Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

Sounds like a great service. Can't wait to try it out /s

 

It's showing fine for me on both logged in and logged out devices?

 

It's unfortunate that I've spent at least $800 on assets from the store, only to consider leaving it all behind. At the same time, I'm torn. I don't want to feel like I'm just following the crowd, especially since I know my revenue will never reach $200,000 and 200 installations. However, I also want to participate in this boycott to make them reconsider their actions. If everyone leaves, they'll definitely have to come up with a different approach to impose higher fees.

What Unity seems to forget is that its strength lies in its large community, particularly those who create assets, especially plugins. If everyone leaves, there will be fewer customers to buy those assets, leading to fewer plugin developers. Another point Unity seems to overlook is that for an average developer today, language is no longer a barrier due to AI tools. Switching from one engine to another will be very easy if one has no ongoing projects or assets to consider.

 

unity is not going to charge you for previous sales, -.-" they take those numbers to check if you are aligible to pay the fee but the count starts 1-jan-2024... i see people are still confused with this

 

I can't easily tell if this has already been answered. In case it hasn't, I'm pretty sure that's in reference to available execution time of automated build services.

 

Savvy investors won't be waiting for number to go down before they start dumping stock.

 

Not true they will charge him for installs from old sales and piracy.

 

When JR took over as CEO of Unity, his vision shared in the Unite keynote was to turn it into a services company.
I was all for this vision, as it made sense for them to extend their offering with these services and integrate them into the Unity ecosystem.

The only service I've used successfully in those years is Unity Analytics, everything else such as Multiplay, Cloud build, Error reporting etc. turned out to be freaking useless or half-baked, much like the editor's evolution over the past few years.

 

What are you talking about, I've never said they would. They will charge us for "installs" (not sales btw) from Jan 1 2024. That is what I'm referring to. As they have stated come Jan 1 2024 we will be over the threshold and we will be start being charged based on their "install" count.

This is not the first time you have posted something like this in reply to something I've said as if I have said any different. Why are you doing this? Please stop.

 

Depending on your game you should also look at Godot. Started it 2 hours ago and I was already able to build a car and drive around, add some lighting and fog to the scene. With all text based git friendly files.

Awesome! And open source.

It’s seems to be a nice tool. Unreal is much more I am aware of this..

 

Absolutely wild. They have neglected the core product for too long all while abusing the customers time and time again. It's great to push services but they have to be built on top of a product that works and people have a reason and incentive to use. Including financially.

Good luck selling services to a non-existent userbase, asshat.

 

You're right, but even that example massively downplays the risk. Unity believes they can do anything. They could decide to add a flat retroactive 90% royalty tomorrow.

 

How will they be able to differentiate someone installing a purchase in January from someone reinstalling the purchase they made in December?

 

"Q: How are you going to collect installs?
A: We leverage our own proprietary data model. We believe it gives an accurate determination of the number of times the runtime is distributed for a given project."

That seems simply impossible. It's impossible to calculate that just for steam and it publicizes alot of the required stats. How would you account for a brand new storefront or publishing method? How would you account for a major industry shift akin to GDPR that changed alot of how publishing can eb handled? theres endless variables and it seems implausible for you to have even accounted for the most basic, such as a single storefront like steam.

"Q: Is software made in Unity going to be calling home to Unity whenever it's run, even for enterprise licenses?
A: We use a composite model for counting runtime installs that collects data from numerous sources. The Unity Runtime Fee will use data in compliance with GDPR and CCPA. The data being requested is aggregated and is being used for billing purposes."
That doesn't answer the question at all. Will all unity apps now have embedded DRM? will users require an internet connection to launch apps? Will this secretly fire in the background when installation is completed? Does this check occure every time an app is launched, or only the first time it's launched by that device?

"Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game, will that count as multiple installs?
A: We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs.
(Updated, Sep 14)

Q: Do installs of the same game by the same user across multiple devices count as different installs?
A: Yes - we treat different devices as different installs.
(Updated, Sep 14)"
Does the 2nd answer not contradict the first? Your charging of multiple installs, despite claiming thats against the spirit? How can you so blatantly lack self awarness to the point of contradicting yourself in an adjecent question. It would be humourous if not so disheartening.

"Q: Do Charity bundles qualify for the Runtime fee?
A: Any installs driven by charities or installs driven by charity bundles are excluded from the Runtime Fee."
How? you claim you use an algorithmic model, again i have toi question how you would determine all the required variables let alone the variables required just to differentiate a normal sale from a charity bundle on the Humble Bundle Storefront. Especially given the phone home is implied to occure during or after installation in the DRM question, which of course is after the purchase has been made and game files downloaded.

"Q: How will we approach fraudulent or abusive behavior that impacts the install count (bombing, piracy)?
A: We won’t count fraudulent installs or “install bombing” either. As part of our model, we are creating solutions to address the problem of double-counting reinstallations."
Are we then meant to infer you currently have no means of dealing with this issue? and this was some sort of afterthought your only now attempting to find solutions for? I think it's reasonable to assume most devs would condisider this an issue that makes Unity financially dangerous to use and most certainly a priority to solve, to the point that the whole system fails without said solutions.
Of course i again have to point out the issue of determining all the possible variables for this, as well the ever evolvinf piracy and malicious software industry that would inevitably find ways to bypass your solutions that Unity would need to endlessly combat, like antivirus vs malware.

"Q: Isn't this a huge impact on indies?
A: This price increase does not impact the majority of our customers. In fact, based on internal data, more than 90% of our customers will not be affected by this change"
Again this doesn't answer the question. It's well known the majority of your users are hobbyists that have never and will never release a game, making that a mostly useless stat. In other words 90% of customers are not indie devs or proffessional devs at all. However the question directly asks about indies and implies proffessional indies, as obviously only those earning over the thresholds are affected and to be earning that much must be selling the game in a proffesional capacity.
The intelligent marketing spin would have been something along the lines of indies having lower overheads. This starwman statistic is unlikely to fool most people and is easily proven objectively false. The general overheads of an indie are impossible to calculate on an industry scale, due to the sheer amount of varibales and enormous dataset involved. Not unlike calculating installation counts deterministicly.

 

To be fair, that would be a slightly better deal for a significant part of the market - there would no longer be an uncapped risk.

 

Except they need to know the revenue because of the revenue threshold. So they BOTH need self reported revenue and the inaccurate installs figure. Another reason why this idea is so utterly stupid.

 

It's the proprietary algorithm, of course. Don't you think they've already thought of that? It's all set up and ready to go. All they have to do is flip the switch on 1/1/24 and all installs will be 100% accurately calculated from then on. However, if you do suspect any fraud please know that its your responsibility to independently research and prove it has occurred. Otherwise please pay your invoice within 30 days or you will be sued.

 

WRONG! Please read the updates:

Q: Are these fees going to apply to games that have been out for years already? If you met the threshold 2 years ago, you'll start owing for any installs monthly from January, no? (in theory). It says they'll use previous installs to determine threshold eligibility & then you'll start owing them for the new ones.
A: Yes, assuming the game is eligible and distributing the Unity Runtime then runtime fees will apply. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.


Q: Are these charges applied retroactively?
A: No, the Runtime fees will not be applied retroactively. If, starting on Jan 1, 2024, you meet both the revenue and install threshold for a given game, you will only pay for net new installs happening after Jan 1, 2024. We'll look at your cumulative revenue and then installs from the past 12 months to see if you qualify for the thresholds of the new install fee but you won't pay for any installs or revenue that happened before Jan 1, 2024. Starting Jan 1, 2024, if you continue to meet the thresholds then you'll only pay for net new installs. Also, your qualifying for the install fee is measured every month on a rolling 12-month basis to ensure you're paying the correct amount.
(Updated, Sep 13)

 

Thank you for the info! Really appreciate that It's pretty unlikely I'll migrate my existing project (well, unless John Ravioli decides otherwise) but for future I'll try something else.

 

I am in a similar boat. I doubt I would be effected by the thresholds with my current project.. However what about future endeavors? Right now I'm mostly experimenting and learning, but I had plans to try and break into the market at some point..

Knowing what lies ahead makes all that effort seem for naught.

Even finishing my current project feels like a waste, as that is time I could spend learning Unreal or Godot.

 

So from this 'official example', once your game hits the Pro threshold, on 300 000 installs a month, you owe Unity $23.5k USD, or $0.13 per install per month (which excludes any fraudulent installs, bots, installs on different devices etc.)

No matter how you swing it, that's a death sentence for any F2P game.

 

Investors also consider future earnings and growth potential. Bad press and reputation can absolutely tank a stock. Will it happen here? It depends on just how bad this gets and how long the bad press lasts.

 

Yes sorry installs... -.-" I also get confused by that


Q: Are these fees going to apply to games that have been out for years already? If you met the threshold 2 years ago, you'll start owing for any installs monthly from January, no? (in theory). It says they'll use previous installs to determine threshold eligibility & then you'll start owing them for the new ones.
A: Yes, assuming the game is eligible and distributing the Unity Runtime then runtime fees will apply. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

Q: Are these charges applied retroactively?
A: No, the Runtime fees will not be applied retroactively. If, starting on Jan 1, 2024, you meet both the revenue and install threshold for a given game, you will only pay for net new installs happening after Jan 1, 2024. We'll look at your cumulative revenue and then installs from the past 12 months to see if you qualify for the thresholds of the new install fee but you won't pay for any installs or revenue that happened before Jan 1, 2024. Starting Jan 1, 2024, if you continue to meet the thresholds then you'll only pay for net new installs. Also, your qualifying for the install fee is measured every month on a rolling 12-month basis to ensure you're paying the correct amount.
(Updated, Sep 13)

 

Bro trust me you are confused.

 

What are you talking about? Please stop and take a breath. You are literally posting something that exactly confirms what I'm saying.

In January 2024 we will be over the thresholds as per our existing "install" count and prior 12 month revenue. All "installs" from Jan 1 2024 will be charged. This is the only thing I have ever said. I never said we would be charged for installs before Jan 1 2024.

Good work posting your attempt at correcting me on Twitter too by the way. You're killing it.

 

The moment some big developers take (even if disgusted) the unity game services, their stock will rise again.
It's clearly what they were targeting, and they went the worst way possible, but sady it might work.

 

SUPER EASY!

With handy, dandy, TRUST ME,BRO™️ statistics!

 

I think Microsoft should come out and say they are going to charge Unity $.30 for every install which includes .NET runtime. So Unity will lose $.10 on every install.

That is equally as ridiculous as Unity's plan. Companies like Microsoft want developers to use their product so it brings software into their ecosystem. I have never heard of a company sabotaging their own ecosystem like this by actively coming up with the most asinine way to charge for their product. I can't think of anything worse than installs and I will never relent until they do away with this plan.

 

This forum has started to stray from its intended focus, and I take responsibility for my part in contributing to this situation. To regain our direction and facilitate more meaningful exchanges, I suggest that we streamline our inquiries. We must keep in mind that Unity representatives may not have the capacity to review lengthy threads. Let's aim for concise and pertinent questions.

Q1. Regarding the 200 run-time hours limitation in the free version of Unity: Is this limitation related to Unity build time on the cloud?

A1. Yes, the 200 run-time hours limitation in the free version of Unity typically refers to the usage of Unity Cloud Build service for cloud-based build processing. It measures the cumulative run-time hours for cloud builds performed using Unity Cloud Build.

Q2. Concerning the porting of assets from the Unity Asset Store to other engines: Given the varying licenses associated with different assets, it's essential to emphasize the importance of carefully reviewing the license terms for each asset. Can you provide guidance on the significance of this practice for our safety?

A2. Absolutely, it's crucial to review the license terms of each asset on the Unity Asset Store before considering porting them to other engines. The licenses for assets can vary, and compliance with these licenses is essential to avoid potential legal issues. Always ensure you have the right to use assets in the intended way based on their specific licenses to safeguard your project and yourself legally.

1. For platforms such as PC, Mac, video game consoles, and VR, where opting out of Unity's changes might be challenging, do any viable alternatives or solutions exist?
   
   
2. Could Unity consider implementing a maximum percentage change that doesn't exceed a certain threshold? The potential for negative changes is a concern.
   
   
3. Can we establish an agreement regarding a grace period for already published titles, especially those nearing the 90-day mark leading up to the holiday season, to alleviate potential stress in December?
   
   
4. Concerning downloadable content added to a game, is this treated as a new installation, or can it be counted as a separate title with its own usage statistics?
   
   
5. Once these issues are addressed and resolved, can Unity commit to the stability of its licensing terms for a defined period, such as one year, two years, or more?
   

New concerns on forum below

1. . How will they be able to differentiate someone installing a purchase in January from someone reinstalling the purchase they made in December? So Do purchases made in 2023 count retro actively or can you sort them out?

By adhering to these succinct questions and recognizing that some of us are operating under rigid production schedules, we hope to maintain a productive and on-topic discussion. Timely responses are highly valued as we seek the clarity needed to meet our deadlines and navigate these important considerations.

 

it says very clear at least IMO: you will only pay for net new installs happening after Jan 1, 2024.

 

Once again, if someone does an install how will Unity know whether its a new sale or a reinstall of an old sale? There's no way for them to know this with any reliability and that's even with the super probey spyware they probably have in mind.

 

Yeah, wow! Point to where I've said otherwise. I'm talking about being charged for installs after Jan 1. Just stop, re-assess and if you feel like it, apologise.

 

Well, I'm convinced and will definitely entrust the survival of my company to Unity, who have demonstrated they're only ever willing to act in my best interests.

 

So we already know that the management board want to crash this plane. Badly.
God knows why.. ok but when Unity Technologies closes it doors, what then?

At least there won‘t be anyone guessing install numbers and collecting money anymore. It would be good to know how a bankruptcy would affect projects made in Unity

 

The only evidence this is the case is Unity's statement. If you're moderately successful, you can't be sure if you're already considered in the 10%.

Unity hasn't mentioned how they are estimating your revenue, or how exactly they are calculating installs. What they have said is Unity is who decides if and how much you pay.

 

Has anyone tried unreal recently HOLY god its good.

Coding C# Unity:

Code (CSharp):

1. using UnityEngine;
2.  
3. public class MoveObject : MonoBehaviour
4. {
5.     public float speed = 10f;
6.  
7.     void Update()
8.     {
9.         transform.Translate(Vector3.forward * speed * Time.deltaTime);
10.     }
11. }
12.  

Now similar code in Unreal c++ (looks ugly bcos "code" on this forum only supports c#

Code (CSharp):

1.  
2.  
3. class AMoveObject : public AActor
4. {
5.     GENERATED_BODY()
6. public:  AMoveObject()
7.     {
8.         PrimaryActorTick.bCanEverTick = true;
9.     }
10.     UPROPERTY(EditAnywhere, Category = "Movement")
11.     float speed = 10.f;
12. protected: virtual void Tick(float DeltaTime) override
13.     {
14.         Super::Tick(DeltaTime);
15.         FVector ForwardVector = GetActorForwardVector();
16.         FVector NewLocation = GetActorLocation() + (ForwardVector * speed * DeltaTime);
17.         SetActorLocation(NewLocation);
18.     }
19. };
20.  
21.  

It seems like a lot more code but dont forget if you did anything more complicated in unity the code will look like c++, also you can wrap a lot of code into nicer cleaner code similar to c#

 

As funny as that would be, Microsoft isn't dumb enough to trash their reputation and alienate all their customers by unilaterally changing how their dev stack works.

 

Some have suggested that if your game is doing well then you can afford an upgrade to an Enterprise license to take advantage of the higher starting revenue and download triggers and lower fees. What I haven't seen anywhere is a confirmation that you can do this. Upgrade your tier post release and have it recognised by Unity rather than being pinned at the tier you were at upon release. I'd say surely it would have to be the former but anything seems possible at the moment.

None of this is to minimise others' points about what a chaotic and deleterious move this proposed fee structure is. I've just finished a free game with a US $2 in app purchase to unlock the full game. In the highly unlikely event that it hits these (initial and exploratory) triggers it would be seriously affected as Unity has confirmed in FAQ updates that the free version would be taxed since it includes an IAP. In retrospect the inefficiency of old school separate demo and paid versions might have been advised.

I'm about to start on a refresh of two iOS games/experiences that I'd written way back in Objective C. I'll probably still stick with Unity for these as they are simple, short term propositions that would be most easily achieved through DOTS. I will be releasing them as seperate paid and free versions as the App store entries for these already exist and the free versions back in the day would have triggered payments and the paid version only raised $1 per copy.

What I won't be doing is starting on a VR/visionOS port of the more complex game I've just completed. Not just yet anyway, I want to see where Unity sits once the dust has settled. This is the problem that the Unity executive now face. Why should developers commit significant resources when the ground may shift again under their feet without notice or Unity's capacity to maintain their product may now be further compromised?

 

For sure. But I meant that they would only charge Unity. Everyone else can continue as usual. =)

 

Or you could just do all of this in blueprints.

I always viewed them as a gimmick, but it really does look like you don't have to dive into the code unless you want to:

 

A business partner who claims they can decide you owe them anything at anytime is an uncapped risk though. You couldn't invite more uncertainty and fiscal liability if you tried. The install-fee scheme is hardly anything next to that.

 

i don't think they are going to close but they need a good move to at least keep the ones that can not move to another engine, right now, i need to use unity until i finish one project... This is a storm right now i don't think i'm going to stay whatever they say

 

Lol... blueprints, take 20 minuttes to do that xD

 

If Unity was about to close, someone would buy them out....You have a ready product, u just need a better manager board .

 

Optimism is good. I can imagine a world where Unity goes out of business and the tech remains available. Right now this would be the best outcome for most? But maybe naive

 

How much time do you think it will take for someone to develop software that can bypass that "robust Unity security" without incurring reinstallation fees or to use some virtual machines.? With that software, they would only need to constantly install and uninstall the game on several machines to destroy someone's business.

If someone were to attempt this, I believe it could be done in just one day, what about you?

 

yea you’re right. It’s very late I should get some sleep haha

 

I agree the ultimate destination is more likely buy-out than bankruptcy, but at that point in time Unity could be an empty husk with no customer base.

 

I really can't really imagine it taking 20 minutes to drop a handful of boxes on a page and link them unless you're learning it for the first time. But even if that was true, I'd expect that there's some sort of way to easily save, copy and reuse blueprints if you are so inclined.

Regardless, its a nice alternative for coders who don't want to dive into the wonderful world of C++.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattpe...olleagues-former-exec-claims/?sh=38bfb7c0435a miren esto par de basuras que contratan a alguien que fue despedido de EA y de unity 2013 y lo contratan de nuevo 2014