Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

Hello , How unity will determine installation count ?
Lets say I have a android game created with unity game engine , with my personal licensee unity id.
Now after some time my android game reached threshold of installation and revenue , then where this data will display? in unity dashboard with my unity id? basically how unity will track the particular games installation count via unity id or something else?

if unity id is used for this purpose what will happed if i changed unity id (lets new unity id) from next build? then unity will count as new installation or count from previous?

 

I didnt say they need to make games. I said they need to be the best game makers company there is.

Not just a game engine, a game makers company.

 

Some people here has called the Unity Runtime "malware" perhaps as a form of hyperbole or half in jest, but... depending on how its blackbox data collection method works, the most ethical course of action may actually involve reporting the new Unity Runtime to security vendors.

 

for what i understand, you pay 5% of the frist 1m not the secnd

 

No you only start paying 5% after you make 1 million life time revenue.

 

Probably with more focus on anything non-engineering. And even then, having lots of engineering talent means very little when you have a culture that stifles your engineers.

 

That I agree with. But they fire that team

And my guess is that the other people they fired are also devs, not people for marketing or they're precious unity runtime.
they focus too much on microtranzaction, and too little on the engine itself. DOTS should have came out at least 1 year ago for example. UIToolkit is not really finished (not for in-game) and the list goes on.
but noooo, they bought ironsource, put a lot of useless stuff nobody asked for

 

Except it's Windows build minutes, so you won't be able to build for iOS.

 

Dude you are not helping or being smart here. Drop it.

 

And even after you meet that threshold, if you make less than $10,000 a quarter you owe Epic nothing.

 

It does not make sense for paid games-as-a-product though? If they only want to wage war on some f2p monetisation schemes, then they should limit their practices to that. What they are doing now is going to kill the whole mid-level indie market on Unity - and potentially the engine with it.

 

My main point was how they schemed all along to cause that kind of situation, and how they tried to militarize their Fortnite userbase to fight their battle. That is very scummy.

I don't know why you're trying to convince me that Unreal is better than Unity, considering I didn't endorse Unity in the first place. Rather, I want people to consider the pitfalls of choosing a commercial game engine.

As for Epic supporting the Godot development fund - do you think they're doing it because they love Godot so much, or because they're actively trying to hurt Unity? Anyone remember the promising Reality Engine back in the day? Epic Games bought them off and killed the engine as soon as they acquired it.

Epic Games aren't the champion of devs they're trying to make themselves out to be. They're snakes. It's disingenuous for Epic Games to proclaim themselves as advocates for developer rights while simultaneously enforcing exclusivity on their platform. The court battle vs Apple is ultimately a strategic business move designed to increase the market share and profitability of the Epic Games Store.

They are predators. They do what they can to try and dominate the market.

Technology ages incredibly fast.

No disagreement there.

... what?

 

I really do think that people like Riccitiello were thinking that gamedevs are the same as gamers. That he could just micro-transaction the hell out of the tools. But he failed to understand that we aren't the same. This isn't our entertainment that we can just casually walk away from. This is our livelihoods. This is a professional risk for many of us.

And don't think that companies like adobe aren't watching really close right now. Wondering if they can't do similar microtransactions for mundane things. Hmmm will they pay $0.001 for each pixel of resolution they want to work with on a new file? $0.0015 for 24 bits. $0.002 for 32 bits. The first three layers will be free but it'll be $1 for each additional after that.

 

You need to sort by years of release to see most recent game, and I think some of the recent ones are quite good

 

I think I'll just go with Stride

 

I would pick stride if they launch new version with webgl platform and shadergraph. They still lack multiple functionality and I am currently try to find engine with left handed coordinate system

 

Thank you, I think it's the best choice for me.

 

They are trying to fight Steamworks Networking. I don't agree with them but that is their goal.

 

Interestingly, there are almost no Unity employees or moderators in this discussion.

I can only assume that no one is willing to engage in a public defense of the company, as that would incur the wrath of the entire community, and effectively mean a ban on the game development industry. Anyone who expresses agreement with the developers opinions is effectively fired at once.

Despite the obvious problems, further discussion in this thread seems pointless. All the most important flaws of this approach have already been pointed out, further discussion will not bring any additional objective benefit, but only bury clearly and distinctly expressed thoughts.

I can understand developers emotions, as I use Unity myself and my future has become much less certain, but spilling them on the forum under the official statement will not change the official position of the company.

It seems to me that it's worth collecting all the main claims in one big message from the developers. Each developer should simply list their projects developed on Unity and their future plans to switch from Unity. This should help to outline the scale of the problem.

 

is this new pricing done retroactively? Can anyone show a source or proof? I can't find anything about that

 

The funny thing about the situation is that Unity is now like an ouroboros that is devouring itself.
I'll try to explain.

"90% of customers will not be affected by these changes."

Yes, maybe so, but 90% of those who will be affected are the people who pay you for licenses.
And most importantly, use your ad network.

As I understand it, the majority of Unity's revenue comes from advertising.
And most of the mobile advertising comes from hyper casual games.
99% of which are made on Unity.

A very average project that makes a profit is easily beyond the thresholds. You can pour 1 million into advertising and get 1.1 million back.

Your profit is 100 thousand, subtract half of the publisher, and here you have 50 thousand before taxes.
The team is usually 3-4 people. You can live and work on this money, but that's it.

Now let's add Unity on the Pro version to this equation.

The first 100 thousand installs - 15 000 dollars, up to 500 000 - 30 000, and let's get to a million, since we are talking about hypercasual game - 15 000.

That's $60,000 a month fee.
I repeat - every month.

Usually the publisher shifts this kind of cost to the developer.
Which means that they receive a bill for 10k$, but let it be a "good" publisher that will cover this fee from the profit first.

Now you divide 40,000 by 2 sides and the developer gets his 20,000.

Before taxes. Which is usually 50%.

Bottom line.

A team of 4 people work hard every month, have a good project that buys advertising and get something from (-10k to 10k) dollars per month.
Now it's more profitable for them to get a job at McDonald's.

And I remind you, it's likely that this team has already made Unity a profit by buying advertising.

Consequently, there are 2 options, first one is to delete the game which means there is no buying in the Unity Ads network.
No buying means Unity's most profitable segment suffers.

The second option is another engine.

Transferring a hypercasual game to another engine is a problem.
But not so big, when at stake is 720 thousand dollars a year of net income just for the refusal of Unity fees.

And this means that our hypothetical team won't be paying for Unity Pro anymore.

The lack of understanding of the market by the higher ups is astounding.

Unity created this ecosystem and even the slightest change can destroy it.
And it's Unity that suffers the most.

Maybe there will be someone who can explain it to their CEO but I'm a grown man and don't believe in miracles...

Stay strong guys, we will make it anyway.
It will be hard but this amazing community and creators won't disappear.
We will adapt as always.

Too bad I can't say the same about Unity Technologies.

 

Don't get me wrong, this is evil genius stuff and you're probably right. Also I wouldn't trust them further down the line anyway even if I just go with their ad network as a f2p dev myself. My next games will probably be godot.

 

Free for less than 100k in the last 12 months
https://unigine.com/get-unigine

 

Some info for those who still try to defend Unity:
1) This about the number, that you cannot possibly know, that unity pulls up for you telling you to pay "installs" you can't quantify.
2) Defending unity will potentially wake other engines too. If you validate "installs/trust me bro", other engines will most likely do that too, sooner or later. Supporting "xyz engine because they're angels" is delusional. Don't simp, but help fighting back.
3) 2) it's like micro-transactions and subscriptions. Your part in this, even a small reply trying to defend them because (insert your reason) pushes the whole industry to screw us up. People understand your reason, just don't make it flip the boat now.
4) Lowballing with a bad offer ("installs" are paid!) before re-negotiating (e.g. "ok, let's put the percentage at 7% then!"), is also a common (aggressive) practice. Defend the previous conditions instead. They have money enough.

 

Its somewhat complicated ( needlessly ), but with regard to the 'install tax'

From Changes to pricing and Unity plans 2023 FAQ | Unity

Will this fee apply to games using Unity Runtime that are already on the market on January 1, 2024?
Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. 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. For more details on when the fee may apply to your game, see When does the Unity Runtime Fee take effect?​

So if you have released any game, made any time in the past, using any version of Unity it is liable for the runtime fee, but only

IF per game title, the games revenue ( on a rolling 12 months period ) AND lifetime installs exceed the threshold numbers as stated for the Unity subscription plan you are currently on.
IF the above is true, then each new install ( have fun defining that ) beyond threshold of 'Lifetime installs' of that game from 1st Jan 2024 will incur the runtime fee based on the subscription plan and tier level (based on number of installs that month ).
However if you are exceeding the thresholds state above and are using the Personal subscription plan it will be in your best interest to upgrade to Pro plan as the thresholds are substantially higher and the fees lower!​

So the fees themselves are not retroactively applied to previous sales/installs of a game, the runtime-Fee system does apply to any game, released in the past, so that part is retroactive.

However you have to exceed $200k and 200k installs on personal plan, or for Pro plan exceed $1 million and 1 million installs before you start to be charged for each install pass the numbers.

 

A word of caution to those sheepherding people to another proprietary engine like Unreal: you are not fixing any issue, you are just setting up the next time bomb. The root issues as with Unity still apply.

Monetization model that operates based entirely on trust and can change on a whim? Check.

TOS written in a way that legally cover the engine maker's back? Check.

Vertical integration business model which incentivizes developers to stay locked in to the engine maker's ecosystem? Double check.

Cocos, Stride and Godot are all MIT licensed and charge no royalty. The only vertical integration they have is their asset stores. If you are serious about a long-term solution, use and support these MIT-licensed engines instead. Hell, contribute to their codebase, make some small pull requests. We all benefit from that. Found irritating bugs in those engines? You don't have to wait for these commercial engine makers to drag their feet, take the matters into your own hands and submit a pull request.

 

If a Steam game is developed and a user spends money to obtain the game, but then installs it on many different computers, I still have to foot the bill for this kind of action, which is clearly so unreasonable. Goodness!

 

Do streamed WebGL games have an install threshold?

Fwiw my studio won't knowingly ship a game with ironSource malware. If the 'choice' is between that or the ability to turn a profit, we'll use another game engine. Right now the ballooning instability (and broken trust) has us shopping around.

 

@TheOtherMonarch Hello,

If you installed 2023, yes, not if you installed Unity 2022.2.13, which is bound by a Previous ToS (before the April 3 ToS, 2023); Unity 2023.x and versions of Unity 2022 (After April 3, 2023) are bound by the April 3, 2023 ToS.
This specific ToS is the last ToS, and it contains the 'all fees' clause, and removed the 'you may elect to stay on a Previous Terms', so they can charge any fees -- like those (later) per-install fees in Jan 2024.

Before, April 3, 2023; it is the October 12, 2022 ToS, and this one, says: 'subscription fees' - only and it has the 'you may elect to stay on Previous Terms/ToS, if you feel these Updated Terms are against your rights'.
Thus, you if you downloaded Unity 2021.x, you are on October 12, 2022 ToS,

if you downloaded Unity 2022.2.13 version (March 31 Release),before April 3rd, 2023, you're on October 12, 2022 ToS

if you downloaded Unity 2022.2.14 version (April 5 Release), after April 3rd, 2023, you are on April 3, 2023 ToS.

Only this last one is 'retroactive' and has the 'all fees'....which can make you elligible for the January 2024 install fees and applies to All your previous version of Unity (because it was released After April 3, 2023 ToS update). For LTS, it's Unity 2021 LTS (March 29, 2023) version the last one. Thus, the ToS that is 'effective' for the installation fees/any fees later...is the April 3, 2023 ToS one. This is what I understood so far, I might be wrong of course, but I checked the last older ToS (March 2022 ToS, October 2022 ToS, April 2023 ToS) and it's at October 2022 ToS, the last ToS that has no reatroactivity and has only the 'subscription fees' in it; no, 'any fees' (that is present in the next ToS, April 2023).
Per-installation fees -- are not 'subscription fees'. They are (in) the 'any fees'.

 

The problem isn't that Unity needs to make more money per user. You're always going to see grumbling when prices increase, but that's not what the issue is here. The issue is that the cost increase is unpredictable. Lets look at ways people can be charged:

Charge as a revenue share. You price your game at $5 and know that x% of each sale goes to Unity. That is fine because it's predictable. Maybe the percentage is too high for your use case, or maybe it's not, but it can be determined up front, and then a decision to use Unity by a business can be made or not.

Charge by developer license. You look at the price of a developers salary and of other business overhead for them, and then you price in the software needed for them to do their work. You add all of this together for your dev team, weigh it against expected revenue, risks, and chances of success, and then make a decision on the project.

Charge by install. A business makes their best guess at how many times a user downloads their game. This is going to essentially be the number of sales multiplied by some multiplier. However, you cannot verify this number, and (so far) there is no legal or technical definition of what constitutes an installation. Unlike the other methods of charging, there is no defined term to what constitutes a charge, and no ability to accurately determine costs up front. This creates a massive risk for the business. Furthermore, Unity pushing for this, using a change to terms of service that were previously agreed to, means they've got no problem changing the terms of sale for already released projects. This is another massive risk.

Businesses, need predictability in costs because budgets need to be determined and risks evaluated. Installations is something developers can't control. A sale can be installed 0, 1, 100, or 1000 times and it is completely outside of your power to guess, evaluate, or verify (it's outside of Units power too for that matter). Undefined arbitrary terms that are subject to changes in costs is an unacceptable risk to a company.

 

Thanks, will I still be able to build locally?

 

After reading some discussions on other social media sites, I've come to realize Unity's employees could potentially download a copy of someones games.

Can Unity guarantee that any of their employees downloading a game would not count towards the install counts associated with the new fee?

 

No. The original post was updated - WebGL games are now exempt (no install fees).
Q: Does this affect WebGL and streamed games?
A: No, the Unity Runtime fee does not apply to WebGL games.
(Updated, Sep 13)

Edit: Ah - misunderstood threshold. They haven't clarified whether "installs" for WebGL are still tracked or not, just that there would be no related fee.

 

Thanks!

 

In a way, Ironsource's "reverse acquisition?" of Unity is far more worrisome than just having JR as CEO.

 

Is there any idea how Unity will collect the install data?

I only have some guesses. They could take these data directly from Steam, Epic Store, Google Play, App Store etc. But I do not think they would share this information with an untrustworthy Unity Software Inc.

 

Or stop a competitor from downloading to computers in the cloud?

 

It would definitely be a power move for Epic to release Unreal (at least UE4) under the GPL right now. They're making so much money off other products they probably wouldn't even realise they'd done it.

 

I have a question for Unity employees,

it is regarding the physical copies of my game, I'll assume that if a game is first installed on any hardware is counted as an "install".
my question is if the same user has multiple hardware purchases due to upgrade or replacement, do all of them count as new "install"?

 

I also personally believe Unity as a whole is underestimating the cost analysis major companies will do to avoid this, i.e. the people they actually want to make money off of, in their own words.

There is a user acquisition cost with every install in the mobile space, as a result of marketing and server costs. It can be as much as $4 per user. An extra .20 to .50 cents per user will weigh heavily in a decision on whether to continue supporting a legacy game and which engine to use in the next title.

I've personally seen developers use legacy engines made from bubblegum and duct tape, so I highly doubt they would scoff at using Godot at this point if it means cutting millions from their bottom line.

 

I'm just saying- if they ask for you to pay for installs, ask them to prove the game has been installed. if what they're saying is right, they can't prove the number in any legal or financially acceptable capacity.

 

Er, no. You pay Apple 15% unless you earned over $1 million. Then it's 30%.

Here's one I've played: ∆V: Rings of Saturn ... close to 1500 reviews on Steam, 94% positive. All 3 PC platforms and updated very (very) frequently.

They can not, as Apple doesn't give anyone that info. Don't know about the others.

--Eric

 

Those stores are under no obligation to comply and in some countries are legally prevented from releasing private information without consent so you can probably expect an emerging version of the TOS to have that consent built into it automatically.

 

It's still possible they would count the number when calculating rates, but just not charge a fee for the ones from WebGL. For example 345,000 installs of a desktop build plus 678,000 from web, with per-install rate determined from total but only invoiced for the desktop count. Hopefully though, "runtime fees do not apply to WebGL games" means completely untracked. @LeonhardP may be able to clarify.

 

The GPL is not going to work for commercial games.

 

I doubt that even steam has reliable numbers due to re-installs, pirated software etc. There is no way to get the correct install numbers on almost any platform.

Tbh, it doesn't really matter anymore because the main issue is the lost trust. They betrayed their whole development community with this and even deleted their Github TOS history. This company cannot be trusted anymore. Unless they fire the CEO + management, issue an apology, revert this miserable price policy and get rid of that Ironsource spyware.

 

Yes "We treat different devices as different installs. We don’t want to track identity across different devices."

 

As someone who has been using Unity since 2009 I also wanted to express my disgust against what Unity has done now. It is such a breach of trust that I find it hard to let this slide and continue using Unity.

In the past couple of months I've spend months of free time to build an open source project for Unity, because I've loved it and it's community since I started using it. I was planning on creating more Unity assets but I feel like they just completely killed the market. Maybe not instantly, but if this is not reverted and the management is replaced I cannot see any other outcome than the professional game devs leaving Unity due to trust issues.

This whole saga hurts, and it feels like I'm losing a 14 year long friendship...

 

For the real clever trick: build your game as WebGL and then turn it into a desktop game by wrapping the WebGL build in Electron. No runtime fee.