3 ms·

Their USP was that they had no revenue share. Somehow they thought that the current retroactive per-install model would go over better than reneging on that pro

Their USP was that they had no revenue share. Somehow they thought that the current retroactive per-install model would go over better than reneging on that promise.

hutzlibu 3y ago
But how little can you know about your own product and your customers, by suddenly treating an AAA game that is sold for a fixed big price, where a fee per install might make sense or is affordable, the same as all those little games, where many are free to play (add financed, or as a free demo with full version unlockable)? I mean, how can you not see that? Or was the thinking, screw that market, we are only catering for AAA games now? Even then it makes little sense as the revenue share like Unreal does, would make more money. It likeley was something along the lines of: "they need us, they will have to find a way to pay us, if they want to continue existing."
- deafpolygon 3y ago
  It was more a heavy-handed tactic to get small ad-supported game developers to switch to using Unity's ad network rather than their competitors.
- noirscape 3y ago
  Not AAA games - the real target here is mobile games. Those far exceed any profits the AAA industry generates. Indies are a necessary casualty in the eyes of Unity (or more accurately: they're just not considered). Unity is the engine behind some of the most popular mobile gacha games. MiHoYo (Genshin/Honkai Impact) uses it for everything, so does Type/Moon (Fate Grand Order). They want a slice of that pie. That's where the real money is. Those games rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every month. Hence also why the charge is by install and can be waived if you use Unity's adtech offerings.
  - ffgjgf1 3y ago
    For most indies prices shouldn’t really go up that much and for some others this is actually a discount (the 200k limit is now per game and not company and you already had to upgrade to pro after that). For 90-95% if not more of their users the financial aspect is not such a big deal. The way they announced it and planning to implement (retroactively and how do they even track “installs”) is a way bigger issue.
  - davely 3y ago
    Oh, man. I worked as a community manager for a free-to-play mobile gaming company in the US about 10+ years ago. The gacha mechanic just absolutely ruined games for normal, everyday users. You had random moms and grandmas write in with the sweetest messages asking for features or reporting a bug. For the most part, their feedback and requests went right into the garbage can. Meanwhile, we had people from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore spending $40K USD per week on in app purchases. Gacha is effectively gambling and exploiting users' propensities for addictive behavior. We would jokingly call it the "Gotch Ya!" mechanic. Feature roadmaps, bug fixes and A/B tests were all about "optimizing the funnel" -- i.e., how do we get these whales to spend more money or more parts of the app. Good god, it was so demoralizing.

Their USP was that they had no revenue share. Somehow they thought that the current retroactive per-install model would go over better than reneging on that promise.

hutzlibu 3y ago

But how little can you know about your own product and your customers, by suddenly treating an AAA game that is sold for a fixed big price, where a fee per install might make sense or is affordable, the same as all those little games, where many are free to play (add financed, or as a free demo with full version unlockable)? I mean, how can you not see that? Or was the thinking, screw that market, we are only catering for AAA games now? Even then it makes little sense as the revenue share like Unreal does, would make more money. It likeley was something along the lines of: "they need us, they will have to find a way to pay us, if they want to continue existing."

deafpolygon 3y ago
It was more a heavy-handed tactic to get small ad-supported game developers to switch to using Unity's ad network rather than their competitors.
noirscape 3y ago
Not AAA games - the real target here is mobile games. Those far exceed any profits the AAA industry generates. Indies are a necessary casualty in the eyes of Unity (or more accurately: they're just not considered). Unity is the engine behind some of the most popular mobile gacha games. MiHoYo (Genshin/Honkai Impact) uses it for everything, so does Type/Moon (Fate Grand Order). They want a slice of that pie. That's where the real money is. Those games rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every month. Hence also why the charge is by install and can be waived if you use Unity's adtech offerings.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  For most indies prices shouldn’t really go up that much and for some others this is actually a discount (the 200k limit is now per game and not company and you already had to upgrade to pro after that). For 90-95% if not more of their users the financial aspect is not such a big deal. The way they announced it and planning to implement (retroactively and how do they even track “installs”) is a way bigger issue.
- davely 3y ago
  Oh, man. I worked as a community manager for a free-to-play mobile gaming company in the US about 10+ years ago. The gacha mechanic just absolutely ruined games for normal, everyday users. You had random moms and grandmas write in with the sweetest messages asking for features or reporting a bug. For the most part, their feedback and requests went right into the garbage can. Meanwhile, we had people from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore spending $40K USD per week on in app purchases. Gacha is effectively gambling and exploiting users' propensities for addictive behavior. We would jokingly call it the "Gotch Ya!" mechanic. Feature roadmaps, bug fixes and A/B tests were all about "optimizing the funnel" -- i.e., how do we get these whales to spend more money or more parts of the app. Good god, it was so demoralizing.