Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

The fact this happened in the first place proves they are totally incompetent and do not understand the beast they are in charge of.

The fact this is day 10 of failing to fix it, proves it a second time.

Unity! Fair % of revs, tied to editor version, not retroactive, forget installs/runtime. Or game over for you. Stop doing mental gymnastics - There is no other solution.

 

Hypothetically, let's assume that this turns out to be true. Then there are two major questions that come to mind:

How is the fee determined? Based on self-reported installations? Sales? Revenue? Is this some version of 'pay per X' with maximum revenue cap? If it were about a standard revenue share, there probably wouldn't be the word 'cap'.

Does 2024 refer to changes only for editor versions released in 2024 and onwards, or does it indicate retroactive adjustments for all versions, with 'counters' starting from 2024?

 

Look we all know the management is incompetent, unfortunately...
But I think it's a good think it takes longer.
That means (at least in theory, we'll see if that's true when the new changes will be published) that they really think of changing this runtime fee price model with a better one. Or at least I hope it is. If the announced the changes right away it was only a tweek that was actually prepared ahead of time. My 20 cents...

 

The only major question is if they flip-flop like this over major decisions and can't keep their word then how can anyone make plans based on what they say?

 

There should be an asterisk.
*If your C# code does not reference any Unity API. So if you have some abstraction and the Unity part only communicates with it that is true. But that is true for any engine that supports the same or newer C# version.

 

Unity it would be correct and respectful towards your users to post an update on the situation. This uncertainty has created great stress in many of us.

 

I thought only Putin still practiced defenestration of his oligarchs. But in this case I guess we can make an exception.

 

news coming up today,


https://twitter.com/willgoldstone/status/1705115457664036996

 

https://investorplace.com/2023/09/g...-looks-like-it-as-game-developers-ditch-unity

Another interesting investment article. A big change from the early cheerleading from analysts about these changes, now more and more sites seem to realise the long-term damage Unity is doing to itself.

My favourite line/bulletpoint:

"These monetization changes might help U stock in the short term but doom it in the long run."

 

I heard Unity has invested a lot of money in AI, so I guess this is a plan for them to legally replace the new CEO LOL
https://dictador.com/the-first-robot-ceo-in-a-global-company/

 

Hmm. I'm a little optimistic but still ready for disappointment.

 

At last some news, good if come up with an announcement this week

 

They could have reverted everything and said "S***, WE MESSED UP - WE TAKE ALL THIS BACK. THE EARLIER TERMS REMAIN. SORRY."

And added "We still need to update our revenue model and we start working with you to figure out what could be the way to go forward."

Instead they said "We'll update in a couple of days".

It's been like 5 days and no news.

Only news is that looks like they've done this earlier. In Year 2019 they tried similar trick with TOS, but got pushback and added clause "you can use old TOS"... the clause which they silently removed in April. And since GitHub repo is gone, there's no easy way to compare different versions and additions from a reliable source.

I'm sorry, but this is enough. I've been using unity since 2005 or something, almost two decades, and happily paid and used your services. I unfortunately cannot do this anymore.

Even if you add TOS back, how can I trust that similar mess doesn't happen again?

 

If they use word "install" in it, they really really do not get it.

 

Last opportunity for Unity.

 

Wow, cryptic tweets, Sparta. I missed out. My two cents on Captain America would be:
Captain America = service to his country
Service => ToS
First => original ToS

I hope so because that's the big one for most devs. The ToS rug-pull is the biggest problem. It's probably a capped revenue, though.

 

Everyone is back in the game, now that unity is out of the game.

 

I suspect they rebranded "installs" as "runtime fees". We probably won't see the word "installs" at all, but the fine print will define it.

Let's see if I'm right. Tick tock.

 

No matter when it comes out it's going to be rushed. The previous one was at least several months in the works it seems. Coming out with any numbers and a plan right now, even next week, is still a lot less time than they had for their original bad plan.

 

You compared a framework to a full fledged game engine and called it far behind? Seriously?

 

And nothing will hinder them to change it again after just 5 years in the making, as we know ppl are not that price sensitive that long invested into it. We have already been there, just do not get fooled again.

 

Well, at least unlike Unreal that gets a full 5% for years now, so far Unity has not taken anything per game sale.

I am definitely curious to see what they will come up with, and i am 100% sure noone will like it, same as noone really likes a 5% in Unreal, the uproar will still be there , but hopefully will be about a clarified, easy to calculate and well thought out proposal and with some clarification as to why is imposed, e.g. Unity need to survive the massive stock drops from $200 to $30, than a simple we announced it so should be a fine to accept move.

 

Unlike yesterday, I'm feeling hopeful today. I want to believe!

Tonight it will be five days from their "couple days" tweet. While we can of course interpret the delay both ways, it may be a good sign of internal struggle within the company management related to some of the fundamental issues with the new terms, or how they are being applied. Maybe even names and resignations could be expected?

If all this was a mere PR-stunt to calm the waters and they were just concerned with what's the best way to rewrite the same thing, they would have published in 2, or at most 3 days, I think. There would be no point in generating this tension and expectation otherwise.

Of course even if I am right, there's the possibility of struggle being real, but the "bad guys" prevailing. We'll have to wait and see.

 

What i expect them to announce:

We bring back the PLUS plan at a slightly higher price. We instead cut some features from the PERSONAL plan, to bring more devs to switch to the PLUS plan, since that is at a fair pricing point for smaller devs. So we earn enough money from former PERSONAL users, that we can roll back our stupid idea of an download fee.

 

Look I understand your anger and your worries and I myself are not happy with the "we will update our revenue" but let's wait. Like I said, the fact that it takes longer it might be a good thing.
Let's see what this new pricing model will be and then we'll adapt. Sure, some other changes must be made to the engine and management. Management did something like this a few years back. Features are moving very slowly, they dropped the game they were making etc... They are a lot of things that need to change and I hope that after this change will be done somehow we can make them change the priorities (engine first, then a game and then the services) etc. But one step at a time. and I know it's a very long shot but.... one man can dream, right?

 

That can potentially be millions of dollars worse than what Unity proposed in some cases.

They should just keep the flat payment, make it per sale and not install, allow self reporting from developers, add a cap so cover the edge cases and make it easy to calculate like a fixed number for all paid Unity versions and should already be millions of times (and dollars) better than Unreal scheme.

In a $30 game, Unreal asks for $1.5 per copy, while Unity could be as low as $0.2x30 = $0.6, if we go by the higher amount they have mentioned so far. With the lowest would be only $0.02x30 = $0.06

 

Imagine escaping Unity's Tech Feudalism (<4%) just to replace it with even worse Tech Feudalism (Unreal, 5%).

 

Hopefully not, that would be a reason to quit the engine for sure.

It is completely unethical to ask a percent, it is like a frying pan company ask a percent of each food sold when made in it.

 

It is quite baffling that there can be some tweet regarding that, but no teaser here. On Unity forums. In a thread with over 15K responses. That's the way of communicating with the community.

 

Just keep in mind that there is a clause in the TOS that says they can change it any time and in any way they like and there is nothing you can do about it other than stop using the engine/services. With that clause there you are forced to trust whoever is in charge of the company to keep things fair and reasonable. You will need to decide if you trust the powers that be or not.

 

I'd update the OP at least

 

Maybe because forums is not considered a global general public venue. Twitter is by default such.

 

That's my point. If Unity cares about us, where would they put any info? Here or on twitter? And it is not like you get to only post in one place...

 

Yes. And let's not forget to add Dependence Injection and Message Bus support to it. Then make all data types immutable according to proper C# practices.

 

As far as I know Unreal / Epic has never betrayed their developer users. Not once. Not even a little. If anything they have been beyond giving to their developer users. I don't feel the two companies are comparable at this point. Maybe I'm totally missing something?

 

X cents per install implies at least X cents per sale.
So, yes, they take an amount per game sale, it's just random. And you may have to pay it 1 year after you get the income.

 

Unreal one is also random, depends on how much you make.

Only in Unity case is much much lower. Maybe by millions of dollars.

In a $30 game, Unreal asks for $1.5 per copy, while Unity could be as low as $0.2x30 = $0.6, if we go by the higher amount they have mentioned so far. With the lowest would be only $0.02x30 = $0.06

So if make 10 million sales, Unreal asks for $15 million, while Unity asks for $6 in worst case and $600K in best.

The difference is just massive.

I am definitely rooting for Unity scheme in this one, as i dont want to looks millions potentially.

 

5% is always 5%....cant turn into 108% XD....more copium

 

No it's not random, and the randomness is related to the "per install" thing.
Unreal is not random. It's 5%. Unity is anywhere between 0 and 4% (if there's the cap), but you don't know how much and you don't know when.
e.g. You sell 1.1M copies for 1$ each on september 1st. Unity at 1cent/install, you pay 1k. Unreal you pay 500k. But on june 1st, everybody decides to reinstall your game 40 times because cheap hardware became available or whatever. You now owe 399k to Unity. Of course, you kept 399k of money available for 9 months just in case?
This is what I call random. An install-based model means you have to keep a potentially huge swath of cash available for 1 year just in case. A revenue-based model means you know what you will have to pay.
Of course 5% is worse than 4%. And for PC games ($30 range), you're unlikely to reach that threshold. For cheap games, however, you're very likely to reach it.

 

Maybe they consider angry people here to have no meaning or value ))

 

I have nothing against a royalty model. I have said for awhile now that one is needed.

I want the tools I use to be profitable and well funded less they struggle and make bad decisions... as we see here

So not mad something was done, bothered that they broke trust, that they clary are so bad off they can't manage basic communication, etc

 

They specifically said that you won't pay for re-installs.
Also, Unreal Engine customer base are usually AAA games, where 5% of their revenue is a fair price model. In Unity, that's not the case, their customer base are mostly independent developers or small studios, thus, charging 5% of their revenue won't be enough.

 

You sound absolutely desperate to make Unreal Engine and Godot and others look as bad as possible to keep devs here. I get it, your asset store earnings are probably vital for you. But developers need to do what's best for themselves, which may include using an engine in which the terms are transparent and honest.

Epic's terms are not random at all. After making your first $1 million on a project, which is free, you begin paying back to support the engine — they only get paid when you're successful. And it's only 5% if you don't negotiate a custom license.

Install counts, by comparison, are a nonsensical metric that will force some developers to pay a "runtime fee" to Unity long after a game sale occurs, all based on when and how an install is tracked. And don't get me started on double-dipping, paying for a subscription and a "runtime fee" both.

Trust is lost. I think the most we can hope for is a simple royalty, but I doubt Unity will back down on its install scheme. I guess we'll find out soon.

Friendly advice, again — diversify and offer products in other stores. Good luck.

 

that wont work, the free users are the ones who dont have money to pay

you can only take money from ppl who are earning money

 

what if you don't sell any of those $30 games? you have still paid unity probably tens, if not hundreds of thousands (assuming you are trying to create multimillion revenue).

 

What I expect from the new statement:

1. Yes we screwed up
2. Yes we screwed up with multiple aquisitions and mergers and ridiculous bonuses paid to the board members. That put us in tough position, we have to make money for the engine to survive
3. We introduce 4% revenue share above 500k - 1mln
4. Affects all games released after Jan 1 2024
5. Games released before 2024 are bound to the current conditions
6. We will try to reorganize and make Unity be more cost effective run company
7. We will prepare EULA and ToS that will be bound to the editor version and we will make it as transparent as possible so it is in favour of our users.

But still I have no idea what can they do for ppl to trust them they wont do any shenanigans with ToS once again...pricing is one thing, fiddling with ToS is the other.

Also dunno about subscription...perhaps offer a sub that contains services otehrwise if someone doesnt use Unitys services just use rev share and if u pay a sub, subtract the sub cost from the revenue.

 

1. I explained above why revenue share in its current form isn't a possible option for Unity
2. "Affects all games released after Jan 1 2024" - Is probably not going to happen too, due to the fact that every developer can release 100 placeholder games in the following months to avoid the new pricing model.

 

Indeed, but if they put the 4% cap, that is no longer an issue

Max will be 4% always