23 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? The simplest is that b

> 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.
danjoredd 3y ago
Let me rephrase this with a different tool to point out how poor the argument is: >If they don't think the advantages that using YouTube gives them is worth $0.20 per 1000 views, they should probably work out how much it'd cost to switch to a different platform altogether >If they don't think the advantages that using Adobe Photoshop gives them is worth $0.20 per image, they should probably work out how much it'd cost to edit their photos without photoshop. >If they don't think the advantages that using Google gives them is worth $0.20 per 1000 clicks, 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 promote their website without Google. The point is it's a stupid payment model that is predatory. People were already paying for Unity subscriptions over $200k...why should they pay for Unity AND pay an extra 20 cent tax per install on top of that? The issue isn't that people aren't paying for Unity. It's that subscriptions seemingly aren't enough to satisfy them, so they decided to price gouge.

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.

danjoredd 3y ago

Let me rephrase this with a different tool to point out how poor the argument is: >If they don't think the advantages that using YouTube gives them is worth $0.20 per 1000 views, they should probably work out how much it'd cost to switch to a different platform altogether >If they don't think the advantages that using Adobe Photoshop gives them is worth $0.20 per image, they should probably work out how much it'd cost to edit their photos without photoshop. >If they don't think the advantages that using Google gives them is worth $0.20 per 1000 clicks, 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 promote their website without Google. The point is it's a stupid payment model that is predatory. People were already paying for Unity subscriptions over $200k...why should they pay for Unity AND pay an extra 20 cent tax per install on top of that? The issue isn't that people aren't paying for Unity. It's that subscriptions seemingly aren't enough to satisfy them, so they decided to price gouge.