Important updates to the Unity Runtime Fee policy

Been digesting this for a few days. On the surface it seems like a positive change that should have been what they led with to start. But ultimately there are two things that bug me still.

  1. They really want to make runtime fees happen. They want it so badly they’re kneecapping it, and even giving away the treasured “remove the splash screen for free” that people have been begging for unsuccessfully for 10 years. It’s clearly the most important component of this whole scheme for them or they would just go rev share, especially since the rev share is almost always going to be higher. They want it more than basically anything else.

  2. No change in leadership. Same board, same executives, same incentive structure.

These two combined signal an impending rug pull. How many years (or months?) will it be before it becomes the higher of rev share vs runtime fee? Then how many years (or months?) until the rev share goes away? Then how many years until the % of revenue cap disappears and you’re right back where we started? Then how long until required telemetry ships in every binary to accurately track every install? And then after that is in place, it goes from every individual sale from an individual sales platform to once again “every install”

It’s nice of Unity to warn us ahead of time that we have a bit of runway to move off their platform. We’d be wise to take it.

6 Likes

Thanks for the response AcidArrow
the FAQ says

if you renew your plan on March 27, 2024, you will be able to use Unity Plus until March 26, 2025.

That made me suspicious.
Isn’t it a bit confusing. So there is Plus until March 2025 but it is actually Personal.

The last 2 grams of hope in me weakly says:
Unity was too busy inventing a new revenue for themselves they (again) didn’t gave this whole thing a through thinking.

Unity Plus was just a fancy way of paying to remove the splash screen. You rarely had any use for it outside of that like for example contracting which almost always meant you had to use Unity Pro. With the splash screen no longer being a requirement and the threshold being $200K there’s no reason to keep it around.

2 Likes

I guess you’re correct on this.

That’ a bit “personal” but I paid Plus even when I didn’t have to (thinking I was giving a small support)
Now I feel betrayed. (what a fool I was)

Now if Unity doesn’t care for me, I think it is only fair if I don’t care for it in return.
It seems, I’ll abandon ship whenever I can.

1 Like

This whole thing seems like it can’t work. Think about who uses Unity and why? Unity comes along and says we are going to change the financial structure of our relationship. The people who use Unity had a purpose for choosing Unity, and a large part of it was the financial structure. If that can’t work for them, they won’t - they cannot - continue using Unity.

I can’t help but conclude that this will force the BoD to rethink their entire C level.

This!

The people refusing to update because they don’t want to pay Unity anything are not going to be the people making the most money. Or it at least won’t be a direct correlation. Companies with plenty of money, making lots of money on their games, will want the latest technology in their engine. They won’t be furious that they have to pay half of what Unreal developers pay. If they were, why would Unreal developers not jump ship to not have to pay?

I am sure there will be plenty of individual developers that do what you are saying, but they won’t be major financial players most of the time. Small team games like Battlebit, Among Us, Slay the Spire are a rarity. And it is sometimes out of their control that the game really takes off. They don’t represent a massive revenue stream to Unity. It won’t dramatically hurt Unity.

But I will agree, Unity now needs to step its game up to make newer versions more appealing to the big players.

2 Likes

Why are they using Unity then?

ba dum tss

7 Likes

2 Likes

Because is much more versatile, fast and easy to use than anything else.

The distance in this is enormous to the next best offering.

Technology and development is not only about best graphics. And Unity can still support stunning visuals with proper optimizations, which are vastly easier to both develop and apply in Unity than anywhere else.

4 Likes

AcidArrow knows all about Unity and its benefits. He just saw the opportunity for a joke.

1 Like

That isn’t really true though. Many dev teams take the approach that they never update their tool chain unless forced to, as if something isn’t broken you don’t risk touching it. Some larger places still use versions older than 2020 LTS even to this day, and this change does nothing to give them an incentive to update.

The only reasons to update are to use a feature that will for sure solve a pain point, or else an external factor like regulations or app store requirements forces a move to a new editor version.

3 Likes

Ok, let’s assume that ends up being true. What has Unity lost (besides a few developers)? They aren’t charging less. For older versions, they are sort of charging more, if you want to remove the splash screen. Otherwise, they are making the same revenue as before. But they will have revenue from the people that do upgrade added on. So I don’t really see the problem for Unity save for maybe, they won’t be getting as much of a revenue boost as they hoped?

And a caveat. I think a number of the developers saying that they are leaving Unity will realize that other engines just don’t appeal as much, for one reason or another. Maybe GODOT’s physics doesn’t work the way they hoped. Or Unreal’s C++ becomes annoying and they want to go back to C#. Etc. Obviously not everyone will come back. It might even be a tiny minority of those that left. But worth pointing out.

1 Like

Would love to see a documentary based on insider knowledge on how Unity largely stalled on innovation even while having billions to spend on buying companies and drastically increasing staff. Obviously things like going public, and a change in company culture, and the difficulty of implementing DOTS, and being undercut by Unreal making game dev less profitable for them are all factors, but it’s still difficult to believe how they managed to grow the company so much while reducing innovation and undermining engine development so much at the same time.

5 Likes

This is indeed a big mystery. Given the engine was at a near perfect state in Unity 2019, with Standard Pipeline.

They hired a few thousand people to destroy that perfection with the pipelines and a slower (while still vastly faster than Unreal) editor.

Recently has become much better though, with URP in a more finalized state and some major editor bugs addressed.

Hopefully they now focus on what really matters to move ahead and that is stop destabilizing development and breaking our projects as a major and spend more time to make changes transparent to users before release to public.

By your own reasoning they’ve lost a lot. Remember their original toxic plan cast a wide enough net to snag those big whaling vessels operating on older Unity versions. That’s why they made it retroactive. This new change of their really hurts them a lot. If they were banking on an immediate inflow of cash from install fees then this walkback is crushing and I assume they may further increase their per-seat license to make up the shortfall.

2 weeks ago they were aiming to knock big piles of cash out of MiHoYo, out of Niantic, out of Nexon, out of CrunchyRoll, and on top of that kill off AppLovin and hoard the entire ad market. Today, they have retreated on all those goals for at least a year, and it may not be a year they have realistically, without a different drastic change.

2 Likes

My point is that it is not irreplaceable and is not absolutely necessary, especially if you’re not targeting high fidelity. It is an optional feature that has some uses. But that’s the extent of it. I would say that this is not a Killer Feature level.

People aren’t stupid. And they realize that things might not work out or that there might be problems, and that those may be unsolvable. However, in some cases there’s simply no going back, no matter how attractive the engine might be in comparison to everything else.

5 Likes

Even disregarding all the other BS, something about rev share and subscription coexisting still rubs me the wrong way. It’s double dipping.

These two monetization schemes applying simultaneously is something that should not be. As I’ve said many times, I’m extricating myself from the Unity ecosystem to the extent and speed that I am able, but, in the theoretical universe where Unity did not irrevocably breach trust and is now proposing this new fee, here’s a suggestion:

Make it a graceful transition from subscription to rev share, not a double whammy. Rev share should be prorated based on the amount you are paying for subscriptions. For example: If a company is paying $40K a year for subscriptions, and based on the new rev-share calculator they would owe an additional $90K, then the first 40 of that $90K should be exempt. That’s the double-dip zone.

7 Likes

I was talking about the management. The engine technology is another business.
I also hope that they will be more investment in the engine itself because is kida falling behind. But unity will not match unreal in AAA at least in short and medium term. But most of us i don;t think the need nanate and lumen. Unity was never really an AAA engine, but even so the pace of the engine is not really good and I hope this will change in the future.
With the new pricing and the fact that they need for people to upgrade I hope they will be faster with new features

epic tries to do anything to make fight unity and steamon all fronts and not exactly nice. That what I was speaking of…

1 Like