3 ms·

I haven't been following closely and find the rest of the paragraph good to know, if not entirely reassuring. > The free Unity Personal will stay free, and the

I haven't been following closely and find the rest of the paragraph good to know, if not entirely reassuring. > The free Unity Personal will stay free, and the revenue ceiling above which users must upgrade to the next tier has been raised to $200,000. And above $1 million, users will be able to choose between a per-user fee or a 2.5% revenue share, whichever is lesser. If this was the first and only news delivered with the users' concerns in mind, none of this would be such a big deal--that whole retroactive version value extraction play was going too far. The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version.

incrudible 3y ago
> entirely reassuring It's reassuring in the sense that some theoretical problem (costly installs) can be avoided. Otherwise, not really. The big selling point with Unity was that you pay per seat, and that's that. You don't owe them anything beyond that particular fee, no money, no confidential information, nothing. The change of terms is a not-so-tacit admission that their business model does not work and that the whims of the MBA-types are going to dictate the future of the platform. Unreal Engine has basically the same revenue share type of deal (but no per-seat cost), but then its leadership has a proven track record in developing actual games. > The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version. Of course, in the short term nobody is going to switch engines mid-flight. However, in a few years time, when we ask ourselves "How did Unity die?" this change of terms is likely to be identified as the point of no return.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  I know several teams who have already begun switching engines in games which are near completion. The threat of future licensing changes is very real. There will be no asking ourselves in a few years time. Unity is a dead man walking.

incrudible 3y ago

> entirely reassuring It's reassuring in the sense that some theoretical problem (costly installs) can be avoided. Otherwise, not really. The big selling point with Unity was that you pay per seat, and that's that. You don't owe them anything beyond that particular fee, no money, no confidential information, nothing. The change of terms is a not-so-tacit admission that their business model does not work and that the whims of the MBA-types are going to dictate the future of the platform. Unreal Engine has basically the same revenue share type of deal (but no per-seat cost), but then its leadership has a proven track record in developing actual games. > The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version. Of course, in the short term nobody is going to switch engines mid-flight. However, in a few years time, when we ask ourselves "How did Unity die?" this change of terms is likely to be identified as the point of no return.

xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
I know several teams who have already begun switching engines in games which are near completion. The threat of future licensing changes is very real. There will be no asking ourselves in a few years time. Unity is a dead man walking.