Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

I understand your sentiment, but the guitar isnt necessary to hear the song, the book doesnt contain a copy of Word.

Many developers accept that a significant part of their game is the engine, and that what is being sold is partially someone else's code.

Much as Fender pay for the wood they use, or a publisher pays for the paper.

Also, please dont think for a second that recording musicians or writers manage to keep 95% of their revenue...

 

It is nothing else than damage control why NDA if things would not be actually improving....

 

that was my last game with Unity. I'm sorry, but this idea hurts.

 

In a publicly traded company you don't have many choices.

 

I've been looking at Godot since 2 days. The c# looks very similar to unity s minus playing with floats. Always a good thing.

Plus - there's a lot more tutorials nowadays with Godot also which used to be a complaint 2 years ago.

PLUS Godot now has some worthy assets we can download and use for free. Another complaint 2 years ago.

PLUS Godot has more features in 2D than unity does. The tilemap system is really good. Particles are there, lighting is catered for 2D...

Oh and we have chatgpt to help convert some of your unity logic to Godot.

No game buddy. Unity's out.

 

Yeah, but from the perspective of management, they would never do this, because no one would ever use 2024.x

 

100% correct. There would have been close to zero backlash.

 

At the current situation this just looks even more shady.
For me no way back, no matter how much they will now follow their magic plan to reduce stuff and make it look less horrible.

 

Close enough to set upperbound, but more detailed would be a rolling 12 month which would reduce it a tiny bit if not all the revenue is from that first month. The grace period is having to hit both $200k AND 200k installs after which, while your rolling 12 month is over $200k, you'll get dinged for the installs each month. Given how install graphs tend to be, I don't think it's that big of a change though unless one has an extremely long tail > 12 months.

 

That's fine, your feelings are valid, but reality won't bend towards that regardless. I'm pretty much with you when it comes to the real issues though.

 

I wouldnt disagree with that assertion. But I dont actually believe myself that they bought Weta for game engine usage.

 

They have stated two days by now that it will NOT be a "calling home" system. So the whole install bomb thing is not possible: https://forum.unity.com/threads/uni...ackaging-updates.1482750/page-55#post-9299384

 

several conceivable reasons, including not having a consensus where it matters.

 

I think it reveals a lot about the executive team at Unity that this wasn't what they did to begin with.

And I don't think it was a mistake or a result of incompetence.

They did what they did on purpose.

I have come to the conclusion that they don't care about their employees, the developers, the end-users, or the broader community.

 

Anything is possible when your numbers don’t need to be based on reality.

 

No, Unity will not assume people doing install bombing and bill you for that, lol.

 

Godot leadership has repeatedly shown this will not be the case and the ongoing state of its postprocessing and general shader creation shows this.

 

Hello Mike, just my 2 c.. (TL DR (if too long, and for others): companies try to survive, and nobody really wants 'more royalty fees'...a 1-done deal is best...but, is not always possible and wished by all..especially, by the maker/creator of whatever..they sell.)

I can understand the point (or, at least, imagine)...

I think that what is happening with Unity or Unreal...or certain other creators of some product...
most, of them, are a '1-time purchase' (royalty-free)...and done deal.

But, some are not, and not royalty-free; they have 'more royalties' to be paid; therefore, not 'royalty-Free'
(Royalty-free, means you pay once, and then, done, no more Other royalties to pay).

So, the model that some companies use is the 'not royalty-free' model, which is the 'royalty-as long as we say so'...model, which means, you will have to pay 'more' After you Already Paid the '1st purchase price'....you're not done.

I have seen this in Assets...where Most of them are Royalty-Free...you pay once, and done, you can use the asset...but some, no. It is not Royalty-Free...they even Specify It..''if you buy my song, my image, my asset...you pay the first upfront cost...and there may be other costs afterwards''.
Litterally...

It is oftenly seen in songs, like I saw this on several 'music songs for commercial production' websites; many are very egregious in their licensing (wanting to rip me off) and are like :''well, you pay a license cost first 'the royalty'....and then...you might pay more...because there are 'other specifications' and 'restrictions'....'Oh and Btw...if you make 1 million dollars...you will have to pay us more.''.

That's the license in a nutshell to obtain the product.

Like, I kid you not...I had to Fight an asset creator (on cgtrader) because apparently..me paying 1 price - and done...was not enough; and the asset creator...felt that if I used his asset...I could ripp him off...if my game made too much money...so I would have to pay him -- depending my game's financial success....

Look, Mike, (just my 2 c), I understand that an asset creator -- or in this case -- an Engine Maker...like Unity...
does not want the 'end user' of their product...to profit a bit too much...and they don't...since, we use their product.
Now, of course, you were talking about Your product..the game You made...so you are entitled to All the profit from Your game...(like you said with the guitar example...or psp example); so why would we give more money to the asset creator or the engine maker...from the 'selling' of our product (our game)...

Because, they feel, that 'that guitar they sold to us'...or 'that song'....or 'that engine'...well, we 'reaping' a bit too much of it... in 'financial success'....that is.

That guitar maker, that song composer, that engine maker....they want the same as us..to be profitable.

To continue to exist as company/creator etc....Now, of course, it is much better to make a 1-up front price/cost..and done....and no complications, and the 'end user' of that product...can go and make song (with that guitar), or make a 'game' with audio in it (using songs from composers)...or make a game (from that game engine maker, namely, Unity).

So, I understood, why this asset guy on cgtrader was so adamant on me 'to come back at me' 'if ever I make too much money' from his asset..Hey I told him:

''Hey...I understand totally...I know you are struggling, and you are an excellent asset creator, extrmely talented, and it is why I am so interested in your products.....but, I told the website about this, and I don't think this will work.''.

I had bought this asset...and later refunded and explained the situation to the website....and it waas done...I did not want to, I could leave the moeny I gave him..and feell bad for him..It'S not my thing to use his asset and make a Ton of Cash from 'on his back/from his sweat'......but that's the thing, Mike,
when you sell that asset....you 'disengage' the buyer...and you Know that this end user..Might Become Rich..if the asset they used..to make a product with Becomes a Huge Success..financially..you Accept That...when you start seeling your asset or whatever...
That' what I also told him (that asset creator)...

I told him this: ''Look, I understand, and wis hto be fair for both of us....if you feel I will rip you off..because you wil 'get back at me..if my game makes too much money for your taste'....then I understand...totally...so in this, case, I really think you should alter 'the specifications' and 'requirements' in order for me to purchase your product'...if you wish, you can increase the license price that 5-times....so that I will pay 5-times more to obtain your product...this way I, feel, I wil have compensated you more...adn you wiill feell compensated...and won'T feel uncompensate..Should I Ever make 1 billion dollars by my game..using your asset.''.

So, I totally understand, Mike, where you're getting at with, with the ''they can'T get back at me...to ask me for more money..I paid them - that license - Done.''...And, most 'any product' sellers, work like that, it is the biggest one...
but not all; and some, as said, do not do the Royalty-Free -- pay once, and done, you can do whatever you want with the product. No, nope, they want you to pay more -- If Ever...you would make too much money (later).
So it's why they put 'not royalty-free'....and often it'S like a 'bracket/tiered-license'..where it says:
''If you make 10,000 bucks...it'S this license'', ''if you make 100,000bucks...it's this license'' etc etc...
so, immediatelyl, you know that they do this because they are trying to 'recoup' - From Your Financial Success...
They don'T want you to 'disengaged' 'from them' / 'decoupled' from them...(your financial returned - decoupled - Of Them; they 'hold' your financial return, by telling you 'have to pay more/more royalties'...because you make 'Too much' money from Our product you use...(like that guitar, that song..or that Unity engine))....And, right now, Unity has struggled to maintain financial viability (as company). They bought huge things (bilions of dollars) and now they are in red (- minus profit..they make Revenue -Not Profit;; profit is not same as revenue...'gross revenue'..means notthing..it's NET Profit..that matters because it'S Once All Is Done/Paid/Debts/Taxes..etc etc..you're left with the 'net' 'profit'...and their profit is Negative - no profit/unprofitable.) And you cannot continue a company, at 'no profit'. you incur debt and layoff and 'just don't have the money' to 'exist' as company anymore (bankruptcy, cannot repay investor money. 'don't make money - no profit/'At a Loss'')...it'S why that Unity did this 'diversification' of buying 'these Non-gaming related' companies/things (like Ziva, Weta, technology) they tried to gain the VFX/Film market, that is Another market..than the mobile games/pc games/'games' market...which is what Unity engine is at the base...we know..but them 'struggling' meant them 'findiing wats 'to monetize' 'other ways' and so it'S why they now do this per install fees...to try to monetize somehow; now, of course, some say, it was a wrong move to buy/acquisition of these other companies (billions of dollars 'wasted'...and thus, 'it's your fault' you mismananged the money you had by making these purchases...but they did them because-- they were trying to 'Diversify' and 'make up/recoup/ROI'....they could have done, what people say, the 'Unreal' 5% rev share....but I think they could not (for some other reason).. like, perhaps, it was 'not best' altogether, in their situation/circumstances/what developed (happened) in the last years, and ours...

Sorry for the length. Just my 2 cents.

 

They make up random numbers anyway, they don't have to, it's built in the system.

And we haven't talked about the giant performance glitch they had in their 3D demo level for multiple years. IDK if they fixed it already though.

 

It depends on the kind of new technologies they would introduce in the new versions. If they didn't take 2024, maybe in 2025, they would still need to do something to justify that price increase, just like the significant difference from Unreal 4 to Unreal 5.

If something is introduced that can speed up the game development process and thereby make it easier for companies and reduce costs, everyone would accept such conditions. And the development costs of such technologies by Unity would be compensated by all those companies being satisfied with the new versions and having to accept new contracts. Because realistically, you can't just come and change the price as they did.

And I must mention that I'm not a manager or heavily involved in finance; I'm speaking purely from a logical perspective. I may be talking nonsense, but personally, it seems logical to me.

 

If I may point out to those saying "too little, too late", we don't have to forgive them in order for this to work out for the better. Changing your codebase to a new engine is a huge undertaking. If we can do enough to delay the change for a period of time, that will protect a lot of developers who want to walk away.

 

Why not? Because they stated they wouldn’t? Just like they said they won’t change the terms retroactively?

 

3 big publisher already begin to shut down studios and games that are using unity , other deactivated their ads

 

Best case scenario is that they walk this back so that existing games and games that are maybe a year out from completion will not be affected.
After that we can all start any new games/projects on a different engine.

 

Citation needed.

 

If there's one Dev for Unity that I'd love to see take an interest in Godot and enhancing the engine would be Jason Booth. That guy is a force to be reckoned with based on his knowledge and amazing shader and terrain work. He's also amazing at optimizing, as well. I'm sure he's far too busy for that, but one can dream...

 

The easiest way would be to base it on self reported sales numbers for the PC/console side. Unity has said they may even "under report" install numbers with conservative estimates.

On the mobile side, Apple and Google already comprehensively track metrics like downloads and installs. It's very easy for Unity to get that info accurately, either by working directly with those companies or from the developers themselves

 

Introducing the Photoshop Image Fee. When you take Unity's pricing model, and their exact wording trying to explain the policy, and apply it to something like Photoshop... there's no ambiguity to how astonishingly absurd it is.

 

But why?

Yall are basically saying they should give us a grace period so we can screw them for free. Just stay grounded on reality people. And that reality includes taking into account what they can do and not what you wish they would do.

 

We've been in contact with a Unity Partner Advisor via email since the announcement. They've tried to answer our questions and concerns as we went back and forth a few times. However, their latest email didn't answer any more questions and instead they asked us to wait and "we look forward to sharing more information with you soon".

Keep applying the pressure folks.

 

Yea this is basically the greatest upshot to an Open-Source Engine like Godot. If it lacks somewhere, people can improve those areas themselves (including ourselves).
Forks of the project can even be made if necessary.

 

Also would appreciate some citation on this. Not even to defend unity, you cant just drop that. That is a very important info for both sides.

 

Are you saying this of your own free will? Are you under any duress?

 

Are they really that big?

 

It's not about the capability of the team, it's about the interest in implementing these features in any meaningful way in the first place. For instance, it still barely properly supports multi-pass postprocessing and the way it does is a total hack.

https://docs.godotengine.org/en/sta...ostprocessing.html#multi-pass-post-processing

 

That's before all this mess. I don't think they would have dreamt of Unity messing up so bad that veterans would probably leave to take up Godot. Besides, I think open source is a good challenge to take on. Plus it's free. Can't beat that.

 

People say this literally every time something happens but the same leadership has said that they really don't want to try and compete in that space. I have been doing proper evaluations as a graphics programmer on Godot for years and the issues are as much leadership as they are technical.

This is basically "year of linux on the desktop" but for game engines.

 

Do you really feel that moving to a new engine is "screwing them"? What, out of their right to retroactively alter an agreement and send you a bill for the actions of a third party? This level of corporate dickriding is hard to wrap your head around. Like damn.

 

I hear you. At this point we are not interested in Godot for porting our 3D work, I am looking at other options this weekend like Flax. However, for 2D and mobile games I think it will work well for most people.

Edited to add: If Godot can get the graphics at least to the level of Unity's built-in rendering pipeline I think many indie devs would be happy. Obviously, Unreal levels are out of the question.

 

Yep, there would have been a lot of disappointment, and people looking at how the numbers work out. A bunch of projects would have stayed back on 2023.x and earlier to avoid the additional costs, but we saw the same thing with projects staying on 5.x to avoid paying a monthly fee for 20xx.x. There wouldn't have been anyone screaming about breech of trust. It would have been a calm discussion about the financial implications going forward.

 

Here are my terms.

• TOS stays with the version. No retro active crap.
• No Runtime fees, come up with something more reasonable, and time so that we can decide. Not Unity deciding for us.
• No fee charging based on metrics out of your ass.
• Choose between subscription or royalty, not both.
• JR and his people resign.
• All those who left the company in protest is reinstated
• Apologize to app devs and Apploving.
• Make a public apology about the mess you caused, an actual apology.
• Make a stone statue in Unity HQ so that this event is remembered.

 

The only way to opt out is not renew your plan at all.

>When does the Unity Runtime Fee take effect?
>The Unity Runtime Fee takes effect, if applicable based on revenue and install thresholds, on January 1, 2024.
>For existing customers renewing their paid Unity subscription plan between now and beyond, the policy will apply upon renewal and the fee will take effect on January 1, 2024.

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com...77m-revenue-lift-from-runtime-fees-1032634466

apparently investors are happy
if they make money for two years before unity goes bankrupt is ok for them...

 

There was no agreement. ToS are not legally binding. They can change at will. The same exact thing can happen with Unreal ToS. If you want an agreement, you have to make one. Negotiate a legally binding contract with Unity, just like all the big publishers do. You think Nintendo and Blizzard are going to the subscription page and clicking "buy now" and entering their credit card info for the annual billing? Lol

 

Dude, other people are working with real money and some people have very tight budget. Having a grace period even is better than whatever S***-show we're having right now. If people are allowed to finish their current project and move off the Unity ecosystem gracefully is much better than this.

 

Look I ain't saying this is going to happen in the next year or even two, all I'm saying is if Godot gets a big contribution to it's fund and a decent size of contributors - things can change. It can change leadership's plans. If there's anything I learned about leadership, it's that they don't like to stay the same for more than 2.5 years. Godot 4 was already a big improvement. Who knows what Godot 8 can be. Eh?

 

And you believe them? Unity has every reason to want install bombing to happen.

 

Agreements don't have to be signed explicity to exist. There are such things as implied and constructive contracts.

 

I've been working with Unity for over 10 years professionally and personally now. While I truly love the engine, there have been some really aggravating decisions being made for some time now. This recent issue was just the massive gut check to make me truly consider my options.
It would have been great if this whole thing never happened and Unity stayed true to how they had positioned themselves as the Engine that supports independent devs.
The problem now though is that this has broken the trust of so many of us. Even if they completely walk this disaster back, I can no longer trust that they will never try this or something like this a year from now, 2 years from now, etc. Why should I bother putting any future work I do with the engine in a vulnerable state like this again?

The only way that I could have some re-assurances is if the leadership at Unity all resigned, but that's not happening. Unity is also publicly traded now and those on the board aren't any better and may have ultimately been to blame for this decision as well.