4 ms·

I am sorry, but anyone serious about building games would not balk at their monthly prices. I dont mean to offend but this kind of reaction to pricing almost a

I am sorry, but anyone serious about building games would not balk at their monthly prices. I dont mean to offend but this kind of reaction to pricing almost always comes from people with little to no money, traction, revenue etc. The reality is, when you have a game in the market, costs like $75/mo or even 225/mo for iOS/Android targets - that cost does not even cross your mind. It is less than the cost of a single developer for a single day.

msbarnett 12y ago
For big dev shops, sure, $225/month is just the cost of doing business, no big deal. It's way too much for the Indie crowd, though, and that's Unity's big problem these days; it's being attacked from below by UDK, where the far lower upfront cost appeals to indie devs and tinkers, AND from above by UDK, which is a much better pro-level AAA framework than Unity, and for which the $$$$$ no cut of gross revenue licensing cost isn't an obstacle.
- erik 12y ago
  One of the ways that Unity appeals to indies though is the free tier. You can get started with Unity without paying anything at all. And if your project gets serious, then paying the monthly fee isn't such a large barrier. That's how it worked with my project anyway.
- notastartup 12y ago
  you make a really good point. UDK and Cryengine's low monthly pricing makes it an innovative disruptor because for indie folks it's a blessing to have such a powerful engine at the fraction of what it costs with something less powerful like Unity. I'd imagine, if you were a studio, you'd opt for UDK because you'd be able to do more. UDK also includes Android and iOS compilation. I have used Unity free version, it was great but always felt nervous about dropping $4500. UDK addresses my pain point and likewise for other indie developers by giving access to a triple A framework without having to worry about return on investment. I definitely don't mind sharing the risk with UDK for a meager 5%.

msbarnett 12y ago

For big dev shops, sure, $225/month is just the cost of doing business, no big deal. It's way too much for the Indie crowd, though, and that's Unity's big problem these days; it's being attacked from below by UDK, where the far lower upfront cost appeals to indie devs and tinkers, AND from above by UDK, which is a much better pro-level AAA framework than Unity, and for which the $$$$$ no cut of gross revenue licensing cost isn't an obstacle.

erik 12y ago
One of the ways that Unity appeals to indies though is the free tier. You can get started with Unity without paying anything at all. And if your project gets serious, then paying the monthly fee isn't such a large barrier. That's how it worked with my project anyway.
notastartup 12y ago
you make a really good point. UDK and Cryengine's low monthly pricing makes it an innovative disruptor because for indie folks it's a blessing to have such a powerful engine at the fraction of what it costs with something less powerful like Unity. I'd imagine, if you were a studio, you'd opt for UDK because you'd be able to do more. UDK also includes Android and iOS compilation. I have used Unity free version, it was great but always felt nervous about dropping $4500. UDK addresses my pain point and likewise for other indie developers by giving access to a triple A framework without having to worry about return on investment. I definitely don't mind sharing the risk with UDK for a meager 5%.