Developers Announce they will abandon Unity Engine if company doesn't reverse price changes

Draugoth

Draugoth

Gold Member
Developers of free-to-play games (which have a much higher install rate than premium titles) will have the option to offset this fee by adopting other Unity services, such as its LevelPlay advertising mediation service.
Click to expand...
Unity stated in a blog that it is implementing the Runtime Fee in lieu of a revenue-sharing program. The company said it believes "an install-based fee allows creators to keep the ongoing financial gains from player engagement."
Click to expand...
As for why Unity has chosen to introduce these new fees, Unity Create president Marc Whitten told Game Developer the company is seeking to "better balance the value exchange" between Unity and developers.
Click to expand...

As you may expect, this has turned into a mini-shitstorm quick, and got Unity trending on twitter, with devs sounding off:











 
Last edited:
hahahahaha. Get fucked Unity, please go down in flames. Time for all the Indie Unity Devs make the jump/migrate their games to UE5.
 
Last edited:
recap bachelorette GIF
 
Unit huh?

Doctor Who GIF by Temple Of Geek
 
Got to remember Unity is losing a lot of money for years. They are basically subsidizing all the studios making games where the current licensing fees and extra software tool fees (I had to google it) arent enough. Thats why they are adding this 20 cent fee.

By the sounds of it, it seems like before this new fee a studio can use Unity for free as long as you dont hit a certain threshold of sales. But once you hit a higher tier or add on premium services then you got fees. It looks like whatever revenue they get now isnt enough. The company has been losing $100s of million per year for years.

If this new fee isnt a good idea, what other ideas are there to raise more revenue to offset costs while keeping this service widely available for free or cheap for devs?
 
StreetsofBeige said:
Got to remember Unity is losing a lot of money for years. They are basically subsidizing all the studios making games where the current licensing fees and extra software tool fees (I had to google it) arent enough. Thats why they are adding this 20 cent fee.

By the sounds of it, it seems like before this new fee a studio can use Unity for free as long as you dont hit a certain threshold of sales. But once you hit a higher tier or add on premium services then you got fees. It looks like whatever revenue they get now isnt enough. The company has been losing $100s of million per year for years.

If this new fee isnt a good idea, what other ideas are there to raise more revenue to offset costs while keeping this service widely available for free or cheap for devs?
Click to expand...
The per unit cost destroying sub deals seems like a poorly conceived policy since devs dont usually get paid on subs per download. They made it sound like it'll charge devs even in cases of piracy which is insane.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
Got to remember Unity is losing a lot of money for years. They are basically subsidizing all the studios making games where the current licensing fees and extra software tool fees (I had to google it) arent enough. Thats why they are adding this 20 cent fee.

By the sounds of it, it seems like before this new fee a studio can use Unity for free as long as you dont hit a certain threshold of sales. But once you hit a higher tier or add on premium services then you got fees. It looks like whatever revenue they get now isnt enough. The company has been losing $100s of million per year for years.

If this new fee isnt a good idea, what other ideas are there to raise more revenue to offset costs while keeping this service widely available for free or cheap for devs?
Click to expand...
Increase the normal fee, different tax politics for f2p and subscription services, there were tons of other possibilities to increase revenue.

The main issue with this install fee is not simply the money but how its completely nonsensical in practical scenarios. The whole thing stinks of out-of-touch executives patting each other's back and powerpoints.
 
Last edited:
How can they keep track of every offline install? and reinstall?
I don't think it included demos and gamepass\ps+ could have exceptions.
I wonder if it's every PURCHASED game that's not part of ps+\pass.

If it's literally every install relating to the game then LMAO! Someone snorted a line, drank the stank, and smoked the wrong green to think this was remotely a good idea.
 
Knightime_X said:
How can they keep track of every offline install? and reinstall?
I don't think it included demos and gamepass\ps+ could have exceptions.
I wonder if it's every PURCHASED game that's not part of ps+\pass.

If it's literally every install relating to the game then LMAO! Someone snorted a line, drank the stank, and smoked the wrong green to think this was remotely a good idea.
Click to expand...
Their target for this policy was monetizing better on F2P mobile games that usually don't have "unit sales" and have only a small number of players putting large amounts of money into the game. Under the previous license, I believe they were only charged per paying customer, so a lot of these F2P mobile games had a big reach and Unity wasn't getting their fair cut (according to them).

So their new policy says "ok, you can make a F2P mobile game using Unity, but we're gonna charge you $0.20 for every download". The backlash is coming from a) developers who make F2P mobile games who think this is ridiculous and b) people who make traditional PC or console games with Unity that are now being charged per install instead of per sale.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
Got to remember Unity is losing a lot of money for years. They are basically subsidizing all the studios making games where the current licensing fees and extra software tool fees (I had to google it) arent enough. Thats why they are adding this 20 cent fee.

By the sounds of it, it seems like before this new fee a studio can use Unity for free as long as you dont hit a certain threshold of sales. But once you hit a higher tier or add on premium services then you got fees. It looks like whatever revenue they get now isnt enough. The company has been losing $100s of million per year for years.

If this new fee isnt a good idea, what other ideas are there to raise more revenue to offset costs while keeping this service widely available for free or cheap for devs?
Click to expand...

Didn't know that. Obviously they run a business and have to bring in some money. I'm sure a ton of the games created with it never make the thresholds required, looks like this new method would at least ensure than everyone releasing commercial games will contribute.
 
Can they not just take a cut of total MTX revenue from those F2P games? I'm not a developer so I'm probably not aware of the full story (please do tell me if so), but I don't see an issue with them wanting to get paid if a developer uses their engine and makes money from it. Seems... fair..?

Just for context (for the uninformed like me), can someone kindly give us a rundown of:

1) what Unity's current business (revenue structure) model
2) what options (engines) developers have if they do follow through with their threat to abandon Unity?
 
StreetsofBeige said:
Got to remember Unity is losing a lot of money for years. They are basically subsidizing all the studios making games where the current licensing fees and extra software tool fees (I had to google it) arent enough. Thats why they are adding this 20 cent fee.

By the sounds of it, it seems like before this new fee a studio can use Unity for free as long as you dont hit a certain threshold of sales. But once you hit a higher tier or add on premium services then you got fees. It looks like whatever revenue they get now isnt enough. The company has been losing $100s of million per year for years.

If this new fee isnt a good idea, what other ideas are there to raise more revenue to offset costs while keeping this service widely available for free or cheap for devs?
Click to expand...
I have an idea: stop chasing Unreal and focus on being a (Indie)game engine.

They bought Weta and just announced new tools for VFX studios to use Unity. Fuck off, not even Unreal get used in regular VFX pipelines (except for the rare cases of Epic sponsored VFX shots, so they can advertise with it).
 
StreetsofBeige said:
Got to remember Unity is losing a lot of money for years. They are basically subsidizing all the studios making games where the current licensing fees and extra software tool fees (I had to google it) arent enough. Thats why they are adding this 20 cent fee.

By the sounds of it, it seems like before this new fee a studio can use Unity for free as long as you dont hit a certain threshold of sales. But once you hit a higher tier or add on premium services then you got fees. It looks like whatever revenue they get now isnt enough. The company has been losing $100s of million per year for years.

If this new fee isnt a good idea, what other ideas are there to raise more revenue to offset costs while keeping this service widely available for free or cheap for devs?
Click to expand...
So, this is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation for Unity?

Well, damn..
 
Johnny Concrete said:
Fuck off, not even Unreal get used in regular VFX pipelines (except for the rare cases of Epic sponsored VFX shots, so they can advertise with it).
Click to expand...
this is like if 3DS max decided to advertise itself to game developers as a top of the industry game engine just because it gets used in movies
 
supernova8 said:
Can they not just take a cut of total MTX revenue from those F2P games? I'm not a developer so I'm probably not aware of the full story (please do tell me if so), but I don't see an issue with them wanting to get paid if a developer uses their engine and makes money from it. Seems... fair..?

Just for context (for the uninformed like me), can someone kindly give us a rundown of:

1) what Unity's current business (revenue structure) model
2) what options (engines) developers have if they do follow through with their threat to abandon Unity?
Click to expand...
1) Current revenue structure is based around license costs (the cost for a studio to provide a Unity seat for each developer) and their Unity Ads platform. You can also access "Free" versions of Unity currently, however you can only use that free version until your company/software passes a set sales number.
2) This depends. Most people will be quick to say Unreal Engine 5, but regardless of being UE5 or not, this is going to be a massive hit to development teams. The amount of time it takes a team to move from one engine to the next can be manageable if you have a small team. This quickly becomes difficult when your team climbs into and beyond the double digits.

In this new deal, they raise the price on some of the licenses they provide (Unity Industry & Unity Plus) and take a revenue cut based off of installs on the entertainment side in the new model. Essentially creating another "publisher tax". A set amount that some platforms like google and steam take from the profits your games create for the developers.

I literally had a call with an rep at Unity 2 weeks ago and they told us about the Unity Industry change and that there was a change coming to the gaming side as well. They were up front about the Unity Industry change, but didn't share the 'deets on the gaming changes. I don't envy those "Partner Relations" folks right now.
 
Wow
Completely out of touch, especially for those Gamepass titles. Just torpedoes whatever revenue model you had before.

What was the previous fee structure for Unity?

Edit:
Answered
Miyazaki's Slave said:
1) Current revenue structure is based around license costs (the cost for a studio to provide a Unity seat for each developer) and their Unity Ads platform. You can also access "Free" versions of Unity currently, however you can only use that free version until your company/software passes a set sales number.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This sucks. I've released indie projects in Unity and I have more in the pipeline, some of which I've been working on for years. The studio I work for also uses Unity for a significant number of its games. Royalties, I can understand, but charging by the install is insane and incredibly open to abuse.

Also, to the "fuck Unity, I hope it burns" people: potentially losing years of work, as an indie, is devastating. You're not sticking it to the man with comments like that. You're sticking it to indies who are doing this out of genuine passion to make games they love.
 
Dang a bunch of indie games I was into use Unity. Valheim probably the most prominent that isn't done yet.
 
Miyazaki's Slave said:
1) Current revenue structure is based around license costs (the cost for a studio to provide a Unity seat for each developer) and their Unity Ads platform. You can also access "Free" versions of Unity currently, however you can only use that free version until your company/software passes a set sales number.
2) This depends. Most people will be quick to say Unreal Engine 5, but regardless of being UE5 or not, this is going to be a massive hit to development teams. The amount of time it takes a team to move from one engine to the next can be manageable if you have a small team. This quickly becomes difficult when your team climbs into and beyond the double digits.

In this new deal, they raise the price on some of the licenses they provide (Unity Industry & Unity Plus) and take a revenue cut based off of installs on the entertainment side in the new model. Essentially creating another "publisher tax". A set amount that some platforms like google and steam take from the profits your games create for the developers.

I literally had a call with an rep at Unity 2 weeks ago and they told us about the Unity Industry change and that there was a change coming to the gaming side as well. They were up front about the Unity Industry change, but didn't share the 'deets on the gaming changes. I don't envy those "Partner Relations" folks right now.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated!
You Are Awesome GIF
 
Last edited:
Imagine some unhinged lunatic with a vendetta against a studio/game decides to setup hundreds of virtual machines to install reinstall a game tens of thousands of times.

Incredibly dumb idea.
 
PSA: While this does affect many great games, I would say in particular Shadow Gambit: The Cursed Crew was made with Unity and the developer is also the publisher and they already announced they are closing down, only giving this one game support. However, if Unity goes through with this, I'm not sure how badly it will hurt them on the way out. They might take the game down. I was thinking of getting it to give them farewell support but a bit later since this year is so packed with games, yet with this Unity annoucement it may be best to help them now, so I just picked it up at GOG.
 
Last edited:
tommycronin said:
Silksong is using Unity isn't it. No way they're gonna drop that game around the time this goes into effect.
Click to expand...

They could always port it to another engine, and as stupid as that sounds, it's better than enduring this policy.
I also feel I don't know enough, so, there is that, too. ;)
 
I don't get how unity plans on knowing how much a game has been installed.

Surely the games won't phone home to inform of an install? Are all future unity games gonna require online verification?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Digital Foundry tests "Ultimate Engine Tweaks" Unreal Engine INI file "mods" that supposedly improve performance. Results: "This doesn't do anything"
2
96
2K
Ocean Dweller replied
Nintendo Says Switch 2 Price Changes May Still Occur Depending On Tariffs
35
575
adamsapple replied
Why are games not getting price drops like they use to?
2 3
122
610
DownLikeBCPowder replied
  • Locked
Anonymous Gran Turismo Developer says Sony doesn't listen to developers or community
Game Dev  2
73
7K
Orpheus replied
Unity Says 79% Of Game Developers “Feel Positive” About AI In Gaming
Business Game Dev 
25
1K
Hawk The Slayer replied
Top Bottom