Unity Pro is now a requirement to publish on consoles

https://gamasutra.com/view/news/386...ill_need_Unity_Pro_to_publish_on_consoles.php

 

Pro? Not Plus?

What were the Unreal's licensing terms for that purpose?

 

As much as I'd like to grumble about it, how big of an impact is this really? How many companies are using Plus to deploy to consoles? Genuine question, as it's not really a concern of mine as it stands.

 

Biggest impact will be to solo developers and small studios that have been self-funding development, and depending on how much money they're able to collect may stay that way even once they've found funding.

 

will SG shader graph continue to include tags for “closed platforms" ?
@Unity

how will that work out

 

This is a real bummer. Plus was the perfect middle ground for me and was everything I needed for a console release of Invisigun (Switch, PS4). It doesn't feel like "democratizing" game development, but another barrier for small indie developers.

 

You can't really develop for relevant consoles without having access to that forum. Developing for consoles without access to those consoles, developer kits and tools is not really common and not really feasible. Not to mention super-stupid. It's like developing for VR without a headset or mobile without a phone. How do you test anything without running on the device?

I also don't think this was a decision about money. I suspect very few people would develop for consoles this way. Of course I can be wrong.

 

I have access to that forum, but there's no reason for me to check it constantly while I am in between games and a long way off from releasing the next project, so I wasn't aware of this until now. Developing with the dev kits and Unity Plus was perfectly reasonable (and fantastic) if you did not need source code access or premium Unity tech support. This doesn't really feel like a technical requirement to me.

$1800 is a significant barrier for young, upcoming, solo/small developers who have great game ideas but are truly going at it alone.

I still can't see why Pro is needed, forcing $1800 on us. What if I don't need source code access or Unity premium support? Why is that not an option for the dev to decide?

 

It's probably just an adjustment for larger studios.
Talk to your account managers if there is a financial issue.

 

Can someone validate that and confirm with actual licensee?
Otherwise some article it is not really an official source of information.

 

https://unity3d.com/legal/terms-of-service/software

Although it is only saying that "may" require Pro.

 

If I'm not mistaken we're not allowed to comment on anything that has been announced in that section. What I can do is tag one of the developers (@jamess_unity) that actively posts there.

 

Hmm, why would be that? We are no officials. But we may be concerned as Unity users. And some news been made public, and potentially affects Unity developers. So why we would be prohibited to discuss Unity actions, specially when seeking for confirmation of the commimg source?

Discussion is not only for clarifications but also to prevent any shady practices, if any takes place. In the end we are all Unity customers and we need long term business planning.

It is us which we may end up in large companies, and it is us, who my advise to use Unity or not by them. And this is these big fish, which brings large chunk of money to Unity. We are silently time ticking bomb for Unity, depending on their actions.

So if some conditions changing silently and are in effect immedatly, it doesn't feel right.

 

Not you, those who signed NDAs and stuff (who are on the restricted forums), I guess. I'm not sure if it's true, but it sounds possible, depends on the NDA they signed and agreement they made.

So you can discuss it away to your heart's content, the question is: could those who are members of the restricted forums discuss what they read on those restricted forums?

 

just curious that what features do i get from Pro for that, vs. free or plus?

 

You dont get features. You get the ability to customize the splash screen in plus and pro, thats it.

It specifically allows you to legally publish and work on products, based on your entities total revenue in a year. If over $100,000 including funding, tax rebates etc, then you need plus. Over $200,000? Need pro

Even if you earn very little but you are contracting for someone who is a company over these thresholds, then you need the correct license based on their revenue.

For example I earn below $100,000 revenue in my comapny, but I have pro due to contracting with a company that earns over $200,000.

 

yeah i get those, but since it mentions "developing for consoles is a complex undertaking",
it somehow sounds like i would need Pro to be able to do it properly or easier?

 

No, it makes nothing easier. I imagine it is just a change in their TOS. But it certainly does not help in any way, its functionally the same as plus, and other than splash screen same as free.

 

Should talk to your console account manager rather than rely on gossip. I don't think it's wise or healthy otherwise.

 

Expect this to get worse as they desperately need more income. It used to be their main revenue source, and now they want it back. They don't have a Fortnite to pay the bills.

 

It says that this only applies to consoles that don't provide the unity licence

So I guess this apllies only to Xbox for now?

 

@jamess_unity

Thanks for the clarification, Although I don't currently have a console project in development, this is still good info to know in case I decide to port my game over to consoles.

 

This quote is funny though

Oh yeah, what are the benefits of Pro for these platforms? Free Collaborate?

 

I'm really surprised by some people when it comes to royalty changes, or anything similar.

I always found it weird how some people consider game engines based on revenue model.
Past a certain mark, which UE and unity already passed, it's next to pointless for an indie developer to think about it.

UE and Unity are next to free for an indie developer, the only thing affecting your decision on a game engine needs to be your preference. Which workflow fits you best? Artist workflow, tools, animation, UI, and a bunch of other things.

I see some comments on videos about this where people (I'm of half a mind that none of them are seriously making games) talking about leaving the engine because of this change. That's ridiculous.

Since when did struggling indie developers have an EA mindset? The bits of extra revenue aren't gonna make a difference to you, worry about actually making a game that people buy. Yet somehow, people are talking as if unknown game is guaranteed to make at least a million dollars and are already thinking about the money they'll have to pay once they pass a few hundred thousand damn dollars.

Don't even get me started on the process of getting a the permission of the mighty sony and xbox to actually get the okay for your indie game to even be considered for console.

You aren't making millions, you aren't EA or a seriously established indie studio.
Worry about the billion things you'll struggle against to make a game, and then worry about getting people to actually give a S*** about your game.

 

No. It's only difficult to obtain access to the consoles if you try to do so directly. If you sign up with a publisher it's trivially easy to do so as the publisher has already been vetted and can simply ship you the consoles and in fact that's precisely what the small startup I'm with did. We had them months before Microsoft and Sony saw anything.

 

I know that, still doesn't change the fact that it is extremely difficult for an *indie* to directly get a license, by themselves.
Many don't want to include a publisher. Going through the process with a publisher is a different matter.

 

This change may just be a chance to get extra money, ever since Unity went public. Since they went public, they need to show growth and get bits of money here and there to keep their shareholders happy. But, it may also turn out on the bad side, since this is one con when deciding a game engine. We'll see how it turns out.

 

Chances are those people don't want to target the consoles either and are happy with standalone and mobile.

 

True, and why pro? Why not plus?

 

Yeah, and many Unity devs are mobile developers, so it shouldn't matter to many people using Unity, so it isn't that big of a deal, but still.

 

For me personally, it's more about who do I as an indie want to partner with longterm (i.e., is Unity still championing independent developers). You don't just "sign up" with a publisher, unless you don't care about the quality of the publisher, in which case you don't care about your own company's future. Good publishers also need to choose you. The smaller the team, the harder this is to navigate and make into reality, but those are also the ones trying to save the most money.

In any case, it's not very up front. Here are the pages that do not mention this requirement:

• https://unity.com/solutions/game
  
• https://unity.com/solutions/console-and-pc-games
• https://store.unity.com/compare-plans (at the very least it should be clearly listed here)
  
• https://store.unity.com/products/unity-personal
• https://store.unity.com/products/unity-plus
• https://store.unity.com/products/unity-pro

It's only mentioned here, and only because of the new requirement:

• https://unity.com/features/multiplatform

This is not a big deal to what I'm guessing is the majority of their current customer base, and a business is a business, but I do wonder about deterring growth of that customer base. I still would really like to know what it is about Plus (or Personal for that matter) that is so not-console-worthy. What are those extra resources that are so necessary in Pro (which I didn't need)?

 

It's more of the fact you need some license that's specific to console NDA.
It was like this 8 years ago so I don't see what has changed (from personal experience).

 

I think that Unity PR should clarify this point... and the license comparison page should probably be updated too.

 

Thanks for the info. I quoted this sentence because now I am curious. Is it that Microsoft no longer wants to pay for the pro licenses for SDK users and unity has to make up for this lost revenue stream or has MS never been subsidizing these licenses and this is just something new?

Will there be a differentiation between Games for the "Xbox Creators Program" and approved games?
Do I need Pro for both?
What about the 100k and 200k limits, do they have any impact?

Thank you.

 

Thank you for your response

 

Pfft. If this is all it took to make a profit for them they would have done so ages ago. What's most likely happening here is that Microsoft no longer wants to subsidize the cost of the licenses. If this is a sign of anything I believe it's a sign that Microsoft may be moving away from treating the devkits as sacred things you struggle over to obtain.

 

Microsoft has been slowly moving that way for ages. XNA, then ID@ (still a lengthy process, but a financially accessible one) and UWP and Creators Club. And with the latter they even removed most of the hardware/performance restrictions.

It's more about curating their flagship storefront these days. Everyone has nearly open access to the rest.

 

I think this is more about trying to get Microsoft to open their wallet like Nintendo and Sony already do to provide their own special licenses.

 

Microsoft has been providing their own special licenses up until this change. This is a change away from that.

 

I’m still a bit confused. So can we release our games through Xbox creator program ? What about steam? Thanks!

 

then I need to learn what’s the difference between Xbox creators program and ID@xbox. Can someone explain it to me?

 

It's one google-search away:
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsdeveloper/2017/08/10/xbox-live-creators-program-now-live/

 

So basically the ID@Xbox gives more Xbox Live features (which requires a certification process), while the Creators Programs offers a limited set of the Xbox Live features?

 

No need to be alarmed, but Unity reserves the right to "support creators" by changing their pricing at any time, just like GameMaker just did:

https://scottishgames.net/2021/08/10/gamemaker-pricing-and-subscription-change/

Nothing to see here. Move along, citizen.

 

Just to be clear, all indies using Unity 2021.2 or later now need to pay for a pro license just to put their game on Nintendo Switch?

If this is the case, I see a lot of indies rolling back to 2021.1.28...

 

Hm, iirc a pro license has always been needed for the Switch.
From where did you get the info that something has changed with 2021.2? I'd be interested.