i was just playing the CBEEBIES app with my 3 year old, which is great, but it loaded with a “powered by unity” screen.
I take this to mean that the BBC, with all their “taxed” millions, are using a free licence which is surely against unity terms?
I just very surprised if that’s the case.
Cheers
Mat
If they are using the latest version, it would say Unity Personal Edition so either they are using the free version of 4.x or they are using the paid version and don’t mind using the splash screen. 
Not everyone does, you know.
They might also be required to show all such licensing information by the powers that be (management).
Not sure about BBC, but most companies probably don’t have the manpower to built such apps in-house. So they decide to hire freelance developers instead and most of them might not own Unity Pro. Or they simply can’t afford paying for it… let’s say, you are a non-gaming company and you want a Unity-based app. This app, however, would be the only Unity-based app in your repertoire ever - would it make much sense to buy a full license, if you’re sure that you won’t need it in the future anymore?
I can’t see the BBC hiring a freelancer that does less then 100k a year. Nor do the license terms allow for a big company to use the free license, regardless of what “makes sense”.
Most likely it’s a pro version that has chosen to leave the splash screen on, or some special license deal.
Android builds still have the old splashscreen for some reason.
If the company makes >100k it doesn’t matter, the would still need pro.
So a publisher earning over 100k needs to buy Unity PRO if they publish Unity games? Even though they never touch the source but simply publish the binaries given to them by a development studio? How about Kongregate or other web hosts?
That doesn’t seem right?
PS This may not be what you are saying, but I can’t see why BBC couldn’t hire a development studio to build them something and that development studio uses Unity without the PRO licence (as they don’t make 100k) and then BBC hosts the game that is developed for them.
Technically you are right, the BBC could contract a third party to develop a game with the free license.
Its just the idea of the BBC taking on a free lancer that barely makes enough money to cover their own wages that doesn’t work in this scenario. Not saying the BBC would have spent more then 100k. Just that they would have picked a contractor with a track record and some weight, which pushes them up to pro status.
There’s plenty of reasons that this could happen. Experienced person starting a new business. Person who typically works for hire who also runs a small consulting business on the side (as a separate entity such as a company). Entity specifically spun up for this project. All assuming that this project is less than 100k (or split over two financial years).
Its not that these are likely but its certainly not unheard of.
Kongregate uses unity, they develop an sdk/api for it. They make >100k. They are required to have pro.
If they hire a company to create a game in unity for them, that company is acting on behalf of the BBC, so they need pro. Presumably any contracted game for a company like that will have a budget in excess of 100k.
I think you got the gist about what I meant with web hosts. Surely you aren’t saying drop box needs to have Unity licence because I own Pro and I hosted a Unity file there?
You mean BBC needs a licence or the company needs a licence? Either seems at odds with EULA for most software, but particularly the first.
Dropbox would need a pro license for every developer in their company that uses unity because of their size. But that number is most likely zero. Same with kongregate, they may only have a couple of devs that work on the sdk, so they may only need a couple of copies of unity, but they would need to be pro.
If the bbc hires a company to build a game and the budget is >100k, those developers need to use pro. Who pays for is between them. If I was a small company hired to do a project like that, I would just include the software costs in the budget if we weren’t already using pro. But practically speaking any company bidding on, or being hired to make a game for a company like that is already one the meets the pro requirements.
In this situation you are likely right, but I don’t think the licence prevents a scenario like:
Small company A (revenue under 100k, no PRO licence) develops game/demo/POC for Large Company B (revenue > 100k, company never uses Unity just the developed binary).
True, if the A makes sub 100k, (including the budget of the contract), and no one in B actually uses unity, then probably no one needs to buy pro. But, if B is >100k, and does need to work with the source, they need pro and so would the developer as you can’t mix. Unless the bought the source and A is no longer involved.
But the reality is that would almost never happen. <100k contract from a large company isn’t going to get a game built. That is more likely a contractor/consultant which means the project is internal and requires pro. A hands-off complete project is not <100k. Maybe an uber small interactive toy or something but not a complete game.
I agree. Although paid proof of concepts could fall in to this area. I’ve done a few POC’s in the 5-25k range. I can imagine a scenario where someone spins off their own company to do a POC for a bigger company.
But again you are right its an unlikely scenario, and usually you would just include licence fees in the cost.
Sure for something like that it could easily come under that mark. Ideally if it works out, you get a contract where you have buy pro. 
The scenario in the OP where a company like the bbc is hiring a game to be built it is easily way over 100k, probably more than that was spent in the bidding process alone.
That is not how freelance works. I never ever had any entity ask me how much I made that year. They look at the portfolio and CV and have a chat.
He’s not saying that they would ask for financials. He just saying that a company that is under that mark is extremely unlikely to be the the kind that would even be on their radar, and not have the background to attract that kind of work. Maybe an individual contractor for some small work, but not something like project work of that nature. Unless they were just purchasing rights to an existing product.
A freelancer hired by the BBC would have used Unity Pro as both the BBC and the rumoured without foundation freelancer would know about the income restriction of 100K. Their choice shows the splash screen is really not an indictment of the quality of the game or the professionalism of the game developer(s), it is simply a rational economic choice. In this case, it’s the BBC so they know it makes sense to include the splash screen in their case from a consumer interest point of view so showing the splash screen is a sound economic choice.