5 ms·

Yes, but the developer has to have made $200k over the last 12 months and had 200k installs. So if you hit both minimums and have made $1/install, they'd like 2

Yes, but the developer has to have made $200k over the last 12 months and had 200k installs. So if you hit both minimums and have made $1/install, they'd like 20% of that. Unless you're in an emerging market, in which case it's 2%. Is that insane? I'm not a game developer, but it seems like it's in the ballpark of what the app stores are charging, and with a structure that's actually enforceable at reasonable cost from Unity's perspective.

jsharpe 3y ago
They want 20% of that, PER MONTH.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Sorry, where does it say per month? I don't see that.
  - jsharpe 3y ago
    "Standard monthly rate" above that section of the fee table.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      Ah, I see what you're saying, but in the linked FAQ it says, "Creators only pay once per download."
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - semanticist 3y ago
      That just references that the fee is charged monthly and for pro/entprise plans based on monthly install numbers. But you're at least the second person just in this discussion to make that mistake, so they probably need to reword that table!
flutas 3y ago
> it seems like it's in the ballpark of what the app stores are charging But now that's on top of the app store fee. So, using your example and the "standard (aka 30%)" app store fee, after that 200k cliff, the game makes $0.50 for every $1 sale. That is going to drive people away from using Unity on mobile games imo. Who cares about a $0.20 fee for a $70 (rip $60) game, but for a $1 game where 30% of your rev is already gone... it changes the dynamics. Maybe that's what they want though? Maybe they are trying to use this to angle as Unity is a "serious" engine now?
- wpietri 3y ago
  Yeah, the case that interest me is mobile games with a high install/revenue ratio. If I install a popular game, try it out for 3 minutes, and decide it's not for me, then am I costing some indie developer $0.20 even though there's no revenue? My guess is that the answer there is in this bit: "Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. This program enables deeper partnership with Unity to succeed across the entire game lifecycle. Please reach out to your account manager to learn more." My guess is that as long as Unity is getting a slice of your ads, you don't have to worry about per-install fees. So this may be more about driving free-to-play mobile devs to use their ad services. Depending on how the legalese is worded, we might also see the comeback of demo versions and paid versions. So the free version has lots of installs but zero revenue, and the $0.20 bite only comes out of things you're charging for.
danShumway 3y ago
> it seems like it's in the ballpark of what the app stores are charging Are there any app stores that charge developers per install? It's only per-purchase/transaction, right? The principle behind that is you don't get charged except as part of a transaction where you're making money. If a user downloads your app for free or pirates it or doesn't make any transactions, you don't pay anything. What Unity is saying that if I buy a new phone and re-download my apps, that should cost the developers money. That seems like a very different situation to me.
- wpietri 3y ago
  I get the concern, but app stores can do that because the money flows through them. Unity says they're shifting away from revenue shares, presumably because they can't track purchase revenue and are tired of having a bunch of small fights with people who have every incentive to hide revenue from them.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > presumably because they can't track purchase revenue So tracking installs and distinguishing between pirated and legit copies, and fingerprinting consumer hardware, and dealing with malicious or troll installs is going to be something they're somehow better at? I can't prove Unity's motivations, but I can quote directly from their article: > Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. This program enables deeper partnership with Unity to succeed across the entire game lifecycle. Please reach out to your account manager to learn more. and I think it's reasonable to at least entertain that it's not enforcement trouble that's causing them to create this policy. Not for the least reason being that they still have a revenue requirement sitting in front of this policy, and they still need to engage in the exact same accounting and fights to figure out which companies have made $200,000 so they can start charging them per-install.
    - wpietri 3y ago

jsharpe 3y ago

They want 20% of that, PER MONTH.

wpietri 3y ago
Sorry, where does it say per month? I don't see that.
- jsharpe 3y ago
  "Standard monthly rate" above that section of the fee table.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    Ah, I see what you're saying, but in the linked FAQ it says, "Creators only pay once per download."
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - semanticist 3y ago
    That just references that the fee is charged monthly and for pro/entprise plans based on monthly install numbers. But you're at least the second person just in this discussion to make that mistake, so they probably need to reword that table!

flutas 3y ago

> it seems like it's in the ballpark of what the app stores are charging But now that's on top of the app store fee. So, using your example and the "standard (aka 30%)" app store fee, after that 200k cliff, the game makes $0.50 for every $1 sale. That is going to drive people away from using Unity on mobile games imo. Who cares about a $0.20 fee for a $70 (rip $60) game, but for a $1 game where 30% of your rev is already gone... it changes the dynamics. Maybe that's what they want though? Maybe they are trying to use this to angle as Unity is a "serious" engine now?

wpietri 3y ago
Yeah, the case that interest me is mobile games with a high install/revenue ratio. If I install a popular game, try it out for 3 minutes, and decide it's not for me, then am I costing some indie developer $0.20 even though there's no revenue? My guess is that the answer there is in this bit: "Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. This program enables deeper partnership with Unity to succeed across the entire game lifecycle. Please reach out to your account manager to learn more." My guess is that as long as Unity is getting a slice of your ads, you don't have to worry about per-install fees. So this may be more about driving free-to-play mobile devs to use their ad services. Depending on how the legalese is worded, we might also see the comeback of demo versions and paid versions. So the free version has lots of installs but zero revenue, and the $0.20 bite only comes out of things you're charging for.

danShumway 3y ago

> it seems like it's in the ballpark of what the app stores are charging Are there any app stores that charge developers per install? It's only per-purchase/transaction, right? The principle behind that is you don't get charged except as part of a transaction where you're making money. If a user downloads your app for free or pirates it or doesn't make any transactions, you don't pay anything. What Unity is saying that if I buy a new phone and re-download my apps, that should cost the developers money. That seems like a very different situation to me.

wpietri 3y ago
I get the concern, but app stores can do that because the money flows through them. Unity says they're shifting away from revenue shares, presumably because they can't track purchase revenue and are tired of having a bunch of small fights with people who have every incentive to hide revenue from them.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > presumably because they can't track purchase revenue So tracking installs and distinguishing between pirated and legit copies, and fingerprinting consumer hardware, and dealing with malicious or troll installs is going to be something they're somehow better at? I can't prove Unity's motivations, but I can quote directly from their article: > Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. This program enables deeper partnership with Unity to succeed across the entire game lifecycle. Please reach out to your account manager to learn more. and I think it's reasonable to at least entertain that it's not enforcement trouble that's causing them to create this policy. Not for the least reason being that they still have a revenue requirement sitting in front of this policy, and they still need to engage in the exact same accounting and fights to figure out which companies have made $200,000 so they can start charging them per-install.
  - wpietri 3y ago