5 ms·
The asinine part is per install, instead of something like revenue share. Regardless of the bar they set (200k x2) for additional installs to charge is terrible
by ragestorm 3y ago
The asinine part is per install, instead of something like revenue share. Regardless of the bar they set (200k x2) for additional installs to charge is terrible simply due to the install metric.
- pelasaco 3y agoFrom what I can tell, if you were to sell a $5 game made with Unity and made $200,000 per year, the total charge would be $8,000. But that charge would be $40k if your game was only $1 and $800 if your game sold for $50. For Unity Pro if you made $10 million selling 1 million copies you would be charged $60,000. That same studio making $10 million on a game written with Unreal Engine would be charged $500,000 in royalties. That is far more than $60k for Unity. It still appears that Unity is the budget option, it just isn't quite as cheap as it used to be... So I couldn't find a situation where is cheaper to go with unreal (5% revenue share) than with Unity...
- ragestorm 3y agoYou are counting revenue share for unity, not per install. Say in the first instance, each user installed the game twice, your new charge is 16k$. That’s why people were reasonably upset. It’s the install metric. Glad they walked it back but just shows how disconnected the whole announcement was.