4 ms·

I mean every time something like a dev tool starts charging, or there is some tax or regulation, someone arrives and says it's gonna hurt the small indie devs,

I mean every time something like a dev tool starts charging, or there is some tax or regulation, someone arrives and says it's gonna hurt the small indie devs, but who cares? If they can't contribute to anything and require the whole society worse off, then its likely that they'd better do something else

foota 3y ago
Pragmatically, many people enjoy indie games as much (or more) than AAA games. AAA games are more oriented towards making money and mass market appeal, and if we don't provide a market for indie games then we lose out on the specialty and variety of them.
- gambiting 3y ago
  But....there is a thriving market for indie games, even with this change. If you make a fantastic little indie game and release it for free = nothing changes, you pay nothing. If you make a little indie game and sell 100k copies = nothing changes, you still pay nothing. If you make a little indie game and sell 200k copies - you will now have to pay a small fee per install, but if you reached 200k sales you are way out of what I'd consider "small indie dev". I think dev tools should be provided for free or cheap to people experimenting or starting out, but there is a point where people are taking the piss if they sell 200k copies and they still think they should be able to use the tools for free(or nearly free).
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > I think dev tools should be provided for free or cheap to people experimenting or starting out, but there is a point where people are taking the piss if they sell 200k copies and they still think they should be able to use the tools for free(or nearly free). You have completely misunderstood the discussions if you think the issue is indie devs wanting to use the engine for free. If it were just a percentage of revenue, few people would complain. Instead the pricing structure is explicitly made in a way that puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral.
    - gambiting 3y ago
      No I don't think I have misunderstood at all. >> puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral. Please explain how exactly, because I'm really not grokking it. If your small free game goes viral = you pay nothing. If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem. From my perspective it seems like a lot of complaining is being done by people on Unity Personal licences who are now upset they will have to pay to use the engine if they actually make money - I don't support those people. I'm yet to see a legitimate example of a business that would be put in any kind of danger because of these rules.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        > If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem. No, that's the issue! It's possible for you to owe more to Unity than you took in from the sale. It's not tied to your revenue. If a user re-installs your game too many times you will literally owe Unity more money than you earned. I'm not sure how you want me to convince you otherwise. The formula for calculating how much devs owe due to installs is: install_count * amount_per_install. There simply is no revenue involved.
        gambiting 3y ago
        >>It's possible for you to owe more to Unity than you took in from the sale. It's not tied to your revenue I think you don't understand what revenue is. It's entirely possible for a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale. In that sense this system is the same - under some circumstances you can lose money on a sale. >> If a user re-installs your game too many times you will literally owe Unity more money than you earned. I agree that Unity shouldn't be charging per install if the dev can prove all installations were done by the same user.
danjoredd 3y ago
They were already paying for it. The subscription model should be enough. It scales well enough for small devs to make decent amounts of money, and for Unity to get paid. You act as though indie studios are using this tool for free when that is hardly the case. Past a certain revenue amount, they are required to upgrade to a paid license which is totally fair. Game not taking off? No worries. It is just wasted effort. Game take off and you make lots of money? GREAT! You get to upgrade to a paid model of a tool you already use. It was a WAY more fair model. If they are that hard up for money, they should have just announced a subscription price increase. Not retroactively price gouging for games that have already been released.

foota 3y ago

Pragmatically, many people enjoy indie games as much (or more) than AAA games. AAA games are more oriented towards making money and mass market appeal, and if we don't provide a market for indie games then we lose out on the specialty and variety of them.

gambiting 3y ago
But....there is a thriving market for indie games, even with this change. If you make a fantastic little indie game and release it for free = nothing changes, you pay nothing. If you make a little indie game and sell 100k copies = nothing changes, you still pay nothing. If you make a little indie game and sell 200k copies - you will now have to pay a small fee per install, but if you reached 200k sales you are way out of what I'd consider "small indie dev". I think dev tools should be provided for free or cheap to people experimenting or starting out, but there is a point where people are taking the piss if they sell 200k copies and they still think they should be able to use the tools for free(or nearly free).
- Timon3 3y ago
  > I think dev tools should be provided for free or cheap to people experimenting or starting out, but there is a point where people are taking the piss if they sell 200k copies and they still think they should be able to use the tools for free(or nearly free). You have completely misunderstood the discussions if you think the issue is indie devs wanting to use the engine for free. If it were just a percentage of revenue, few people would complain. Instead the pricing structure is explicitly made in a way that puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral.
  - gambiting 3y ago
    No I don't think I have misunderstood at all. >> puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral. Please explain how exactly, because I'm really not grokking it. If your small free game goes viral = you pay nothing. If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem. From my perspective it seems like a lot of complaining is being done by people on Unity Personal licences who are now upset they will have to pay to use the engine if they actually make money - I don't support those people. I'm yet to see a legitimate example of a business that would be put in any kind of danger because of these rules.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      > If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem. No, that's the issue! It's possible for you to owe more to Unity than you took in from the sale. It's not tied to your revenue. If a user re-installs your game too many times you will literally owe Unity more money than you earned. I'm not sure how you want me to convince you otherwise. The formula for calculating how much devs owe due to installs is: install_count * amount_per_install. There simply is no revenue involved.
      - gambiting 3y ago
        >>It's possible for you to owe more to Unity than you took in from the sale. It's not tied to your revenue I think you don't understand what revenue is. It's entirely possible for a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale. In that sense this system is the same - under some circumstances you can lose money on a sale. >> If a user re-installs your game too many times you will literally owe Unity more money than you earned. I agree that Unity shouldn't be charging per install if the dev can prove all installations were done by the same user.

danjoredd 3y ago

They were already paying for it. The subscription model should be enough. It scales well enough for small devs to make decent amounts of money, and for Unity to get paid. You act as though indie studios are using this tool for free when that is hardly the case. Past a certain revenue amount, they are required to upgrade to a paid license which is totally fair. Game not taking off? No worries. It is just wasted effort. Game take off and you make lots of money? GREAT! You get to upgrade to a paid model of a tool you already use. It was a WAY more fair model. If they are that hard up for money, they should have just announced a subscription price increase. Not retroactively price gouging for games that have already been released.