Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

Unreal allows for self reporting. So why can they do it and Unity can't?

Messed up information. Unity needs to gather it and make coherant and flow.

 

He used Monogame for Stardew Valley, so he is not switching engines.
https://www.monogame.net/showcase/

 

I just summed it up in another chat:


The biggest issue is that they went for a fee per install, that objectivly is the worst idea anyone can have.

They said they basically have a blackbox to find out if a game was installed, reinstalled, pirated, installed on a new device, which by itself is a +100 billion dollar tech that everyone in the game industry would love to have.

They don´t have that. This model ist also extremly unfair to everyone making free to play games. While at the same time damaging everyones future income, because people wont make free to play games with Unity anymore. Im a game dev myself and depending on what comes out from this, ill transition away from a free to play model and then to another engine. And it just opens up gateways of abuse for any game developer (install bombing, you take your game offline but it still triggers fees)

People reinstall games all the time. Its just the most stupid idea a buisness in this market can suggest, while simultaneously trying gaslight the whole industry. And from what it seems, they wanted to go this way, so they can push their own AD buisness. Thats were the money is at.

What they forgot, is that their AD buisness is fundamentally tied to the Unity game engine.
Its absolutly baffeling that this went trough in the way it did, its the worst buisness desicion in the history of games.
They could have just introduced a revenue share of 4% with certain layers and added a reduction in those fees as long as people are using their AD network. And rolled that in over the next 12 months. It would have been a win win for everyone over the long run, strenghtening their AD buisness, while simultaneously getting an advantage over their competitors. And while also reducing the fees of the editor itself.

But their marketing strategy was literally like this: "Yo developers, we are having a pay per install fee, that we measure with our magic blackbox, it is possible to bankrupt some of you, but if it does, you can write us an email If someone pirates your game its really sad, we still count those installs, but please write us an email If you do not want us to bankrupt you, you can start using our great AD services...... IT ONLY AFFECTS THOSE OF YOU MAKING MONEEYYY WHY ARE YOU MAD".

They are a company were 50% of mobile games are made with. Its a golden goose. But hell i have never seen a company act like whatever the f this was.

 

Unreal does not care about installs. Only revenue.

 

You missed my point. I was talking about installs not about revenue.

 

Unreal expects revenue data from you, Unity currently is planning install data. Unreal based its pricing on money you have coming in (more or less), Unity made up a statistics no one ever were able to track by any means.

 

Honestly, if they are going to keep the same current management and board

You are constantly forgetting that this fee is based on INSTALLS, something none of us can even MEASURE...

And, basically, that´s an stupid metric.

REVENUE is the only acceptable metric, and, of course, it needs to be capped, otherwise big studios will just jump off.

 

Unreal are asking for self-reporting of revenue, which the developer can obviously track.
But Unity are charging based on install count, which absolutely noone can track. You cant self-report something you cannot measure.

 

I'd be happy with 4% over 1m+ with no need to subscribe to remove the splash screen, but Unity tracking game installs/My players is still a deal breaker for me. Do hope they just do a rev cut and drop the install nonsense, plus considering there current financial situation is wasting resources on creating a tracking system really a good idea? Plenty other things that need sorting out in the engine first.

 

Ya, I don’t like the per install fee, BUT… if Unity does this, it’s a way for them to do it that doesn’t require us all to give 4 or 5% of our revenue indefinitely. The money we spend, we spend it once per user. And if we don’t make any money from the user, it’s okay, because of the percentage cap.

If you had an option between 4% of revenue and paying per install w a 4% revenue cap, which would be better?

The answer is… per install w a revenue cap… because either way you’re paying the exact same - but w the per install fee, you technically could pay nothing… if you don’t meet that requirement.

I still think the community should fight for no revenue share or install fee, because our success is our business, and we should only pay for what we buy, which is a license.

But I don’t think unity changing to a simple revenue share would be the win that some think it is.

 

I meant installs as well. Now, I could be wrong about Unreal. I guess I should see if the information is correct.

The recently promised "changes" to Unity's controversial new per-install fee plan for developers could include hard limits based on a company's total revenue and developer self-reporting of installation numbers, according to a new report.

 

You also pay for the privilege of having unity telemarketers come after you. Their "success team" was constantly sending me updates and trying to schedule consultations with me about ad integration or analytics, stuff I had no interest in. Getting the success team to shut up AND save money by switching to Plus was win-win.

 

What if it was reinstate Plus, 4% after $200k(Personal/Plus)/$1M(Pro), Unity Splashscreen restriction lifted for all tiers?

 

Im not defending their language; I think they chose very bad messaging.

Yes, and they are working on it. Getting and processing feedback, coming up with changes to a pricing strategy and then getting feedback on that is NOT something you can put out over night. There are huge reprocussions to the company based on this next announcement (both in terms of revenue and industry mindshare/reaction) so I appreciate they are taking their time with it first.

And absolutely it does have to align with a quarterly finance report/call. Thats how publicly traded companies operate. It will be by far the biggest talking point in that meeting.

 

Please do. I think you'll see the point that is being brought up in context.

 

Ya that is a huge change.

And I barely see anyone talking about. Unity is becoming so expensive.

 

He used XNA for Stardew Valley, but it's kinda the same btw :d

 

No one care about installs, basically because it makes non sense and is stupid...


EVEN if Unity succeed in implementing their evil plan, developers would be bankrupt long before they could even pay as much as unity intended.

 

Steam reports don't show anything about install numbers.

 

Not sure if it was posted already: https://appleinsider.com/articles/2...pricing-will-be-a-long-term-problem-for-apple

Mostly rehash of what is already known. They do bring up potential impact to apple though to their Apple Vision Pro.

 

Isn't that today? So they will have to put out an update before that.

 

I have no problem paying for Unity. I'm VERY happy to support it. But when they're charging me 450% more per month, making the price of Unity only second to my electric bill, with ZERO additional benefit, that's just stupid.

 

I never said that they weren't working on it, I said they needed to communicate that they were still working on it after they said they would get back to us after a couple of days. I know how publically traded companies work I have worked with many of them. We agree to disagree then about your perspective of alignment with quarterly finance reports. No worries, Cheers.

 

It has only been 10 days, so considering what's at stake, it's very unlikely anything of the sort has been signed now.
Their lawyers are likely still trying to figure out if Unity can pull out this stunt. (I've signed a bunch of contracts in my life with a lot less at stake and none of them in less than 10 days)

 

All engines have pros & cons, heck there were times when Unity was in the same place Godot is now when compared to say Unreal and even today I know several developers who got fed up with Unity way before this latest fiasco and moved to alternative engines and are much happier for it.

There is no secret agenda, almost everyone is in the same boat and trying to figure out what they can do if Unity do not walk this back. Some will switch to Godot, those that need demanding 3d graphics to Flax, Stride or most likely Unreal. Some will move to multiple engines using whichever best fits the needs of their current project.

No one should be 'pushed' to 'another big issue', because everyone is independent, their own free agent, but its on them to perform their own due diligence on the engines they are looking at. The great thing about this thread is the collective information that is being gathered about these other engines, pointing out potential problems with their EULA or capabilities.

 

No, it hasn't been posted yet, but we talked about the same topic. This is, for example, my first post about it:

 

If Unity are so strapped for cash then they can do the following:
- Stop buying random companies for millions and billions. Sell them. Less is more. Only buy companies that can help the product short-term.
- Stop giving execs hundreds of millions in compensation.
- Be honest publicly. 'Making a game engine is really expensive so we have to do something wild like double the subscription fee'. People aren't dumb and will figure it out when they read the financials. Even Epic was in a dangerous spot twice and almost went bankrupt but managed to break out of it by changing strategy effectively and tactically (Selling 48% to Tencent and then also cloning PUBG to make Fortnite BR because they had already burnt a ton of money on the base Fortnite game and Paragon). Now they are sitting pretty comfy and still a private company.

 

I loved libgdx, but it's just a framework, not a full game engine.
Here's a little bit of my journey from a 2019 post:
https://forum.unity.com/threads/ten-years-with-unity.668107/#post-4482787

If you bothered to read it, the gondola is currently stalled.

 

Looks like you were spot on. O boy...

 

Steam provides unit sales numbers. Unity wants install numbers and has their embedded spyware + AI model as a verification. Not all store fronts even give you unit sales numbers, and I am not sure how accurate Steam numbers really are. For example, I don't know how returns are handled with Steam numbers.


The Steam numbers are just for analytic purposes and not designed to be relied on for billing. The only numbers I trust to be reliable on Steam are on the 1099-K.

 

They really want to use sales count, but really don't at the same time because Unity suffers from the lack of self-reporting. I suspect there's a lot of skating that goes on with the Free tier which contractually had a revenue limit, but absolutely no reason for anyone to abide by it. Backend tracking/estimation of installation counts is a non precise but useful proxy for sales data, edge cases (which everyone has pointed out by now) not-withstanding.

The simplest method would have been to require self-reporting of sales. Unreal however, does not. They carrot that by giving you an $1M exemption if you do. Those that skirt there will be met with Epic audits, likely spurred by tracking public sales data and other things like.... estimated installations. There's no enticement carrot method I can think of without resorting to set revenue fees like Unreal. Irony that someone at Unity likely thought they'd be upfront and clear about it, and maybe be fee competitive with Unreal at the same time. A set fee % and reporting would have obliterated the competitive advantage they have.

* To be clear, one can use GDPR complaint (and other privacy laws) methods to guesstimate location of active users. Good enough to initiate audits. Not necessarily good enough to bind fees to. I have no idea how they'll reconcile the new 'only first install' though as that part I cannot fathom could be GDPR compliant. I'm patiently waiting to be surprised.

 

Installs are only interesting when you the distributor. The shop fees include a "lifelong" Cycle of Downloads/Reinstalls.

And thats the problem, Unity is no Distributor and has no shares at download process. Unity has no legal ground to involve Steam, Microsoft, Nitendo etc. ... for Sales or Download numbers. The Unity conctract is between you as developer and Unity and has no right to involve third parties. Another problem can be the theoretical contracts between Steam and Microsoft. What when Steams go to court because Microsoft is unfair advantaged because Gamepass installs are excluded? Tell the court that Gamepass installs are different from normal installs because what? Not every buys it? Why not only Sale Numbers is the next question.

 

I wonder when Unity will be back from the store. They said they were going out to buy milk four days ago now!

 

Doing it as a metric against installs is plain bad. If it was going to be a run-time fee (also bad) - then at least having it against Sales would be a million times better than Installs

 

Epic does not require sales numbers. They require revenue which you can get from all store fronts.

 

Yes, they could sell the entire mobile-ads and mediation section. That ugly monster IronSource. I'm pretty sure AppLovin would buy it up with some change if they could pass the mandatory regulatory rounds.

 

He thinks the tracking is "really the issue" and focuses purely on money. I don't agree.

It's not "better". It's worse in every way. You are purely focusing on money. If they charged $0.005 "per play" and it worked out cheaper, you think that would be "better"? Some of you need to look at the big picture.

Charging for installs/runs of a built file is unacceptable as a concept. You are opening Pandora's box.

A 5% on revenue is acceptable, even if it costs you more. Why? Because the trade-off is that the engine is 100% FREE instead of $250,000 (old Unreal Engine price). If the engine isn't free, then they have no business even charging a royalty. Unreal couldn't charge $2000 per seat and also take 5% and get away with it.

Unity's issue is that they don't want to give up their seat pricing monthly income..

Sadly, they are ironsource due to the merger.

 

Thank you so much for that video. It is easy to understand and very well done. I appreciate the hope as well. Thanks Pantang and Thomas

 

Small addendum - Unity is expecting both installs and revenue, so they have just increased the complexity and effort required.

 

That should've been up like, 8 days ago.

 

You mean where the bulk of their money comes from? Parsec and Weta would make more sense. Really everything to do with film and TV production.

 

I mean the ugly cave this whole ordeal we are currently in is coming from.

 

Entirely possible in some cases. However, most definitely not the case in some that I have heard. Think about it this way, for companies like MiHoYo, this fee is like a fleabite compared to the cost of switching to Unreal or developing an inhouse engine. Why would MiHoYo have been offered a special deal *just for this case* when they have literally nowhere to turn that's cheaper? The same is true for most large devs who would be the targets here. They also would have no reason to speak out publicly for reasons of their own that do not require them to be bound by an agreement.

Now Microsoft Gamepass would *have* to have been arranged ahead of time, but the fact that Microsoft is saying nothing makes it relatively clear that Microsoft was *never* consulted.

 

I've tried to give this a rest but umm it's been waay too long for Unity to be this quiet. At the very least they couldve said we are 100% full stop on any changes, we know this was 100% wrong thing to do to the community and how we went about it was wrong.. But no.. All we get is "We are still doing that stupid thing that cost us the gross majority of our users but we are trying to figure out how to use words that make us sound less stupid for doing it.."

 

"Updating the runtime fee" sounds like it's sticking around. I appreciate it will take time to update their policy but its painful waiting.

 

Not to mention that all of the investment and effort into fortnite was investment that went straight back into the engine and accelerated development of it, whereas Unity's choices have mostly damaged the core product - tacking half-baked features on and buying companies that really have nothing to do with it - until they are really a mile behind at this point.

Sometimes it's seemed like Unity wanted to pivot away from game development altogether, although into what exactly is not clear. To bin Gigaya - a proper demo of your core product which is something that every asset store developer knows is the most important piece of marketing material you have - in favor of random spending sprees is just difficult to understand.

Unity have long needed to do two things:
1. Double down on their core product
2. Figure out a way to charge people for that core product

A lot of software has the same problem, and still manages to figure it out without too much trouble.

 

but i do not understand something, if this is real, then they want you to pay 4% after 1m right? pretty cool, ok... so what i do not understand is, what will happend with the installations counts and all that? are they going to make you pay for installations until you reach the 1m?

 

They are doing that already. Mobile ads and mediation is Unity's core product, apparently and everything is slave to that.

Admittedly English is not my first language, but it sounds to me that you will have a 4% cap only if you make 1M or more, under that you won't have the cap. But this is an old leak at this point, I don't think it will be relevant.

 

also, they could sell the Create division and concentrate on ads. that would be great.

 

Below a million you dont pay anything at all if using Pro, at least from what they mentioned before