4 ms·

The pricing is a bit weird. Their criteria is based on gross revenue of >=$200k. But instead of charging a percentage of that, they charge per install at a rate

by KMnO4 3y ago

The pricing is a bit weird. Their criteria is based on gross revenue of >=$200k. But instead of charging a percentage of that, they charge per install at a rate of $0.20/install. So if you made $200k off of 1M installs, you’ll now pay $200k and your total profit will be zero. I guess the assumption is that each install will earn you >>$0.20, but that’s a very generous assumption. What about a F2P game that has millions of installs but only a fraction support the game with microtransactions? There’s definitely going to be some cases where studios will owe more money to Unity than their game makes.

meheleventyone 3y ago
I think you need to read the table again. If you have that volume you shouldn’t be on the most expensive per install plan. And if you’re on a higher plan you wouldn’t qualify for the per install pricing at all.
- KMnO4 3y ago
  Before this change, there would be no reason to spend $2100/seat on Unity Pro. The Personal/Plus plans would be more than sufficient for indie devs. You’re right, some studios are going to be forced to switch to the Pro plan to save on per install pricing. That just seems like a really frustrating forced upgrade.
  - grogenaut 3y ago
    Is they're cranking out that many sales and games is $2100 unfair?
    - yalok 3y ago
      Those are life time installs. My game has been around for a few years and has over 500k life time installs. I May be getting very small install rate per month now, but would still have to pay a lot.
      - WillPostForFood 3y ago
        You would only pay if your game made 200,000 in the last 12 months. They aren't looking at lifetime revenue.
        strobe 3y ago
        'made 200,000' that doesn't meant that you able to get any profits from that, and it lot of cases with 200k revenue small game studios only loosing money
      - grogenaut 3y ago
        my understanding is that the $2100 removes the life time install part, and that it's only for games going forward so you'd be able to do the math up front. It definitely stinks, but unity needs to make money. It's this or forcing ads down your game's throat more or spyware
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    In your presumed case the studio would already be breaking Unity’s terms to be using Personal or Plus as companies making over $200,000 in the last 12 months need to have Pro subscriptions! Dunno how flouted that is though.
  - krajzeg 3y ago
    In fact, the Plus plan is being removed completely. It's only mentioned off-handedly in the last paragraph of the article, but it's another giant change for indie devs (who have no choice but to migrate from Plus to Pro). They are offering a free upgrade from Plus to Pro for one year, but that does nothing once that time elapses - you have to pay the Pro fees or drop down to Personal, which is not viable for most games.
tomnipotent 3y ago
> So if you made $200k off of 1M installs Then you shouldn't be in the business of selling games with a model that bad. Who is charging 20 cents for their games?
- Mydayyy 3y ago
  His point stands tho. Think about mobile games, where games are significantly cheaper (0.99€-5€). That install fee will hit a lot different than for high priced desktop titles (30€+). In addition think about the turnover in mobile games. The Unity Page does not mention free games with micro transactions, but especially there the user turnover is way higher. A lot of people will install it, play it for a few minutes (or days) and remove it again. Will the developer pay those install fees too? This entire thing seems not really thought out. I am also wondering what about trolls, who spoof HWID (or whatever the unique install id is based of) and spam-install it
  - tomnipotent 3y ago
    > His point stands tho. Except it doesn't. Selecting Unity as your game engine is a business decision and part of your business model. If you cannot make a profit in your game after the fee, it's not Unity's fault that you have a bad business model.
    - BizarroLand 3y ago
      If you're just going to spam the same thought over and over again then you should go to reddit where that lack of originality is appreciated.
    - fzeroracer 3y ago
      What about the fact that Unity is changing their business model and making it retroactive to fuck over people?
    - executesorder66 3y ago
      Ah, this explains so much! I once crapped out a game engine over a weekend using python. I called it turdPy. I released it under a commercial license of $20000 per CPU thread per developer device per day to use. With an additional 80-20 revenue share model (80% going to me) once the devs sell their game. I never got any customers, and I always wondered why. But now I understand that it was because game studios simply didn't have a good enough business model.
DuctTapeAI 3y ago
They've been pushing hard recently to get people to use their ads platform, my bet is they're hoping to push "under-monetized" games to run a ton of ads in order to make any money. This kind of a pricing model forces games to think about ads and monetization from the beginning instead of building a large happy user base.

by KMnO4 3y ago

meheleventyone 3y ago

I think you need to read the table again. If you have that volume you shouldn’t be on the most expensive per install plan. And if you’re on a higher plan you wouldn’t qualify for the per install pricing at all.

KMnO4 3y ago
Before this change, there would be no reason to spend $2100/seat on Unity Pro. The Personal/Plus plans would be more than sufficient for indie devs. You’re right, some studios are going to be forced to switch to the Pro plan to save on per install pricing. That just seems like a really frustrating forced upgrade.
- grogenaut 3y ago
  Is they're cranking out that many sales and games is $2100 unfair?
  - yalok 3y ago
    Those are life time installs. My game has been around for a few years and has over 500k life time installs. I May be getting very small install rate per month now, but would still have to pay a lot.
    - WillPostForFood 3y ago
      You would only pay if your game made 200,000 in the last 12 months. They aren't looking at lifetime revenue.
      - strobe 3y ago
        'made 200,000' that doesn't meant that you able to get any profits from that, and it lot of cases with 200k revenue small game studios only loosing money
    - grogenaut 3y ago
      my understanding is that the $2100 removes the life time install part, and that it's only for games going forward so you'd be able to do the math up front. It definitely stinks, but unity needs to make money. It's this or forcing ads down your game's throat more or spyware
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  In your presumed case the studio would already be breaking Unity’s terms to be using Personal or Plus as companies making over $200,000 in the last 12 months need to have Pro subscriptions! Dunno how flouted that is though.
- krajzeg 3y ago
  In fact, the Plus plan is being removed completely. It's only mentioned off-handedly in the last paragraph of the article, but it's another giant change for indie devs (who have no choice but to migrate from Plus to Pro). They are offering a free upgrade from Plus to Pro for one year, but that does nothing once that time elapses - you have to pay the Pro fees or drop down to Personal, which is not viable for most games.

tomnipotent 3y ago

> So if you made $200k off of 1M installs Then you shouldn't be in the business of selling games with a model that bad. Who is charging 20 cents for their games?

Mydayyy 3y ago
His point stands tho. Think about mobile games, where games are significantly cheaper (0.99€-5€). That install fee will hit a lot different than for high priced desktop titles (30€+). In addition think about the turnover in mobile games. The Unity Page does not mention free games with micro transactions, but especially there the user turnover is way higher. A lot of people will install it, play it for a few minutes (or days) and remove it again. Will the developer pay those install fees too? This entire thing seems not really thought out. I am also wondering what about trolls, who spoof HWID (or whatever the unique install id is based of) and spam-install it
- tomnipotent 3y ago
  > His point stands tho. Except it doesn't. Selecting Unity as your game engine is a business decision and part of your business model. If you cannot make a profit in your game after the fee, it's not Unity's fault that you have a bad business model.
  - BizarroLand 3y ago
    If you're just going to spam the same thought over and over again then you should go to reddit where that lack of originality is appreciated.
  - fzeroracer 3y ago
    What about the fact that Unity is changing their business model and making it retroactive to fuck over people?
  - executesorder66 3y ago
    Ah, this explains so much! I once crapped out a game engine over a weekend using python. I called it turdPy. I released it under a commercial license of $20000 per CPU thread per developer device per day to use. With an additional 80-20 revenue share model (80% going to me) once the devs sell their game. I never got any customers, and I always wondered why. But now I understand that it was because game studios simply didn't have a good enough business model.

DuctTapeAI 3y ago

They've been pushing hard recently to get people to use their ads platform, my bet is they're hoping to push "under-monetized" games to run a ton of ads in order to make any money. This kind of a pricing model forces games to think about ads and monetization from the beginning instead of building a large happy user base.