4 ms·

Honestly, if they just added revenue share like Unreal does and tweaked their subscriptions a little, the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as bad. The uproar

Honestly, if they just added revenue share like Unreal does and tweaked their subscriptions a little, the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as bad. The uproar is a combination of a really badly announced system and details that don't seem to be ironed out properly leaving devs ripe for abuse. Plus you have one of the most tight knit communities of artists who all reacted almost as one to this announcement and have experience with abuse from gamers in terms of piracy, review bombs, refund waves and so on. I guarantee most developers would have grumbled but given in to a revenue share I'm also completely baffled how poorly thought out this whole thing has been. Unity has been used by the likes of Nintendo, Microsoft and other massive game development studios. Do they seriously think a fee applied on retroactive sales and revenue numbers would be accepted without issue from them?

cfiggers 3y ago
> Do they seriously think a fee applied on retroactive sales and revenue numbers would be accepted without issue from them? Unity have not proposed a fee on retroactive sales. They have proposed a from-this-point-forward fee that applies to new sales/installs of any game made with Unity, including new sales/installs of back catalog games.
- ooterness 3y ago
  Sales and installs don't happen at the same time. If I buy a game once on Steam, I might install it on any number of unique devices. Per the Unity FAQ, every one of those installation events results in an additional bill for the game's developer. In other words: This is absolutely a retroactive rug-pull on new installs of old sales. Update: Because of the way they're rolling this out, the only way to avoid the retroactive license change is to immediately stop using Unity's development tools. If I were running a game studio, that's what I would do.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  This is incorrect. They are basing the numbers in January based on previous install numbers, not "from this point on." Note, it's not sales, it's installs. And it's not new installs. That you keep saying sales really means you aren't fully informed about the changes and should spend some time researching this.
lelanthran 3y ago
> Honestly, if they just added revenue share like Unreal does and tweaked their subscriptions a little, the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as bad. They ran the numbers. If it was going to work they would have gone that route, but I think the problem is that the clear majority of Unity-users (indie devs) make no money anyway. Revenue sharing with someone making $0 in revenue is pointless.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Okay, but when we're told to share our work for free "for the exposure", we're supposed to buy that and just give it away? They wanted people to use their product for free for the exposure. Changing their mind is one thing, making it retroactive is another.
- jonplackett 3y ago
  Asking someone making $0 to pay you X per download is even more pointless.
- shaftway 3y ago
  But they also aren't demanding $0.20 per install on free games. So if your game has $0 in revenue and 50,000,000,000 installs, then they still get $0.

cfiggers 3y ago

> Do they seriously think a fee applied on retroactive sales and revenue numbers would be accepted without issue from them? Unity have not proposed a fee on retroactive sales. They have proposed a from-this-point-forward fee that applies to new sales/installs of any game made with Unity, including new sales/installs of back catalog games.

ooterness 3y ago
Sales and installs don't happen at the same time. If I buy a game once on Steam, I might install it on any number of unique devices. Per the Unity FAQ, every one of those installation events results in an additional bill for the game's developer. In other words: This is absolutely a retroactive rug-pull on new installs of old sales. Update: Because of the way they're rolling this out, the only way to avoid the retroactive license change is to immediately stop using Unity's development tools. If I were running a game studio, that's what I would do.
jasonlotito 3y ago
This is incorrect. They are basing the numbers in January based on previous install numbers, not "from this point on." Note, it's not sales, it's installs. And it's not new installs. That you keep saying sales really means you aren't fully informed about the changes and should spend some time researching this.

lelanthran 3y ago

> Honestly, if they just added revenue share like Unreal does and tweaked their subscriptions a little, the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as bad. They ran the numbers. If it was going to work they would have gone that route, but I think the problem is that the clear majority of Unity-users (indie devs) make no money anyway. Revenue sharing with someone making $0 in revenue is pointless.

fragmede 3y ago
Okay, but when we're told to share our work for free "for the exposure", we're supposed to buy that and just give it away? They wanted people to use their product for free for the exposure. Changing their mind is one thing, making it retroactive is another.
jonplackett 3y ago
Asking someone making $0 to pay you X per download is even more pointless.
shaftway 3y ago
But they also aren't demanding $0.20 per install on free games. So if your game has $0 in revenue and 50,000,000,000 installs, then they still get $0.