Unity announces a 'Runtime Fee', which will charge developers each time a game using the engine is downloaded. Game developers furious.
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/sep/12/unity-engine-fees-backlash-response
That's one good way to run off all the developers using your product... Did they have an internal contest to see who could figure out how to do it fastest?
Shouldn't that be a "download fee" then? "Runtime" would imply a charge per unit of time run.
More amazing since Unreal Engine has been kick'n butt recently. You would think they want Unity to be more competitive, not less.
This is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.
Quote from: Destraex on September 12, 2023, 09:45:19 PMThis is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.
I've seen this as well. I'd add that this behavior is incentivized by compensation structures that reward executives who do this and cut their costs a little in the short run as a result. By the time the product or company is collapsing as a foreseeable result of their terrible decisions, they've taken their golden parachute and are sitting on their $25 million yachts waiting for their buddies on the board to call them up to run their other companies :undecided:
Quote from: CaptainKoloth on September 13, 2023, 11:10:38 AMQuote from: Destraex on September 12, 2023, 09:45:19 PMThis is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.
I've seen this as well. I'd add that this behavior is incentivized by compensation structures that reward executives who do this and cut their costs a little in the short run as a result. By the time the product or company is collapsing as a foreseeable result of their terrible decisions, they've taken their golden parachute and are sitting on their $25 million yachts waiting for their buddies on the board to call them up to run their other companies :undecided:
Boy did you guys nail it. Life of an American company:
Success!
Expand
Expand
Expand
DIE
Quote from: Destraex on September 12, 2023, 09:45:19 PMThis is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.
Well yes - but they haven't made a profit in almost 20 years of operations .... so I am not sure its more a way of finding how to make one rather than increasing it ...
I agree with the 'squeeze it until it dies, while the execs escape with the gold' theory. But for slightly different, but just as cynical reasons.
Technology moves fast. Unity is in a place where to stay relevant they have to make a massive investment in new architecture, technology and maybe even vision (tighter integration with AI for example). That path takes alot of work and is risky.
Or, rather than make that investment, the Unity execs squeeze every drop of blood out of what they have, and escape before it dies. The idea is a kind of 'pump and dump' scheme. Make revenues as large as possible so you can sell off for the best price before the roof caves-in.
We have seen this play out in hardware / software before. Zip Drives were once on top, but iomega failed to stay relevant, was bought by Lenovo and are now barely a memory. But NVIDIA kept investing in its product and stayed very relevant by meeting market needs...and now they rule the world...well almost ;)
Quote from: Zulu1966 on September 13, 2023, 01:02:13 PMQuote from: Destraex on September 12, 2023, 09:45:19 PMThis is pretty typical of a problem I see all the time. Sales\marketting\share holders expect exponential growth from companies. Companies cannot just do what they do and get profit each year once they reach peak efficiency. This leads to some executive needing to justify their job each year by making up new schemes to make money until it becomes ridiculous. Their is a balance in everything and we don't seem to have the common sense to stop when it is obvious their is no further profit to be made. There is an attitude that 100% is never going to be good enough.
I get that you don't want to be complacent in the market place, but that classic sales attitude where if you make budget their is obviously more to squeeze so your budget target is raised next month is something I always thought was daft.
The system is great at maximising potential but also great at breaking things and turning once good products into cheap junk.
Well yes - but they haven't made a profit in almost 20 years of operations .... so I am not sure its more a way of finding how to make one rather than increasing it ...
I just assumed they had made one. If they have not, considering everybody seems to use unity, I wonder how that happened. I wonder if it was an EPIC games scenario of giving the engine away for X years until market dominance and then dropping the profit hammer. Perhaps they are non-profit? Will have to look at the companies history.
Quote from: ArizonaTank on September 13, 2023, 01:16:43 PMI agree with the 'squeeze it until it dies, while the execs escape with the gold' theory. But for slightly different, but just as cynical reasons.
Technology moves fast. Unity is in a place where to stay relevant they have to make a massive investment in new architecture, technology and maybe even vision (tighter integration with AI for example). That path takes alot of work and is risky.
Or, rather than make that investment, the Unity execs squeeze every drop of blood out of what they have, and escape before it dies. The idea is a kind of 'pump and dump' scheme. Make revenues as large as possible so you can sell off for the best price before the roof caves-in.
We have seen this play out in hardware / software before. Zip Drives were once on top, but iomega failed to stay relevant, was bought by Lenovo and are now barely a memory. But NVIDIA kept investing in its product and stayed very relevant by meeting market needs...and now they rule the world...well almost ;)
Slow and steady with a passion for the industry is best practise. The pump and dump number crunchers are the worst for society in the long run.
There's absolutely no way they don't walk this back. They are going to get sued into oblivion by current and past developers. Even if they are within their rights, which is extremely doubtful, the cost of litigation will bankrupt them. Do they need a way to increase revenue? Sure. But collecting for installs is absolutely not the way to do it. Just read a great article on Gamesradar with interviews from developers.
Did the interview clarify whether the Unity publishers have made any profit from the engine in 20 years or whatever?
Quote from: smittyohio on September 14, 2023, 08:00:27 AMThere's absolutely no way they don't walk this back. They are going to get sued into oblivion by current and past developers. Even if they are within their rights, which is extremely doubtful, the cost of litigation will bankrupt them. Do they need a way to increase revenue? Sure. But collecting for installs is absolutely not the way to do it. Just read a great article on Gamesradar with interviews from developers.
Sued on what grounds? Changing your payment policy to a ridiculous and unfair one isn't illegal.
Quote from: CaptainKoloth on September 14, 2023, 02:17:57 PMQuote from: smittyohio on September 14, 2023, 08:00:27 AMThere's absolutely no way they don't walk this back. They are going to get sued into oblivion by current and past developers. Even if they are within their rights, which is extremely doubtful, the cost of litigation will bankrupt them. Do they need a way to increase revenue? Sure. But collecting for installs is absolutely not the way to do it. Just read a great article on Gamesradar with interviews from developers.
Sued on what grounds? Changing your payment policy to a ridiculous and unfair one isn't illegal.
I don't know what grounds, but developers are already investigating lawsuits.
The legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.
With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.
I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.
Yikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#
The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.
| 12 Months Ending | Dec. 31, 2022 | Dec. 31, 2021 | Dec. 31, 2020 |
| Revenue | $ 1,391,024 | $ 1,110,526 | $ 772,445 |
| Net (loss) | (919,488) | (532,607) | (282,308) |
So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.
The thing that kills me is that based on this structure a dev could theoretically be billed after a game is removed from distribution.
Plus, considering Steam is usually very tight-lipped on their sales / download numbers how would Unity get this information? Buying it from Steam? Would that even be legal?
Lots of flags being raised on this one in my mind.
Wow, ACCat, thanks!
I'm still unclear on what charge they're planning to make. Is it based on the number of hours+fractions a game runs on a platform? On the number of downloads? If a game is removed from distribution, then I suppose Steam (or whoever is distributing) could still be billed for run-time, but how would the developers who used Unity be billed?
Quote from: Redwolf on September 14, 2023, 05:53:30 PMThe legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.
With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.
I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.
They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.
1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
Quote from: A Canadian Cat on September 15, 2023, 09:28:49 AMYikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#
The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.
| 12 Months Ending | Dec. 31, 2022 | Dec. 31, 2021 | Dec. 31, 2020 |
| Revenue | $ 1,391,024 | $ 1,110,526 | $ 772,445 |
| Net (loss) | (919,488) | (532,607) | (282,308) |
So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.
Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because (https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/entertainment/unity-backlash-game-developers-ironsource) of several controversies (https://www.svg.com/929447/unity-ceos-comments-about-game-devs-are-causing-an-uproar/) as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.
The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.
https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows (https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows)
Quote from: DetCord on September 15, 2023, 11:00:23 PMQuote from: Redwolf on September 14, 2023, 05:53:30 PMThe legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.
With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.
I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.
They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.
1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
Quote from: A Canadian Cat on September 15, 2023, 09:28:49 AMYikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#
The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.
| 12 Months Ending | Dec. 31, 2022 | Dec. 31, 2021 | Dec. 31, 2020 |
| Revenue | $ 1,391,024 | $ 1,110,526 | $ 772,445 |
| Net (loss) | (919,488) | (532,607) | (282,308) |
So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.
Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because (https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/entertainment/unity-backlash-game-developers-ironsource) of several controversies (https://www.svg.com/929447/unity-ceos-comments-about-game-devs-are-causing-an-uproar/) as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.
The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.
https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows (https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows)
Just curious, I might have missed in one of your past postings, but you mention being a game developer. What games have you developed/released as might want to check them out? Also, if Unity isn't good to use, which one are you using for your games?
Here is a look at the legality of the stunt, including a look back at older documents:
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/wait-is-unity-allowed-to-just-change-its-fee-structure-like-that/
Quote from: DetCord on September 15, 2023, 11:00:23 PMQuote from: Redwolf on September 14, 2023, 05:53:30 PMThe legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.
With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.
I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.
They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.
1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
Quote from: A Canadian Cat on September 15, 2023, 09:28:49 AMYikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#
The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.
| 12 Months Ending | Dec. 31, 2022 | Dec. 31, 2021 | Dec. 31, 2020 |
| Revenue | $ 1,391,024 | $ 1,110,526 | $ 772,445 |
| Net (loss) | (919,488) | (532,607) | (282,308) |
So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.
Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because (https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/entertainment/unity-backlash-game-developers-ironsource) of several controversies (https://www.svg.com/929447/unity-ceos-comments-about-game-devs-are-causing-an-uproar/) as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.
The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.
https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows (https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows)
I'm curious what you mean by "we game devs rarely use Unity."
Unless you're specifically referring to a group of devs you work with, this is categorically false. Unity is one of the most popular game engines on the market and plenty of popular indie games like Phasmophobia and Outer Wilds are made in the engine. Unity was previously considered a more beginner friendly alternative to Unreal with IIRC less sucky fees compared to Unreal (this of course is no longer true)
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 16, 2023, 05:32:53 AMQuote from: DetCord on September 15, 2023, 11:00:23 PMQuote from: Redwolf on September 14, 2023, 05:53:30 PMThe legal issue is whether Unity can change the license terms of software that was purchased with different licensing terms. They want to do that to charge for game sales from Jan 1st 2024 on even if people use an old unity version and the game is older than this license change.
With Unreal Engine the situation is clear: if you purchase the engine today with license terms <foo> then you can forever sell your games being subject to <foo>, as long as you never update the engine to one with new, different licensing terms.
I have no information whether the old licensing terms for Unity have taken their path into account proactively (you can say that your current license becomes invalid when the product gets a new license). If so that should have been an alarm bell for developers. If not they can't do what they want to do.
They've already changed/retro'd their EULA to support their new model. The current market-share is, IIRC, 24-25% PC, 25-26% console platforms, with the remaining being mobile. Unity makes up the bulk of mobile developed titles using that engine. There is a reason we (game developers) don't use this engine, or rather rarely do.
1.) It's shit.
2.) It's shit at using/manipulating (GUI).
3.) It's shit at animating and or capping anims.
4.) It's just plain shit. It's obvious that they gave up years ago with regards to moving it along.
Quote from: A Canadian Cat on September 15, 2023, 09:28:49 AMYikes I just reviewed their financial statements. They are scary.
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001810806/2593ac46-46db-47c5-996e-5dcf7473b3a0.html#
The highlights are they just about doubled their revenue from 2020 to 2023 but they more than tripled their losses.
| 12 Months Ending | Dec. 31, 2022 | Dec. 31, 2021 | Dec. 31, 2020 |
| Revenue | $ 1,391,024 | $ 1,110,526 | $ 772,445 |
| Net (loss) | (919,488) | (532,607) | (282,308) |
So, whatever they do they need to pull in more revenue. They cannot cut their way to profitability with numbers like that.
Their market-share has plummeted over the years primarily due to not only abandonment by the dev world by-and-large but also because (https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/entertainment/unity-backlash-game-developers-ironsource) of several controversies (https://www.svg.com/929447/unity-ceos-comments-about-game-devs-are-causing-an-uproar/) as well. John Riccitiello is running the show over there at Unity and previously helmed monetization of gaming aspects at EA. Yeah, Electronic Arts. He's the guy that thought up and attempted to implement that if you ran out of ammo in a BF game you could pay real money for a few extra mags.
The man is an utter scumbag and was recently found to have sold his Unity shares prior to this announcement. If you really wanna know who this guy is look at his time at Pepsi and their actions in Africa. It's Nestle level evil.
https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows (https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-bosses-sold-stock-days-before-development-fees-announcement-raising-eyebrows)
Just curious, I might have missed in one of your past postings, but you mention being a game developer. What games have you developed/released as might want to check them out? Also, if Unity isn't good to use, which one are you using for your games?
I've worked as a contractor for almost 10 years. It's where they outsource aspects of the development of whatever title being worked on. For me, it was various Ubi, ARI, and a whole slew of UE related projects as a texture artist, primarily via Substance and Coat.
QuoteUnless you're specifically referring to a group of devs you work with, this is categorically false. Unity is one of the most popular game engines on the market and plenty of popular indie games like Phasmophobia and Outer Wilds are made in the engine. Unity was previously considered a more beginner friendly alternative to Unreal with IIRC less sucky fees compared to Unreal (this of course is no longer true)
No, it isn't. It's popular in the indie PC/CsD realm that makes up a minuscule percentage of usage and revenue. Unity is the
go to suite for mobile platforms, which I stated previously, and which makes up the majority of their rev and market share. It's why they merged with IronSource, bought out ATQ, and have plummeted down the rabbit hole of overt monetization of anything and everything. Their mission to exploit the mobile gaming sector for any and all drips isn't news to anyone, nor is the fact that they more or less control it.
Your straw man is proof that you're either stupid or utterly ignorant of Unity, their operations, platform usage, monetization, and or exploitation. Unity has been and is the primary DPlt for mobile games. It's been this way for years. A simple Google search would've rendered the results needed to make a cognitive decision.
Saw this posted on one of the social media channels, will be interesting to see on what changes they actually come back with.
We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 18, 2023, 07:04:10 AMSaw this posted on one of the social media channels, will be interesting to see on what changes they actually come back with.
We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.
I've seen companies play this game before. They'll come back with something that's functionally similar and still onerous but pulled back slightly in some non-material way and then pat themselves on the back for "listening to the community."
Hold your fire on calling anyone stupid around here, DetCord. Not appreciated.
Quote from: CaptainKoloth on September 18, 2023, 08:44:35 AMQuote from: Grim.Reaper on September 18, 2023, 07:04:10 AMSaw this posted on one of the social media channels, will be interesting to see on what changes they actually come back with.
We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.
I've seen companies play this game before. They'll come back with something that's functionally similar and still onerous but pulled back slightly in some non-material way and then pat themselves on the back for "listening to the community."
They just need to come up with something that provides them revenue, but is easy to understand, implement, and track. Nobody trusted their ability to do so with "installs". Development studios need some kind of cost certainty, and not something that changes, retroactively even, at a whim.
Quote from: DetCord on September 18, 2023, 01:13:38 AMNo, it isn't. It's popular in the indie PC/CsD realm that makes up a minuscule percentage of usage and revenue. Unity is the go to suite for mobile platforms, which I stated previously, and which makes up the majority of their rev and market share. It's why they merged with IronSource, bought out ATQ, and have plummeted down the rabbit hole of overt monetization of anything and everything. Their mission to exploit the mobile gaming sector for any and all drips isn't news to anyone, nor is the fact that they more or less control it.
Your straw man is proof that you're either stupid or utterly ignorant of Unity, their operations, platform usage, monetization, and or exploitation. Unity has been and is the primary DPlt for mobile games. It's been this way for years. A simple Google search would've rendered the results needed to make a cognitive decision.
https://steamdb.info/tech/Engine/Unity/
Yeah, sort this list by year and you'll see what you said is 100% BS. Unity being more popular for mobile games and "indie games" (as if a game published by Team 17 (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1562430/DREDGE/) counts as "indie") doesn't take away from its popularity on other platorms. In addition to this DB page, Twitter is full of working game devs - both individual and part of companies - who have complained about the changes because it directly impacts projects they're currently working on. It's an indisputable fact that Unity is extremely popular pretty much across the board, and I am very dubious of any supposed game dev who claims otherwise.
Besides - are mobile game devs not game devs, too?
Quote from: Gusington on September 18, 2023, 09:11:09 AMHold your fire on calling anyone stupid around here, DetCord. Not appreciated.
+1 on not being appreciated.
Here is the revised policy from Unity. Although probably makes it better, likely burned a lot of bridges with how this all went down.
The new install fee (called a "Runtime Fee") will not apply to games made with the Unity Personal or Plus plans, only the Pro and Enterprise plans.
The free Unity Personal plan was previously restricted to studios that made less than $100K in the past 12 months. That threshold has been increased to $200K.
The Runtime Fee won't apply to games made on the current or older versions of Unity, unless the developer moves them onto the new version releasing next year or future versions.
Games which are subject to the Runtime Fee (they've made $1M in the past 12 months and have been installed more than 1M times) can opt for a 2.5% revenue share instead, and will always be billed the lower amount.
Installs will be self-reported, rather than determined by Unity's "proprietary data model."
Yeah, but the important part is that the new terms of service say that future price changes are possible for older games using an older version of the engine.
In other words: if you download the tools today and never upgrade you still don't get today's pricing forever.
That clause is what breaks this thing.
Quote from: Redwolf on September 23, 2023, 05:35:45 AMYeah, but the important part is that the new terms of service say that future price changes are possible for older games using an older version of the engine.
In other words: if you download the tools today and never upgrade you still don't get today's pricing forever.
That clause is what breaks this thing.
Guess I don't understand as it states the change in fees will only apply to future versions and wouldn't apply if stayed on current or older. Of course some day folks are going to need a new version to take advantage of enhancements so it's only a matter of time for people having pro and enterprise plans. Article also mentioned unreal engine charges 5% while Unity will only be 2.5%
Speculating, it sounds to me like this might be part of an exit strategy, milking the cash cow as much as possible before selling or abandoning it, in which case there might be few, if any, updates of meaningful magnitude.
Quote from: solops on September 23, 2023, 02:33:29 PMSpeculating, it sounds to me like this might be part of an exit strategy, milking the cash cow as much as possible before selling or abandoning it, in which case there might be few, if any, updates of meaningful magnitude.
Intentional or not, they pretty much stuck a fork in it.
Where can I read the actual terms statement (after the latest revisions)? The github repository seems to be unfed.
And the leader is out....
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20231009494331/en/Unity-Announces-Leadership-Transition
From what I've read, sounds like he sold off all his Unity stock shortly before the debacle, so sounds like he got a pretty good deal out of the whole thing assuming he's not interested in trying to work for anyone else.
My retirement part-time job / hobby will be to try my hand at indy game development.
I was starting to prepare myself by learning Unity, for a Unity based world.
Not anymore. Thanks to this licensing mess. I am making the switch to Godot.
Godot is not nearly as polished as Unity. But it can still use C# for scripting; the same as Unity, but Godot's implementation is not as integrated as Unity's. Overall however, Godot is very feature rich.
But the big thing with Godot is that it has a "free and open source license."
Sure Godot has some rough edges, but hopefully by the time I really get swinging (in a few years), it will be a fully formed beast. In fact, I looked at Godot about four years ago, and was not impressed. However, it has grown by leaps and bounds since then. There are even Godot based commercial games starting to show up on Steam; "Dome Keeper" is a great example.
Not that my activities amount to a hill of beans, but I bet I am not the only guy making this decision.
Quote from: al_infierno on October 09, 2023, 08:18:03 PMFrom what I've read, sounds like he sold off all his Unity stock shortly before the debacle, so sounds like he got a pretty good deal out of the whole thing assuming he's not interested in trying to work for anyone else.
Nice to know insider trading only applies to the little people.