PC Unity planning on charging developers *by individual installation* in the near future.

Yeah this will either not beeing able to be billed retroactivly for games sold before the change (i can´t imagine this is legal in any way) or it will be the end of unity and a bunch of small games.

Either way, it will lead to a drop in indie games beeing developed. No dev who just started will want to risk anything like that.

 
BFT2020 said:
It's not the cost to the end user (who won't see a thing), but to developers.  Those are the people that are voicing their concerns loudly about this announcement from Unity.

Besides the number of installs being an issue, there are also legacy games that are not bringing in revenue for the developer - but being charged for it.  Without knowing how this information is going to be tracked (Unity has told the developers that they should just trust them when they send them the bill), you can see situations where someone buys the game, upgrades their computer, and a new install triggers the fee.  The developer doesn't see any new revenue and the player is not doing anything wrong, but having a bill be sent to the game developer years after it was originally purchased by the player is a knife to the heart of the developer.
Click to expand...
I realize this. It's $0.20 cents from what I read. You'd have to install the game 100x before it would cost as much as 7D2D did.

No one installs a game that many times. I might install a game 3 or 4 times max. That's a whopping $0.80

Why is this a huge problem?

Legacy games won't be charged, you'd have to use an updated version of unity for this to take effect. This isn't backward compatible. If it wasn't already written into the game engine when the game was compiled, this isn't an issue.

 
I think it´s 20 cents for those who have paid for unity pro. The devs that use the free version have to pay 50 cents.

 
pApA^LeGBa said:
Yeah this will either not beeing able to be billed retroactivly for games sold before the change (i can´t imagine this is legal in any way) or it will be the end of unity and a bunch of small games.

Either way, it will lead to a drop in indie games beeing developed. No dev who just started will want to risk anything like that.
Click to expand...


Hopefully any dip would be temporary, as devs move to alternate engines, like the open-source Godot. Godot is in fact having a FIELD DAY with all this free publicity as they had a a big show and ad push for the first time ever.

 
warmer said:
Why is this a huge problem?
Click to expand...
I mean, if it actually wasn't a huge deal there would be absolutely no point for Unity doing that. We can safely assume that they expect to increase their profits by a lot or else they wouldn't risk all that bad press. While you are correct that at first sight it looks to be a low price, the "bruh chill, we have reliable methods at hand, so just wait for the bill and all will be fine" (not an actual quote) attitude doesn't seem very trustworthy. So I completely understand that game devs don't chill despite $0.20 being such a low price. Most if not all game devs probably prefer to know costs before shipping their games, not afterwards.

 
warmer said:
I realize this. It's $0.20 cents from what I read. You'd have to install the game 100x before it would cost as much as 7D2D did.

No one installs a game that many times. I might install a game 3 or 4 times max. That's a whopping $0.80

Why is this a huge problem?

Legacy games won't be charged, you'd have to use an updated version of unity for this to take effect. This isn't backward compatible. If it wasn't already written into the game engine when the game was compiled, this isn't an issue.
Click to expand...
So personally I don't care. No I really don't. When we're talking about money, I only care about my own. The devs finances are not my business, neither are their transactions with others (Unity). I am a game purchaser not a shareholder. A lot of you fanbois act like you are economics majors or something.

No, my issue is how are they tracking my installs? According to the response above, they aren't, they are making it up and handing their customer a bill, which sounds unethical, illegal and immoral, but still not my problem.

I am already getting a bit fed up with Steam invading my privacy (We won't talk about @%$#ing Epic). I miss some of the conveniences and the workshop and all but I'm seriously considering all my future game purchases being through GOG as it is.

 
BFT2020 said:
It's not the cost to the end user (who won't see a thing), but to developers.  Those are the people that are voicing their concerns loudly about this announcement from Unity.

Besides the number of installs being an issue, there are also legacy games that are not bringing in revenue for the developer - but being charged for it.  Without knowing how this information is going to be tracked (Unity has told the developers that they should just trust them when they send them the bill), you can see situations where someone buys the game, upgrades their computer, and a new install triggers the fee.  The developer doesn't see any new revenue and the player is not doing anything wrong, but having a bill be sent to the game developer years after it was originally purchased by the player is a knife to the heart of the developer.
Click to expand...
The question I have with this is whether or not the revenue listed in the chart is per game or overall for the company.  If it is per game, there isn't any additional charges for already purchased games unless the games are still being sold enough to reach those revenue limits.  If it is for the company as a whole, that means every single large company will be charged for any free games they release if they are installed enough times, which is ridiculous.

warmer said:
I realize this. It's $0.20 cents from what I read. You'd have to install the game 100x before it would cost as much as 7D2D did.

No one installs a game that many times. I might install a game 3 or 4 times max. That's a whopping $0.80

Why is this a huge problem?

Legacy games won't be charged, you'd have to use an updated version of unity for this to take effect. This isn't backward compatible. If it wasn't already written into the game engine when the game was compiled, this isn't an issue.
Click to expand...
They stated this would apply to already released games as well.  I'm certain they have tracked installs of games created with their software for many years, so they don't need a new version to charge developers.  For that matter, you aren't required to use the current version, so developers could just stick to an older version and not be charged if that was an option (at least until they need a new feature or bug fix or change to something else).  It definitely won't be.

As far as the cost, it may seem small to you but developers (other than the big name developers) are often not rich and after paying their employees and marketing and licensing fees and whatever else, many don't make much actual profit.  That means even small micro charges like this can kill a company.   Consider a game that sells a million copies and look at how much has to be paid to unity with this model and you will see it adds up quickly.  Also note that although they changed it to say per device install instead of per install, some games offer a free version for other systems.  That will likely go away for unity games as those installs will cost money even though they are free.

All in all, this is a very bad money grab from unity that has a good chance of alienating developers.  I know I was considering unity for my own projects and I won't use them now.  Others will also make that choice.  This could easily spell the end for unity unless a couple big name developers choose to keep using them.

 
warmer said:
The cost of an install is miniscule. Why are people making this such a huge deal?
Click to expand...
They're introducing a new class of "things" they can bill on, a class that has nothing to do with their own costs. They lose absolutely nothing on a new install of a game, they're not even doing the delivery. And the starting price is just a starting price, it's far easier to adjust the pricing on the fly, especially on something completely artificial. Could be a buck in a couple years, killing any hopes of selling $5 games.

Not a "big deal" for AAA-scale, of course - they'll make sure of that - but I wouldn't dare release any kind of "hobbyist game" based on unity for the fear of going viral for a month and then only have people doing repeat installs down the line... with this billing structure, being a one-hit-wonder turns into a threat. Not a great business model to invite new devs.

 
Not posting a link as its easily searchable, but apparently today: "Unity was forced to close its offices in San Francisco and Austin on Thursday due to what it called a credible death threat"

Anyway, just interesting. Seems a but much coming out of the gate. 

 
Unity is offering devs a waiver if they switch to Unity's LevelPlay mediation platform - basically an ad system for mobile devices. There's a lot of speculation about this whole situation basically being a way to try to force mobile gaming devs to switch from other advertisers to using their system in an effort to get more income out of mobile games.

 
Riamus said:
They stated this would apply to already released games as well.  I'm certain they have tracked installs of games created with their software for many years, so they don't need a new version to charge developers.  For that matter, you aren't required to use the current version, so developers could just stick to an older version and not be charged if that was an option (at least until they need a new feature or bug fix or change to something else).  It definitely won't be.
Click to expand...
This wouldn't apply to a game written in an engine version prior to this being part of the contract entered by the dev at the time of game development. The contract can only be moving forward from point of game dev. You can't apply a contract backwards in time. That is a core tenant of a contract, and why a date is associated with one in the first place. If you continue to develope a game after using the version of unity's EULA associated with the you are agreeing to it.

There are so many reasons why you can't write a new rule to create a fine, and retroactively apply it to someone's previous work created prior to that established clause.

 
warmer said:
This wouldn't apply to a game written in an engine version prior to this being part of the contract entered by the dev at the time of game development. The contract can only be moving forward from point of game dev. You can't apply a contract backwards in time. That is a core tenant of a contract, and why a date is associated with one in the first place. If you continue to develope a game after using the version of unity's EULA associated with the you are agreeing to it.

There are so many reasons why you can't write a new rule to create a fine, and retroactively apply it to someone's previous work created prior to that established clause.
Click to expand...
I haven't read their fine print and don't plan on it.  However, it is quite likely they have in there that the pricing can change at any time.  That doesn't require a new version or new contract.  It of course depends on how it is worded.  Whether it's worded to allow such a change is something lawyers would need to determine.  I'm not a lawyer and most (perhaps all) people here commenting on this aren't lawyers and so cannot state for certain what is or isn't allowed based on their terms of use.  If they push this through and it is retroactive, then that will answer the question of legality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
warmer said:
I realize this. It's $0.20 cents from what I read. You'd have to install the game 100x before it would cost as much as 7D2D did.

No one installs a game that many times. I might install a game 3 or 4 times max. That's a whopping $0.80

Why is this a huge problem?

Legacy games won't be charged, you'd have to use an updated version of unity for this to take effect. This isn't backward compatible. If it wasn't already written into the game engine when the game was compiled, this isn't an issue.
Click to expand...




I just watched a stream of Asmongold watching a stream of a game dev talking about it.

He mentions (the dev) a lot of points that seem to show it is not that good.

Some games are going to be charged retroactively from what he explained.

You mentioned you only installed 3 or 4 times so only .80 cents but with 10's of thousands or even up in the hundreds, that could add up quickly.

If I see the devs stream I will link it here.



 
Last edited by a moderator:
warmer said:
I realize this. It's $0.20 cents from what I read. You'd have to install the game 100x before it would cost as much as 7D2D did.

 
Click to expand...
It would depend on the popularity of the game in question.
as a singular purchaser, .2 or 20 cents is inconsequential.

A game that has sold 10,000 copies if each player installed
it only 1 extra time. that is a 4,000 dollar check.

The more popular a game is the higher the instant return.

7DTD has sold 16,000,000 copies. If each person installed it
1 extra time, then that is $3,200,000.00 "million" dollars
instant payout.

As an example: i took "4" samples to get a  numeric.
Among Us 600,000,000 downloads be generous and say 30 percent
is a secondary install. thats 180,000,000

This is just if a Single extra copy is installed. Its basically
unregulated numeric s.

Among Us: 180,000,000      *.2    = 36,000,000‬

7DTD: 16,000,000                *.2    = 3,200,000‬

ape out: approx 200,000     *.2    = 40,000

Rust: 12,400,000                   *.2    = 2,480,000‬

$41,720,000‬ instant back revenue owed by these game devs.

There are 38 other games. It adds up to, a poor business model
on Unity's part. To compensate, it is to be passed off on the game
developers.

An easier way to look at it is; If you didn't think ahead, got a
woman pregnant, and then expected me to pay the child support  just
because i live in the same building.

I hope it all works out

 
6 hours ago, Gamida said:





I just watched a stream of Asmongold watching a stream of a game dev talking about it.

He mentions (the dev) a lot of points that seem to show it is not that good.

Some games are going to be charged retroactively from what he explained.

You mentioned you only installed 3 or 4 times so only .80 cents but with 10's of thousands or even up in the hundreds, that could add up quickly.

If I see the devs stream I will link it here.

Click to expand...


Did the game dev explain what he heard from a lawyer? Or is he well educated in law? Just asking, just because he is a dev and posts on youtube, it doesn't make his "facts" any more accurate than what everyone here is knowing or not knowing.

Especially the retroactive thing is something that should not be possible in normal circumstances. So before we have hard evidence of it actually being true you should use occams razor and except the normal way of things, not the sensational way.

If Unity has been losing money with their current pay model then they need to do something about it. If your grocery store raises prices it isn't because he is a money grabbing monster but he may need to because he may have more costs as well. And you always need to compare prices to similar offers. Is unreal engine really cheaper or more bang for the buck even after such a raise?

The problematic thing about this is ONLY that they seem to be looking for a new pricing mechanism instead of simply raising prices and the mechanism they showed is very suspect in quite a few ways. I can only guess they think their current pricing model does not fit the actual usage pattern, so some developers are charged right or already too much, and others can use the engine successfully without having to pay a similar percentage.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
meganoth said:
Did the game dev explain what he heard from a lawyer? Or is he well educated in law? Just asking, just because he is a dev and posts on youtube, it doesn't make his "facts" any more accurate than what everyone here is knowing or not knowing.

Especially the retroactive thing is something that should not be possible in normal circumstances. So before we have hard evidence of it actually being true you should use occams razor and except the normal way of things, not the sensational way.

If Unity has been losing money with their current pay model then they need to do something about it. If your grocery store raises prices it isn't because he is a money grabbing monster but he may need to because he may have more costs as well. And you always need to compare prices to similar offers. Is unreal engine really cheaper or more bang for the buck even after such a raise?

The problematic thing about this is ONLY that they seem to be looking for a new pricing mechanism instead of simply raising prices and the mechanism they showed is very suspect in quite a few ways. I can only guess they think their current pricing model does not fit the actual usage pattern, so some developers are charged right or already too much, and others can use the engine successfully without having to pay as much. 
Click to expand...


Game dev stuff is all mumbo jumbo stuff to me. You would have to watch it yourself to find out what he is explaining.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top