9 ms·

>> It basically entirely ignores how this is going to hurt the small/indie developers the most, who are the main reason Unity exists as it does today. You only

>> It basically entirely ignores how this is going to hurt the small/indie developers the most, who are the main reason Unity exists as it does today. You only start paying if you have 200k installs AND $200k in revenue. Most indie devs never reach anything like those numbers.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
Right, but once a dev does hit that threshold, they could very easily be upside down on their income if the app goes viral and gets installed at a much higher rate than the revenue it generates and that's what people are mad about. You could instantly go from 200k revenue to being in the red on developer fees alone.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Indie devs actually selling their game should be fine right? If it's just the devs of F2P / adware crap that will be sunk, then maybe Unity's new pricing policies will be the unexpected savior of gaming. Imagine a world in which we're not racing to the bottom with ad-ridden shovel-ware but instead people try to make the best possible product and sell it for what it's worth... radical. Or maybe I've misunderstood something and this will hurt developers who sell their games too.
  - Hemospectrum 3y ago
    Install bombing is still a problem. Unity, for all its "clarifications," keeps promising it won't be a problem and then refusing to be transparent about any of the ways it could possibly be less of a problem. Either they backtrack on this whole lifetime install count scheme or this blows up even more spectacularly when January rolls around.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      I don't understand why this is a worry - they will do it the same way Valve/Microsoft/Epic/Blizzard identify how many machines you have their product installed on - with a unique hardware ID that will make sure you aren't charged twice for installing the game on the same machine. It's not rocket science, it's been used in the industry for ages.
      - Ekaros 3y ago
        I'm not sure that really fits well with GDPR... Or it has to be quite far removed from any actual identifier. I certainly believe that tracking number of game installs to bill someone else isn't legitimate reason to store any identifying data about my systems...
      - bitvoid 3y ago
        Are you sure? As far as I'm aware, I'm able to install a game I own on multiple machines for all of these platforms. I figured that the game is tied to my account, not some hardware ID. Why would they need to make sure I'm not charged twice based on installing the game to a machine rather than just seeing if my account owns it? I have never been charged more than once for a game I own that I have installed on both my desktop and my laptop, even after replacing those machines.
        gambiting 3y ago
        Microsoft will stop you from downloading the game if it's installed on too many devices - it will tell you to deauthorize it on another device or sign it out entirely. >> I figured that the game is tied to my account, not some hardware ID Because it is. These platforms still use hardware ID matching for account bans and other functionality.
      - LMYahooTFY 3y ago
        Can you provide examples where this has been used in then industry? With the examples you listed doesn't it require an account to authenticate first before achieving this? Furthermore, is this not easy enough to spoof? Without account based authentication (which as far as I know Unity does not use/require?) what stops me from spinning up VMs or emulators repeatedly to attempt to install bomb?
        gambiting 3y ago
        >>Can you provide examples where this has been used in then industry? Microsoft tells you if you install the game on too many devices. >>With the examples you listed doesn't it require an account to authenticate first before achieving this? Uhm, no, that's how it's implemented but it isn't required. >> what stops me from spinning up VMs or emulators repeatedly to attempt to install bomb? Nothing, but it would be very time consuming and very easy to detect.
  - mortenjorck 3y ago
    A semi-forgotten but viable and healthy business model (with roots in the Shareware tradition) for mobile games is the free-with-unlock. Not F2P where the IAPs are different quantities of “gems” or “coins,” but a single “unlock” IAP that gets you the rest of the game if you enjoyed the free content. The per-install fee instantly makes this model unviable.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Great point, Unity should add a free demo exception then.
      - lesuorac 3y ago
        Unity should've talked to people before announcing the changes. This is an unforced error on Unity's part and while historical performance does not promise future performance; you really can expect Unity to make large blast-radius changes in the future without consulting you.
- ralferoo 3y ago
  From what I can tell, it only applies on copies sold after 200k copies or 200k in sales. So, if you've paid $X profit after 200k copies, after 201k copies you've made $X plus a bit more, unless you're actually selling your game at less than $0.20 per copy and whatever your payment fees are on the platform you're using. If you consider the IOS app store, where the minimum price is $0.99 and they take a maximum of 30% (including all payment fees etc), that still leaves you with at least $0.49 per extra copy sold.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > If you consider the IOS app store, where the minimum price is $0.99 and they take a maximum of 30% (including all payment fees etc), that still leaves you with at least $0.49 per extra copy sold. This is assuming that all users only install the app on one device. Say a user has both a tablet and a phone, they install the app on both, and after a couple of years they upgrade both and reinstall the app - suddenly you owe Unity more money than you took in from the sale!
devmor 3y ago
When people say "indie" devs, they mean devs that aren't with a big publisher. Not necessarily solo devs. Any relatively successful game is going to hit those numbers. $200k in revenue is barely enough to cover 3-4 months of development for a small studio.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Or couple of years of solo developer time. Not to forgot it is from revenue not profit. So give Steam/Google/Apple their cut and remove any external asset or work bought and 200k isn't that much for any non-low income country.
- gambiting 3y ago
  That's not what I mean when I say "indie" and I work in video games. I'm aware of some companies that employ 10+ people who still call themselves "indie" - I find that dishonest. >>Any relatively successful game is going to hit those numbers. Sure - and any relatively successful game should have no trouble paying those fees. The only real edge case that's going to be affected negatively by this change are f2p games that rely on having millions of installed copies to make miniscule amount of money from few paying people. Those games should consider switching away from Unity.
  - 0x457 3y ago
    It's the same meaning of the world as in the movie and music industry - no publisher/label == indie. Indie doesn't mean "small team" or "ugly game with interesting gameplay" or "game that makes less than 200k". All that means is that there aren't any external contractual obligations.
    - kemayo 3y ago
      To mostly agree with you, note that the etymology is that "indie" is a shortening of "independent". It does tend to carry connotations of small teams in video games, but that might just be because the margins in the industry make it super-hard for large studios to remain independent. Note that I think Valve would count as an indie under a pure independence metric, thus making things like Half Life an indie game. Which feels a bit off.
dleslie 3y ago
It's not unheard of for Ad-supported mobile games to have per-install revenues measured in the single cents or fractions of a cent, and total revenues over $200k.
- gambiting 3y ago
  Then those devs need to switch to Unity Enterprise and at 1M installs they will be paying 1c/install. If the product still doesn't make enough to pay 1 cent per install, then maybe........unity is not the product for them. I don't know, on one hand I get why devs are complaining, but on the other I really don't - if your product gets installed millions of times but doesn't make even 1 cent per install then you're doing something wrong.
ZeWaka 3y ago
True, but it does hurt the indie darlings that 'get noticed,' who showcase the Unity engine as a platform for small developers to make their game. Examples of recent indie games like this: Among Us, Valheim, Phasmophobia, Rimworld, Hollow Knight,... Here's a whole list: https://store.steampowered.com/curator/39750107-Games-Made-With-Unity/ https://store.steampowered.com/curator/39750107-Games-Made-W... Other than the 'extremely' popular games, you'd be surprised who surpasses those numbers. A small game studio by me was showing their financials at a talk (unheard of!), and the 'long tail' of their games definitely went past those numbers - and more costs coming in after a certain point just make the game less likely to be supported and discounted/sold.
- epolanski 3y ago
  How much does it hurts them? What's the cut? I see this being repeated over and over, but I'm not really understanding, say an indie Dev makes 500k in revenue in one year, how much is it going to unity? If it is anything below 50k it seems to me like a sweet deal for all the things Unity offers to devs. There's no shortage of free and good game engines out there, but I guess Unity does offer a lot that those free options don't.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    That's the thing: it's not possible to answer this question, since the cut Unity gets is not tied to the revenue of the developer anymore. You pay per user install. In the absolute worst case of people trying to abuse this structure, it would be possible for the developer to owe more than their revenue!
    - epolanski 3y ago
      That only applies to F2P games essentially thought, right?
      - Timon3 3y ago
        No, it applies to all games. Say you publish an iOS game for 1$, and a user installs it on two devices which he replaces after a couple of years - you'll owe Unity more money than you took in from the sale.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago

Right, but once a dev does hit that threshold, they could very easily be upside down on their income if the app goes viral and gets installed at a much higher rate than the revenue it generates and that's what people are mad about. You could instantly go from 200k revenue to being in the red on developer fees alone.

mcpackieh 3y ago
Indie devs actually selling their game should be fine right? If it's just the devs of F2P / adware crap that will be sunk, then maybe Unity's new pricing policies will be the unexpected savior of gaming. Imagine a world in which we're not racing to the bottom with ad-ridden shovel-ware but instead people try to make the best possible product and sell it for what it's worth... radical. Or maybe I've misunderstood something and this will hurt developers who sell their games too.
- Hemospectrum 3y ago
  Install bombing is still a problem. Unity, for all its "clarifications," keeps promising it won't be a problem and then refusing to be transparent about any of the ways it could possibly be less of a problem. Either they backtrack on this whole lifetime install count scheme or this blows up even more spectacularly when January rolls around.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    I don't understand why this is a worry - they will do it the same way Valve/Microsoft/Epic/Blizzard identify how many machines you have their product installed on - with a unique hardware ID that will make sure you aren't charged twice for installing the game on the same machine. It's not rocket science, it's been used in the industry for ages.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      I'm not sure that really fits well with GDPR... Or it has to be quite far removed from any actual identifier. I certainly believe that tracking number of game installs to bill someone else isn't legitimate reason to store any identifying data about my systems...
    - bitvoid 3y ago
      Are you sure? As far as I'm aware, I'm able to install a game I own on multiple machines for all of these platforms. I figured that the game is tied to my account, not some hardware ID. Why would they need to make sure I'm not charged twice based on installing the game to a machine rather than just seeing if my account owns it? I have never been charged more than once for a game I own that I have installed on both my desktop and my laptop, even after replacing those machines.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        Microsoft will stop you from downloading the game if it's installed on too many devices - it will tell you to deauthorize it on another device or sign it out entirely. >> I figured that the game is tied to my account, not some hardware ID Because it is. These platforms still use hardware ID matching for account bans and other functionality.
    - LMYahooTFY 3y ago
      Can you provide examples where this has been used in then industry? With the examples you listed doesn't it require an account to authenticate first before achieving this? Furthermore, is this not easy enough to spoof? Without account based authentication (which as far as I know Unity does not use/require?) what stops me from spinning up VMs or emulators repeatedly to attempt to install bomb?
      - gambiting 3y ago
        >>Can you provide examples where this has been used in then industry? Microsoft tells you if you install the game on too many devices. >>With the examples you listed doesn't it require an account to authenticate first before achieving this? Uhm, no, that's how it's implemented but it isn't required. >> what stops me from spinning up VMs or emulators repeatedly to attempt to install bomb? Nothing, but it would be very time consuming and very easy to detect.
- mortenjorck 3y ago
  A semi-forgotten but viable and healthy business model (with roots in the Shareware tradition) for mobile games is the free-with-unlock. Not F2P where the IAPs are different quantities of “gems” or “coins,” but a single “unlock” IAP that gets you the rest of the game if you enjoyed the free content. The per-install fee instantly makes this model unviable.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Great point, Unity should add a free demo exception then.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      Unity should've talked to people before announcing the changes. This is an unforced error on Unity's part and while historical performance does not promise future performance; you really can expect Unity to make large blast-radius changes in the future without consulting you.
ralferoo 3y ago
From what I can tell, it only applies on copies sold after 200k copies or 200k in sales. So, if you've paid $X profit after 200k copies, after 201k copies you've made $X plus a bit more, unless you're actually selling your game at less than $0.20 per copy and whatever your payment fees are on the platform you're using. If you consider the IOS app store, where the minimum price is $0.99 and they take a maximum of 30% (including all payment fees etc), that still leaves you with at least $0.49 per extra copy sold.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > If you consider the IOS app store, where the minimum price is $0.99 and they take a maximum of 30% (including all payment fees etc), that still leaves you with at least $0.49 per extra copy sold. This is assuming that all users only install the app on one device. Say a user has both a tablet and a phone, they install the app on both, and after a couple of years they upgrade both and reinstall the app - suddenly you owe Unity more money than you took in from the sale!

devmor 3y ago

When people say "indie" devs, they mean devs that aren't with a big publisher. Not necessarily solo devs. Any relatively successful game is going to hit those numbers. $200k in revenue is barely enough to cover 3-4 months of development for a small studio.

Ekaros 3y ago
Or couple of years of solo developer time. Not to forgot it is from revenue not profit. So give Steam/Google/Apple their cut and remove any external asset or work bought and 200k isn't that much for any non-low income country.
gambiting 3y ago
That's not what I mean when I say "indie" and I work in video games. I'm aware of some companies that employ 10+ people who still call themselves "indie" - I find that dishonest. >>Any relatively successful game is going to hit those numbers. Sure - and any relatively successful game should have no trouble paying those fees. The only real edge case that's going to be affected negatively by this change are f2p games that rely on having millions of installed copies to make miniscule amount of money from few paying people. Those games should consider switching away from Unity.
- 0x457 3y ago
  It's the same meaning of the world as in the movie and music industry - no publisher/label == indie. Indie doesn't mean "small team" or "ugly game with interesting gameplay" or "game that makes less than 200k". All that means is that there aren't any external contractual obligations.
  - kemayo 3y ago
    To mostly agree with you, note that the etymology is that "indie" is a shortening of "independent". It does tend to carry connotations of small teams in video games, but that might just be because the margins in the industry make it super-hard for large studios to remain independent. Note that I think Valve would count as an indie under a pure independence metric, thus making things like Half Life an indie game. Which feels a bit off.

dleslie 3y ago

It's not unheard of for Ad-supported mobile games to have per-install revenues measured in the single cents or fractions of a cent, and total revenues over $200k.

gambiting 3y ago
Then those devs need to switch to Unity Enterprise and at 1M installs they will be paying 1c/install. If the product still doesn't make enough to pay 1 cent per install, then maybe........unity is not the product for them. I don't know, on one hand I get why devs are complaining, but on the other I really don't - if your product gets installed millions of times but doesn't make even 1 cent per install then you're doing something wrong.

ZeWaka 3y ago

True, but it does hurt the indie darlings that 'get noticed,' who showcase the Unity engine as a platform for small developers to make their game. Examples of recent indie games like this: Among Us, Valheim, Phasmophobia, Rimworld, Hollow Knight,... Here's a whole list: https://store.steampowered.com/curator/39750107-Games-Made-With-Unity/ https://store.steampowered.com/curator/39750107-Games-Made-W... Other than the 'extremely' popular games, you'd be surprised who surpasses those numbers. A small game studio by me was showing their financials at a talk (unheard of!), and the 'long tail' of their games definitely went past those numbers - and more costs coming in after a certain point just make the game less likely to be supported and discounted/sold.

epolanski 3y ago
How much does it hurts them? What's the cut? I see this being repeated over and over, but I'm not really understanding, say an indie Dev makes 500k in revenue in one year, how much is it going to unity? If it is anything below 50k it seems to me like a sweet deal for all the things Unity offers to devs. There's no shortage of free and good game engines out there, but I guess Unity does offer a lot that those free options don't.
- Timon3 3y ago
  That's the thing: it's not possible to answer this question, since the cut Unity gets is not tied to the revenue of the developer anymore. You pay per user install. In the absolute worst case of people trying to abuse this structure, it would be possible for the developer to owe more than their revenue!
  - epolanski 3y ago
    That only applies to F2P games essentially thought, right?
    - Timon3 3y ago
      No, it applies to all games. Say you publish an iOS game for 1$, and a user installs it on two devices which he replaces after a couple of years - you'll owe Unity more money than you took in from the sale.