Support NeoGAF

[Jacksinthe]

Well you were talking about having a publisher, and for PC titles that are on Steam and sold as Steam keys, there are multiple viable distribution channels that do not include the Steam storefront and have variable costs ranging from 0% (via direct sales), 10% (via itch.io), 20% (via Humble) to 30% (via store.steampowered) versus a console flat rate.

e: This is an article a friend of mine wrote about indies with publishers - it is worth remembering that 30% is a cost floor on consoles and a cost ceiling on PC, and finding out distribution channels in advance

I gave an extreme example on purpose to show, well, the extreme end. That was the point.

I don't think anyone in here is wanting it all for free. What I'm personally upset about is that I don't need any of the features that pro provides with the exception of a custom Splash, but $125/m is an incredibly large amount of money for me. I could have afforded the previous price of $75/m, but $125 is going to be a real stretch.

It's incredibly frustrating because the price hike is due to the inclusion of both IOS and Android build options, rather than them being separate add-ons. I have zero intention of releasing games on those platforms, but I will still have to pay for them in order to get the Splash.

Why can't I pay for the splash separately?

I'm not discounting any of that.

But nitpicking all of that over a splash?

I think a good game is far more important than a splash screen. If your game can speak well enough to players in a 1 minute trailer to warrant showing a bit more professionalism by nixing a splash screen then certainly it can hit a Kickstarter to raise funds just to ditch the Unity logo.

Not being an ass but worrying about a splash is the least of anyone's worries using 100% free software, IMO.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

From a branding perspective, having an 'authorised logo' is fine with me - and completely consistent with branding guidelines from most other companies, where you are asked to use one of their 'authorised' example template images (which are usually provided in black bg / white bg / transparent bg templates).

If Unity did that and let you modify your own 'first run' scene that automatically includes a prefab but that you could control which template and where it is positioned on screen, I think most people would be fine with that (although I guess that would be open to abuse)

New updates:

(We are reading all of your feedback regarding the splash screen.) We're considering a semi-customizable splash screen for Plus. There will be updates in coming months.

I'd be in favour of something like you suggested. If I could have the Unity logo just in the corner or something with my "main" splash front and centre I'd be fine with it.

 

[HelloMeow]

As long as it's classy and doesn't scream "AMATEUR EDITION", I'd be glad to let people know my game was made with Unity.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

But nitpicking all of that over a splash?

I think a good game is far more important than a splash screen. If your game can speak well enough to players in a 1 minute trailer to warrant showing a bit more professionalism by nixing a splash screen then certainly it can hit a Kickstarter to raise funds just to ditch the Unity logo.

Not being an ass but worrying about a splash is the least of anyone's worries using 100% free software, IMO.

I disagree entirely. Unity games have a rep. It's largely unfounded, but it's a rep nonetheless and I don't want to turn of any potential customers due to some conceived notion that my game is going to be trash because I couldn't afford to get rid of the splash screen. Hell, we had an outbreak of threads right here on Gaf that were berating games with poor performance issues "because they were made with unity" in which several people were incredibly vocal that anything made with Unity wasn't even worth giving the time of day.

For my game to succeed polish is going to be the key, and the Unity splash absolutely reeks of amateurism (due to the large amount crap that gets pushed to greenlight).

Also, I'm not contesting that a Splash should be removed from the free version. I'm saying that I am willing to pay to have it removed but I can't afford the new prices. I could afford the old ones but the new one is way too high. This, coupled with the fact that I don't need any of the additional Pro features makes the $125/m option incredibly unappealing and leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The only paid feature I require from Unity is the removal of the splash screen, but there is no option to purchase only that. Right now Unity gets $0/m from me, whereas they could get something if only they gave me the option.

 

[Jacksinthe]

^^
The rep here on message boards, sure. If your game can't overcome a fee holdouts on the internet, nothing will save it.

People bought UE games by the millions with all its issues.

Moot point.

As long as it's classy and doesn't scream "AMATEUR EDITION", I'd be glad to let people know my game was made with Unity.

Functionally there's no difference in the engine, right?

What would make it an "amateur" edition? Also, I really do hope a game trailer doesn't show the game from a boot screen - that would be "amateur" to do that. So nobody has to know until your game releases. At which point the game will speak for itself. if it's good - people won't care. at all. maybe a few GAF folks who get all grumpy because of a few poorly performing Unity games - but gamers at large? Nah.

I agree the splash is fugly, their guidelines for using custom templates and colors on console is FAR better than stock, though. That should happen regardless.

 

[orioto]

So i may (i'm still cautious!!) start to work on my own game, for the second time in my life. I hope this time it goes to the end of it.

I present to you Hampoo, the breatlhess explorer! It'll be a challenging retro platformer with a nice gimmick, in some sort of quackshot vibes!

I'm not an animator (nor good with characters) to begin with but it'll be charming anyway.

 

[snarge]

So i may (i'm still cautious!!) start to work on my own game, for the second time in my life. I hope this time it goes to the end of it.

I present to you Hampoo, the breatlhess explorer!

I'm not an animator (nor good with characters) to begin with but it'll be charming anyway.

Dear god, please sign me up if you need help on the programming / design side! Always been a fan of your art.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

I dunno about 'best' - there's all sorts of different criteria at play - but you can definitely make endless runners in Unity.
I haven't looked, but there's probably even an asset store template for them to buy, where you just replace the graphics and its good to go.

e: Yup. Lol.

Thanks for the assist.

 

[Dascu]

Current subscriptions can still continue through 2017 so I'm not too annoyed with the changes to the Unity subscription model. Maybe by then the Pro cost will be a non-issue, or maybe by then the Plus license with (customizable as per latest news?) splash screen will be fine anyway.

So let's hold on to our horses and see how it plays out over the coming months.

 

[DNAbro]

Alright dilemma time!

I am a bit of a one man show, I can create simple 3D games in Unity. My skills range from 3d modeling, texturing, skinning, animation, general Unity scene and project editing and amateur to intermediate C# scripting. I made a sort of temple run clone for mobile but that wasn't very satisfying to make. I'm more interested in making full 3D games with actual controller input for PC/Consoles. I have created a 3D platformer with a simple attack combo system and smooth ledge/wall mounting in the same style as Metal Gear Rising. I have also half way created a Magic Carpet clone, including the mana ball mechanics of absorbing nearby balls and growing larger. Even managed to get that all working over Unet!

But I seem to run out of steam when getting through these projects, probably because they are too much for a one man show to do. The reason I've learned all these skills myself because I'm too poor to hire anyone, hah.

I feel like I have all these skills going to waste that I've self taught myself for years in my spare time, but I really want to put them to use. Any suggestions or ideas on what I should do? I can post media of the games I've worked on when I get home from work.

I'm not a master of any of my skills, my best being animation and maybe scripting. Perhaps I should just focus on one skill and master it as best I can, if so which one?

I will take all the advice I can get hah!

I'm probably not the best person to give advice on this, but here is what I would do. If you are looking to make games by yourself, you are probably going to have to do everything for awhile. The only way I can see out of it is to build a demo/prototype that is quality and maybe try and kickstart it and hire someone else. Obviously there are huge risks involved with that, but that could be a possibility. As for focusing on one area, ask yourself why you want to do it. If you want to possibly get a job doing one of those things, then yes it makes much more sense to focus on one area and build a portfolio full of quality work. If you want to make games that are mostly your ideas, then that would have less point.

As for what you should make, it's my opinion that you should always make things you would enjoy. Simple projects are good for practice but I find myself way more motivated when I'm doing something I'm genuinely excited about.(Note: Don't follow this if you enjoy MMOs or want something with the same quality/polish as a naughty dog game, keep your projects a bit realistic.)

 

[LordRaptor]

What was the pricing model before?

And is there even a reason to work with unity now,when UE4 gives you full access to all features for free( up to 100k$ revenue, just like unity)?

You could buy a "perpetual licence" (ie an "own outright previously forever") for $1500 (now deprecated, and will cease support in March 2017) or you could get a rolling licence for $75 a month, with iOS and Android Pro licences each being an additional $75 per month.

So if you were a Pro developer developing for all platforms, you would have paid $225 a month, or a one off $1500.

New pricing is $125 per month for everyone and no more 'one off' licence - so a developer for all platforms is better off, a developer for one platform is worse off, anyone who wanted a single upfront cost is also worse off. To combat what it a pretty hefty price hike for 'low tier' developers concentrating on one platform, they introduced a new 'low tier' "Plus" option at $35 a month, which... doesn't actually warrant the cost IMO.


I agree with Jacksinthe that flat costs are better than UEs revenue split though.

e:

Thanks for the assist.

No problem man, enjoy a jump into game dev!

 

[HandsomeCharles]

^^
The rep here on message boards, sure. If your game can't overcome a fee holdouts on the internet, nothing will save it.

People bought UE games by the millions with all its issues.

Moot point.

Well now you are sounding like an ass.

You're also totally ignoring what my main gripe is. I can't afford the new pricing system, and their justification for the price increase is the inclusion of IOS and Android, two platforms that I (and many other developers) have no intention of supporting. There is no option here. I can't choose to omit those licences, I have to buy them to get other features that I need. Features that are arguably worth a lot less money.

And for the record, people aren't instinctively turned off to UE games because they have huge titles repping them. Gears of War, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham to name but a handful. Even though UE is now readily accessible to small Indie teams, it still has the public perception of being a high-quality AAA engine. The same can not be said for Unity.

 

[Dascu]

Anyone know if there's difference between Unity Plus and Pro in terms of features such as Deferred Rendering, real-time shadows, etc.?

 

[orioto]

Dear god, please sign me up if you need help on the programming / design side! Always been a fan of your art.

Thx, noted! Well we're just starting, with guys who want to help me, we'll see how we go and how difficult it is

 

[LordRaptor]

Anyone know if there's difference between Unity Plus and Pro in terms of features such as Deferred Rendering, real-time shadows, etc.?

There's no difference between free and pro in terms of actual engine features - Plus AFAICS literally only gives you:

What you get with Plus is the dark Editor skin, Asset Store Project Packs, flexible seat management, access to Performance Reporting, higher tier of Cloud Build, Analytics and Multiplayer and Certification courseware. We hope that this will kick start and enable developers that want to make their first game and take it to the market.

So IMO not worth paying for.

 

[HelloMeow]

Functionally there's no difference in the engine, right?

What would make it an "amateur" edition? Also, I really do hope a game trailer doesn't show the game from a boot screen - that would be "amateur" to do that. So nobody has to know until your game releases. At which point the game will speak for itself. if it's good - people won't care. at all. maybe a few GAF folks who get all grumpy because of a few poorly performing Unity games - but gamers at large? Nah.

I agree the splash is fugly, their guidelines for using custom templates and colors on console is FAR better than stock, though. That should happen regardless.

Unless you count the ability to disable a hideous splash screen as a feature. Luckily they made a new one, which looks fine. Everything about the old one looked so cheap.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Unless you count the ability to disable a hideous splash screen as a feature. Luckily they made a new one, which looks fine. Everything about the old one looked so cheap.

What does the new one look like?

 

[HelloMeow]

What does the new one look like?

It's nice and clean. I like it.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

It's nice and clean. I like it.

Agreed, much nicer than that putrid off-blue/grey from the last one.

 

[mourad louali]

Last I remembered UE4 had a 20/mo subs and revenue sharing.

I guess it depends on how well you think your game will sell - if it will do well, unity is still the cheaper option vs a profit share.

UE4 is free. You only have revenue sharing, which is (I think) 30% for Epic. Plus, you can also apply for Epic's funding.

5% can add up if your game sells. What is the % prior?

I'd personally rather pay up front and have 0 profit sharing.

You could make the next Shovel Knight and be in the hole 50k from 1m profit. That's selling a lot LESS than SK.

Ahhhh. Like I said, last I remembered. 30% is still a lot.

If you have a publisher: 30% AFTER the 1st party 30% (Sony, MS, Steam) then it's on you to cough up another 30% for the engine.

On a 10 dollar game you are looking at 3.43 profit for every copy sold. That's 65% off the top of your game.

You sell 500 copied and your Unity license is covered while the 501st and beyond you'd be losing money with UE if they take 30% - that's just nuts.

Correct number is 5% per quarter above 3000$.

Unreal Engine EULA :

You agree to pay Epic a royalty equal to 5% of all worldwide gross revenue actually attributable to each Product, regardless of whether that revenue is received by you or any other person or legal entity, as follows:

a. Gross revenue resulting from any and all sales of a Product to end users through any and
all media, including but not limited to digital and retail;

b. Gross revenue resulting from any and all in-app purchases, downloadable content,
microtransactions, subscriptions, sale, transfer, or exchange of content created by end
users for use with a Product, or redemption of virtual currency, either within a Product
or made externally but which directly affect the operation of the Product;

c. Gross revenue from any Kickstarter or other crowdfunding campaign which is directly
associated with Product access or in-Product benefit (e.g., in a multi-tiered campaign,
if an amount is established in an early tier solely for Product access, your royalty
obligation will apply to that amount for each backer with the same access, but not on
additional amounts in higher tiers based on ancillary benefits);

d. Your revenue from in-app advertising and affiliate programs;

e. Revenue from advance payments for a Product (from a publisher or otherwise); and

f. Revenue in any other form actually attributable to a Product (unless excluded below).

Example :

The royalty is based on gross revenue from end users, regardless of whether you sell your Product to end users directly, self-publish via the App Store or any similar store, or work with a publisher. The following simplified example illustrates the application of the royalty to gross sales: if your Product earns $10 on the App Store, Apple may pay you $7 (having deducted 30% as a distribution fee), but your royalty to Epic would still be 5% of $10 (or $0.50).

On a 10 dollar game :
- 5% goes to Epic = 0.50$
- 30% goes to Steam/Humble/Whatever = 3$

Your cut is actually 6.50$. (If you have a publisher, wouldn't that mean you got paid to make the game? I doubt they would only take 30%)

I haven't tried Lumberyard yet but I believe UE4 is the superior engine (compared to Unity5 and Stingray). The odds of being really successful are very slim, so I wouldn't mind giving Epic 5% of my game revenue to use to best engine available for a chance of having a decent life. And there's still an option for a custom licence (upfront license fee).

 

[Stuart444]

Honestly the Dark pro skin is the one thing that makes plus tempting. >.> I hate the light skin, it's just not easy on my eyes and what makes UE4 preferable at times due to it's editor being nice and dark.

I also wish Unity would put in a fucking zoom option for it's editor. My eyes kinda suck now (used to be better but I've had eye issues for 3 - 4 years now ) so zooming in would help a lot.

Having a customizable splash screen would be nice though, just to make it consistent with whatever comes after it in your game. And it seems it's what the majority would like for their plus subscription so they should give the people what they want for profit I guess?

 

[Jacksinthe]

Well now you are sounding like an ass.

You're also totally ignoring what my main gripe is. I can't afford the new pricing system, and their justification for the price increase is the inclusion of IOS and Android, two platforms that I (and many other developers) have no intention of supporting. There is no option here. I can't choose to omit those licences, I have to buy them to get other features that I need. Features that are arguably worth a lot less money.

And for the record, people aren't instinctively turned off to UE games because they have huge titles repping them. Gears of War, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, Batman: Arkham to name but a handful. Even though UE is now readily accessible to small Indie teams, it still has the public perception of being a high-quality AAA engine. The same can not be said for Unity.

I'm the ass when you said this:

"I don't want to turn of any potential customers due to some conceived notion that my game is going to be trash because I couldn't afford to get rid of the splash screen"

Let me lay this out as flat as can be.

If your game sucks. It will suck forever. No amount of splash will stop it.

If you hide the splash and your game sucks. Your game will still suck. It will still suck forever.

I don't believe for one second that hiding a splash screen can overcome a shit game.

Who are you marketing your game for? The handful of internet jokers who CLAIM they won't buy amazing games because of a logo regardless of how well it functions? Or are you targeting a specific demographic for your game that you KNOW has a base?

If it's the former - you've failed before you started.

Positive media, screens, gameplay vids, trailers, previews, reviews, consumer impressions - that will sell your game. If those are bad - nothing can help you.

But, again, I'm the ass for putting the game first, right?

Boy I am a dumb fuck. How silly of me.

 

[Situacao]

^mourad louali got the correct numbers. I'll edit my last post.

 

[mourad louali]

I'm the ass when you said this:

"I don't want to turn of any potential customers due to some conceived notion that my game is going to be trash because I couldn't afford to get rid of the splash screen"

Let me lay this out as flat as can be.

If your game sucks. It will suck forever. No amount of splash will stop it.

If you hide the splash and your game sucks. Your game will still suck. It will still suck forever.

I don't believe for one second that hiding a splash screen can overcome a shit game.

Who are you marketing your game for? The handful of internet jokers who CLAIM they won't buy amazing games because of a logo regardless of how well it functions? Or are you targeting a specific demographic for your game that you KNOW has a base?

If it's the former - you've failed before you started.

Positive media, screens, gameplay vids, trailers, previews, reviews, consumer impressions - that will sell your game. If those are bad - nothing can help you.

But, again, I'm the ass for putting the game first, right?

Boy I am a dumb fuck. How silly of me.

You don't need to be agressive, you are right.

 

[LordRaptor]

Example :


On a 10 dollar game :
- 5% goes to Epic = 0.50$
- 30% goes to Steam/Humble/Whatever = 3$

Your cut is actually 6.50$. (If you have a publisher, wouldn't that mean you got paid to make the game? I doubt they would only take 30%)

Yeah, but because its gross, it means its taken before any other remunerations are calculated, so it would actually be:
$10
* -20% gross sales tax (EU example) (-$2)
* -30% gross retail cut / platform holder fee (-$3)
* -5% gross engine licence (-$0.50)
leaving you with (taxable) $4.50 net

With a publisher deal that's significantly less too, as their recoupment rate and revenue split will also be on the gross

tl;dr high res work for low res pay indeed

e:
Here's a picture of a cute kitten to lower the atmosphere

 

[HandsomeCharles]

...

First of all Jack, no I don't think you're an ass. I've read a lot of your other posts in various places and whilst I will sometimes disagree with you, you seem like you do put serious thought into what you say. That particular remark was because your reply felt as though it was a personal jab at my own project which I now realise was probably not intended.

But anyway, I agree with you that (most) publications and media outlets are not going to turn away a game because of its engine, however, I am going to be in the position where every single sale counts. Although my game will undoubtedly be shit-talked by various online trolls (because all games are) I don't want to give them any more ammo as I know there will be some people out there who will simply not buy a game due to it's engine.

I'm not intending to cater to asshats, but I'll certainly take their money if I can.

I want my game to be as professional as possible, but I also have to be realistic with my budgeting as I still need to survive as a human being, and the new Pro licence is likely going to be outside of what I can afford. If this had always been the case then I likely would have made my peace with it, but it becomes extra frustrating because I could have afforded what is currently on offer, but when we're talking about an extra $600 a year it is going to be very tricky for me to pull that together. Granted, not impossible, but certainly not a great situation for me to be in.

Additionally, I won't (can't) do a Kickstarter as I am taking a sensible approach to this game and not quitting my day-job whilst I develop it. This means that the game may become neglected for large periods of time, and there is no guarantee that it will actually be released. I don't want to take people's money if I can't be 100% certain that I can deliver. Similarly, I don't want to have a kickstarter right at the end just to raise money to get rid of a splash screen.

This may not seem like an important issue to you, but it is to me and know there are others out there that share my opinion.

 

[asa]

I'm the ass when you said this:

"I don't want to turn of any potential customers due to some conceived notion that my game is going to be trash because I couldn't afford to get rid of the splash screen"

Let me lay this out as flat as can be.

If your game sucks. It will suck forever. No amount of splash will stop it.

If you hide the splash and your game sucks. Your game will still suck. It will still suck forever.

I don't believe for one second that hiding a splash screen can overcome a shit game.

Who are you marketing your game for? The handful of internet jokers who CLAIM they won't buy amazing games because of a logo regardless of how well it functions? Or are you targeting a specific demographic for your game that you KNOW has a base?

If it's the former - you've failed before you started.

Positive media, screens, gameplay vids, trailers, previews, reviews, consumer impressions - that will sell your game. If those are bad - nothing can help you.

But, again, I'm the ass for putting the game first, right?

Boy I am a dumb fuck. How silly of me.

I wouldn't put it this bluntly, but listen to this poster

 

[GroundCombo]

Our publisher also required us to not have the Unity splash screen, so that's a big issue when you're trying to release "professional" looking stuff.

In any case, valid concerns have been raised on the Unity forums (mainly about the uselessness of the Plus tier) and it will be interesting to see how they react. For our company it doesn't make a huge difference at the moment as we had to purchase a Pro license anyway; with the next project, however, having to pay for several Pro licenses despite only developing for the desktop could be a nasty sting in our tiny wallet.

edit: To clarify, we no longer have the option of purchasing or subscribing to a desktop-only package at a reduced price. The Plus tier could be a great midway step for small indie devs, but not with the current feature list.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Our publisher also required us to not have the Unity splash screen, so that's a big issue when you're trying to release "professional" looking stuff.

In any case, valid concerns have been raised on the Unity forums (mainly about the uselessness of the Plus tier) and it will be interesting to see how they react. For our company it doesn't make a huge difference at the moment as we had to purchase a Pro license anyway; with the next project, however, having to pay for several Pro licenses despite only developing for the desktop could be a nasty sting in our tiny wallet.

Then they can pay you to remove it.

If your pub wants to publish on consoles - the logo is a requirement using the free Pro license from Sony/MS/Nintendo so there is also that.

There are other torches to take up with this pricing tho. Plenty of fire there to play with.

I'll offer an example of how poor of an argument optics are when it comes to games.

PS+ pick of the month was Broforce. People bitched and moaned about its performance and Unity.

"Fuck Unity! Fuck Broforce! We should have voted for AAC!"

I could taste it at that point. When your game is good and performs good - there are zero fucks to be given about the engine.

The Android/iOS inclusion to bump price is shitty, tho. 0 reason other than cashing in a buck with an excuse, not a reason.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

No problem man, enjoy a jump into game dev!

Been wanting to for a while now, my biggest problem is that I'm no artist or composer. How do you guys find the time to be able to do all the animations and stuff yourself?

That's my biggest worry. I have ideas for characters in my head, but don't really know how to get them on paper/digital.

 

[JulianImp]

Been wanting to for a while now, my biggest problem is that I'm no artist or composer. How do you guys find the time to be able to do all the animations and stuff yourself?

That's my biggest worry. I have ideas for characters in my head, but don't really know how to get them on paper/digital.

Lots of people around here specialize in different fields, so just ask around and see if you can work with them. You could always start with a really small game (think 2-day jam level) to see how well the team works together before jumping into more ambitious projects, and even then always keep them short as you're getting started, since very few people ever finish making a full-fledged RPG or metroidvania as their first project.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

Lots of people around here specialize in different fields, so just ask around and see if you can work with them. You could always start with a really small game (think 2-day jam level) to see how well the team works together before jumping into more ambitious projects, and even then always keep them short as you're getting started, since very few people ever finish making a full-fledged RPG or metroidvania as their first project.

That's all I really wanted to make, actually. Just simple games that i think would be fun. Something easy like a Flappy Bird is all I'm wanting to get in it for, maybe more if I can get better at it.

 

[Minamu]

Then they can pay you to remove it.

If your pub wants to publish on consoles - the logo is a requirement using the free Pro license from Sony/MS/Nintendo so there is also that.

There are other torches to take up with this pricing tho. Plenty of fire there to play with.

I'll offer an example of how poor of an argument optics are when it comes to games.

PS+ pick of the month was Broforce. People bitched and moaned about its performance and Unity.

"Fuck Unity! Fuck Broforce! We should have voted for AAC!"

I could taste it at that point. When your game is good and performs good - there are zero fucks to be given about the engine.

The Android/iOS inclusion to bump price is shitty, tho. 0 reason other than cashing in a buck with an excuse, not a reason.

Wasn't Console Broforce also reslly buggy, compared to the original version and other console games? I know that's why never touched it (not that it appealed to me anyway).

 

[Blizzard]

5% can add up if your game sells. What is the % prior?

I'd personally rather pay up front and have 0 profit sharing.


You could make the next Shovel Knight and be in the hole 50k from 1m profit. That's selling a lot LESS than SK.

You're using phrasing like "losing money" and "be in the hole 50k from 1m profit". This makes two assumptions:

1. If you have $1m profit and 5% goes to Epic, you're not "in the hole" $50k, you just have $950k profit instead.
2. You're assuming that paying for UE4 isn't worth the money and is "losing" money, rather than paying for a service (and full engine source code).

As others have said, if you make less than $3k in a quarter, UE4 a nice free option with full source code. If you make a highly successful game, Unity's flat rate is cheaper, but Epic also claims to offer custom licensing rates for people who want lower royalties (https://www.unrealengine.com/faq). People making a larger game might use this option.

 

[GroundCombo]

Then they can pay you to remove it.

True, I mentioned it more for the public mindset. Which doesn't make any sense, but it's there and it's one thing Unity has to take into account.

And now for something completely different - I present the smoothest ship-it programmer-art knockdown animation ever.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

So, with the new way unity works (if I ever finish the infinite runner I'm thinking of), I wouldn't be able to post to Android/iOS unless I bought the pro license?

 

[WaterAstro]

Yeah, but because its gross, it means its taken before any other remunerations are calculated, so it would actually be:
$10
* -20% gross sales tax (EU example) (-$2)
* -30% gross retail cut / platform holder fee (-$3)
* -5% gross engine licence (-$0.50)
leaving you with (taxable) $4.50 net

With a publisher deal that's significantly less too, as their recoupment rate and revenue split will also be on the gross

tl;dr high res work for low res pay indeed

e:
Here's a picture of a cute kitten to lower the atmosphere

Hmm Steam takes 30%?

I wonder if there's a list of how much cut each platform takes.

 

[JulianImp]

So, with the new way unity works (if I ever finish the infinite runner I'm thinking of), I wouldn't be able to post to Android/iOS unless I bought the pro license?

You can publish to android and iOS on the free version, but are stuck with the "Powered by Unity" loading screen. It's still fine while you're still getting started, IMO.

 

[LordRaptor]

Hmm Steam takes 30%?

I wonder if there's a list of how much cut each platform takes.

Bear in mind "Steam" refers to two seperate things; Steam as a Pc gaming platform, and Steam as a digital storefront.
Steam as a PC gaming platform, and all that it entails is free (well, greenlight fee aside) - achievements, matchmaking, cloud saves, etc.
Steam as a digital storefront takes a 30% cut.
For other digital storefronts that sell steam keys, Humble takes 20%, itch.io takes 10%, direct selling to customers takes 0%.
I would imagine other third party sellers like greenman gaming or GOG also take 20%, but have no actual knowledge on that.

You can publish to android and iOS on the free version, but are stuck with the "Powered by Unity" loading screen. It's still fine while you're still getting started, IMO.

I've played literally dozens of mobile titles with 'made by unity' splash screens; I don't think the mobile market gives a fuck about the engine used tbh.

 

[Chaser324]

itch.io takes 10%.

Itch.io actually lets you set the percentage. The default is 10%, but more devs than you might expect actually opt to do 20-30% since it's already the standard on other storefronts - many of which aren't nearly as supportive of the indie dev scene as itch.io.

 

[LordRaptor]

but more devs than you might expect actually opt to do 20-30% since it's already the standard on other storefronts - many of which aren't nearly as supportive of the indie dev scene as itch.io.

Huh, that's pretty interesting - I'll happily stand corrected

 

[WaterAstro]

Bear in mind "Steam" refers to two seperate things; Steam as a Pc gaming platform, and Steam as a digital storefront.
Steam as a PC gaming platform, and all that it entails is free (well, greenlight fee aside) - achievements, matchmaking, cloud saves, etc.
Steam as a digital storefront takes a 30% cut.
For other digital storefronts that sell steam keys, Humble takes 20%, itch.io takes 10%, direct selling to customers takes 0%.
I would imagine other third party sellers like greenman gaming or GOG also take 20%, but have no actual knowledge on that.

30% sounds like a lot, but that's pretty standard even for Google and Apple.

Feels like you definitely need to price up just to make up for that revenue cut, and if it's on Steam, the expected discount.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Wasn't Console Broforce also reslly buggy, compared to the original version and other console games? I know that's why never touched it (not that it appealed to me anyway).

My point was people bitched about Unity games sucking on console but told everyone they should have voted for a different Unity game for console.

I.E. - the engine doesn't matter. The 3 people who will actually not buy your game because of Unity won't make a dent.

You're using phrasing like "losing money" and "be in the hole 50k from 1m profit". This makes two assumptions:

1. If you have $1m profit and 5% goes to Epic, you're not "in the hole" $50k, you just have $950k profit instead.
2. You're assuming that paying for UE4 isn't worth the money and is "losing" money, rather than paying for a service (and full engine source code).

As others have said, if you make less than $3k in a quarter, UE4 a nice free option with full source code. If you make a highly successful game, Unity's flat rate is cheaper, but Epic also claims to offer custom licensing rates for people who want lower royalties (https://www.unrealengine.com/faq). People making a larger game might use this option.

Bottom line doesn't matter when comparing pricing of two products. It's cost vs cost

Hook
Bag
Hole

Whatever you want to be in or on - it's up to you when you owe money, regardless of your bottom line.

Hook would have been a more apt turn of phrase but the general rule of thumb when it comes to spending money - less is better.

 

[electroflame]

Wow, that Unity pricing structure is super depressing. Going from a perpetual license (which an upgrade would've been ~$600) to paying $125 every month is crazy.

Hopefully they take the negative feedback and adjust things -- the Plus option should go away at the very least, as it seems to be practically worthless.

 

[Minamu]

My point was people bitched about Unity games sucking on console but told everyone they should have voted for a different Unity game for console.

I.E. - the engine doesn't matter. The 3 people who will actually not buy your game because of Unity won't make a dent.

Yeah that makes sense, Although I can see why developers would want to stay away from Unity, I know I would, I need the Unreal experience, but that's not the same as being a whiny gamer who thinks everything wrong with a game is the engine's fault. My Unity problems have rarely anything to do with a gamer's perspective.

As for iOS support, I haven't really seen it as a point of interest that Unity adds that into a more expensive package like they're doing now with the new stuff. Sure, it's nice that they give it away for free, but seeing as how I'd need to pay Apple a significant fee plus buy a mac computer to code on, Unity giving the license away for free is the least of my concerns :/ It's less of an incentive than that dark skin is, and that's saying something.

 

[LordRaptor]

Playing with overall aesthetic

 

[MDave]

I'm probably not the best person to give advice on this, but here is what I would do. If you are looking to make games by yourself, you are probably going to have to do everything for awhile. The only way I can see out of it is to build a demo/prototype that is quality and maybe try and kickstart it and hire someone else. Obviously there are huge risks involved with that, but that could be a possibility. As for focusing on one area, ask yourself why you want to do it. If you want to possibly get a job doing one of those things, then yes it makes much more sense to focus on one area and build a portfolio full of quality work. If you want to make games that are mostly your ideas, then that would have less point.

As for what you should make, it's my opinion that you should always make things you would enjoy. Simple projects are good for practice but I find myself way more motivated when I'm doing something I'm genuinely excited about.(Note: Don't follow this if you enjoy MMOs or want something with the same quality/polish as a naughty dog game, keep your projects a bit realistic.)

Thank you very much for the response! When I started many years ago, I wanted to do character modelling and animating, but that is a hugely competitive field these days if I wanted a job in the industry doing that. I don't know zBrush, as I am from a generation of 3D modelling before that came along, hah. I really enjoy being able to bounce off doing different things as I sometimes burn myself out doing the same skill too long, and really like say, modelling an environment after slogging through debugging some code for long nights into the early hours of the next morning, stubbornly trying to get it fixed before sleep. To the point I even dream of coming up with code solutions in my dreams. But I love scripting. Part of seeing your own creations coming to life, like animation does for characters.

The kind of games I really enjoy playing, and feel would enjoy developing are arcade style games, quick and easy to learn, hard to master, and most of all fun to play.

Finally back from work, got the courage to show a couple of videos of things I've done.

Heads up: these are direct links to mp4 video files on my ftp server. In case those checking these are at work when clicking these links.

3rd person action game. (no sound)

Magic Carpet remake. (sound!)

Things like textures and music / sound effects I obtained from royalty free to use sites, but everything else is pretty much me, hah.

 

[LordRaptor]

The kind of games I really enjoy playing, and feel would enjoy developing are arcade style games, quick and easy to learn, hard to master, and most of all fun to play.

Okay; what's your end goal? Is it to land a job at a games company, or is it to make a game you would play?

If it's the former, unfortunately industry jobs are largely pigeon holed, especially at larger studios; for example, if you want to be an animator, just start animating, build a showreel and start applying. Places where 'jack of all trade' skills are appreciated, are at smaller startups, and in todays climate, the likelihood is that you'll be doing work on mobile games - if you just want an industry break, don't turn your nose up. Work is work, and outside of the extremely lucky few, everyone in the industry has done 'the hard yards' on shitty shovelware, and literally nobody in a recruitment position is going to sneer at you if your showreel is things like toilet duck commercials.

If it's the latter, take one of your prototypes and bring it to completion; have a start screen, a win condition with an ending, and a fail condition with a game over. You don't need more than that, but obviously that's where your design chops come in.
For example, your first prototype third person action game could be something as simple as a 'horde mode' style fighter, score based, survive as long as you can on a single map (or have a variety of maps to choose from). This can obviously be expanded upon hugely, if you find it interesting to work on, or you feel it has promise as a full title; different enemies with different AI. Boss fights. Puzzles. A 'campaign' where you move from scene to scene. Whatever. If you want to know if its worth investing time into, release it to the public; if its something you do not consider worth charging money for, then don't - put it up somehwere like Kongregate / GameJolt / Itch.io and see if people are interested. See what feedback comes back from players. See if any requests you think would be worth it are made, and consider implementing them.
Anything you release can always be considered a 'prequel' for an iterative project based upon those foundations, and can be used as the basis for a Kickstarter campaign or Steam Greenlight Early Access release, and you would be automatically ahead of many similar entries by virtue of having a 'demo' people can play as proof of concept that you are capable of doing what you say you will.

 

[Razlo]

So i may (i'm still cautious!!) start to work on my own game, for the second time in my life. I hope this time it goes to the end of it.

I present to you Hampoo, the breatlhess explorer! It'll be a challenging retro platformer with a nice gimmick, in some sort of quackshot vibes!

I'm not an animator (nor good with characters) to begin with but it'll be charming anyway.

Looks awesome and love the inspiration point.

 

[timetokill]

It's nice and clean. I like it.

It's funny, like why is the "Personal Edition" sticker on there? It's unnecessary. You can safely assume if you see the Unity launch screen that they are using the poor edition (the one I'm using lol)