Official Unity plan pricing and packaging updates

Many wouldn't have minded profit sharing, even if by calculation it would cost a lot more, rather than this shady blackbox "Trust me bro" proprietary system. Whatever you do users will find a way to break the system. At least profit sharing is transparent, predictable, and calculable cost.

@#1 and #4 is impossible.
@#5 How are big business decisions made without figuring out the specific implementations?
Who decides this and why is it rushed out of the oven half baked?

 

Godot Google search trends go brrrr

 

Yeah I understand that, my point is that $200 000 revenue is really not as much as it sounds. In my case this means that the game is making only about $2000 per month (after taxes and commisions) and with that revenue there's no way it will be able to affort the ~$20 000/month that unity will start charging.

 

"Stress factor" is the deciding value for me.
So I guess it's back to Unreal today.
The idea of being charged for "installs" in any capacity is too big an unknown to build a business around when it comes to charges.
I would rather just pay my 5% per sale, whether its better or worse, and be done with it as opposed to never knowing when Unity is going to hit me with a bill forever or spend my months trying to decide if I need to pull my game down or leave it up because I might cross their unknowable threshold. To much risk for the little guys.

 

Well that's... disappointing. Can't use a product when I can't trust the pricing and licensing to be fair and predictable. I guess I'm off to learn Unreal.
cya

 

Sound very familiar as the Putin of Russia

 

I had worked with C++ years ago, I think it's time to move to Unreal now if things don't change quickly. Yes it's different, and yes it can't compare to Unity in many things. But I want a company behind the game engine that can be taken seriously. I'll wait until monday to see if that CEO that runs Unity still has a piece of brain in his head and use it to see this madness. If not I'm done with Unity after many years. I'm starting a new project and it will be developed with Unreal. By the way I have the Unity Plus account, never thinking of going to Unity Pro.

 

that's seriously F***ed up

 

The impact of this situation is significant, particularly for small and mid-sized studios. I've been in touch with teams that have even had to cancel their releases and are now in the process of rebuilding their games using different engines. While Unity has always been an excellent platform for beginners, the recent statement has raised concerns about its suitability for professional use.

Working in a game development school, I've engaged in discussions with numerous individuals and companies who share these apprehensions. Consequently, I'm compelled to reassess the viability of using Unity as a teaching environment, as it's becoming increasingly uncertain whether it will remain the industry standard in the next 2-3 years.

It's disheartening to witness the transformation of an engine I once cherished into something that feels increasingly irrelevant and cumbersome to work with. This issue extends beyond beginners and affects professionals, as well as indie and mobile game studios. I sincerely hope that Unity addresses these concerns promptly; otherwise, it may struggle to compete with the likes of Unreal and even Godot.

 

How does this work with distributors and what accounts to revenue? Does me getting funding account for revenue even if game is free?

 

WOW!!!

 

I won't pay, I won't payyy, no wayyyyyy

 

This is particularly vexing for indie devs and emerging studios that aspire to achieve economic sustainability, only to have it invalidated by this fee structure the following year.
I don't know about non-european tax models, but this is probably just unsustainable for a small studio working in EU, especially publishing on android/ios.

As much as I like (and am used to) Unity, this is a slap in the face to the devs community, and it feels very much intentional.

I would understand the need to change how licensing works, but this is perhaps the worst way to monetize I could think of. Awful decision.

 

need source

 

Unity is the best marketing team Godot could ever have

 

So Unity team decided to stop all users from using Unity come 1st January 2024.

Cant even grasp these news are for real.

 

My company sells B2B and a per install fee would actually be perfectly reasonable for our products, BUT this has to be the absolute worst move possible by Unity Technologies and I have very serious concerns about continuing to build our product on a core technology that is mismanaged like this.

The game industry is very important to us, both as developers and to each of us individually as consumers. We thrive on a community of passionate developers who share knowledge and creativity. This change will absolutely kill Unity as a platform for indie developers, and it will impact everyone in the Unity ecosystem.

Price increases are expected, it is specifically the per install fee that will make this platform nonviable, for all the reasons already listed in this thread (no, it is not about piracy). I would urge you to just increase the rev share % instead if you have to.

 

How about charge in each frame in each script like this:

Code (CSharp):

1. longlonglonglonglonglonglonglongdouble chargeFee;
2.  
3. void Update
4. {
5.        chargeFee += Time.delataTime;
6. }

Oh god Im really a genius
Pleeeeeeeeeease Hire me for CEO

 

Now it's time to say goodbye.

 

If you as a company make money, to the amount of 200k then added on top of that if you have 100k downloads. The revenue btw doesn't have to be from or/with Unity. The company I work for got told a little while ago that since they use Unity but make revenue (albeit from their marketing, which doesn't need Unity, we use it more as more for incubation projects), that they have to pay for Unity Pro. I can tell you that company was not happy with that, but that is how they see it as revenue, so if you did something like software development on the side but used Unity under the same company name, that'd lead to them looking at your revenue at some point in time.

 

So Unity I have to say you just made my job chances to become a junior unity developer 0%.

I just finished my studies and I worked while I stuided on private projects to get good in Unity. Now the 2 years I spent on getting good in Unity is now going down the drain. I will probably not find a job as a Unity developer because you had to make a install tax on games and companies will think 10x bevor they want to make a unity project again. Which is sad because I liked Unity a lot but I will proably move to Unreal as a developer.

On a side note I understand that things get more expensive with each year and that you need more money to found the development but a flat rate on install basis is wrong. A revenue split is much more better and would hear me out in the long run more profitable.

• Cost less maintance, because you don't need to track any installs or make code that checks against pirated installs. Meaning you don't need to make that piece of software and can use the developer elsewhere.
• You don't need to hire an analyst or make software that correctly analyses the installdata and checks them agianst revenue and their abo.
• you don't have developers leaving your ship because they don't have an existence crisis
• you get more money the more succesfull a game is. Installs are not a good measure of a succesfull game.
• you could make attractive deals. Like use Unity ads and pay x less revenue share

 

Ok first of all I hope the board will force John Riccitiello to step down. Also if you are short on cash, why don't you introduce a revenue split? Or spend less money on developing AI that Riccitiello talks about all the time.

This is the absolute worst decision made, but if history repeats itself then Unity will see this is a F*** up and actually up their game not F*** over every single loyal customer and investor.

 

Decided to look it up and the first thing I see on google trends homepage is the Unity is trending so I am sure they are happy


Of course, unreal and godot are also trending so...

 

Finding revenue is easy ... you have to pay taxes, so there is documentation that can be shared to prove. Using a rev share model is the box standard approach for publishers, platforms and even some 3rd party tools back in the day

Unity going with a per-install or really anything else is just plain stupid

 

I've been developing a title for the past 2 years and this news greatly saddens me. I have no recourse now but to release the project on Unity and eat these costs or bankrupt the company. Here are some fears;

The revenue thresholds on offer seem to be based on the company, not the product they represent, and the installs have no expiration time.

If I offer my game on Steam, users have the right to uninstall/install as much as they like (as they, of course, should). Will my company be liable for install costs 10 years down the line? 25? 50?

I also need to rely solely on Unity tracking those installs? What transparency on the process will there be? How will we be able to combat piracy in game "installs"?

This mechanism involves a "phone home" process. What if I don't want my game to connect to 3rd party domains? What if I don't want my single-player game to connect to anything at all!

What happens if users block the application with a firewall? Will Unity begin charging "estimated" installs for users who block access?

Long-tail sales in games require strategies such as marketed content patches, often bringing in a (hopeful) wave of re-installs and re-engagement of the existing player base to pique the interest of new players. Now I will have to pay a wave of fees for this? I've already paid the distributer 30%, now I am paying for distribution again??

There are more and more problems as I think, but this is long enough. Please, Unity, think again.

 

Somebody should write a wrapper for monobehaviours in .net core and interop it in unreal. Would make it pretty easy to migrate to unreal

 

WHAT ?!
What would prevent a ill willed user to make a bot that download the game, uninstall, clear data, and repeat?
This will literally KILL US !

 

https://www.axios.com/2023/09/13/unity-runtime-fee-policy-marc-whitten

Not sure if true now

 

ya I mean ... I have loathed Epic since the whole PC exclusives mess and while I do the odd contract job on UE I am not a fan of the engine at all

But we have projects that as far as we can see could never be profitable given this change so



They take royalties as well ... but its a simple % of rev something we can plan for and clearly know the results of and simply can never be all we make ... so there is that

 

Further thoughts:

Source: https://blog.unity.com/community/updated-terms-of-service-and-commitment-to-being-an-open-platform
In case it is taken down or altered (I'm at zero trust at this point): https://web.archive.org/web/2023032...vice-and-commitment-to-being-an-open-platform

I consider this a binding covenant. Therefore I would be well within my rights to reject your new terms and operate under the same TOS for the same major (year-based) version number as is my right under this covenant. Further, Unity has broken this covenant by taking down the github link and providing nothing approaching transparency regarding this change.

Investors might be high on your exhaust fumes right now, but what are they going to think once they realize that your NPS (Net Promoter Score) just suddenly plummeted to -273.15 Celsius because now no one trusts Unity to do what it said it was going to do.

 

So what about a hypothetical situation where you get 20 million installs, making an average of $0.10 revenue from each. Then you have revenue of $2m, but you owe $4m in install fees, don't you? Or is the install fee deducted from the revenue used for calculation, meaning you 'only' have to pay $1.8m because after that you are under the $200k revenue?

In any case, to say it won't cost you if you aren't making money seems incorrect. Making money means you are making a profit. Maybe (best case) this won't cost you money if you have no revenue, but it seems to me it can cost you money if you aren't making a profit - and even if you are making a loss. Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

Its a % after a very generous amount.
Unreal in general is better, isn't half baked, things that you might end up paying hundreds for on the asset store here come built with the engine... Its my go to engine when I'm not building one or we have projects at work. Admittedly there is a codev Unity project atm

 

Xbox still recovering from a back-peddled decision all these years later.

 

This is gonna make lot of small business go bust

 

Dont mind me, just joing the history here

 

POV: You ask Unity for sources backing up the number they bill you...

 

know the feeling. 28 Gb (if i remember correctly) is much more than Unity, but It's time to give Unreal a try...

 

Have you guys took a look in this video?

 

Unbelievable. Even if someone thinks the pricing is alright, does anyone trust they won't just keep increasing it? Because I don't. Pure greed.

Also, removing the Plus plan is just greed on top of greed.

Just kick Riccitiello out, please.

 

I wonder why the condition is for both installs and revenue, but the fee is only related to the installs.

This feels very strange to begin with. It just make zero sense whatsoever.

The fee should be adjusted based on revenue or game price.

 

I just noticed the new pricing model and i won't even try complain nor argue anymore... just don't see a reason to stay here !

It took me a couple of months to get used to UE and C++. In 4 months i ported a full game, even implemented Steamworks and a couple more systems as C++ plugins without having too much of experience. Godot has C# scripting as i can see and gains popularity. Even if i don't create another game in any other game engine available out there i doubt i will ever touch Unity Engine again. Just got all Unity editors deleted from HUB... I think i'm may be done with it.

Cheers !

 

No no no, the mystical data model is the one feature in the past decade Unity has actually finished making and works perfectly giving 100% accurate, non-fraudulent results!

 

and that decision wasn't nearly as bad as unity's . also unity doesn't have an office app, OS , IDE and other thinks to sustain them

 

Hoo boy, it's been a hot minute since I logged into my account. That I'm even doing this in the first place is...something.

Unity has basically just committed suicide with this move. It has destroyed what remaining trust it had with developers, and many are considering — or even following through — jumping ship to other engines like Unreal, Godot, and even Game Maker Studio.

Meanwhile, developers whose games are already in Unity engine are panicking left and right about being destitute because their games made enough money to suddenly put them in a disadvantageous position. Some developers have even gone as far as stating they'll delete the games they've put out, making it impossible to buy. I informed a friend of mine last night, whose own friends are working as a team on games and assets in Unity, and they're currently in the process of reconsidering their options.

This entire decision has been nothing more than a hare-brained scheme designed at best to drive up revenue by dubious means, and at worst is a callous attempt to show developers who's truly the boss around here. It introduces problems that developers never had to worry about before, and the attempts at assuaging those fears have been nothing short of useless or tone-deaf.

I haven't made a serious attempt to make anything in Unity for years. I'm no longer in the game development scene, although I do try to keep up with it and see what people are up to. And what people are up to is their neck in fear, uncertainty and doubt, because the company behind the technology that drives the things they make is pulling a fast one.

Even if Unity reverse this idiotic, scandalous and even legally-dubious decision, the damage has been done. People want away from Unity, and they've been given a golden ticket in the form of a press release. The reputational damage Unity are self-inflicting upon themselves is such that nobody can trust them, as software or as a business.

Unity was the engine behind many a great game. My favourites have been Cities: Skylines, Subnautica, Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty, The Room series, Monument Valley, and my most recent obsession, Signalis. Some of these games wouldn't see the light of day if it weren't for Unity...and even fewer would be released today if this policy was in place much sooner. Seeing Unity in the state that it is in now...it hurts. It genuinely hurts. I'm feeling a mixture of sadness and anger like little I've felt before, and I'm doubtless the only one.

Unity, you have made many mistakes over the years, but none as grave as this one.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure they can't track revenue like that.

You pay taxes as a company (at least in my country) and the reported revenue is for the entire company, you don't report how much each game title makes.
And also you report net revenue, which doesn't include the ~80% taxes and commisions that got charged before the money reached your account.

In my case the actual net revenue that the company will report is about -$5000/month (for this game), I'm pretty sure this will not be the figure that Unity would look at

What they can see is +$3000/month.

 

This exactly! How can anyone commit to using Unity for their next project if the cost of software license is completely unpredictable. "Use our engine for your long-term project but we may or may not 10x your costs whever we decide to."

 

that video is excelent and it does clarify a lot of stuff (Unity should pay that guy because he's literally doing they're job). but the install issues and other stuff still remain.