Search Unity

Unity's pricing not to change, WebGL will be free

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Meltdown, Aug 15, 2014.

  1. moonjump

    moonjump

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Posts:
    2,324
    I think the total opposite.

    They should include non-active users. Potential changes could make then active users again, so it is vital to get their response.

    But I think they should have gone further and searched out potential users where possible. I gave a talk about Unity a while back to software developers who were not involved in games, but some were looking to dabble. There were a variety of reasons given for not trying Unity, some down to a lack of knowledge. There is the occasional forum post asking if it is possible to sell games made using Unity Free, there are a lot more who never get as far as asking.

    Asking potential users what they know, what products they would want, and how to present it could be very valuable. The survey questions would have to be a little different, but it is data that should have been part of the decision.
     
  2. Rico21745

    Rico21745

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Posts:
    409
    Honestly even if Unity couldn't match it, I have no clue why they didn't lower the subscription cost. The only reason I don't do a subscription is because it's insanity to get it. I cannot mentally justify it as a non crazy person, given that its such a terrible deal even within their own ecosystem.

    I expect a lot of people feel the same way. How many people actually use the Unity subscription option? And why?
     
  3. Devil_Inside

    Devil_Inside

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Posts:
    982
    How much should the subscription cost in your opinion? Realistically?
     
  4. Rico21745

    Rico21745

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Posts:
    409
    50 ish for pro? Just knocking 25 bucks off the price per month would put them in more reasonable waters. You can then argue that it's a decent value proposition because its roughly the same as a standard license over 2 years and unlike UE4 you don't give up royalties.

    Heck let's say you kept it at 75 dollars. At least give people an incentive like giving them Asset Store credit every month, say 25 or 50 bucks. I don't know, really, *something*? I just don't see why anyone would choose to sub over buying the license at this point.
     
  5. Zeblote

    Zeblote

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Posts:
    1,102
    for all platforms
     
  6. StarManta

    StarManta

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    7,086
    Now there's an interesting idea. Get the pro users dependent on the asset store, while virtually guaranteeing a steady stream of business for middleware developers. The AS would flourish, even more than it is now. Pro users get a better value proposition than now, AS developers get more business, and non-Pro users would benefit too, in the form of more/better AS assets. Win-win-win. I would much rather Unity do this than simply dropping the price to $50 - it'd boost the community a lot more.
     
  7. Devil_Inside

    Devil_Inside

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Posts:
    982
    And if you set it at 50, who in their right mind would choose license over sub?
     
  8. jonas-echterhoff

    jonas-echterhoff

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,633
    Last thing i heard is that about half of our new customers go for the subscription option. Why? Dunno, maybe they are all crazy :)
     
  9. StarManta

    StarManta

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    7,086
    I know our company has Pro subscriptions, and the boss chose that over buying a license outright because he's not certain that we will still be developing games in a year (this is a bit of an experiment for the company), and a year of the subscription is cheaper than buying the license, so it's a smaller risk.
     
  10. Rico21745

    Rico21745

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Posts:
    409
    Most software packages are going with subs over licenses these days. I would not mourn the loss, personally. I prefer the idea of paying for a service for these reasons:

    1) I don't need to worry about when they will phase out X version I paid for

    2) I know they will need to try to make sure future work is compatible & easy to upgrade to since everyone will always be on the latest version

    3) I know the company is getting a steady revenue stream which means less jumping around trying to please new people and more pleasing their existing customers.

    4) The expense is predictable. I don't know if Unity will decide that after Unity 5, instead of doing 5.1, they say "Nope, we feel the next release is Unity 6 and you all need to buy new licenses in 5 months if you want it. There's no guarantees.

    I can see using the sub if you know you only need the license for a year but like I said, despite my liking of the sub model, I just can't get on board with the current price over time. I'm genuinely curious to know why people pick a sub over the license for Unity, or are all of these folks that one special case of only needing the license for the year?
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2014
  11. Devil_Inside

    Devil_Inside

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Posts:
    982
    I agree with that and I also would rather use the sub if it was more accessible. It's just that you made it sound like all they had to do is lower the sub and everything would be fine. The thing is that they'd need to change their entire monetization, 'cause even a small change to the sub might make their primary license obsolete and substantially change their revenue stream.
    And yes, I do hope that a transition to a cheaper, subscription-only model will eventually happen.
     
  12. sicga123

    sicga123

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Posts:
    780
    Personally I would be somewhat annoyed after paying for pro if Unity dropped the price considerably because free users are clamouring for more for nothing. I'm not exactly loaded and I had to scrimp and save to get it, and that means never having a drink in a long time, buying no music or books, and no social life. If you really need something a way can be found, so please stop whining about the price and asking for stuff for free when those funding the engine are doing so through subscription or a license fee that some struggle to find. Jump ship, go use Ogre 3D or T3D or any of the number of supposed high end free engines out there or find a way to make a commercial game with Unity free (it has been done). The reality is that if you won't lay down the pro price then you have no confidence in you own abilities and you must believe that the quality of a game and your ability to make one is dependent on the tool you use. It isn't. My first game was done in Obj C, no engine. Make some small games with Unity free and use the profits to buy pro, but please leave out the 'gimme, gimme, gimme' disguised as concern for the future of Unity.
     
    ippdev likes this.
  13. Zeblote

    Zeblote

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2013
    Posts:
    1,102
    Future updates would be cheaper for you too...
     
  14. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,023
    We're not asking for a handout. We're asking for UT to consider their current standing in the market and either improve or price accordingly. UE4 is improving in leaps and bounds whereas Unity is pretty much crawling along.

    How long have 64-bit processors been available? Yet Unity still has yet to ship 64-bit support. How long have they promised a new UI? Once again, they have yet to ship one. Large world support? Nada.

    Now compare the competition. Yes, UE4 is buggy and new releases tend to break things. So far though they are improving at a rapid pace and I wouldn't be surprised if they achieved the features of Unity 5 before UT could actually ship it.

    About the only reasons I see to stick with Unity is performance (UE4 doesn't really like low end hardware like Intel HD) and mobile support (UE4 still lacks on that front last I checked).
     
    Grafos and Deleted User like this.
  15. Doddler

    Doddler

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2011
    Posts:
    249
    Maybe my case is unique, but I largely use Unity while performing contract work for several clients (mostly game porting). If my work came tied to a requirement for my clients to drop 5% of their revenue on royalties, then I would not be able to use Unity. So for me, unity's current pricing is important for me.
     
  16. AnomalusUndrdog

    AnomalusUndrdog

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Posts:
    1,494
    Here's our reasons:

    1. Plopping down $1,500 in one go is difficult for us, but considering our income, remaining funds, and operational expenses, $75 per month is more palatable. We only purchased one subscription license for now as I'm the only one handling the project at the moment. If our financial situation improves, we'd reevaluate this.

    2. We're only targeting desktop for now so we effectively pay only $75 and not $75 x 3 (if we were to go iOS and Android too). If we were paying $225 per month per seat, I'd be reluctant with that.
     
  17. TheDMan

    TheDMan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Posts:
    201
    No it means they are poor and dont have that giant lump sum of cash to buy it but need the Pro features. So they reluctantly pick subscription (because its a terrible deal), and because they are left no option because for large and serious work you need a wide variety of the Pro features (especially optimization features).

    But thats good to know openly. So it means 50% of new customers cannot afford to buy the license outright. Which means that any shift against Unity from competitors and BOOM, 50% of new customers will vanish overnight and sink UT's cash flow by 50%. Which tells me Unity can essentially teeter in existence in the future.
     
    Xaron and Grafos like this.
  18. Deleted User

    Deleted User

    Guest

    It's not Unique, I don't believe anyone wants to pay royalties additional to publisher percentages and Tax if they can avoid it.
    Not always, at the time for us it was either A) Build own engine B) See what UE4 is up to C) See how we get along with Unity. Sub seemed a good idea incase it wasn't what we needed..

    Rolling contract after three months would of been better, also I agree with others.
     
  19. StarManta

    StarManta

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    7,086
    Well that escalated quickly. Into ridiculous assumptions. You seriously think every developer on subscription is a hair trigger away from abandoning Unity?
     
  20. TheDMan

    TheDMan

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2014
    Posts:
    201
    When it comes to picking Product A vs Product B and the only real heavy impacting difference is price, then yes. Money talks. Especially when you have many competing products. Developers are intelligent, they can adapt and pick up something new rapidly, so nothing holds them back from fleeing.

    I've seen numerous engines rise to the top and fall into non-existence over the last 14 years simply because another engine was simply better and cheaper. And its always the same thing over and over, ALWAYS ..... refusal to adapt to the current market, customers, and competitors.
     
  21. StarManta

    StarManta

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    7,086
    UE4 is several times cheaper than Unity, right now. If money were the only "real heavy impacting difference", and your assumption about subscription developers being flighty were true, we would be at the tail end of a mass exodus from Unity right now. Sure doesn't seem like we are.

    Your biggest flaw in your assumption is that UE4 and Unity have no real heavy impacting differences. Unity has a better importing pipeline, a stronger developer community, more middleware, and better platform support; UE4 has graphical niceties, better terrain, and apparently Blueprint is pretty cool. They are very different beasts, and you're treating them like commodities.
     
    Ostwind and tango209 like this.
  22. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,023
    Only if you won't make more than ~$30,000 per platform per developer. Any higher and the royalties will cost you more than the price of Unity Pro.

    With that said, people love to comment on how much they dislike 5% royalties but I rarely see anyone commenting on the costs involved in making up for the limitations in Unity.

    For a company that may not make a lot more than the above figure, it might actually be worth having royalties over fighting the engine as it currently is.
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2014
  23. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5

    Volunteer Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Posts:
    32,203
    It doesn't mean that at all. It means 50% of new customers choose the subscription option; the reasons behind that are not explained, and I expect there are probably many reasons. So you've just made an assumption based on nothing and constructed a straw man argument from it, well done!

    --Eric
     
    tango209 likes this.
  24. StarManta

    StarManta

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Posts:
    7,086
    Wait a minute. I thought the flight risks that were on subscriptions were poor and got the subscription because they couldn't afford Unity Pro?
     
  25. Psyckosama

    Psyckosama

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    Posts:
    88
    Incorrect. Only if you won't make more than $30,000 per platform, and have a one man team. If you have, say, a 5 man team that 30,000 suddenly becomes $150,000.
     
  26. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,023
    Which is why I stated "per platform per developer". Or to put it another way, $30,000 multiplied by number of platforms and then multiplied by number of developers.
     
  27. Waz

    Waz

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    254
    This tendency is why asking us existing Pro users is a bit pointless. What they would have to ask us is about upgrading (eg. no way will I be upgrading to 5.0 - maybe at 5.3.2 or when it's not as buggy as 4.0 was). Of course, that's likely what they *did* ask existing customers about.
     
  28. malosal

    malosal

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Posts:
    149
    When you realize how much easier it is to make something in Unity, and how high the learning curve in Unreal is, then I think you'll realize why Unity is worth the price.
     
  29. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,327
    I've said it.
     
  30. Grafos

    Grafos

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Posts:
    219
    After the recent "everyone thinks we are actually too cheap" comments made by Unity staff/blog, I went on to try UE4. What I found is that although it is pretty amazing, it is not ready for prime time yet. Especially if you are into 2d and/or mobile games. But things are moving really fast and I (along with many Unity users I am sure) am watching their progress closely.

    My guess is that Unity knows this, and it is currently trying to milk the user base. When UE4 is out of beta I won't be surprised if they try to adapt their pricing. Or maybe people keep buying Pro licenses because of the beta state of UE4 and UT are under the illusion that UE4 does not affect them? I hope the former. Only assumptions of course...
     
    Xaron and Metron like this.
  31. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,327
    What comments were they?

    I remember some valid statements about avoiding a "race to the bottom" situation. That's not the same as "too cheap".
     
  32. Grafos

    Grafos

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Posts:
    219
    From the blog:
    "the overwhelming majority felt that we were providing excellent value"
     
  33. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    6,516
    What value proposition is there other than up-front cost? Because in the long term, unless you start a sub exactly a year before a new Unity version launches, you're actually spending more money.
     
  34. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,327
    That also does not at all mean "too cheap".

    To me, I'd say they were "too cheap" if I thought that the price point put my long term usage of the tool at risk. Not coincidentally, that's precisely what the "race to the bottom" concern is about - the idea that it might get "too cheap" in the future if they try to play catch-up with everyone who comes along and offers something for less. If they charge too little then they'll suffer in the long term, leading to inferior output, which puts me at risk because I might end up relying on under-developed tools.
     
  35. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,327
    Um... $900 is quite a bit less than $1500. If I were doing a startup I'd strongly consider going for the sub for at least the first year, because it's much less money and there's no telling on day one whether you'll still be there at day 366. If things were looking good then I'd consider flipping, but why pay an extra $600 per person per platform at a point where you've got no real sense of whether you'll get anything for it?

    For a 3 person iOS/Android team that's $5400 different in total cost over the year. A startup can do a lot with that kind of money. It's two whole workstations, a whole year's utility bills, a slab of rent, a bunch of other software licenses/subscriptions, a couple of weeks of hiring a new skill in...

    The sub doesn't really work for individuals. For businesses it's pretty solid, though.
     
  36. Grafos

    Grafos

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Posts:
    219
    Is there a scenario where "the overwhelming majority felt that we were providing excellent value" means expensive?
     
  37. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,327
    Is there no possible concept of an area in the middle where something is neither too cheap nor too expensive? To quote Goldilocks and the Three Bears, can something not be "just right", or near enough to?
     
  38. Grafos

    Grafos

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Posts:
    219
    There is, but the adjectives used are not "overwhelming" and "excellent"
     
  39. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,327
    If we really need to pick on it word by word then lets first acknowledge that "overwhelming" was used in reference to the people, not the price. ;)
     
  40. Grafos

    Grafos

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2011
    Posts:
    219
    An overwhelming amount of people thinking something is of excellent value does translate to bargain price. I am sorry angrypenguin, I am really not interested in this game of semantics, but you started picking on what I said word by word. If you don't mind, lets get back to the discussion, even if you disagree with my wording I am sure you understand the point I was trying to make.
     
  41. dvu

    dvu

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2013
    Posts:
    29
    Did you ever try UE4?
    to create my first pretty "playable" game on Unity I spent a lot of time on youtube's videos, text tutorials, blog's articles etc
    to create my first pretty "playable" game on UE4 I spent only few hours on watching youtube's videos (UE4' basics + Blueprints). Blueprints are VERY intuitive to understand and usage.
    may be you talk about older versions of Unreal Engine?

    P.S. of course of course of course UE4 is VERY bad on Android and not very well even on iOS. Unity has FANTASTIC support of major mobile platforms. That's why I'm still here
     
  42. bigSadFace

    bigSadFace

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2014
    Posts:
    116
    Simply not true. Unreal is as easy to use as Unity, the only point it becomes 'slightly' more difficult is if you need to use C++. A lot of people will never need to touch C++. I've been around using Unity since very early on (When it was OS X only and shipped with a robot in a castle demo). What Unreal provides in terms of tutorials etc already took Unity many years to build up.
     
  43. robhuhn

    robhuhn

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Posts:
    113
    It's not pointless in any way to ask Pro users if the price should be dropped. I'm a Pro user and I would say the real question is if the price is fair and if it's worth it or not and everybody should announce his opinion. Some time ago Unity already dropped the prices, released Unity Free and later some Free Add-Ons. People who bought a license shortly before received a refund.

    As I stated before the price of $500 per platform is totally fair (Unity Pro - PC,Mac,Linux = $1500). But $1500 for one platform doesn't seem to be suitable ($1500 for iOS and Android each).

    If there are arguments that the price of the add-ons is justifiable, I will listen.
     
    Psyckosama likes this.
  44. VicToMeyeZR

    VicToMeyeZR

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Posts:
    427
    ^ Made an assumption about why your customers are using sub model.

    ^ Also made an assuption about why your customers pick the sub model.

    ^ Only points out one side of the assumption game. Oops.........


    Also, y'all are also making sub model arguments based on 2 years.. Is any one of you going to get 2 years out of Unity 5 before Unity 6? How many features are going to be "released" on 5.0? How many on 5.1 or 5.2?
    You're only going to get 12-18 months (conservatively) out of Unity 5. So now all of the sudden, your $75(or $225) isn't such a good value. If is was $30 or $40, then ok.
     
  45. SunnySunshine

    SunnySunshine

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Posts:
    681
    For big business $1500 is not a lot. Hell, the bill for the office I'm working at is $21000 - per month. So I can definitely see why Unity pro is a great deal for established companies. But for indies? Not so much considering the competition (which, of course, is what this is all about).

    I understand that Unity has an income system that has worked for them in the past, and perhaps still is, and that it's scary to change it. But they must realize there's a huge gap between free and pro, and some, possibly many, will choose another engine filling this gap. Letting them might be dangerous for the future of Unity.
     
  46. jonas-echterhoff

    jonas-echterhoff

    Unity Technologies

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,633
    In case it wasn't obvious, I don't actually think half our customers are crazy, I was just referencing Rico21745, who said it would be crazy to buy subscription.
     
  47. VicToMeyeZR

    VicToMeyeZR

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Posts:
    427
    I know you don't. The assumption you made was quite the opposite, but you used sarcasm to portray it.
     
  48. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    12,327
    Err... he quite explicitly says he "dunno" why customers pick that. He was specifically not making an assumption about the reasoning.
     
  49. robhuhn

    robhuhn

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Posts:
    113
    Aha! You think the other half is crazy... Let's forget about political correctness for a while
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  50. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    15,023
    No, that's not the impression I'm getting from most people on the UE4/Unity forums. I think most of those who are forming this opinion are either making it more difficult (ignoring Blueprint seems popular) or are basing it off their knowledge of UDK.
     
unityunity