Unity Pricing Controversy

Sounds a lot like Unity's recent pricing changes ("if you make more than $X, you need to start paying us a fee per install")

The Unity situation is definitely weird and Unity basically introduced a lot of FUD about itself. I know a lot of indies are worried about things like Unity pushing microtransactions on all developers. I think I would be worried even if I was the developer of one of those huge microtransaction games. Unity has probably seen how much money Apple and Google are making from their cut of microtransactions while Unity itself is only making money from the engine seat licensing (at least that’s my unde

from their announcement was "Unity Personal and Unity Plus: Those that have made $200,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 200,000 lifetime game installs." but looks like they are backpaddling after some "leaked document" saying that they would use similar rule as Unreal, but ask for 4% instead of 5% as Unreal does.. Unreal is the only real solution against Unity.

Unity's failure to communicate will be studied for decades.They really should of straight matched Unreal's revenue cut from the start, and maybe offer a deduction for site licenses.Instead they announce something like a 20 cent fee per "initial interaction" which they track via embedded spyware. You had a massive backlash from indie developers who realistically weren't Unity's target in the first place.People who never programmed or made a commercial produc

Most of Unity's revenue does not come from licensing the engine. It comes from their "services" portfolio, which includes advertising and other tools for monetizing, including via IAPs (although they don't take a cut of IAPs, they offer tools to help implement them and improve monetization e.g. A/B testing). I agree it was a bizarre attack at his customer base, but it makes sense given Unity's merger with Ironsource (mobile game advertising giant).The message see

No, Unity's terms state that you need an additional license if you want to use some tools because that's how it's monetized. Remember, Unity's licensing has to be more complex because it supports free usage as well as paid usage and does so all without royalties.Saying that Unity is wrong because they have complex licensing is just as misguided as saying that Epic is wrong because they charge royalties. Should Unity invest $25 million into a fund for "royalty-f

The outrage is warranted. Two things about this are poorly designed:1) Charing for installs vs sales. Because installs are potentially a multiple of sales (and thus, revenue), this will make it extremely difficult to build accounting models for in advance of launch.2) For the thousands and thousands of devs that decided to invest in learning Unity (vs Unreal or otherwise), many of them did so with the understanding that the business model would always offer a royalty free tier. This was as

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/sep/12/unity-engine-f...Remember this?I wonder what’s going on in the Unity executive’s heads right now.

This is just a guess but I think the main issue with unity is that the majority of the games released with it float under their 100,000 revenue target in order for them to get a piece of the pie.I believe this is why they are rapidly expanding their backend services and ads network in order to try to eke out profit in other ways.[1] https://unity3d.com/unity/activation/p

It's the developer's fault that they didn't magically guess what Unity's terms were going to be in the future? Be serious.This is absolutely Unity's fault. If you buy a car to use Uber, and then half a year later Uber decides that your brand of car is no longer eligible to drive or that it needs to use a different fee structure, then it is Uber's fault that you are losing money.If you launch an ad-supported game in 2020 under a revenue share and in 2023 Unity