Unity developers revolt over retroactive changes

[HellRazor]

Yesterday, game engine company Unity announced retroactive changes to its pricing plan that will see developers charged each time someone installs their game after certain revenue and installation thresholds are met.

Why every game developer is mad right now, explained

Unity's new pricing scheme has brought developers together in a remarkable show of... well, you know.

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Zloth]

Yeah, I have a lot of trouble believing that they can retroactively do something like that. I could see them releasing a new version and changing the terms starting with that version. I could see them ending all support for previous versions at the same time, too. But just pulling a Darth Vader and altering the deal??

If they can do that, it's going to be bad for a lot more than game developers. I bet Oracle would love to just change their deals and tell all the businesses depending on their software/database that now they have to shell out money to Oracle according to Oracle's own, secret algorithms that determine each business' usage.

Wait a minute, have we done this before? Remember the "GIF royalties" kerfuffle?

 

[bjon045]

Yeah, I have a lot of trouble believing that they can retroactively do something like that.

The thing with Unity is that it is an annual subscription - and if you want to keep selling your game you need to renew your subscription every year. Everytime you renew your subscription you have to accept the new license.

It's a pretty big dick move but I am leaning towards that they probably can do it (once you accept the new license on renewal).

Changes to pricing and Unity plans 2023 FAQ | Unity

Introducing a Unity Runtime Fee, and new features for Unity Personal, Unity Pro, Unity Enterprise, and Unity Industry.

unity.com

Will this fee apply to games using Unity Runtime that are already on the market on January 1, 2024?​

Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024. For more details on when the fee may apply to your game, see When does the Unity Runtime Fee take effect?

 

[Silver]

I think this move by Unity is part of a bargaining move. In other words Unity has changed terms in a manner that is outrageous, but that was always the strategy. Then Unity will pare down its terms to what they actually want and it will be considered a 'win'.

Owlcat are one notable rpg developer that I can think of being badly impacted by this decision and I'm sure there are many more. This maybe their last game developed in Unity and this decision has the potential to negatively impact Rogue Trader in a big way. I just don't think the market (meaning devs) will tolerate such bad business practices for long as the only alternative for many will be removing their games from the marketplace. This could even result in a class action suit.

 

[Drithius]

How is the Unity Runtime Fee calculated?

• If a game or app meets the minimum thresholds for eligibility, the Unity Runtime Fee will be calculated based on the applicable rate (depending on the number of installs, the country of installs, and the user’s Unity plan) multiplied by the number of eligible installs.
• The runtime fee schedule provides tiered rates based on your Unity plan (Unity Personal, Pro, or Enterprise). For a game with a high number of installs spanning more than one tier, the first set of installs will be charged at the first per-install rate, and incremental installs above the first set, charged at the second tier rate, and so on.
• For example, let’s look at a hypothetical game made by a team using Unity Pro with the following revenue and install numbers:
  Revenue from last 12 months - $2M USD
  Lifetime installs - 5M
• The Unity Runtime Fee will apply to this game, as it surpasses the $1M revenue and 1M lifetime install thresholds for Unity Pro. Let’s look at the game’s installs from the last month:
  Prior month installs (Standard fee countries) - 200K
  Prior month installs (Emerging market fee countries) - 100K
• The fee for install activity is $23.5K USD, calculated as follows:
  (100K x $0.15 (first tier for standard fee countries)) + (100K x $0.075 (second tier for standard fee countries)) + (100K x $0.01 (fee for emerging market countries)) = $23.5K USD
• Note that this example shows just the fee for the month in question. Fees will likely vary month to month based on the previous month’s installs, including the potential for months with no charge.

Owlcat are one notable rpg developer that I can think of being badly impacted by this decision and I'm sure there are many more. This maybe their last game developed in Unity and this decision has the potential to negatively impact Rogue Trader in a big way. I just don't think the market (meaning devs) will tolerate such bad business practices for long as the only alternative for many will be removing their games from the marketplace. This could even result in a class action suit.

Rogue Trader profits will certainly be impacted but (imo) more importantly, this will greatly slowdown what has been a very quick turnaround for new [Owlcat] game production. The studio has been hugely successful not only because of their game quality but also because of their quick pipeline. Having to port everything into a new engine is not something they ever envisioned.

 

[Stingray]

If it's money they're worried about, switching to Unreal makes no sense. Unreal's fees are many times higher than these new Unity fees will be. (With the exception of copies sold on the Epic Store, where Unreal waives their fee)

But if it's the principle they're worried about (ie the engine maker suddenly making big licensing changes like this), then that's a different story.

 

[Redglyph]

Yesterday, game engine company Unity announced retroactive changes to its pricing plan that will see developers charged each time someone installs their game after certain revenue and installation thresholds are met.

Why every game developer is mad right now, explained

Unity's new pricing scheme has brought developers together in a remarkable show of... well, you know.

www.pcgamer.com

Yeah, a silly move they announced on Wednesday, actually. But there are already 2 threads about it, including one in the news. You'll find other links and info over there about their CEO.

 

[Redglyph]

Rogue Trader profits will certainly be impacted but (imo) more importantly, this will greatly slowdown what has been a very quick turnaround for new [Owlcat] game production. The studio has been hugely successful not only because of their game quality but also because of their quick pipeline. Having to port everything into a new engine is not something they ever envisioned.

I wonder about that, because they've posted job offers for Unreal developers more than once. Back before they announced Rogue Trader, some of us were hoping they'd switch to Unreal after seeing that, but no, they stuck with Unity.

Perhaps it was a decoy, or they only investigated the possibility (neither would make sense to me). Or perhaps they're already using it for their next game. Only time will tell.

Unity must have damaged their reputation with that announcement, but I think there will always be companies to favour this over something more serious that requires C++.

 

[Stingray]

Their job openings say that they have a console-focused action RPG in progress that uses Unreal. Probably being developed in parallel with Rogue Trader.

 

[Redglyph]

I didn't check them all, but I haven't seen anything console-focused (unless that's how you call RPGs ). They usually leave the console port and testing to another company, though there's one job about porting their games to consoles so that may change, which would make sense at this stage.

It's still their new, mysterious AAA sci-fi RPG:

We would love to see a new Senior Game Designer join our new sci-fi RPG AAA project in Unreal Engine.

I wonder when they'll finally tell us what it is.

 

[Silver]

Developer of Rust shared his feelings quite poetically.

Unity can get fucked

Yesterday Unity announced that starting next year, all games that use their engine will pay a tax per user install. The tax has ...

garry.net

 

[Silver]

This is from May this year. Probably related.

Unity Software to lay off 600 employees, or 8% of its workforce

Unity Software announced plans to cut about 600 jobs, or 8% of its workforce, according to a company filing.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Stingray]

I didn't check them all, but I haven't seen anything console-focused (unless that's how you call RPGs ). They usually leave the console port and testing to another company, though there's one job about porting their games to consoles so that may change, which would make sense at this stage.

They had a job opening posted last November for the sci-fi Unreal RPG, where part of the text was actually "The target platform for this project is consoles, and your main tasks will be developing UI design wireframes and prototypes in Figma for consoles while also keeping in mind the requirements of the PC version."

Not surprising, as action RPGs (besides the isometric Diablo-like genre obviously) are almost always targeted at consoles first and foremost.

Those old postings are archived at the Codex: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...ematic-sci-fi-third-person-action-rpg.145971/

 

[Vaelith]

When you don't own the engine, you're subject to things like this. Solution: Make your own game engine to suport your games.

I doubt the revenue change will be that drastic anyway, more a case of Unity seeing companies made out like bandits by using their engine and thinking they deserve a larger portion of the cake. There are glaring cases like Valheim that made me wonder how they did not do something earlier, it can't be someone just puts 3 assets together and makes a blockbuster out of it and Unity sees none of the profit.

 

[Redglyph]

When you don't own the engine, you're subject to things like this. Solution: Make your own game engine to suport your games.

It must be tempting but I wonder if that's worth the resources and the risk today, unless the game has very basic graphics. It's rarely an added value for a small company who just wants to make a great game.

But 'not invented here' is a habit that doesn't die easily, and there are risks like this, though it requires a reckless vendor that isn't afraid of getting a bad reputation. We saw something vaguely similar with WotC not long ago, by the way. Then there are the publishers...

I haven't programmed with either of those engines, but there are many discussions comparing them, and from what I saw, Unreal is usually favoured because of the quality, the support, and the relationship in general with Epic, while Unity tends to be despised for the same reasons. There's also another advantage: the fee is only paid past a revenue threshold (I think it was 1 million USD 'lifetime revenue' not long ago, with additional periodic sub-thresholds), whereas Unity requires (or required? I didn't bother to check) an upfront but fixed payment. On the other hand, Unreal's fee is a percentage (5%), but there are likely other arrangements for high volumes.

More to the point, their EULA is less vague:

If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to.

However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to access certain Epic services or download the Licensed Technology unless you have accepted the amended Agreement. If we make changes, we will provide you with notice, such as by sending an email or giving you notice when you next log into an Epic service.

If you care to compare with Unity, you'll see it's something else entirely ('Unity may modify or terminate the subscription term or other Software license offerings at any time').

 

[Vaelith]

Nearly bankrupt Larian came up with their DOS Engine and broke the market with it - I can't imagine it taking that many resources if a company in the verge of vanishing still made creating their own engine a base for their ultimate success. They also chose to self-publish, so that way they kept even more control over their product and their benefit margin.

I imagine a lot of develoers just find it more convenient to use something that's already existing and tested. But there is aways a risk when using something you don't own as part of your development process.

It's obvious that if games start making a lot of money from using Unity, the price of Unity is going to increase for them. This would happen in any field of life, and it's natural. And it's to keep in mind that Unity has always been very friendly towards indie/small developers, it only really starts getting money out of games that become very popular and sell a lot units, and that seems fair to me.

 

[Redglyph]

Nearly bankrupt Larian came up with their DOS Engine and broke the market with it - I can't imagine it taking that many resources if a company in the verge of vanishing still made creating their own engine a base for their ultimate success. They also chose to self-publish, so that way they kept even more control over their product and their benefit margin.

Sure, there are success stories. In the case of Larian, it took them years to get there, and as you said, they were almost bankrupt.

I wouldn't underestimate the quantity of work it requires to develop and maintain a 3D engine able to look the par with modern engines, and which works on all the cards out there. If you have 2 years to develop your game and only get a working engine and the tools that come with it after 1 or 1.5 year (which I find very short), that means the rest of the team has to work blind this whole time.

Then you have to pray that the performance and stability are fine. If all is well, you can then start porting it to other systems like PS and Xbox.

It's a huge risk with little reward. If I had to do it, I'd give 5% without hesitation.

 

[HellRazor]

Unity alienates entire customer base in quest for profit

Unity, one of the most widely-used game engines on the planet, has made a controversial business decision that has pushed away its core customer base.

www.tweaktown.com

 

[Zloth]

So, this engine's monetization is to re-do the contract every year!? If you want to keep selling your game, you've got to sign up with whatever new contract Unity dreams up? And people agreed to this!?!? The little shops haven't got lawyers to read through these things for them, but the big ones sure do!

 

[Pladio]

So, this engine's monetization is to re-do the contract every year!? If you want to keep selling your game, you've got to sign up with whatever new contract Unity dreams up? And people agreed to this!?!? The little shops haven't got lawyers to read through these things for them, but the big ones sure do!

It's always like this.

If you decide to use any software or tool or service. The small companies have to agree to the standard terms and conditions. Big companies can negotiate those terms.