4 ms·

I don't really see a problem with this. From the Unity3D blog [1]. Adobe announced a brand new licensing structure for Flash games You should definitely read t

by cellis 15y ago

I don't really see a problem with this. From the Unity3D blog [1]. Adobe announced a brand new licensing structure for Flash games You should definitely read the details as Adobe explains them here: www.adobe.com/go/fpl and here: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-features-licensing-faq.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-fea... The short version is that Adobe is introducing a new revenue share licensing model where they will take a revenue share from some content publishers. Adobe will charge publishers 9% of only the revenues directly caused by the game which exceed $50K. If revenue is not directly caused by the game you pay nothing. i.e. An online teaser level for a iOS / Android game, a car company having a realtime 3d demo of their newest model which you can inspect and drive around, a 3d walkthrough for a library, etc, all would not pay the revenue share. We see this as Flash positioning itself alongside other well known distribution channels: make money through the App Store, Apple takes a share. Make money through the Android Market place, Google takes a share. Make money through Flash, Adobe takes a share. It’s also worth noting that the new Adobe license will prohibit scenarios where you’d have the first level of a game in the Flash Player, and the full experience inside the Unity Web Player. Alas, this is something you’ll need to be aware of if you were considering such a route. You see, Flash is not web technology.Neither is iOS, or Android. Flash was web tech, a long,long time ago, but frankly the web hasn't evolved fast enough to keep up. HTML5 is still nowhere close to flash. WebGL is, but that's not exactly standard. [1] http://blogs.unity3d.com/2012/03/28/unity-flash-update/ http://blogs.unity3d.com/2012/03/28/unity-flash-update/

calydon 15y ago
Of the possible revenue sharing arrangements this type (similar to Unity's) is the most civilized. It doesn't stop indie devs from experimenting (since it doesn't kick in until the first 50k has been exceeded) and it allows Adobe to profit when its tech is used on a breakaway hit. What I don't understand is the timing of this. Since it is popularly believed that HTML5 will kill Flash in the near future and that Adobe has stopped developing the mobile plugin (neither is true). This will only give Flash detractors more ammo. Adobe needs to do some damage control before they add more drag to one of their flagship products.

by cellis 15y ago

calydon 15y ago

Of the possible revenue sharing arrangements this type (similar to Unity's) is the most civilized. It doesn't stop indie devs from experimenting (since it doesn't kick in until the first 50k has been exceeded) and it allows Adobe to profit when its tech is used on a breakaway hit. What I don't understand is the timing of this. Since it is popularly believed that HTML5 will kill Flash in the near future and that Adobe has stopped developing the mobile plugin (neither is true). This will only give Flash detractors more ammo. Adobe needs to do some damage control before they add more drag to one of their flagship products.