3 ms·

Seriously asking... what's the benefit of getting them on the tool if the tool can't be monetized? What's the angle here for Unity as a business model? Some kin

Seriously asking... what's the benefit of getting them on the tool if the tool can't be monetized? What's the angle here for Unity as a business model? Some kind of revenue sharing arrangement or something for if/when a game ends up successful?

asutekku 5y ago
Unreal Engine does revenue sharing and the whole engine is free to use for anyone wants to. IIRC until certain amount of money Epic takes no cut from the sales. That’s a million times better than what Unity is doing.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Yeah it's only 5% on revenues above a million on a title by title basis. Very generous terms and incredibly indie friendly. Probably more expensive for large successes, but imo much more preferable.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
> Seriously asking... what's the benefit of getting them on the tool if the tool can't be monetized? What's the angle here for Unity as a business model? Some kind of revenue sharing arrangement or something for if/when a game ends up successful? First to answer your question, luring in devs to the unity ecosystem is very good for unity because it creates a supply of unity devs who go on to create demand for the engine at studios. People don't like to switch tooling. It's sticky, like microsoft office. But second, that's sort of my point. Unity is already fairly heavily monetized. You must already buy this license if you're making $200k or more on their engine. But what if you're a solo dev who wants to publish something fun, small, and non-lucrative? Or something you think could be lucrative but is kind of a shot in the dark? $1,800 (per year) is a hefty price tag to take that shot. It doesn't move the needle on business revenue but it does scare away indies. Others are saying this is to get the console vendors to pay for it but honestly that sounds like its still adding a lot of friction.
- im_down_w_otp 5y ago
  That makes sense. Thanks for answering. I don't have much familiarity with Unity as a tool or as a company/business model, so I didn't realize they already had alternative monetization methods.

asutekku 5y ago

Unreal Engine does revenue sharing and the whole engine is free to use for anyone wants to. IIRC until certain amount of money Epic takes no cut from the sales. That’s a million times better than what Unity is doing.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
Yeah it's only 5% on revenues above a million on a title by title basis. Very generous terms and incredibly indie friendly. Probably more expensive for large successes, but imo much more preferable.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

> Seriously asking... what's the benefit of getting them on the tool if the tool can't be monetized? What's the angle here for Unity as a business model? Some kind of revenue sharing arrangement or something for if/when a game ends up successful? First to answer your question, luring in devs to the unity ecosystem is very good for unity because it creates a supply of unity devs who go on to create demand for the engine at studios. People don't like to switch tooling. It's sticky, like microsoft office. But second, that's sort of my point. Unity is already fairly heavily monetized. You must already buy this license if you're making $200k or more on their engine. But what if you're a solo dev who wants to publish something fun, small, and non-lucrative? Or something you think could be lucrative but is kind of a shot in the dark? $1,800 (per year) is a hefty price tag to take that shot. It doesn't move the needle on business revenue but it does scare away indies. Others are saying this is to get the console vendors to pay for it but honestly that sounds like its still adding a lot of friction.

im_down_w_otp 5y ago
That makes sense. Thanks for answering. I don't have much familiarity with Unity as a tool or as a company/business model, so I didn't realize they already had alternative monetization methods.