Unity and a data-oriented approach

I'm worried about how the installs would be tracked / counted too. Seems a non trivial problem which also now for us users would require an active internet connection (when installing? when playing)
 
Unity games will require a runtime library. Ergo this phones home when a new game is recognised and the developer details embedded in it passed on. Then Unity will roll a D20 to get an adjustment for potential piracy, offline installs, etc. and go from there.

They'll issue a bill based solely on they estimations. How does that hold up in court? US constitution, no loss without due process of law. So they want $15,000 from me (well, a US dev!), they need to show that it's that. Of course the issue there is the cost of justice is prohibitive. Unity can lawyer up and devs can't afford to defend themselves.

Also end users will need to agree to a data collection policy. If Apple and Google block it, say, Unity games won't run?

TBH I don't think they've really thought this through.
 
An update on understanding, as the data presented is actually misleading.

The 20 cents per install applies for Personal licenses up to $200,000. But when you get that much you need to upgrade to a Pro license minimum; Personal License is up to $200k revenue. As such no-one should be on that tier with that income. The real table should look like this:

1694683584520.png

Now the thresholds are grossing $1 million a year with 1 million installs, removing the core Indies from the payments. The vast majority of Unity users would not be affected.

The highest fee is 15 cents per install under 100,000 a month for Pro. However, the prices for Pro and Enterprise are $2000 and $3000. The $1000 difference is more than made up by a halving of a fees for small devs, so if you're going to pay a license, get the Enterprise and halve your fees. So the middle column can be ignored and the greatest fee you'd pay would be 12.5 cents per install under 100,000 and as low as one cent.

It's still a really stupid idea that does lots of harm - devs are encouraged to make games that are installed a lot to reduce cost-per-install, which means chasing the masses with tat - but it's not as egregious as first presented.
 
Last edited:
I think it's fair to say developers using Unity for their games are currently equal parts upset and in disbelief, which is understandable when you realize how pervasive this new fee is. For example, if a Unity game is sold to a Steam user who installs it on their gaming PC, the developer would incur the new fee. However, if that same user then also installs the game on their Steam Deck, the developer would incur the fee again. The fee would also apply per-install to games offered through subscription services such as Game Pass.
 
How do they adjust for Steam refunds?
Do devs now have to beg users to keep the game installed instead of the users being free to uninstall/reinstall whenever they want?
 
They don't it's a completely unworkable system. Initially they posted WebGL and streaming were billable. Then they changed the FAQ to say these weren't counted. Unity are literally making this up as they go along.

1694693310815.png

1694693320139.png

I wonder if this is just some crazy arse PR campaign to get people talking about Unity instead of UE5?! :ROFLMAO:
 
It's almost like a "knee jerk" reaction by Unity executives though I'm at a loss regarding the reasoning for this change. Definitely not a well thought decision.
 
For indies, you need $200,000 a year revenue and 200,000 lifetime installs. Then you can be charged massively for future installs, but if you've made $200,000, you should be looking at a $2000 a year pro license (per seat).
Could this lead to a game becoming a runaway success and being delisted just before or just after reaching 200,000 installs?
The latest as unity scrambles is they won't charge devs for games on sub services like GamePass, but the service provider. MS hasn't entered into any agreement with Unity for hosting Unity games - Unity honestly think they will pay for people downloading Unity games?!?!
What a mess. Assuming Microsoft doesn't want to pay the Unity tax, and don't think it's worth even paying the legal fees to defend themselves, this just cuts off another form of revenue for developers. In fact, it's likely a Gamepass release would generate $200k in revenue and 200k installs by itself.
Do any major/acclaimed/hyped/etc. Unity games use it has a marketing/selling point? If anything it seems like higher effort projects often don't even want the association. Whereas with Unreal Engine for instance almost everyone announces it and uses it as a marketing/selling point.
I feel like Ori and Disco Elysium had Unity splash screens, and maybe Tarkov. Unreal, though, has had a marketing department for years that understood that to gain market share, high profile marketing partnerships were immensely important. I'm not sure if it was developer choice, or a lack of partnerships that never propelled Unity to a more positive mind share.
 
Could this lead to a game becoming a runaway success and being delisted just before or just after reaching 200,000 installs?
That'd be financial suicide. Buy the $3000 Enterprise license and you can continue sales up to $1 million before being charged installation fees.
 
It's almost like a "knee jerk" reaction by Unity executives though I'm at a loss regarding the reasoning for this change. Definitely not a well thought decision.
Didn't Ricitiello recently tell developers of mobile games that if they didn't add microtransactions out the wazoo, that they were naive idiots?
 
Didn't Ricitiello recently tell developers of mobile games that if they didn't add microtransactions out the wazoo, that they were naive idiots?

This is old but he is advocating for straight up scumbag tactics. Get people invested in the game and them start charging them for basic functions like reloading. Of course this is aimed at children because they are even more susceptible to these kinds of things than adults. And kids play lots of videogames.
 
It's almost like a "knee jerk" reaction by Unity executives though I'm at a loss regarding the reasoning for this change. Definitely not a well thought decision.

Quality engine developers are expensive and Unity isn't bringing in as much revenue as UE. While this doesn't seem well thought out, it's them attempting to find a way to keep their engine developers.

The current rabid demand for AI developers means that companies and recruiters are offering nutso amounts for good programmers. This is putting pressure on industries which need good programmers as those programmers eye the increased salaries they could make working for a company doing AI versus their current job. So, for Unity, UE, any AAA game that still has an in house engine development team, increase how much you pay them significantly or risk them potentially leaving for a much more lucrative AI job.

Regards,
SB
 
Thinking some more about this, this is like taxing people on hours they work and not how much they get paid.

Also the lowest fee isn't as low as I thought as tiers are stacked. These are the best-case Enterprise costs per month up to 2 million installs:

1694720580198.png

When you hit 100k installs a month, you are being charged $150,000 a year for 1.2 million new users.
At 500k installs, you are charged $438,000 a year for 6,000,000 new users, 7.3c per user
At 1M installs, £558,000 a year for 12 million users, 4.65c per user, and
At 2M installs, £678,000 a year for 24 million users. 2.8c per user.

So the best-case payment is actually 280% higher than the listed 1 cent per user of the table. You need to get into insane numbers to approach 1 cent per install.
 
How does UE handle this? I'm sure they get a % of sales but is it self reported by the publishers?
 
I can see Unity games being the most cracked from this. Not because purely if piracy, but for legitimate owners wanting to give the developers a little bit more income by preventing it from phoning home.
 
A part of me is also wondering if this is aimed at [1] profiting from all the shovelware that gets released at 1-2 USD and/or [2] discouraging Unity being used for shovelware released at 1-2 USD?

Regards,
SB
 
Back
Top