31 ms·

The problem is mobile. What if you get 5M installs and fail to monetize it or if the game isn't well suited to monetization? And assume that you, beforehand,

The problem is mobile. What if you get 5M installs and fail to monetize it or if the game isn't well suited to monetization? And assume that you, beforehand, breached 200k, then monetization drops for some reason. Then you own unity ~85k$ and you so you go in net negative. That is the real problem here.

meheleventyone 3y ago
I’d suspect if you’re doing those numbers that it’d be a company that’d need to be on Pro licences anyway so the thresholds would be much higher.
- gs17 3y ago
  What if you're just an indie who makes some random app game that gets popular suddenly? Maybe you made the next Flappy Bird but didn't monetize it quite well enough? >a company that’d need to be on Pro licences anyway They also got rid of the income threshold for Personal licenses.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    I’d choose an engine without this silly install based scheme. Which is what I expect most hobbyists and small developers to do now. The other route if the game was F2P or ad supported would be to use a similar process to the big guys and soft-launch to judge the product and monetization on a smaller scale.
ncr100 3y ago
Unless my math is wrong it seems like a pretty onerous fee for the case that your monetization starts failing. Start with 5 million installs, and then your new installs are another 5 million copies, which incurs a worst case ($0.20/install) $1 million fee from Unity. You would still have to have earned $200,000 (worst case you're personal user) in the last 12 months. So with this, you would gross -$800,000. And this is before app store fees, taxes, payroll, and no accommodation for pirate installs in the new plan. I don't see the benefit to the developer. Mark Whitten CFO of Unity, says the developers are excited about this. The 6 Plus pages of 99%- comments on the unity forum shows a lot of excitement, a lot of negative excitement from developers. I don't see the value to many developers. It seems like a huge mistake.

meheleventyone 3y ago

I’d suspect if you’re doing those numbers that it’d be a company that’d need to be on Pro licences anyway so the thresholds would be much higher.

gs17 3y ago
What if you're just an indie who makes some random app game that gets popular suddenly? Maybe you made the next Flappy Bird but didn't monetize it quite well enough? >a company that’d need to be on Pro licences anyway They also got rid of the income threshold for Personal licenses.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  I’d choose an engine without this silly install based scheme. Which is what I expect most hobbyists and small developers to do now. The other route if the game was F2P or ad supported would be to use a similar process to the big guys and soft-launch to judge the product and monetization on a smaller scale.

ncr100 3y ago

Unless my math is wrong it seems like a pretty onerous fee for the case that your monetization starts failing. Start with 5 million installs, and then your new installs are another 5 million copies, which incurs a worst case ($0.20/install) $1 million fee from Unity. You would still have to have earned $200,000 (worst case you're personal user) in the last 12 months. So with this, you would gross -$800,000. And this is before app store fees, taxes, payroll, and no accommodation for pirate installs in the new plan. I don't see the benefit to the developer. Mark Whitten CFO of Unity, says the developers are excited about this. The 6 Plus pages of 99%- comments on the unity forum shows a lot of excitement, a lot of negative excitement from developers. I don't see the value to many developers. It seems like a huge mistake.