Why not to get a Unity Subscription - An expensive mistake

TL;DR: Do not buy a Unity Subscription.

So back in February I decided I was going to need Unity Pro for the work on my mobile game. I needed the asynchronous scene loading, render textures and a couple of other features for my game, the only way to even test out this technology was to buy the Pro version.

I decided instead to get the subscription thinking that it would be less of an up-front burden and surely ill be making money from my game soon.. right? The subscription costs $75 USD + tax = $90 per month which is quite a lot, but not as much as the $1500 upfront cost. Here's the kicker, which I didn't fully realise at the time, its a 12-month MINIMUM subscription.

Well it turned out that a month later Unity came out with Unity 5 and made many of the pro features now free... I was rather annoyed but I knew I was going to need the pro version to do a build of my game without the "Made with Unity" badge anyways so I didn't email them and complain, the game will be launched soon.. right?

Well fast forward a few months and im ready to go with the Android version of the game so I buy the Android subscription too for a further $75 + tax = $90 per month making a total now of $180 per month. What I didnt realise and I dont think was made very clear at the time that buying this addon RESET the 12-month subscription, so now I have to pay $180 per month from the period I added the Android addon rather than from Feb.

It didnt matter as I was bound to make tons of cash from my game soon... right?

So fast forward a couple of months and a couple of nasty bugs and im just about ready to launch on Android. I decide to start work on the iOS version so I decide to buy the iOS addon for my subscription. Another $90 per month so now I owe Unity a total of $270 per month. And again like last time adding the addon reset my 12-month period to September.

But its okay because the game is just about ready to go, money will soon start coming in and I will be justified for all the costs just to remove the "Made with Unity" logo at the front of the game... right?

WRONG. The game launches and despite spending a long time building social followings, speaking to journalists, making trailers, blog posts etc the fact of the matter is that there is just too much competition out there. I have to advertise to get my game noticed. I cant afford to advertise my game because.. well now I owe $270 per month in subscription fees to Unity.

To add insult to injury, in November Unity launches their "Made with Unity" movement. Its now a good thing to have the badge on the front of the game rather than a sign of unprofessionalism that it used to be seen as.

So basically im now stuck with a $270 bill each month for a product im not using, I cant sell (thanks to their policy) and absolutely no way to cancel it until September (I have emailed them and asked them several times).

So I hope this expensive mistake is a lesson to anyone else thinking about buying the subscription. DONT. Just use the free version and if by some miracle you make the next Crossy Road then perhaps you can think about getting the pro version.

 

your first mistake was getting into game dev thinking you would make money.

 

Haha - Let us try and stay positive. Last months ad revenue was over 3 dollars USD! Goes back to developing simple solitaire for android.

 

Seems like for whatever reason you were convinced you would be making tons of money to easily cover the nearly $300 per month Unity payments. $300 per month just to get rid of the splash screen seems a bit... insane to me. I wouldn't spend $300 per month for any dev tool. That just seems like a huge waste of money that could be spent on things like art, music, videos heck even ads.

I could understand if Unity was the only way possible to make games. Then it would be a completely different story. Unity itself has been free for quite a while now. And there are many other frameworks and game engines out there. If you have a load of money in the bank, an actual real game dev company (as in real business already making money) that'd be different too. But for just an individual it seems like a huge expense for no reason IMO.

Anyway good luck. Maybe they'll cut you a break and give you a refund early.

Definitely I hope your story helps people to get this craziness out of their heads counting all of this money they will make from their games before they have any proof they will make anything. I mean sure it's great to dream but don't put yourself at financial risk for something with such low odds of returning any money to you.

 

True, tho I make games as a living too. As with many people I wanted to make my own games for a living rather than other peoples games. To do that I need to be able to replace my current income with that of my games. I apologise if that was a little short sighted of me but having had past experience with making mobile games, I had at least a little hope that it was possible.

 

You are exactly right. I hope others can learn from my rather naive fail.

 

Ok, so I assume you're talking about Mr Nibbles Forever?

You know what I noticed.. or well.. didnt notice... wheres the showcase thread? Granted a forum post here might not net a lot of downloads, but it will get you some provided the game is good. And yours looks polished enough to get attention. Although it is a platformer. Severely flooded game genre that one.

The real failing is your marketing. Youre not going to recover $270/month unless you get a run-away hit. I dont think this game meets that criteria (but wtf do I know... Im yet to release something that meets that criteria myself).

You need to spam forums, video loggers, game players if you want to make noise with your game. Blog posts and contacting press rarely seems to work unless its like touch arcade.


Everyone gets into GameDev to make money (its a large golden carrot - especially when you read stories like crossy road). I enjoy writing games, but not really enough to making zero money off it (and having a-holes give my game a 1-star rating because they were in a bad mood). Dont feel bad about that.

I've purchased two pro versions of Unity prior to 5, so I know all about money for nothing. In an effort to make you feel better, I calculated how much money Ive spent on game dev.. including my time at a $60 rate (less than what I make doing a real progamming job, i've spent over $240,000). If I remove time from that, its still over $10-15,000.

So dont feel too bad. yet

 

Did I miss something? Has the splash screen changed?

 

Thanks for those comments James. Its good to hear that im not the only one in a similar situation. I too have done "lost earnings" calculations which are quite scary but you are having fun, so its not really work.. right?

My main gripe really isnt with the games industry as a whole, I knew what I was getting into, but the way Unity's subscription service works. Its a 12-month MINIMUM contract which refreshes with each addon. Its unsellable and non transferrable. It works different from most other subscription services.

I agree with your statements about my game (Mr Nibbles Forever) perhaps not being different enough from the market. I did do a whole bunch of marketing up-front and after (I was promoting the game at the Perth Games Festival this weekend) but there is only so much of this stuff I can stomach. I want to make games, not promote them endlessly.

 

Just checked out your game and it definitely looks very well done. Then I checked out your Android reviews ("very well done", "exceedingly well made", "attention to detail well worth the download", etc) and it sure seems like the people who know about it really like it.

Definitely agree with @JamesLeeNZ ... you can make the best game ever but if nobody knows about it you might as well not have made it. Maybe try the MadeWithUnity thing they recently launched. If you can get some love from Unity I bet things would turn around for you dramatically.

 

hahah yeah something like that! It would sure feel a lot less like work if the money was coming in.

Sub services are often like that though (minimum period). I know how easy it is to get excited about something spend money, regret it later. Having never considered a sub service so never looked into it, the 12 month thing seems pretty lame. Maybe a 3-4 month minimum would be better.

I guess the intention is to stop people buying a sub, releasing a pro version then stopping, but that's a stupid mindset. I've never had a game that I wasn't updating at least every couple of months.

JUST before I found unity, I purchased a 3d engine source thing (for about $500) that I never used. /slaps self

Hindsight and all that, but you shouldn't worry about having the Unity logo in your game. The people that complain about a game made in Unity, were 99.9% never going to spend a cent on your game anyway.

Here's a fun fact for you to help you 'maybe but probably not' feel better. I've had over 30,000 downloads, and made less than $200.

 

The sub is neither good nor bad, but just Unity responding to users asking for a sub. When Unity ran a brief trial period on subs, users signed up for it. As it was successful, the sub remains.

This doesn't make it good or bad, but something that isn't for everyone. If you had a bad experience with the sub, someone else didn't.

The sub is bad for me, but it's good for a friend I know using Unity. YMMV.

 

Just to let you know, there is a reason why its a 12 month contract, its to prevent people from spending 24 months building their game for free, then buying a 1 month subscription, deploying the game to the app store, and cancelling the subscription.

Subscription works well for me, but I also do some Unity contract work on the side which helps pay for it. I think its a great alternative to the $1500 perpetual license.

You knew all the conditions (or should have researched them) before you made the subscription purchase. I don't think its fair to go around telling others that a subscription is a bad idea just because you didn't recoup your money or your expectations weren't met.

 

Can I be really honest here?

I'm going to pretend you said yes and go right ahead.

I think the real lesson here is that you should properly read up on what you're buying. I thought it was fairly clear that subs were a 12 month deal. And Unity did make refunds available for quite a decent grace period for people in exactly your situation, having just paid for Pro before they announced feature parity in the Personal edition. I'm not sure how well advertised the latter was, but I'm sure it was in the FAQ and it was definitely talked about a lot on these boards and support would most certainly have told you if you contacted them with your (very valid) frustration at the time.

Please don't misunderstand, I absolutely understand where you're coming from. That said, you'll learn far more from the experience going forward if you own it than if you blame others for the whole thing.

 

I dunno guys, I kind of agree with the OP.

If you can't make a good game, then a subscription license is a bad idea. To take it further a perpetual license is also a bad idea.

When you can make a good game the equation changes.

 

that resetting thing sounds like some BS ... i mean, isnt it an addon?? .. but no its like rebuying it?? what!?

but yeah.. gotta do the reading i guess..

i could care less if i have "personal edition" splash screen or not, actually i think it makes it more leet, but thats me i guess and not a customer lol

 

I decided I wanted to check the FAQ for this myself. A couple minutes with the Wayback Machine and the result is the following snippet. Apparently they did not offer refunds to subscribers, but they did allow you to apply to no longer be committed to the twelve months.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150408024444/http://unity3d.com/unity/faq/2491

 

I totally agree, its my fault, I take responsibility. Im just frustrated that im locked in, no way to get rid of it or sell it. I want others to learn from my mistake.

@GarBenjamin - thanks, ye people seem to like the game, just cant get enough people to look at it. I may have a look into the Made With Unity thing, tho I am pretty frustrated right now, not sure I want to do yet more promotion.

@Ryiah - thanks for digging that up. Shame that it doesn't still apply

 

You got it, make something else in it .. Simp's.! Keep flooding until you get noticed, it's what everyone else seems to do ..

Dislike to say it but, you can't sign up for quite an expensive service in a risky industry and then worry about it afterwards. Unity Pro is really for established houses and people who don't blink an eyelid @ $300.00 a month.

I bought a fair few subs then switched to Unreal, so I get what you're saying I wish I could of cancelled too. Not trying to jab a fork in whilst your down..

So you have two options, let it end with a bill stuck over your head.. Or crack on and try and make the most of what you have, as others said on here.. You have some skill, so heck might as well use it.

You seriously don't even want to know what I've spent, I mean ignorance is bliss. I don't even want to know TBH!.

 

Making more games is definitely one way to go about it. Alternatively he could try to offer his skills as a freelancer.

 

Or make game tools. Usually for any game you have to do at least one or two custom things that you automated to make your life easier rather than doing it manually. Chances are if it helped you while you developed the games it can help others as well and you can make money on the asset store.

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the asset store gets saturated as well but right now it's at least earlier in the gold rush phase and you can make some money at it.

 

Unreal Engine 4. No upfront cost. If your game doesn't make money they don't make money and you have lost nothing but your time. If your game does make money they get 5% of the game's gross revenue after the first $3000 per calendar quarter. But then if your game is making that sort of money you'll be happy to give them 5%. https://www.unrealengine.com/faq

 

Numerous posts in the Unreal vs Unity discussion threads have made it clear not everyone is happy giving up that 5%.

 

@ShadowK @Ryiah @greggtwep16 Thanks for those helpful comments. I did indeed used to Freelance Unity games. Im a little disheartened by games at the moment. I may consider building tools, I really enjoy that but then again I dont really need the subscription for that.

The problem with just making another game is that there is no gaurente that the exact same thing will happen again. The mobile market is just so saturated at the moment that you need to either get really lucky, have an advertising budget (and thus pretty sure your ARPU is high enough), have great SEO or bribe a few journalists.

 

Very True. But it does reduce the risk of being out of pocket up front. I for one would rather have a slightly smaller cut of successful game revenue than own 100% of nothing.

 

How did this become a UE versus Unity debate?

But since it has...

This is total nonsense. Unreal's pay gate drops in at 3,000. Unity's drops in at 100,000. So under the current structure Unity wins on price. I can make 95,000 dollars a year with unity and not pay a cent. That's a pretty decent salary. If I make the same under Unreal I'm up for a significant bill.

 

It's not total nonsense. Your totally missing the point because you are assuming that a game is going to make that amount of money. Only then does your argument make sense. If somebody is unsure their mobile game will make any money at all then paying up front for Unity Pro + Unity Android Pro + Unity iOS Pro is a high risk for a small one man team.

If you read the original post @MikeSee was peeved that he risked subscribing to Unity only to find his game made no money and now he was out of pocket with no way to stop the subscription. If he was making 100,000 dollars as in your example he wouldn't have cared about the cost of Unity!

I was merely pointing out that if you do not want to risk money up front then there are perfectly viable alternatives that are just as capable as unity.

Also lets do the math. Lets assume your $100000 is the 70% you earn after apps stores have taken their 30% cut. So a gross figure for earning would be roughly $142,000.

Unreal only take 5% royalties *after* allowing you $3000 PER CALANDAR QUARTER. Thus for the year you get an allowance of $12000 before you are charged any royalty. So in the above example $142,000 - $12000 = $130,000 on which you get charged 5%.

5% charge on 130,000 is only $6500 - so when you say your would be charged significantly more I think that is a false statement. Yes its more than the $5000 you spent on unity but only $1500 more.

So - you can either pay roughly $5000 per year for Unity subs with no guarantee of making money - or pay $6500 in royalties for the year *if* you make $142,000 gross revenue.

I know which one I think is less risky.

 

Ahh, well spotted. I think the difference is fair enough though.

 

And yet, as an indie developer you're expected to wear a hat that probably doesn't fit too well (marketing).

You always hear, "Play to your strengths" but we're expected to do things in which we're very weak.

So let's say you find someone who likes -- and is good at -- promoting your game endlessly. How much would that be worth to you? What kind of percentage of the game would you be willing to give up to never have to worry about promotion -- to only worry about making games?

That's a general question -- not just for the OP. If you could find someone like that would you give them a piece of the game?

Jay

 

Funny you say this...one of the only ways to survive as an indie dude these days is to do constant contract work, helping create other people's games.

 

@OP .. sorry about your predicament. I guess it's lessons for you to learn from. Not to rub it in too much but probably you should check how much competition there is at the beginning and not even start the project if there is either too much or you can't very confidently differentiate yourself by a significant amount. The string of monetary mishaps seems unfortunate, Unity had a refund policy when v5 came out that probably would've let you get your money back. I got a $1500 refund due to having purchased Unity Pro shortly before 5 was released. It sounds like you had more determination that your game would be great than was realistic and this led to further purchases that jumped the gun. Just things to learn from I guess. I don't think it warrants saying Unity's subscription is wrong or that people shouldn't buy it ... you bought it for the wrong reasons.

 

I think anyone with even a little common sense would do that. People get so wrapped up in making games they seem to look at it like:

1. Make game
2. Make money

For some reason it seems most don't realize that when you make a game you are halfway done. You now have a product. A product you can give away, trade or sell. Until you actually do something with the product it has no monetary value. It has only the potential of monetary value. Hard to accept I am sure but still it's the truth.

If you can find a sort of evangelist for your product who is willing to proclaim its wonders to the world making videos, doing press releases, participating on gaming forums, blogging and so forth that's a huge benefit. Of course, the more clout the person has the better but anyone doing it is better than nobody doing it (unless they are really screwing things up majorly and damaging you and your product's rep).

Also, and I know I always go back to this and many people seem to not agree, not every great game will make it even if they have someone handling the marketing. Even if people would love it if they knew about it. In the end there are only so many games a person can play and only so many games that are needed.

The way it is right now... there are more than enough games already to last people a long time. To even be able to find them all and play them. Steam had over 8,000 games on sale recently. How many of those have people here played? How many do we even know about? And yet that is a fraction of the total number of games available out there.

For some reason people seem to overlook that part. The quantity of games does make a difference. Or at least the quantity of great games does. Where once anyone could make a game and the gaming market was hungry and snatched up most games... that has changed. Gamers can be very selective now. They even have loads of free options so for many of them there is no reason to ever spend money to buy a game.

Anyway, with all of the noise, all of the supply, yes a person should either learn marketing & learn to love it or else find someone else who does.

 

I think pretty much everything has been said several times over, but I just wanted to summarize ways to avoid the OPs mistakes:

#1 - Read the EULA and make sure you know what you're buying.

#2 - Do market research - a lot of it. Before you make a significant investment in tools, make sure you know who you're building for and if there is a market for what you're building.

#3 (or 2b) - Do a market test. Give some folks early access, independent folks that don't know you from Adam and will give you unbiased feedback. If it's a saturated market, find out if your offering gives something your competition doesn't.

#4 - Research resolutions to your problems. Unity offered refunds when Unity 5 was released. You can still use the Made With Unity splash screen with Pro. The difference is that "free" is now branded as Personal Edition and says as much on the splash screen. So you do get a difference there.

#5 - Don't invest prematurely. You could have cancelled your subscription as per the refund allowance after U5 was released. You could have worked on developing your game with free and ignore the splash screen. Get a prototype or more created and allow users to play test. Then and only then, when you have at least an inkling of whether it may be successful (still a shot in the dark), invest in the tools. You still will pay for them for a year, but now it's $270 for 12 months and you know more about your target market. Even better, try to save $270 / month while you're working on your game. Then, if you think it will be successful, by the time you finish you could buy a perpetual license which is a better deal if you can afford to front the whole cost.

I don't really think it's fair for people to beat up too much on the subscription model. It's just an option. It works well for some and not for others, but it's not required (at least not for now). We just have to make informed choices. I know I've gotten excited about lots of assets over the past couple of years and dropped a lot of money on things I'll probably never use. Some of them I haven't even downloaded yet.

 

So I guess my decision to focus on becoming a trade contractor was a good one.

::goes to work on some piddly little game idea::

 

Or use Unity personal. That's the edition that beats Unreal on price hands down.

 

Unless you make $100,000 you're under no obligation to purchase Unity Pro. It is not a requirement for a successful game.

 

No one said game dev was easy, its a hell of a lot easier then it was 10 years ago but now that any bozo can make a game your games have to be that much better. 500 games released a day on mobile 3500 a week and you got to somehow be better then all the rest and stand out for a number of weeks (without being buried under the flurry of games) to make any money at all good luck. The game doesnt even look bad its just that the market is over saturated

 

Game dev is easy.

I believe that's the problem. Back when it was hard making games then making money off of games was easier. Games like Pong were commercial successes. Now that its easy to make games, making money off of them is much, much harder.

 

accurate.

 

Yep. There was a time when there was novelty to a video game. If you wanted a fantasy adventure, your options were limited. You could play every one out there that matched your tastes. So, it made sense to enter that market. You were just meeting demand. Providing a service people wanted.

Really, really wanting to be a game developer isn't a good enough reason to invest in it as a business. The timing is wrong. The market is bass ackwards. Be advised.

 

Yeah basically its an evolutionary arms race, where the minimum quality is constantly rising.

 

Since it came up: I don't think it's the fact that game development is "easy" that's the problem. I mean, writing is easy - doesn't mean you can go be a successful book author. As many people could go write very terrible, short books and release them to a book market as the ones who do the same in game development. But not too many can do what the professional authors do.

So, what's the difference between the book case and the game case? Why is it happening to games? I think the answer to that question is the real problem, not the difficulty level.

Is it because they think they can make more quick and easy money off games? Probably if they thought they could make more quick and easy money off books, it would be happening in that market instead.

I think there's the problem. I don't like to hear "game dev is easy" - it's easy if you make junk, and this is true for many industries. But most industries don't get ruined by this fact.

 

True. But I don't really see much of change in ratio. Back in the day not only was it much harder to simply create a game, but publishing and marketing was also very difficult and expensive as well. The games that did manage to actually get distribution, could do well because of small market, but there was also a lot of competition to get a publisher/distributor as they were footing the costs. You have never heard of games that didn't make that cut. Today, quality/uniqueness/value isn't a factor in getting the game to market place. I was at GG (an indie publisher/engine), during and before the digital distribution change. There were tons of games trying to get published. But unless you were actually involved in the (old) indie community, no one ever heard about them.

That is the biggest, positive change in games. A handful of Publishers decided whether or not games even had a chance to be seen and succeed. And, sadly, like everything "exclusive", it wasn't always based purely on the quality of the game. Even at GG, we were focused on only Indie games, we still had to reject tons of games. Some may have done well. But it cost a lot to publish, so resources were limited.

Today, everyone has the ability to publish and get their game out to world. The game is the determinate factor, not other, tech/comm/relationship barriers. Downside is that competition is bigger. Originality/polish has to be much higher. Engines and tools take up more of workload that you would have handle in the past, giving you more time to focus on the game. Communication is rich enough that you can collaborate with people online, in different countries, that you have never met. My first collaboration with was with a couple guys I met at a local user group, and we met every Saturday and exchanged files via syquest drive (we had one we shared).

Right now is a fantastic time if your passion is to make games. The market is constantly growing, there are multiple and emerging platforms and many more market segments than before. The tools are cheap/free and very powerful. There is endless information and resources a click away and dedicated communities. There are clear and available distribution and marketing options. (some of my first games back in the day, I built before I even had clue how I was going to distribute/publish/promote them, that wasn't something to even think about before the game was built). You aren't gated by a publisher, (again, back in the day, if you couldn't get a publisher, your game was dead before a single player had a chance to play it).

As a small developer today, everyone has the tools and opportunity to succeed. It's all about the competition. You really have to compete to succeed. I see that as the best case scenario. It pushes us and drives us. You not only have to build a better game than what is out there, but you have to build a better game than others building right now that you don't know about. I mean come on, most of us are game developers because we are gamers. Competition is the heart and soul of our medium. Embrace it. Play to win.

 

Absolutely. Keep in mind here, though, that if they're good at marketing they're probably doing it professionally (based on my being unaware of any hobbyist marketers), so the option of taking a cut rather than a fee might not be as attractive as it sounds.

That said, there are definitely agencies around who do this stuff with a variety of models. I've been in contact with a couple lately, and if you're serious and your work is of commercial quality I'd recommend having a chat with similar people.

 

Depends what you call "Game Dev" and "Easy", knocking out a flappy birds clone or a simple platformer in three weeks to three months.. Not an issue..

I don't see many indies making the next "Skyrim" or ORI, when you start to put your money where your mouth is things change quickly. How much are you willing to risk? Not just from a technical standpoint either, the psychological strain these sort of games put on you is intense.

When you actually have something to loose, not just "downloaded Unity / Unreal" and Gimp / Blender as @zombiegorilla says. These sorta games are hard in every respect..! It is truly living on the edge.

The good news is every time I've seen an Indie go down this path, they get featured everywhere and gain a massive following. There's a fair few examples as well..! Although it still ain't a guarantee, some just can't make it to the finish line.

Flappy spaceships 20232123 just simply won't cut it.! No matter how well it's made.

 

Bear in mind that this particular tangent started with the concept that Pong was a success in its time. Nobody is saying that times don't change but, comparatively, "game dev" is indeed "easy" at the entry level now compared to 30+ years ago.

The fact that it's easier means that the people at the top end can push further, so the risk, challenge and stress for them hasn't lowered, the ceiling has been raised instead. Nobody's arguing with that. But the dropping entry level still effects everyone.

 

Of course, technology improves and things get easier. But Unity has been around for a long while now and frameworks have been free and available since I started, it's not really changed that much over the last decade and a half.. So by simple logic that can't be the route cause.

We all know why it's happened, the credit crunch put big business out on their rear. Those who remain skimped and re-hashed, Valve wanted more money and opened the floodgates so did apple etc.

Now we are where we are...

But I am surprised things have remained this way, AAA are complaining at the likes of Valve because they're loosing chunks of sales and gamers are complaining due to the quality of games. Now there's a returns policy in place, who wins out of this? It's not going to play well for Valve in the long run, all it takes is another decent publishing outlet to get AAA attention then Steam becomes another "indie" store nobody cares about.

Hell it wouldn't surprise me if eventually AAA suck it up and band together with a publishing outlet and bypass the middle man. Then we really are where we were a decade or two ago..

 

Yea... if I am being brutally honest, the reduced entry barrier has actually affected larger brands in a positive way. When there are thousands match-3 or endless runners to choose from, the average player when faced with overwhelming choices, will often chose the one with Iron Man, or Mario or Mickey or whatever. Not saying that is a good thing, or ultimately beneficial to the player, but it is a reality.

 

I'm a little surprised to hear the credit crunch listed as a more significant factor than recent leaps in mobile technology and the resultant radical changes in market reach and behaviour.

 

Quoting for posterity. In a few years when people get frustrated, you get to play the "told you so..." card.
There will be more marketplaces/stores in the next few years, with narrower focused content. Probably many.