphics and speed speed speed. I get why those are all sexy things even to us small and solo devs and in some ways they obviously have to adapt over time to remain in the spotlight. But many of us were pointing out our concerns even way back when it started. More than anything their strong position was always approachability, ease of use, and rapid development.

 

I'm gonna be calling tomorrow, and applying for the CEO position. wish me luck!

 

I would be okay with that.

I can also image myself to pay monthly to use the Engine for Development (like Adobe's Creative Cloud), but no fees for Sells or Installs.
Students or Education Cases can use the Engine for free, but they can't sell (or build) it.
This works like a charm for Adobe and everybody is happy so far.
Why not this way?

 

I don't ship any unity games yet, but I have been purchasing assets. This breach of trust will send me right back to Unreal. This company needs to change.

 

When a company CEO sale his stocks nothing good comes.

According to Guru Focus, Unity CEO John Riccitiello, one of the highest-paid bosses in gaming, sold 2,000 Unity shares on September 6, a week prior to its September 12 announcement. Guru Focus notes that this follows a trend, reporting that Riccitiello has sold a total of 50,610 shares this year, and purchased none.

 

Really? Unreal. This is actually unbelievable how F***ed their whole process was. At this point does anyone even know what the F*** the TOS actually is? It's been changing by the hour all day! And they gave themselves and their clients just four months to get it all straightened out and ready to go? That alone is the sign of a sinking ship to me.

 

Storefront taking 30% is absolutely abhorrent, but in this case I don't really have much choice since they are a monopoly and somehow it's not a problem for anyone. But with the tools, I do have a choice and Unity was that choice precisely because of simple licensing terms. Even though with Unreal it's unlikely I'll ever strike such a goldmine to have to pay 5%, I don't find it fair either way, because guess what - my revenue is the result of my blood and sweat, not Epic's. I'd rather pay them upfront fee even if it's big rather than have to pay subscription, let alone eternal revenue share.

 

also wondering if this will affect consumers. if i buy an unity game and i can't reinstall it if it's been removed by the developer? should i start checking if a game i buy is an unity game?

 

Recently I was working on a system converting assets like mesh, material, texture and scene into custom bytes, just to improve loading performance by reading them and reconstruct asset on runtime insted of using AssetBundles.
Now it turns out a really good idea because I can port it to anywhere I want. It includes a specification to run scene for game logic. Thanks for having bad asset system. I practically do not have any dependencies to Unity.
I miss only Burst and C#. But other things have been horrible mess for flipping years. Now I leave and feeling better.

 

We're going into a era of "everybody is entitled to everybody else's income as long as they have at least a minor remote contribution to it".

Who would have thought that capitalism would bring us social passive income?