6 ms·

Has there been any explanation, from Unity themselves or anyone else, as to why Unity thinks it deserves a cut based on install count? Do installs have to conne

by ysavir 3y ago

Has there been any explanation, from Unity themselves or anyone else, as to why Unity thinks it deserves a cut based on install count? Do installs have to connect to Unity servers to download something? Anything like that? Everything I've seen so far points to no baser an explanation than Unity realizing it had an avenue of attack and deciding to employ it--and an attack is exactly what it is, a raid on other people's business model.

paulddraper 3y ago
"deserves" Do entities (vendors, suppliers, employees) "deserve" to get paid for their costs? Or for the value they add?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Put another way, does a business fail because it didn't get what it deserved, or does it fail because it got exactly what it deserved?
- ysavir 3y ago
  Repeating my response to a sister comment for visibility: Unity definitely deserves to get paid for the value they provide. But why should that value scale with install count? Doesn't it already charge for licenses to develop the game? There is a big disconnect between "We make tools for game developers" and "we should get revenue share of the game developer's income". In what way does this proposes business model sync up with the value they provide?
cheschire 3y ago
All I can think of is perhaps they feel like their own reputation is under attack for being associated with F2P adware games, and they're trying to mount a defense against that.
ralferoo 3y ago
> Has there been any explanation, from Unity themselves or anyone else, as to why Unity thinks it deserves a cut based on install count? The simplest is that by using Unity, the developer reduces their development costs compared to creating a game without using an engine and the tooling that comes with it. If they don't think the advantages that using Unity gives them is worth $0.20 per copy, they should probably work out how much it'd cost to hire more developers to do the extra work they'd have to do to create their game without Unity.
- ysavir 3y ago
  Unity definitely deserves to get paid for the value they provide. But why should that value scale with install count? Doesn't it already charge for licenses to develop the game? There is a big disconnect between "We make tools for game developers" and "we should get revenue share of the game developer's income"
  - Macha 3y ago
    I'm sure one of these days the office furniture companies will be coming for recurring revenue shares, since after all, you can't retain the devs you need to make the game if they're sitting on the floor. Think of all the value those chairs provided. Shouldn't the furniture company get a cut of that? It's hard to predict revenue when you don't how long people will hold onto their chairs on a fixed purchase model too. (/s)
    - Xorakios 3y ago
      Alas, sarcasm might be more like reality. Retail store rentals have long required a cut of monthly sales. Actors/writers in the US are currently striking over their residual cut of entertainment sales, essentially forever. Architects have negotiated for lifetime payments over the rental payments of buildings, so why shouldn't iconic furniture producers get a cut of sales using their most excellent chairs forever? :)
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  But this is a silly way of viewing tooling. If I sell a million books laid out using Adobe tools, adobe shouldbt get a cut!
  - ralferoo 3y ago
    Do you include the adobe tool in each book? No. Do you include a massive chunk of Unity code in every game made with Unity? Yes. If you make a song that includes samples from other songs, you have to pay the original creators royalties too. You might negotiate a deal for a one-off payment, or per-copy sold, or percentage. AFAIK Unity offers all of those options. I guess you're probably unaware that if you release a game on any of the consoles, you also have to pay a license fee per copy. Not sure of the current prices, but it used to be around $7-$15 depending on expected sales volume. If you release a game on mobile, you have to pay 15-30% cut to be on the app stores. If you release on steam, you have to pay them, etc.

by ysavir 3y ago

paulddraper 3y ago

"deserves" Do entities (vendors, suppliers, employees) "deserve" to get paid for their costs? Or for the value they add?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Put another way, does a business fail because it didn't get what it deserved, or does it fail because it got exactly what it deserved?
ysavir 3y ago
Repeating my response to a sister comment for visibility: Unity definitely deserves to get paid for the value they provide. But why should that value scale with install count? Doesn't it already charge for licenses to develop the game? There is a big disconnect between "We make tools for game developers" and "we should get revenue share of the game developer's income". In what way does this proposes business model sync up with the value they provide?

cheschire 3y ago

All I can think of is perhaps they feel like their own reputation is under attack for being associated with F2P adware games, and they're trying to mount a defense against that.

ralferoo 3y ago

> Has there been any explanation, from Unity themselves or anyone else, as to why Unity thinks it deserves a cut based on install count? The simplest is that by using Unity, the developer reduces their development costs compared to creating a game without using an engine and the tooling that comes with it. If they don't think the advantages that using Unity gives them is worth $0.20 per copy, they should probably work out how much it'd cost to hire more developers to do the extra work they'd have to do to create their game without Unity.

ysavir 3y ago
Unity definitely deserves to get paid for the value they provide. But why should that value scale with install count? Doesn't it already charge for licenses to develop the game? There is a big disconnect between "We make tools for game developers" and "we should get revenue share of the game developer's income"
- Macha 3y ago
  I'm sure one of these days the office furniture companies will be coming for recurring revenue shares, since after all, you can't retain the devs you need to make the game if they're sitting on the floor. Think of all the value those chairs provided. Shouldn't the furniture company get a cut of that? It's hard to predict revenue when you don't how long people will hold onto their chairs on a fixed purchase model too. (/s)
  - Xorakios 3y ago
    Alas, sarcasm might be more like reality. Retail store rentals have long required a cut of monthly sales. Actors/writers in the US are currently striking over their residual cut of entertainment sales, essentially forever. Architects have negotiated for lifetime payments over the rental payments of buildings, so why shouldn't iconic furniture producers get a cut of sales using their most excellent chairs forever? :)
dghlsakjg 3y ago
But this is a silly way of viewing tooling. If I sell a million books laid out using Adobe tools, adobe shouldbt get a cut!
- ralferoo 3y ago
  Do you include the adobe tool in each book? No. Do you include a massive chunk of Unity code in every game made with Unity? Yes. If you make a song that includes samples from other songs, you have to pay the original creators royalties too. You might negotiate a deal for a one-off payment, or per-copy sold, or percentage. AFAIK Unity offers all of those options. I guess you're probably unaware that if you release a game on any of the consoles, you also have to pay a license fee per copy. Not sure of the current prices, but it used to be around $7-$15 depending on expected sales volume. If you release a game on mobile, you have to pay 15-30% cut to be on the app stores. If you release on steam, you have to pay them, etc.