Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

I really don't mean to spam but I NEED an answer to this.

What the hell am I supposed to do??? We're a small business that just sort of manages to stay afloat for now. If these changes go through as they are right now, Unity will take 100% of our profits, over 45k EACH MONTH just because we have a lot of monthly new users and low revenue.

THIS IS NOT AN UNUSUAL BUSINESS MODEL FOR SMALL MOBILE STARTUPS. UNITY NEEDS TO ADDRESS THIS.

 

This to me is the most egregious of all. Pricing schemes and hikes(all of which are terrible) aside, the absolute unmitigated gall to think that they can retroactively slap new terms and start collecting fees on projects that shipped a decade ago is absolutely beyond the pale. It doesn't MATTER that the project isn't selling well enough to cross the threshold anymore, it matters that it's a done deal, and you don't get to mess with a done deal, period.

 

But their ESG (remember G for governance) is so high and low risk!

 

If I create a Unity game, then when I get close to the fee, I decide to use Unreal instead, and one day Unity gives me a bill to pay for pirated copies of the old version, what you will say ?
Furthermore, how can all the things that come out of your mouth be as trustworthy as what Unity itself has announced?

 

For now.

Shocker!

 

at this point, you've lost me and every other developer I know as paying full time indie dev. I am actively figuring out which engine I'll be using next. even if you just undo these changes, I won't be coming back. no one who this rule applies to (whether they actually pay or not) will want to use the engine after this

 

"While Unity's pricing announcement resulted in a PR disaster for the company yesterday, we doubt it will lead to many developers leaving Unity for other engines,"

"Wells Fargo analyst Brian Fitzgerald.. said in a note following the post that while developers voice outrage online, Unity's price and value "has long favored developers."

"Of the 28 analysts who cover Unity, 18 set a buy-grade rating, eight set hold ratings, and two set sell ratings, with an average price target of $46.67."

Crap like this is why they haven't walked it back yet.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/u...per-fees-announced-a956b60d?mod=mw_quote_news

 

I have tons of questions like why and how, but here are my top few ones:
1. Licenses and limits: does this pricing policy mean that whoever is being billed for the runtime fee will have to upkeep a valid Pro or Enterprise Unity license for as long as the game is in existence if they don't want to drop to the free range of 200K/200K limits?
2. Licensees: Who is going to be billed, the developer or the publisher if there is one? Unity is usually licensed by the developer for the time of development, so the publisher probably has no license at all and actually is not in any kind of contract with Unity whatsoever. How do they plan to bill them?
Of course I may have a kind of misunderstanding here, so feel free to enlighten me.

 

It's been two days of this sh!t blowing up and no real response to the major concerns. Is it that hard for them?

 

I believe they'll survive this, but I don't know what happens when a group of nerdy teens who manage to generate $200k with a silly flappy bird clone, receive a $1M bill from Unity.

 

Perhaps they'll just plead the feeeeeeeefth?

 

Their several responses have all been real, and have all doubled down that this is real and they're gonna go through with it.

 

A Robinhood-like news story culminating in a Mr. Ballen video.

 

If they are trying to apply the new ToS to older / current Unity versions I will ask for a refund.
I paid for Pro over years, they are now telling me that our agreement is now basically null and void?

Ok, in that case they hopefully they will send me my money back.

 

Once people migrate, they will change their tone. Give it a year, or so. (?)

 

im really curious as to how you guys determine unique installs, i still cannot see any answer to that, sorry to say this but frankly one cannot just take your words for it and accept your behind the curtains way of calculating installs. either you come clean about how you guys determine to go through with it or drop the matter entirely because it seems its beyond your control.

 

That makes sense. Trying to get this straight though. So payments to Unity would be monthly, I guess? So last month if I had say 50K installs and payed for them (because my revenue is above $200K for last 12 months, for example) those installs are payed for and will never be counted again (for payment that is). Is that right? Along the same way, if my 12 month revenue is below $200K and I have two months of 10K installs each and then on third month I cross over the $200K again, I would only pay for the installs on that third month?

 

The prospect of having to conduct a legal battle with a giant company should scare away 90% of the non-affected developers.

 

I'd suggest dropping this new pricing model. It has upset a lot of the developers and will encourage a lot of them to migrate to other engines. This will not only cause delays to their projects, but also won't be positive for the developers who choose to stay, as more and more assets, etc. will be developed for other engines and not for unity.
I'm not sure of the financial situation, or the need the generate more revenue but I would suggest that before attacking the generative side of your revenue, you first pare down your organization of anything that is unproductive. If you have an overly inflated human resources department for instance this is one of the departments that really ought to be pared down to its bare functional bones.

 

Don't worry, GDPR lawyers will take over and slap Unity CEO in his face

 

Notwithstanding that I agree with the sentiment of your point, their lawyer is correct in saying that the TOS is governed by California contract law.

As I see it, the big problem they have is that they didn't communicate that they were intending to detach scope from subscriptions and levy new and additional costs to give them (in their legal opinion) a right to charge for Runtime distribution that they previously did not have. To do so six months later whilst allowing customers to upgrade versions and imply acceptance of the updated term means there was no meeting of minds on the clause given that customers did not understand the consequence Unity would subsequently want to pursue. I also feel that this approach shows bad faith. These are both very difficult hurdles for Unity to overcome in contract law (irrespective of jurisdiction).

As I see it, new customers has to accept whatever's offered. I'd be very surprised if the cost is enforceable on software developed on any Editor versions pre-Tuesday, including determination of retrospective revenues and 'installs'. That said, I'm fairly certain that their proposed model won't be on installs in the end once they've had somebody sensible run the rule over it.

If this was a deliberate strategy its...well, its not how I would do business, put it that way.

 

We already starting migrating Blocky Ball. And even if they do change it, we will not be coming back. They have shattered our trust.

 

They still didnt release the calculator...did they accidentaly found out they screwed up and the numbers dont add? XD

 

Can you clarify "absolutely free" as compared to monetized? There are free games that have ads that are free.

Why not just create a tier with an increased subscription fee that allows for royalty free?

 

this change will/would concern ALL their paying customers. Every single one will pay more. it's not all about f2p. what comes to f2p, they changed their own business into f2p. they don't want to cap the revenue they can get from "whales". If they only wanted to target this change to f2p's "that makes millions" - there would have be many other options...

 

I really don't like this phrasing on the new Runtime Fee page:

"Unity Runtime Fee
We are introducing a Unity Runtime Fee that is based on each time a qualifying game or app is downloaded by an end user. When a Unity game or app is downloaded, the Unity Runtime is also installed. The Unity Runtime is code that makes the project work performantly, at scale, across dozens of Unity-supported platforms."

There is no mention of a Unity Runtime in the documentation. Is this what they have hitherto termed the Unity Player? Why does this say the runtime is installed? And the claim it is installed on download is obviously nonsensical. A download cannot trigger an installation. Is this installed when the game/app is launched? Is it something else than the Unity Player? How can it be uninstalled? What does it actually do ("makes the project work performantly, at scale, across dozens of Unity-supported platforms" doesn't make any technical sense)?

I know what *a* runtime is. I know what *at* runtime is. I know that runtime is a concept used with Unity. But the documentation doesn't talk about *a* runtime - it's focused on the Unity Player, the scripting backend, etc. This pivot towards being a service provider of a "Unity Runtime" seems like something meant to justify this new license model more than something actually connected to the Engine and Editor.

Is it a rebranding of the Player? Is there something worse hiding under this concept - like installing an actual runtime on the users hardware which is independent of the game/app (which is essentially the Unity Player and bundled assets). And if it is just a rebranding why talk about "the Unity Runtime is also installed".

I sadly think that I will no longer be using Unity for future projects. I understand you need to be profitable. I understand you may need to raise licensing fees. But this whole thing smacks of a pivot towards forcing me to license and distribute more than "just" a Game Engine. I don't want Ad integration. I don't want Analytics. I don't want to track users. I just want to make games and apps that bring value to users.

This thing can only work if you hide behind "legitimate interest" to send data about user installs to your servers. I do not believe it is possible to discern between pirated and legitimate copies of a non-DRM game for desktop platforms. I do not believe it is possible to detect malicious fraud based on spoofing HW changes and installs.

I hope you revert this decision or I will not use the engine in the future. Even if you do revert it, my trust is damaged. The merger with IronSource sadly shows what kind of company you want to be.

 

California is not EU...EU usually is very pro consumer rights, if they analyze this and find out Unity screws ower, they will fine them big buck

 

Just wanted to point out that they're paying to run their "clarification" as a sponsored ad on Twitter.



Good to know where your priorities lie: paying Elon Musk instead of listening to your audience.

They will not be walking this back. It's time to move on.

 

read his twitter and stop making assumptions

 

This might go down in software history as one of the worst mistakes made as a public company. Lost the trust of their customers with 1 single post. Well done.

 

Oh the jurisdiction definitely matters.

The EU has given other tech companies a good kicking over anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviour.

If Unity is so desperate to be next in line, I'll get the popcorn.

 

What percent of users use Unity to make f2p mobile games would you say?

 

Have we had any new replies from Unity? The longer they stay silent the worse it will get for them

 

Some really valuable members of the community already left or announced once they wrap up their current work they are done. Without that backbone it won't take even that long for the whole house to topple over.

 

Wild guess. 75%

 

Have no twitter or any other social media, just despise that stuff. If there is something written, feel free to link it.

 

Nintendo and Disney lawyers are going to be all over this

 

I backed off from looking at this through the lens of consumer rights, as I expect that any entity that has an interest in the changes will have incorporated a business.

 

Interesting. That's more than the declared 10% of affected users

 

Let's spread our message. First of all, I suggest that we reply to that post on Twitter: https://twitter.com/unity/status/1702077049425596900. They paying for that, so maybe additional thousands of comments get their attention

 

I think we need to look towards other engines, it is incorrect to do this with those who bring money to the company. I think if the decision is not reversed, and there are no changes in policy and management, then this is the beginning of the end of the glorious Unity engine.
Personally, I hope that after a while they will come to their senses, but if this remains, I will switch to another engine, perhaps "Godot"

 

That's precisely the problem. Nobody knows. Who wants to run a business with that sword looming over their heads? Even Unity just says 'Trust me, bro. I got this magical box that'll figure it out. no you can see it or know how it works. Also it doesn't even work yet but... it totally will in a few more months. Trust me, bro'.

 

Will it cost you a lot of time to migrate? Will it be difficult? How much longer will your game take to finish? Horrible to think that this pricing would cause a lot of difficulty to devs. Would you return if unity scape-goated who/whatever was responsible for the pricing? Also, is it definately in your best interests to migrate or do you act on principle? Were there other draws to moving to other engines? Which one will you go to?

 

Question for the hive mind: so, normally (take an online game who have 58 pages of EULA hidden within are basically you own jack crap and how at their discretion you may use their stuff but you dont own any thing, cant sell or share or whatever) for terms of service there is a page thrust in your face where you must if nothing else pretend you read it, and slide to the bottom to click agree.. I dont remember doing that ever with unity. So, arguably then, at no point were their terms agreed to, because at no point did i click anything to say yes i agree.. i just fired up (like a web browser) and off you go, theres a screen ..

So does anyone remember the terms of service and some form of agree button?

 

Yup, sure looks that way.

Unknown, and not properly disambiguated by UT. In the same FAQ where they say that you'll be invoiced under your Unity subscription, they also say 'The Unity Runtime Fee will be charged to the entity that distributes the runtime.'

 

Why? Particularly Disney... Last I'd heard Disney went all in on HaXe nearly 10 years ago after a failed Unity initiative for various web games.

 

No, there were more epic occasions, although not in software. Look up "Ratner effect". Gerald Ratner, in 1991, managed to kill his business in one sentence.

 

They don't want small studios creating art/story driven games that the big corps can't control, they can't have freedom of thought in the world as that seriously impacts there ability to milk people for every penny they can.

 

You guys haven't released games on steam, right?