6 ms·

It appears they've backed off on the royalties, too: originally, it was 5% of gross[1], and now it's 5% of gross after $3000 sales per quarter.[2] 1 https://ww

It appears they've backed off on the royalties, too: originally, it was 5% of gross[1], and now it's 5% of gross after $3000 sales per quarter.[2] 1 https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/welcome-to-unreal-engine-4 https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/welcome-to-unreal-engine-4 2 https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/ue4-is-free https://www.unrealengine.com/blog/ue4-is-free

cma 12y ago
I thought it was always after $3000
TillE 12y ago
That change happened about six months ago. It's quite nice, they don't even ask you to file any paperwork if your revenue is under $3000 for a quarter.
walru 12y ago
I've always wanted to know how the 5% royalty is enforced. Other, much lesser known, engines have attempted to do something of this sort by acting as an intermediary eg. publisher, planning to pay developers after they were paid by Apple. For obvious reasons that was immediately dismembered by the community. The only way I can figure is they'll ask for an iTunes connect login so they can check on the numbers for themselves. Speaking as a developer, it just sounds like something to be avoided from the start.
- drx 12y ago
  Lawsuits. I imagine the revenue distribution would follow a power law here. So it would only really make sense for Epic to go after non-compliant "whales", where the unpaid royalties exceed the legal costs. Also, the more profitable the project, the lower the non-compliance rate, probably. It makes little sense to defy the royalty agreement if you have a successful project.
  - cma 12y ago
    To handle noncompliers, they can get off of the various App stores with a simple DMCA request, no complicated lawsuits required, unless the developers appeal the take down, which probably involves a lot of "under penalty of perjury" lying.
    - Finster 12y ago
      Why would breach-of-contract have anything to do with the DMCA?
      - timv 12y ago
        I assume cma is suggesting that the contract would allow Epic to revoke the license of anyone that failed to pay their 5%. Once Epic exercises that right, any further distribution of the product would be a violation of Epic's copyright and Epic could file a DCMA takedown.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - girvo 12y ago
        Because the developer doesn't own the copyright to the engine?
  - drewcrawford 12y ago
    It's unfortunate that this model really only works for large developers serving broad markets like gaming. Whereas if you're an indie developer writing image processing code for example, it is going to be hard to find infringers and harder to strongarm them into coughing up licensing fees. I expect this has the effect of keeping source code behind closed doors that would otherwise be public.
  - scott_s 12y ago
    I would phrase it "contracts" - which has the implication that if you violate the contract, you may be sued. Contracts are how just about everything is "enforced". I think that programmers tend to think that if something is required, we must have programmatic protections in place that ensure it actually happens. Most of the world does not work like that; they rely on contracts.
- worklogin 12y ago
  So a state-of-the-art graphics library, a critical component to your new, moderately successful video game, doesn't deserve 5% of the revenue?
  - SSLy 12y ago
    Not to mention this is much more than a 3D rendering middleware.
  - cwyers 12y ago
    Yeah, if you think you can write your own alternative to Unreal Engine for less than (revenue-$3000)*0.05 per quarter, then by all means, you should do that.
    - Retric 12y ago
      Competion is a wonderful thing. I can't build a decent car for less than the cost of a low end BMW. But, there are plenty of other companies than can. So, the real question is what are the other options out there and I suspect there are few engines that can come close.
      - cwyers 12y ago
        iDTech is no longer licensed for third-party use; only Zenimax properties can use it. CryEngine is available -- they have a $10 a month subscription plan that is royaly-free, but you don't get source code access like you do with Unreal Engine here. (They offer seperate terms for source access.[1]) Unity exists, but I don't think it's in quite the same tier as Unreal (although for some projects that may not matter). [1] http://cryengine.com/get-cryengine http://cryengine.com/get-cryengine
  - Arelius 12y ago
    Perhaps not, as a graphics programmer, rewriting the rendering system is comparatively simple, enjoyable, and perhaps not worth 5% of a moderately successful game. However, UE4 is much more than just a graphics library. I'd argue that it's editor alone is worth many times more than their rendering features. And IMO, it's trivially worth the 5% of revenue.
- wahsd 12y ago
  Or, you know, pay the royalty you agreed to pay and stop being a thieving scum. I would think they have some sort of enforcing mechanism. It almost seems like the $3,000 limit is a signal of the cutoff when it starts becoming worthwhile to pursue scum buckets.
- moogleii 12y ago
  Speaking as another developer, their terms sound incredibly fair.
romaniv 12y ago
Does $3000 reset every quarter or it it a one-tune limit? Is it (gross - $3000) * .05 or gross .05 when the condition is met? The phrasing is ambiguous, unless I'm missing some grammar rules. And no, I'm not asking out of pedantry.
- stonemetal 12y ago
  >When you ship a game or application, you pay a 5% royalty on gross revenue after the first $3,000 per product, per quarter. Not only does it reset per quarter, it is per product as well.
  - jameshart 12y ago
    That seems pretty gameable (and who would be better at gaming systems than games devs?). "Oh, yeah, we made $2999 on Gem Clan Quest, then $2999 on Gem Clan Quest Super Deluxe Edition, and $2999 on the Gem Clan Quest Candy Kingdom DLC, which is more of a sequel really, so it's a totally different product..."
    - dlu 12y ago
      Yeah, but I think $3,000 is a small enough increment for them. You'd need to do this dozens of times for it to be a meaningful aggregate amount. And that situation should be fairly obvious and easy to police.
    - Elhana 12y ago
      That does not scale really well, unless are really on the edge of this 3k. As soon as you start earning more, your users will be confused if you release 'new' product every month. Besides, I bet if you read full license, it will have proper legal rules there against this and other tricks you might come up with.
    - Gustomaximus 12y ago
      My guess is their not interested in the small fry and are looking for companies that earn hundreds of millions. If a company was gaming this pricing creating 100 products each earning $4,000 (vs. $400k) they are saving $15,000 and are likely to hurt their business via customer confusion.
drawkbox 12y ago
The after $3000 sales per quarter was implemented in April '14 but seems better communicated now. Tim Sweeney answered this himself in April. https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/15056/need-some-clarification-on-the-5-royalty.html https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/15056/need-some-c...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- Arelius 12y ago
  Steam does not take 90% of sales.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

cma 12y ago

I thought it was always after $3000

TillE 12y ago

That change happened about six months ago. It's quite nice, they don't even ask you to file any paperwork if your revenue is under $3000 for a quarter.

walru 12y ago

I've always wanted to know how the 5% royalty is enforced. Other, much lesser known, engines have attempted to do something of this sort by acting as an intermediary eg. publisher, planning to pay developers after they were paid by Apple. For obvious reasons that was immediately dismembered by the community. The only way I can figure is they'll ask for an iTunes connect login so they can check on the numbers for themselves. Speaking as a developer, it just sounds like something to be avoided from the start.

drx 12y ago
Lawsuits. I imagine the revenue distribution would follow a power law here. So it would only really make sense for Epic to go after non-compliant "whales", where the unpaid royalties exceed the legal costs. Also, the more profitable the project, the lower the non-compliance rate, probably. It makes little sense to defy the royalty agreement if you have a successful project.
- cma 12y ago
  To handle noncompliers, they can get off of the various App stores with a simple DMCA request, no complicated lawsuits required, unless the developers appeal the take down, which probably involves a lot of "under penalty of perjury" lying.
  - Finster 12y ago
    Why would breach-of-contract have anything to do with the DMCA?
    - timv 12y ago
      I assume cma is suggesting that the contract would allow Epic to revoke the license of anyone that failed to pay their 5%. Once Epic exercises that right, any further distribution of the product would be a violation of Epic's copyright and Epic could file a DCMA takedown.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - girvo 12y ago
      Because the developer doesn't own the copyright to the engine?
- drewcrawford 12y ago
  It's unfortunate that this model really only works for large developers serving broad markets like gaming. Whereas if you're an indie developer writing image processing code for example, it is going to be hard to find infringers and harder to strongarm them into coughing up licensing fees. I expect this has the effect of keeping source code behind closed doors that would otherwise be public.
- scott_s 12y ago
  I would phrase it "contracts" - which has the implication that if you violate the contract, you may be sued. Contracts are how just about everything is "enforced". I think that programmers tend to think that if something is required, we must have programmatic protections in place that ensure it actually happens. Most of the world does not work like that; they rely on contracts.
worklogin 12y ago
So a state-of-the-art graphics library, a critical component to your new, moderately successful video game, doesn't deserve 5% of the revenue?
- SSLy 12y ago
  Not to mention this is much more than a 3D rendering middleware.
- cwyers 12y ago
  Yeah, if you think you can write your own alternative to Unreal Engine for less than (revenue-$3000)*0.05 per quarter, then by all means, you should do that.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Competion is a wonderful thing. I can't build a decent car for less than the cost of a low end BMW. But, there are plenty of other companies than can. So, the real question is what are the other options out there and I suspect there are few engines that can come close.
    - cwyers 12y ago
      iDTech is no longer licensed for third-party use; only Zenimax properties can use it. CryEngine is available -- they have a $10 a month subscription plan that is royaly-free, but you don't get source code access like you do with Unreal Engine here. (They offer seperate terms for source access.[1]) Unity exists, but I don't think it's in quite the same tier as Unreal (although for some projects that may not matter). [1] http://cryengine.com/get-cryengine http://cryengine.com/get-cryengine
- Arelius 12y ago
  Perhaps not, as a graphics programmer, rewriting the rendering system is comparatively simple, enjoyable, and perhaps not worth 5% of a moderately successful game. However, UE4 is much more than just a graphics library. I'd argue that it's editor alone is worth many times more than their rendering features. And IMO, it's trivially worth the 5% of revenue.
wahsd 12y ago
Or, you know, pay the royalty you agreed to pay and stop being a thieving scum. I would think they have some sort of enforcing mechanism. It almost seems like the $3,000 limit is a signal of the cutoff when it starts becoming worthwhile to pursue scum buckets.
moogleii 12y ago
Speaking as another developer, their terms sound incredibly fair.

romaniv 12y ago

Does $3000 reset every quarter or it it a one-tune limit? Is it (gross - $3000) * .05 or gross .05 when the condition is met? The phrasing is ambiguous, unless I'm missing some grammar rules. And no, I'm not asking out of pedantry.

stonemetal 12y ago
>When you ship a game or application, you pay a 5% royalty on gross revenue after the first $3,000 per product, per quarter. Not only does it reset per quarter, it is per product as well.
- jameshart 12y ago
  That seems pretty gameable (and who would be better at gaming systems than games devs?). "Oh, yeah, we made $2999 on Gem Clan Quest, then $2999 on Gem Clan Quest Super Deluxe Edition, and $2999 on the Gem Clan Quest Candy Kingdom DLC, which is more of a sequel really, so it's a totally different product..."
  - dlu 12y ago
    Yeah, but I think $3,000 is a small enough increment for them. You'd need to do this dozens of times for it to be a meaningful aggregate amount. And that situation should be fairly obvious and easy to police.
  - Elhana 12y ago
    That does not scale really well, unless are really on the edge of this 3k. As soon as you start earning more, your users will be confused if you release 'new' product every month. Besides, I bet if you read full license, it will have proper legal rules there against this and other tricks you might come up with.
  - Gustomaximus 12y ago
    My guess is their not interested in the small fry and are looking for companies that earn hundreds of millions. If a company was gaming this pricing creating 100 products each earning $4,000 (vs. $400k) they are saving $15,000 and are likely to hurt their business via customer confusion.

drawkbox 12y ago

The after $3000 sales per quarter was implemented in April '14 but seems better communicated now. Tim Sweeney answered this himself in April. https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/15056/need-some-clarification-on-the-5-royalty.html https://answers.unrealengine.com/questions/15056/need-some-c...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Arelius 12y ago
Steam does not take 90% of sales.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]