Unity Plus Target Audience?

I believe it's because a larger number of pro users who are the potential target audience who still <100k, aren't very pleased with $125. This is the segment Joachim Ante mentions he wants to make happier. Obviously, there's still some work to do.

 

I am just enjoying the conversation!! Very happy with the Personal Edition and the new splash screen.

Besides, backing up projects and all that jazz is boring without something to do while you wait.

 

The thing, though, is that almost nobody (one crazy git posted positivity on the subject) seems to be the target market. I do find that worrisome.

 

I want to be the target market for Plus because Pro is freaking expensive now

So make Plus good Unity.

 

Bare in mind though, unity forum posters are not only a subset of the full user base, they are also self-selected. A rough guess (of this and the other thread) is ~100 voicing an an opinion on it. Unity boasts 4.5 million users. (Probably much less "active"). Even if it were only a million active users, that would be a sample rate of .0001 non-random. Statistically meaningless. I am sure unity based the decision on much more robust data. And I'm not sure why that would be worrisome even if it were true. If plus doesn't work, and nobody buys it, it'll change or go away. PE and Pro aren't going away.

 

True. The remainder will just have to vote with their wallets when this change goes through.

 

Is this actually true. A games with the splash-screen getting panned because of it? How badly are you exaggerating this?

If so this seems like a huge problem for the Democratization goal. If the splash screen is a major barrier to reaching 100K+ revenue then it also translates to a problem for their financial goals, and if so yes will need to remove it for ALL versions. But honestly I find this really hard to believe. You mean to tell me that no matter the gameplay, no matter the presentation, no matter how fun a game actually is, if it's got a splash screen their is a portion of Steam users that won't even look? It's just hard to believe.

Unity clearly doesn't want that to happen in any case.

As for the topic on hand. The revenue cap needs to be the sole differentiator. Drop the splash screen if it really is causing that much heart ache and get rid of dark theme issue (and probably at the same time open up unity to many different user created themes of various colors). Why do we need to dance around the sole truth that is if you make over 100k you owe unity 125$ a month, if you make less you get it for free. If you want different tiers mess with that revenue cap.

If you absolutely must charge your free customers under the 100K revenue cap something then simply tie it the asset store so they can see immediate value (while contributing money toward the ecosystem). I still don't know why you keep trying these bizarre asset store ecosystem supporting "benefits" (level 11, and now assets "packs"), just give straight up asset store "bucks"/credits and be done with it. It's less confusing and less restrictive.

If this is all a monetary issue for UT then ponder this. Your getting a 30% cut on all assets. your user base is 4.5 million users. Why is this not translating into a major source or revenue for you? That user base is larger than some of your target platforms. The asset store is one of Unity's biggest features (from an indie perspective), you might not be leveraging this to its fullest extent.

 

It's not really a joke. For example if you are a small desktop developer and want to get your game to Steam you have to use Greenlight. Since Unity is easy to use and free, people put all kinds of crap there and hope people to vote for their first game. After browsing the voting queue for a while you might notice a pattern that a lot of the bad stuff have Unity logo on it. However this does block you getting your game in to Steam but might mean to certain people to just hit NO button and continue to next game in queue. However there a lot of personal edition users on these forums who have got their game Greenlit.

Jim's video starting from 1:10 has one summary of this.

 

"It uses unity, it will be a garbage/performance will be horrible, avoid!" is a common statement on steamcommunity forums.

 

It's not really true though. Or rather, a false correlation. For steam, you don't have to put the logo anywhere in game profile or state what engine it is made with. A crap game is going to harsh comments from that community in regardless. And as Jim clearly states it's all on the developer and game quality. His comments state that pretty clearly.

A unity splash screen will have zero impact, as it isn't even seen until the game is download. If the profile page and videos of game play are good enough, and the ratings are good, a user will download. That is the real hurdle, getting it downloaded. After that the splash is a second or two. Then it is up to your game to meet the expectations of the profile page. If your game fails or gets negative reviews, it is has nothing to do with a splash screen.

I did a quick look through several greenlight submissions, and found no mention of unity, a few mentions of asset store flips, which were pretty obvious, but nothing about Unity, only the games. And honestly most of the comments are obnoxious and worthless in the first place.

Sure, many crappy games are made with unity, and many great ones. Make great games and not crappy ones, and there is nothing to worry about.

 

Saying it has zero impact is a bit too extreme. I'm a Steam user myself and sometimes browse the queue and a lot of people do not edit their trailer videos to remove the splash screen or people see it from the downloadable demos. Here, I also quickly clicked the recently added ones for a test and a couple few in less than 5 minutes, with splash or with at least some negative Unity comments.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=690439949
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=695912087

I think Jim's team originally did the video partly cause they noticed how people started dissing all games in Greenlight just cause of the asset flips or other crap games. Also Greenlight is not the only source for it as the forums are sometimes also filled with the negativity, even silly comments like blaming Unity engine for game design flaws the developers have made. It does not matter if they are accurate or not but if people see negative stuff everywhere they will also begin to believe it.

 

Almost all the negative emails I have had from customers of my iOS games have been about the splash screen (it wasn't even the one with the Personal Edition text, I still use Unity 4). And as I am now developing F2P games, they see the splash screen before I start earning.

 

I think a new Mauve skin for the free version would be effective. The current light skin stays in Plus, and the Dark skin for Pro only.

 

I would prefer purple or a nice lilac.

 

Spoke to a developer in person who said much the same thing(also f2p title). People can deny it all they want but it is a *factor*, maybe not *the* factor but it contributes and as a business person you should want to eliminate as much negativity as possible.

Anyways I am done beating this dead horse into the ground, we'll see what they do. I'm leaning towards this being my final hurrah, I only use Unity for my client not server anyways, and I can port it if needed as it is just 2D and fairly easy.

 

Zero impact. Both of those games' comments are entirely based on quality and use of common assets. They aren't negative comments about Unity, they are about the developer. A splash screen or lack of one wouldn't impact either of those.

 

Yeah the point was mainly that splash screen can be found pretty easily even before anyone downloads anything, worst case being in the video or demo. Second comes the negative comments associated with the word Unity which affects people regardless if the issues are related to Unity itself or the developer.

Like Jim said in the video, when some people see the Unity logo they expect something dreadful. There is no way anyone can deny the negative impact

 

They already are doing it. It's called Banshee Engine.

 

And how would they know it if you patched executable to look for "dark skin" files when loading light skin? I doubt data like that is transferred to unity's servers and even if you could with additional code make it send data that basically lies to Unity's servers that everything is fine and dandy and no need for alarm.

 

Didn't someone mention earlier in this thread the CEO himself said what many of us had been saying for a while now... something about "in hindsight maybe we had done that backwards requiring all of the free users to display the logo and the paid users not to created a situation where Unity was not portrayed in the best light"... something along those lines? Or maybe that was just someone being silly. Certainly makes sense though.

And although it absolutely does not influence me as a gamer when I see the Unity splash screen (other than now that I think about it I do kind of have a feeling how the game will feel due to the devs probably using the built-in physics system) I have personally come across a lot of comments about bad rep of Unity period. Things not talking about assets or anything else except "oh joy another Unity game... probably rubbish like the rest". That kind of thing. Clearly there are gamers out there who really do associate Unity with "n00b", "my first game!", etc.

 

Please show me an Unity game that has Mostly Positive or Overwhelmingly Positive steam reviews and has "Made with Unity Personal Edition" splash. And not just released one either since reviews on just released titles tends to be not very trustworthy until it passes 150 or so reviews mark.

 

BTW I originally got in to Unity world just because of the splash screen

I saw it in some cool iOS game I downloaded and it made me Google it. Few months later I had Unity and the basic paid iOS addon for it (back then with 3.x there was no free versions for Mobile platforms).

 

Yes but a title that would have Positive and Overwhemingly Positive Reviews, would most likely, make enough money to put the developer over 100K, so they are Pro user by default. They made it. Good for them that was the point.

Now why do developers as soon as they transition to pro, immediately remove the splash? This I think we can clearly blame unity for. By tying the splash to the upgraded product I would guess most developers remove it in course, as it is now "part of what they are paying for".

I don't think the Unity logo causes that much issue but because of the way they packaged their products unity has made it an indicator of new or rising developers or companys. As a generalization, it's probably even likely that gamers might view this set of developers as the lower class of the development community. I doubt unity intended this, but I can see how it can/could come about based on how they decided to monetize their product.

 

That is not causation. Show me a quality game that has been impacted negatively as a direct result of the unity splash screen. Just one.

 

Jim is a journalist. He sensationalizes to get viewers. Sorry...but he has added a lot of this thinking to the minds of the gamers. I have not yet met one person who has told me they hate Unity games just because they are Unity games.

As the parent of teens who love Youtubers (worship them much to my concern), they will follow the crowd. So if there is an impact, is probably because it is the fad of the day. It is cool to follow Jim and think Unity is the problem.

 

Branding, and also because it is just preferable. It's certainly much more desirable to have a custom launch screen.

 

As Unity developers we should know that a lot of content made with Unity is utter garbage. Pretty much all the terrible games that somehow make it through Greenlight are made in Unity, and people aren't stupid, they notice a pattern.

Anyone who thinks the Unity logo wouldn't color possible customers preconceptions on the quality of our games should see how people familiar with retro gaming react to any cartridge with the LJN logo on it (typically with disgust before tossing it off to the side).

 

Okay, then why do "people" tell me that they like Unity games and they don't notice the splash? Anecdotal evidence goes both ways.

I get why developers don't like Unity's splash. It takes away their feeling of ownership. They want to be the creators of the game, not Unity. I get that.

I also think that we have a habit of picking and choosing what fits our already set-in-stone opinions on this. I have found no one who cares about the splash screen. But...I don't watch Jim-whatever, and most of the people I talk to don't.

Here, it seems there is a group, not everyone, who wants to find a cause and relation effect between the splash screen and low selling games.

Bad games do badly..or should. Splash or not. Amateur developers often make bad games. These are also the people who use free engines. Since Unity's free version requires the splash screen, it makes sense that amateur games have splash screens.

But..that does not mean that having a splash screen means your games are dismissed or that they fail due to the splash screen. And it doesn't mean all Unity free games are bad or that all players won't play a good Unity game.

Maybe your game is not as good as you think. Or maybe the people who play your game are just finding a reason not to like your game.

Like ZombieGorilla, I would like to see a good game that failed because of the splash screen. That is the evidence needed to create the causal relationship here. We actually need more than one game to show that this is true.

Ever read Amazon reviews? Do you base your decision not to buy something based on a few bad reviews...like the guy who couldn't figure how to install the driver, or the one didn't read the instructions? Do you decide not to play a game because a handful of people tell you that Unity games are bad? Millions of people play games. Maybe it is the market you are going after.

 

I don't think it's so much about blaming Unity for lack of a game's success. More that if a person really wants to make a business out of this they of course want to have everything they can in their favor. And I think that is where the splash screen / Unity brand comes into play.

Like in marketing and sales the focus is on removing any reasons a person may have when deciding not to buy. So if someone follows that common business sales approach and there is even a small chance the splash screen may result in 1% (or whatever) of people not buying... then it becomes a very real issue. Because the whole point is to reduce the number of reasons a person has for not buying.

I imagine the number of lost sales due to Unity brand is very small. However, when you are a small game dev every sale (or not) matters. So from this perspective I can understand people being concerned about it. Just to remove it from the list of possible reasons.

 

That I get. But that is not what people are saying here.

Why would Unity remove it from the free version? It seems only fair to me that if we are not going to pay, we should give back by advertising. If people don't want it, then they buy pro.

Every sale does matter, but there are a myriad of reasons a person does not buy a game. It is absolutely impossible to control every variable. The splash screen with a logo is our "giveback" to Unity for a fully featured product for free.

So..it means you need to control the other variables....marketing, good presentation, good mechanics, coherent art style, good documentation, etc. Seriously, a good game can more than likely overcome a splash screen.

What is funny is that I think if Unity hadn't raised the price, many would have been perfectly happy with us free users being "saddled" with the splash screen. lol

 

Who is arguing that it should be removed from free? I have no problem with it being there in free, but once you start paying for a product the watermark/branding should be gone. That's how it works with all other software, and that's why it should be removed from Plus.

Our team is using Pro, and one of the main reasons is to get rid of that splash screen. As GarBenjamin said, we want to remove anything that might stop someone from buying our game, because as indie devs we can't afford to lose even 1% of sales. Sales are more than just a few dollars, they are marketing as well. The more people playing our game, the more people will hear about it.

 

Are people complaining about free users having the splash, or plus users? Now that the Personal Edition text is apparently gone, I don't really care about the splash too much. It would be nice if it wasn't ugly though, but I guess that is subjective. I can always put my own splash after Unity's if I want to include my branding as well. And Plus will apparently let you customize it. Not sure if those options will be useful or not. They dumped this change on us without any real information, which is probably the biggest problem.

I'm still not sure I'm going to stick with Unity long term. It's still cheaper than Unreal if you have any kind of success. But it went from being $1500 out of $100,000 to $1500 every year out of some undetermined amount. In this business you may make $100,000 the first year and next to nothing as you build your next project. We can't crank out hit games every few months. Additionally, it went from being $1500 per employee, to $1500 per yer per employee. These are big changes. Suddenly 5% of money you've already earned sounds more appealing than $1500 per employee per year on money that you haven't. It may be more money, but you'll always know that you've got it to give.

The rent to own thing isn't really helpful with the current state of Unity. There is a 100% chance that whatever version you end up with will be buggy. So you are back to having to pay $1500 a year per employee. Literally paying for Unity's mistakes. Given that, royalties at even a higher cost make me feel like a partner that is in it together with Epic as opposed to a customer of Unity that needs to be milked. My partner deserves a share of the profits. The person milking me, not so much.

Like the PE text on the splash screen, I'm sure all the complaints will get written off as people who are just complaining for the sake of complaining. But I have a business to run. I'm struggling to put food on the table. Right now, $100k a year is a pipe dream. But I have to think long term.

 

SO, guys, go vote on what you want, please:

https://feedback.unity3d.com/sugges...ash-screen-and-pro-editor-skin-for-unity-plus

https://feedback.unity3d.com/sugges...ro-subscription-price-for-single-platform-use

 

However Unity cost will be a business expense to tax deduction while royalties are a thing of their own depending of the country you are in. I was advised as a small company to avoid royalties to foreign countries if I could cause on top of the payments themselves the costs managing them (gathering detailed numbers from all sales platforms for multiple products, reporting them to all parties few times a year). Then I would be also locked down with them as long as there would be enough sales to go above the threshold. With Unity I could just pay and forget.

Now I just gotta see what happens with all this new price mess.

 

I didn't really think of tax issues with royalties, because I assumed they were tax deductible. I just checked, and according to HR Block, they are deductible in the United States with the one exception of people who are paying royalties to use a trademark as part of a manufacturing process. That doesn't really apply to game development. So at least for people in the US, giving payments to US based Epic, there isn't a problem there. Of course, I am not a tax lawyer.

 

The only time people would know its a unity game is if they already bought your game anyway and saw the splash screen.

Fancy Skulls - Mostly positive - unity splash screen 187 reviews.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/307090

Guns N Zombies - Mostly Positive - Unity Splash Screen - 719 reviews.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/264300/

Magical Brickout - Positive - Unity Splash Screen - 15 reviews.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/384940/

Carrots and Blood - Positive - Unity Splash Screen - 43 reviews.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/439440/

Death Goat - Mostly positive - Unity Splash Screen - 129 reviews
http://store.steampowered.com/app/340770

And thats just some of the games I looked at in my steam library (to see if they had the unity splash screen). Alot of them use the unity launcher, I dont think anyone cares if your game is good.

 

Has anyone read if Plus is part of the pay to own?

 

Now find similar games that don't have the Unity splash screen. Need some kind of comparison of with and without for the numbers to be meaningful.

 

That would be too much work.

 

How meaningful would that be actually? I say so because anyone who uses Pro has more money to invest in the game, and maybe more experience.

Best thing to do would be to compare similar games, one with and one without the splash. Or better yet, read the reviews. Are people complaining about the splash screen?

 

Barely meaningful at all of course. But at least that has the possibility of showing both sides. Although in reality I think it would more likely show the differences in marketing, genres and quality.

I don't think we'd see reviews mentioning the splash screen because people truly put off by it wouldn't be very likely to stick around long enough after seeing it (which would have to be in the videos, headline, first paragraph or two, or someone mentioning it in any way in a review) to write a review. And not sure if a person can write a review anyway if they have not bought the game. I would think not.

The reviews most likely represent only the people who the game /marketing appealed to enough to buy it. So it is a biased thing in that regard.

 

Some of us are developing free-to-play games, so the splash is seen before the developer starts earning. And F2P was something Unity were pushing at the Unite conference apparently.

 

The Asset store packs are a new thing. They are actual assets made by unity ( I believe).

Analytics is much more useful than you are giving it credit for. I think you should look into it

Multiplayer - Tough to say since we still don´t have full unet up and running, but like many things, better to use engine features reather than a ton of 3rd party stuff.

I am on the fence. Analytics is great, but the deciding thing will probably be where we fall with our multiplayer and if the splash-screen customization comes to Plus ( they are strongly hinting that it will).

 

There is one piece of information that we do not know, that Unity does know.. and that is what type of games bring them the most money. I honestly think the new pricing plan is because the vast amount of their money is from mobile games, especially as Unity Ads gets more widely accepte....which is why they think Unity Pro new pricing should feel like a good thing for everyone. Because it IS a good deal except for desktop-only people. If you look at it through the eyes of a mobile-only developer, the progression from free to plus to pro makes a lot more sense, especially with Analytics being the big item in Plus.

 

I´ve never used it, so had no idea if that is useful or not. I would be curious to see if Unity actually spilled the beans on their profit sources. My hunch is that us desktop-only people would eat some humble pie when they tell us how small a percentage we are of their actual revenue.

 

Err No, I'm a mostly mobile developer and the cost for what I used worked out at about $62 per month over a 24 month cycle. This new pricing has doubled the cost for me. The problem is the idea of subscription vs perpetual, or even the features offered, it's just the blatant cash crab. The cost for me has doubled if I want to go Pro. Which is why I liked the idea of the Plus tier but I'm not paying a cent if it still means getting a splash screen. I'd happily pay $75 per month for the pro tier with all platforms included. I'm not paying $125.

 

Hell gonna freeze before that be really what they'd do.
Epic also used to say there would be no other engine after UE3. They say there will be no UE5; CryTech said CryEngine3 was the ultimate version.
Give 5 years or so when they think ppl forgot what they said: "-Hey pps, look it's new shiny Unity 6!"!1!!!!"

 

Ultimately I don't think complaining on the forums does much constructive(he says after he deletes a huge complaint). Unity is a good product and they are big boys and can figure out what to charge. I do think they are shooting themselves in the foot in regards to every platform besides mobile though.

 

To me this says they haven't edited their promo video properly, which loops right back to what @zombiegorilla is saying.

The purpose of your trailer is to show off your game in the best possible light. Make me want to play it. Get me excited about it. Showing off someone else's logo when you don't have to* doesn't do that, regardless of what that logo is. A bit of free software from the Internet and less than an hour editing your captured footage can fix this easily. If you haven't done that then you either didn't know or didn't bother and, either way, that's not a good look for your game in a competitive marketplace.

* Note I'm talking about the trailer, not the game itself.

 

Seriously if they can´t be concerned enough to edit their promo videos, then they are probably deserving of all the ´disrespect´ they get for using Unity because their game will also more than like lack any attention to detail.