Unity Plan Pricing and Packaging Updates

[Thelgor]

Unity Plan Pricing and Packaging Updates (https://blog.unity.com/news/plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates)

There is a part of me that is a bit curious about this. I've dabbled in game development in the past and have used the Unity engine to create small projects and teach some basic coding. Never to any point that this would impact me, I believe. On the surface, this seems along the lines of what Cory Doctorow has termed as en****ification.

[Moon Wizard]

The information for that change just came down this morning; we're still digesting how this will affect us and waiting to see how the industry responds.

Regards,
JPG

[Jiminimonka]

Hmmmm - they doing a WotC?

[ddavison]

Yes, it looks very bad. Hopefully there will be a strong negative reaction to this by developers and users so that they take an alternate approach.

[Nyarly Dude]

Responses on Twitter and elsewhere seem to be extremely negative as far as I can tell.

That said, the response to Reddit imposing its API pricing system was rather negative on Reddit, and they've persisted...

[Lo Zeno]

The current CEO of Unity is the same former EA CEO who suggested making players pay each time they reload their weapon in an FPS. I guess he never lost that mentality.

Interestingly, Unity has already started walking back over parts of this pricing change (https://www.axios.com/2023/09/13/unity-runtime-fee-policy-marc-whitten), but one thing has remained that might be a head scratcher for Fantasy Grounds:


Runtime fees will also not be charged for installations of game demos, Whitten said, unless the demo is part of a download that includes the full game
I fear this could mean that the demo version of FGU will either need a substantial rewrite or won't be free anymore.

[hackRPG]

I fear this could mean that the demo version of ... won't be free anymore.

That would be an unfortunate barrier to entry for players - hopefully the negative press will make them rethink. It does feel very WOTC. Next up Pinkertons at the gate.

[viresanimi]

What is it with companies, that hate and despise their customers? This cannot ever be a good business move. I can't even imagine it being completely legal. Unity locks people in for extended periods of time (as far as I understand it) and just change the terms of service?

Even if Unity backs down, how will anyone trust them again? They will for sure loose a lot of developers over this. I just don't get the short sightedness of this.

There is a reason why our ancestors identified greed as a bad idea. Even a sin. It will bite you in the end.

[JohnD]

We live in a time of extreme stupidity.

[Jiminimonka]

We live in a time of extreme stupidity.

Isn't that the truth!

[Fuffelschmertz]

I very much disagree with Unity's predatory pricing policies
As per unity's FAQ (https://unity.com/pricing-updates) - the demo version is not the full version of the game, so it might not be counted towards those 200k. I think it is really necessary to clarify with Unity whether the demo version installs will be counted.
One of the big issues seems to be the "same user, install on another machine" thing, because it does count towards those 200k.
Also using a proprietary data model for install estimates is a very strange decision, because the results from those models can largely vary from being absolute gibberish to being 99% correct depending on the implementation - and as a proprietary model the implementation would probably be hidden from the outside world.
Those fees apply only to games, but fantasy grounds isn't really a game itself - maybe this could be the way to go?

[Lo Zeno]

I very much disagree with Unity's predatory pricing policies, but It might be that Smiteworks will not be affected as much.
As per unity's FAQ (https://unity.com/pricing-updates) Unity will not retroactively count users of the game, and on the main fantasy grounds website I see "Join more than 400,000 users worldwide who have grown and evolved with Fantasy Grounds since 2004." - that means Smiteworks will have time to come up with a solution (200k new installs does not happen easily) IF they really need it.
Also as per same FAQ - the demo version is not the full version of the game, so it might not be counted towards those 200k. I think it is really necessary to clarify with Unity whether the demo version installs will be counted.
One of the big issues seems to be the "same user, install on another machine" thing, because it does count towards those 200k.
Unity's decisions suck.
Also using a proprietary data model for install estimates is a very strange decision, because the results from those models can largely vary from being absolute gibberish to being 99% correct depending on the implementation - and as a proprietary model the implementation would probably be hidden from the outside world.

EDIT: oh, no, I just realized that Unity WILL count the already existing installs for threshold eligibility - that's very bad news


The FAQs explicitely say that the threshold is 200,000 LIFETIME installs, so the past ones do count.
Also, regarding the demo, the FAQ says:

If a user can access a full game (e.g. via an in-game upgrade or purchase), then installs count toward the fee. If a user can't access the full game (e.g. only one level is offered) then that demo would be considered a separate package and not count toward the fee.
The FGU "demo" is the same application as the "full" FGU. You can access the full feature set for testing, you just can't have players connect to your "DM Session" unless you have a licence key for the full licence. In a direct question on twitter, although using another software as an example, it was answered that in this case the "demo" count as an installation, because the deployed binary is, effectively, the full software.


Those fees apply only to games, but fantasy grounds isn't really a game itself - maybe this could be the way to go?
The previous pricing scheme used the word "games" too, but it applied to FGU as well - they're talking about games only because it's the main use for Unity, but I'm willing to bet that they mean anything built with Unity.

[ddavison]

Yes, per the FAQ, we would already be well over the 200k lifetime. Demo installs would count against us along with multiple installs per user in different devices. I don’t know how it would count updates we push for new versions.

We also have a mobile reader app in the works that we’re building with Unity.

Changing the terms after something is already built on their platform is actually the worse part.

[fabiocm]

Would be possible to launch a demo that would be only a "player version" of fantasy grounds? Would this be enough to prevent the tax from unity?

[merkvah]

FGU is legitimately the best VTT on the market right now... this could be very bad. =(
keeping an eye on this thread for any updates. Thanks for keeping an eye on this, guys.

[Zacchaeus]

Would be possible to launch a demo that would be only a "player version" of fantasy grounds? Would this be enough to prevent the tax from unity?

The demo is basically a player only version. As noted above the demo includes everything that you can do in FG except host a game. You can't really remove stuff from it since if you want to join a game you need all of that stuff; so you'd have to then add in the stuff that got cut and then you are back to where you started before you cut the stuff.

[Griogre]

The problem with a even a player only lite version like that in FGC, is that right now everything is upgradable which per the FAQ would still count. They would have to make a demo that was not upgradeable, probably without connection ability to not have it count. I doubt that is worth it to avoid the fees from a business standpoint.

[SilentRuin]

From my discord commentary...


As I said somewhere else - Unity just broke trust that really can't be recovered. Having read through their forum thread (up to 143 pages at this point) - I see nothing positive about this. And most will be hunting for new engines as they can no longer trust that Unity will not pull some other pricing stunt. Had they done a revenue share plan they would have just suffered the normal price increase grumbling (though the plus plan going away for users that only had it to get rid of splash screen being charged 5x the cost for pro just to get rid of the splash screen will kill a lot of smaller users off this platform). A per install cost platform with no scaling for actual profits (revenue is not profit) is the death knell of trust for unity. The mere fact this made it through their internal processes to see the light of day speaks volumes for the lack of touch with reality for what business they are really in. My prediction, within a month their will be legal action for those who cannot reasonably leave their platform - a huge down tick in new users - a huge uptick on old users leaving. This will leave them with only those who cannot realistically leave the platform this fast. Really does not matter if they back track all this either. Trust is broken. Even their internal devs are (rumored) to be up in arms and heading out the door. A 100% how in the heck could you think per install with a fixed price based on revenue left up to dev houses to track for you would ever work? Even their sales teams (rumored) don't know how they will track this stuff. I think of WOTC backtracking and the fallout from that for their image - and that was nothing compared to the level of insanity for this.

Gist is there are so many flaws with this type of approach that it will be bad for Unity regardless of what happens in actually implementing it. Many privacy concious dev houses disable all reporting data in their apps - no idea what FGU does - so makes "per install" recording of payments insane. Not to mention piracy, malicious users pinging install/uninstall on dev houses they don't like, demos, freeware, bundles... the list goes on.

[Moon Wizard]

We do not use any of Unity's Analytics or Reporting services; and after a quick review of the build settings that Unity provides, I did not see any "reporting" options. So, from our perspective, we have chosen not to send any data to Unity.

Regards,
JPG

[Mytherus]

I’m too ignorant on understanding to what degree this impacts FGU but I know it feels bad. How does unity make the bulk of its revenue now?

[Moon Wizard]

Unity charges Per Seat Developer license subscriptions on an annual basis, which is how we've been paying them to date (and which will continue to be part of the costs in addition to the new costs).

Regards,
JPG

[Nylanfs]

Also I believe that is illegal since they are attempting to retroactively alter a contract?

[LordEntrails]

Also I believe that is illegal since they are attempting to retroactively alter a contract?
Don't think so. It's more like they are changing their licensing agreement, which everyone I've ever read always states they reserve the right to unilaterally change it.

And all they would have to do is change the "agreement" and not let developer renew their annual renewal per the existing license and require them to adopt the new license.

[Moon Wizard]

I saw a clarification either on their forums (or from another post on the issue) that their Terms and Conditions clearly state that they can change the terms with 3 months notice. So, not sure there is much legally to be done, but the longer term issue is the trust level for building a business model around their engine.

Regards,
JPG

[Muagen]

I look forward to the imminent announcement of Fantasy Grounds Unreal: This Time It's Fictional.

[SilentRuin]

Don't think so. It's more like they are changing their licensing agreement, which everyone I've ever read always states they reserve the right to unilaterally change it.

And all they would have to do is change the "agreement" and not let developer renew their annual renewal per the existing license and require them to adopt the new license.

I think trying to impose unknown costs after the time a product was bought is not exactly legal and will likely be contested. Telling me a rubber supplier could change the terms of the licensed deal to a tire company that suddenly stated they had to pay for every mile of use from the tires they build with their rubber - retroactively on the mileage - and that the tire company had to track that information.... Well you can say it could be done technically - but legally? Good luck. Same here.

The law has to apply to any business - not just this one. Sometimes you have to phrase in a different way to show you how ridiculous the legal argument is when it hits a court of law.

[LordEntrails]

The law has to apply to any business - not just this one. Sometimes you have to phrase in a different way to show you how ridiculous the legal argument is when it hits a court of law.
I'll leave further discussion of the legality of this to lawyers and those advised by lawyers, i.e. SmiteWorks and Unity and other corporate representatives.

[AzureBlade]

I look forward to the imminent announcement of Fantasy Grounds Unreal: This Time It's Fictional.

FG would probably be much better served by going with Godot, considering the application design. I don't know why they went with Unity in the first place considering how much they must've had to fight against the engine to make the application that they have.

[SilentRuin]

FG would probably be much better served by going with Godot, considering the application design. I don't know why they went with Unity in the first place considering how much they must've had to fight against the engine to make the application that they have.

Given Smiteworks resources, I find it it unbelievable that they can switch what their based upon. They are likely "trapped" in this with a few seats on the higher level licensing. If you are talking about 5 years from now - sure - maybe that's an option. But in 1-2 years? Not unless they get a huge influx of cash and developer resources. Which I don't see happening realisitically.

[Jiminimonka]

Given Smiteworks resources, I find it it unbelievable that they can switch what their based upon. They are likely "trapped" in this with a few seats on the higher level licensing. If you are talking about 5 years from now - sure - maybe that's an option. But in 1-2 years? Not unless they get a huge influx of cash and developer resources. Which I don't see happening realisitically.

It would be a big undertaking moving to Godot for sure.

[ddavison]

We are kind of stuck with Unity at this point - at least for FGU. I hope they reverse course because this was a very bad move. I’m a fan of the Unity system and liked the company up to this point. This decision and whoever was responsible for it is bad.

[Sulimo]

Something lost in the discussions around the change is that the Unity Editor ToS is supplemental to the wider Unity Tos (https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service).


The Unity ToS has said the following since at least January 2022 (https://web.archive.org/web/20220716041837/https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service) (emphasis added):


By continuing to access or use the Services after we have provided you with notice of a modification, you indicate that you agree to be bound by the modified Terms. If the modified Terms are not acceptable to you, your only recourse is to cease using the Services.


Additionally the Unity EULA has said the following since at least 2013 (https://web.archive.org/web/20220716041837/https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service):


Unity may modify or terminate the subscription term or other Software license offerings at any time.


Some legal analysis in the video here (Richard Hoeg of Hoeg Law) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGMrebXypJo).

A bit of analysis in this article (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/wait-is-unity-allowed-to-just-change-its-fee-structure-like-that/):


In general, this ambiguity would usually be resolved with the more general ToS overriding the "additional" Editor Software Terms, which are considered ancillary (https://www.upcounsel.com/ancillary-legal-definition) in legal parlance. At the same time, Hoeg said a developer could argue that they had reasonably relied on the ancillary language in the Software terms, including the clause that would conceivably let them keep those terms even in the case of future changes.

"Someone could have looked at that and said, 'Yes, I'm going to invest my time and efforts,' and by changing that without making it known and then changing the fee structure here in September of 2023, it's possible you might bring a claim," Hoeg said.

A developer who wanted to pursue that kind of claim in court could argue using the concept of promissory estoppel (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/promissory_estoppel), or the "notion that you can't just change the deal if somebody else relied upon it," as Hoeg put it. "You made a promise to a party that you were going to give them the Unity tools that they weren't going to have to pay money [for], and they spent four years of their life in investment, in education, learning the Unity toolset and getting ready to build a game, and then you change the pricing right at the end," Hoeg said by way of hypothetical argument.

While Hoeg said he might be personally amenable to this type of argument, it could be a tough, technical claim to make in an actual court. It's the kind of argument where you basically "throw yourself on the concept of justice and hope that things turn out all right for you," as Hoeg put it.

It seems like it might be difficult to get relief from a legal standpoint. But as always, it will have to be tested in a court of law before anyone will know for sure.

[Sulimo]

Further developments (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/unity-promises-changes-to-install-fee-plans-as-developer-fallout-continues/) are afoot.


In a late Sunday social media post (https://twitter.com/unity/status/1703547752205218265), Unity offered apologies for the "confusion and angst" caused by the sudden announcement of the policy last Tuesday. "We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy," the post reads. "Thank you for your honest and critical feedback."

Like with WotC earlier this year, even if they walk it back completely, the damage is now done. Devs are leaving and for good reason.


"Publishers can no longer trust that the deals they make with Unity developers won't worsen over time," Zeboyd Digital Entertainment's Robert Boyd said in a statement (https://twitter.com/ZeboydGames/status/1703592787801952545) that sums up similar (https://twitter.com/slicedlime/status/1703634072398873007) feelings being expressed publicly (https://twitter.com/Powerhoof/status/1703573534034047158) by many developers. "Unity has shown such hatred and disdain for indie developers that they can no longer be trusted. We at Zeboyd will be using a different engine in the future."

How it will all fall out is still up in the air, but unless there is a fundamental change (to both the licensing terms and the EULA), I do not see the broken relationships being repaired.


Trust, once broken, is not easily repaired. Somehow some companies want to learn this lesson the hard way.

[Griogre]

Yeah, it looks like they will probably walk back on the the new policy or change it to something far less obnoxious. I know I wouldn't start a new game using Unity after this - and I suspect Unity is in for a world of hurt in a few years after all the current projects in the pipeline have been released and consumed.

[Mgrancey]

Another question that I am wondering about is whether the C-suite will be sued for purposefully damaging the company. From what I have heard reported a number of Executives sold "large" quantities of Unity stock the day before the announcement. I believe that is at least suable, though only have the understanding because of how Elon Musk forced Twitter executives to seriously look at his offer for Twitter. There might be actual criminal charges that could be applied as well, though not a financial or legal expert.

[SilentRuin]

I am so tired of reading misinformation in the news on things that are dirt simple to verify yourself. This is something I posted in discord on 9/14 when this "stock sale" popped up.

A simple due diligence search shows it was nothing special. No surprise these days where research data is availble to public but everyone only skims others with an agenda (why I have to verify any political news I hear these days by checking raw info instead of depending on regurgitation of info by someone indirectly). You can always search out the raw details if you take the time. I've never looked in this SEC stuff but took like 10 minutes of searching to find and experiment how to get it. Its sad news orgs (or purported ones) never even take the time. I leave it to you to see my search and determine if this 2K shares was anything special...

https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=John%20Riccitiello&category=form-cat2&ciks=0001810806&entityName=Unity%20Software%20Inc.%20(U)%20(CIK%20 0001810806)&sort=desc

After all - me saying anything without supported data is meaningless. Or should be (sigh)

[Drakenshield]

This has already impacted my group, several of the less invested have already decided to run their games on other systems, and the rest of us are holding off on buying any additional books until everything is settled. Mind you Paizo seemingly rewriting Pathfinder 2nd edition might be a bigger impact on us buying books, but the Unity thing has impacted our use of the program already. I am pretty heavily invested in FGU so I am going to be a hold out until something concrete happens, but it sucks people are finding alternatives already.

[ddavison]

I’m not sure why they would do that. The new Unity pricing sucks for us, but having people leave our platform because of it sucks even worse for us. We are not changing our pricing at all.

[gaara6666]

I mean a email sent out to every user outlining the unity issue and affirming your stance on the pricing as is would help out a lot to people in the community.

[Drakenshield]

I’m not sure why they would do that. The new Unity pricing sucks for us, but having people leave our platform because of it sucks even worse for us. We are not changing our pricing at all.

I think that is the fear of a lot of people, a lot of players use the free version as they only play. I know some of the people in my group are concerned that this will force Smiteworks to begin charging for the demo version. It is already hard to convince people to install FGU, I am not going to name anything but their are other programs that seems to attract pathfinder 2nd edition players more often. I can only tell you what their concerns are which is added costs to bringing in new players. I think a lot of the fear is coming from news from the indy game companies talking about how they would be forced to pass the costs to gamers. I think their is way too much unknown about all this, but it is setting an unsettling view against anything attached to unity. I know of a few people who would stop using a program like FGU simply because they are attached to unity. Fortunately these aren't people who use FGU, they are talking about not playing video games that use unity. I will keep pushing FGU for my games, I am too invested both in my experience with FGU and how comfortable I am using it, but also financially, so it would take something pretty extreme for me to jump ship.

[ddavison]

I understand that people often jump to conclusions and that fear of what might happen often controls the narrative of events. The pricing that Unity announced for developers is not good for several reasons. It was poorly conceived even if it only applied to newer editions. It was horrendously bad because it also eroded trust in their company by trying to change the terms of the license developers have all been working with up to this point. The industry reaction was strongly opposed to these changes, and Unity immediately began walking it back. If they are smart, they will completely reverse course and provide language to ensure this doesn't occur again. I am waiting to see what that will look like.

Their quote on their website:


We hear you, and we’re sorry.

We’re updating the Runtime Fee, and we’ll be sharing a new FAQ outlining the details in the next few days. We appreciate your patience.

Source: https://unity.com/pricing-updates

It is very reminiscent of other recent events that impacted us.

We have years of development invested in Unity. Any change to a new platform would be costly. The new plan pricing that was posted would be bad but would not significantly change our business. The sky is not falling. There is, however, an entire industry of companies and creators depending upon Unity making the correct choice here.

If you know of anyone who is concerned about this issue, please have them engage with us on the forums or on Discord instead of jumping to conclusions. We will be monitoring the situation closely and reacting once the situation settles and we have concrete facts.

[ddavison]

I know of a few people who would stop using a program like FGU simply because they are attached to unity.

This is the part that makes no sense to me. Unity announced something that would harm developers who built their system on Unity. Customers are outraged on behalf of those developers. Why would customers further punish the developers by boycotting their work? That is like feeling bad for a store that just got robbed, so you swear to never buy anything at that store again.

[hackRPG]

... several of the less invested have already decided to run their games on other systems, and the rest of us are holding off on buying any additional books until everything is settled... Interesting decision, not sure why you'd stop using one of the best VTTs out there because of something another company is doing regarding the platform, unless those less invested were looking to try something else. Also not sure what else gives you the mix of source content and VTT experience... everything else - Foundry, Demiplane, Alchemy, Owlbear, Roll20 all are strongly inclined in one direction, or the other.

[hackRPG]

We have years of development invested in Unity. Any change to a new platform would be costly. Anything on the roadmap coming to give us a better interface / capabilities for reference materials and stories? It's the only part that really lets the experience down - the whole clunky right click to apply a simple effect like bold text (yes I know there are shortcut keys). I'm thinking more along the line of HTML formatting or markdown.

[Jiminimonka]

This has already impacted my group, several of the less invested have already decided to run their games on other systems, and the rest of us are holding off on buying any additional books until everything is settled. Mind you Paizo seemingly rewriting Pathfinder 2nd edition might be a bigger impact on us buying books, but the Unity thing has impacted our use of the program already. I am pretty heavily invested in FGU so I am going to be a hold out until something concrete happens, but it sucks people are finding alternatives already.

That is a knee jerk over reaction. It literally does not impact Fantasy Grounds.

[Zacchaeus]

Anything on the roadmap coming to give us a better interface / capabilities for reference materials and stories? It's the only part that really lets the experience down - the whole clunky right click to apply a simple effect like bold text (yes I know there are shortcut keys). I'm thinking more along the line of HTML formatting or markdown.

Not really anything to do with this thread but you can use html formatting now. See video forty six here https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?55797-How-do-I-in-Unity

[Nylanfs]

I am not going to name anything but their are other programs that seems to attract pathfinder 2nd edition players more often.

I thought this part here should be addressed. Doug, & gang don't have any problem with people refering to other programs on the official forums as long as it's for valid comparisons or criticisms and not just promoting the other program. They have a firm policy that competition improves things, and ignoring the other programs doesn't do that. :)

[anstett]

I will say that a couple of my players expressed concern about these changes. They were more worried because they knew that I had spent a lot of time and effort to move our campaign from KloOge to Fantasy Grounds.

They all understood that it would not change their side of the equation (cost) but it might effect the speed of development. "Insane level of customer service with all these updates" was a phrase bandied about over the last few months.

[SilentRuin]

I plan to play on. Its a developer platform issue to resolve with Unity. Honestly, to solve issues like this you just follow the money logic and figure how it will play out.

1) Unity will be damaged now and suffer a loss of new customers and some old that do not have the resources to move off it. This due to retroactive pricing announcement - even if it goes away - nobody would trust them again.
2) Unity will backtrack to a point where this is no longer an install based fee as that is untrackable in any realistic sense. Users (dev houses) of their platform turn off the recording aspects in Unity in most cases so it would never be "on". Requiring them to track this for Unity is completely unrealistic. Determining a valid install for the fee is not possible in any fair way.
3) Unity will lose developers (has already) and find it hard to replace high quality ones as they will have better options.
4) They will probably stick with their ridiculous new license fees where they force low tier ones to move into higher paying ones regardless of any backtracking on install fees. Refer to 1).

This is only my opinion, based on how I follow the money trail and how they will minimize the damage from this. But no matter what they do, the damage has been done.

Personally the big corps will insure this happens if nobody else does (Sony, Amazon, etc.) who are impacted directly by this "install fee". They should have and probably will backtrack to some revenue fee like some other engines do.

In the end, this will likely result in a change of leadership in unity at various level.

[Sulimo]

Unity has announced major changes (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/unity-makes-major-changes-to-controversial-install-fee-program/) to their fee structure due to the 'confusion and angst' caused by the previous announcement.


In a new blog post (https://blog.unity.com/news/open-letter-on-runtime-fee), Unity now says that projects made on current and earlier versions of Unity will not be subject to the new runtime fee structure. Only projects that upgrade to a new "Long Term Support" (LTS) version of Unity starting in 2024 and beyond will have to pay the charges, the company says.

...

In addition, Unity now says the new runtime fees will only be incurred for projects that have reached $1 million in revenue in the last 12 months and 1 million "initial engagements" in their lifetime. Fees will also be capped at 2.5 percent of revenue, preventing situations where projects with huge install numbers but small amounts of revenue per install could theoretically go bankrupt (https://old.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/16hgmqm/unity_wants_108_of_our_gross_revenue/) via the accumulation of small fees.


...
Both "engagement" and project revenue numbers will be self-reported monthly "from data you already have available," Unity says, a move that should help allay some privacy concerns over Unity's previous vaguely reported methods of tracking installs.



While this is definitely a step in the right direction, I still think Unity needs to clarify and come clean about their previous announcement where they implied they could directly track installs, which rightly caused an uproar over privacy and vulnerabilities concerns.

There is still the trust they have to rebuild, it's not going to be repaired overnight.

[Lo Zeno]

Unity has announced major changes (https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/unity-makes-major-changes-to-controversial-install-fee-program/) to their fee structure due to the 'confusion and angst' caused by the previous announcement.



While this is definitely a step in the right direction, I still think Unity needs to clarify and come clean about their previous announcement where they implied they could directly track installs, which rightly caused an uproar over privacy and vulnerabilities concerns.

There is still the trust they have to rebuild, it's not going to be repaired overnight.

Strong WoTC vibes, right?

[SilentRuin]

Unless they back off install fees I see nothing that will not keep dev's in rebellion. There is simply no way to fairly implment that per previous statements about it.

[Sulimo]

Strong WoTC vibes, right?

Yeah, I was not really impacted by the WotC stuff, as I don't play anything related to those properties (OGL or otherwise), but I could see where the community was coming from.

At least one of the Unity execs actually said the words 'I'm sorry' instead of trying to blame everyone else for not understanding their intent. They screwed up with the initial announcement, it had lots of defensive language in it, so they knew it was going to be controversial.

This is simply walking it back at least partially, only LTS versions released in 2024 and later are now affected. As it stands right now, SmiteWorks can continue to use the LTS version they have, and not incur any fees, but eventually the LTS version will be EOL, at which point there will be no choice but to upgrade and get hit by the new fee structure. It does however give more room to explore options than the previous announcement gave (if that is of interest).


Unity still has work to do, some developers seem happy enough with the changes, while others are still unhappy (who can really blame them?).

[ddavison]

This is much better. It only applies to future versions of Unity's runtime engine and we can decide at that time whether or not we want to adopt that. A cap of 2.5% of revenue or installs that is self-reported means that we can report the numbers that make sense for our usage and that we believe make sense based on our usage. For us, that would mean not reporting free installs or re-installs, but actual paying customers. Based on this, we don't qualify for the new fee and we would continue to use our existing monthly plan. If FGU grows in popularity above 1M engagements, then we would be billed up to $25K per $1M in revenue.

[Lo Zeno]

Looks like the latest development is that John Riccitello (Unity's CEO, and the one who apparently got the idea of making developers pay per installation) has been showed the door:

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2023/10/unity-ceo-john-riccitiello-is-leaving-effective-immediately/

In all honesty, he doesn't have a brilliant track record (EA was performing really poorly compared to the years before he got at the wheel, and it's during his time at EA that he made the infamous remark that gamers are idiots and that they could be made to pay a dollar each time they reload their guns in Battlefield), so it was just a matter of time before he had to leave.

[Jiminimonka]

Looks like the latest development is that John Riccitello (Unity's CEO, and the one who apparently got the idea of making developers pay per installation) has been showed the door:

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2023/10/unity-ceo-john-riccitiello-is-leaving-effective-immediately/

In all honesty, he doesn't have a brilliant track record (EA was performing really poorly compared to the years before he got at the wheel, and it's during his time at EA that he made the infamous remark that gamers are idiots and that they could be made to pay a dollar each time they reload their guns in Battlefield), so it was just a matter of time before he had to leave.

He is gone but the price change remains... so just a lump of sugar to soothe the share holders..

[Lo Zeno]

He is gone but the price change remains... so just a lump of sugar to soothe the share holders..

Yes, but as @ddavison said the revised price change is much more acceptable than the original plan that Unity put out. From all I read before, during and after the debacle it was actually expected by everyone in the industry that Unity would change its pricing scheme - it made sense, because for over a decade Unity has been operating at a loss. It was unsustainable, and needed to start making some profit or it would close up shop sooner or later (which would be the worse possible outcome for everyone currently using the Unity engine). All the complaints after the price change announcement were not about the fact that there was a pricing scheme change, but about:
1- how easily exploitable the "pay-per-installation" was, making developers pay when someone would cyclically uninstall-reinstall a game
2- the fact that it retroactively applied to any previously developed game
3- the vagueness on how would Unity determine if an installation was legit or pirate - and since it's factually impossible, the risk that developers would pay for pirated installations, instead of the pirates
4- the fact that most freemium mobile games developed with Unity easily surpassed the installation threshold before making ANY kind of money
5- the idea that a demo with "full acces to the code" would pay the installation fee, even though the user has no access to the full features set - this would have affected FGU in particular
6- the claim that the change would affect "only 10% of Unity's users", which was blatantly false
7- more importantly, the fact that the pricing scheme was designed, decided and published without any consultation with the teams actually using Unity (which would have immediately shown that the pricing scheme was designed with one single and limited commercial model in mind, that of AAA videogames, and was not compatible with the dozens of other commercial models such as FGU's where players play free with the "demo" and only DM/GMs pay licences subscriptions).

In fact, the first suggestion that the Azure collective made when they published their open letter was not "roll back the changes to how it was before", it was "why didn't you instead ask for a percentage of revenue like your competition?"

So, keeping in mind that some pricing change was not only going to happen, but expected to happen anyway already before this ****-show, I'd say booting the guy who didn't think about involving the game development companies before designing this price change is a bit more than just a lump of sugar. More like a rather welcome Snickers bar when you're not yourself because you're hungry.

[ddavison]

Lo Zeno covered it well. A price change on future dev environments that is the lesser of “percent of revenue” or “per installation” is acceptable and fair. We don’t want Unity to go out of business and we don’t mind supporting them. It just has to be fair and not retroactive. It is that now.

I also think it is great that the person behind it is gone.

[SilentRuin]

Though the "trapped" in unity will see this as fair - many others will still be abandoning unity "as they can and are not tied to it" and it was the breaking of trust where this retroactive and per download stuff was sprung with little thought to how it would be realistically implemented and with no input from their users at all. Backtracking and purging the top boss will win back some - but not all for sure.

[Jiminimonka]

Yes, but as @ddavison said the revised price change is much more acceptable than the original plan that Unity put out. From all I read before, during and after the debacle it was actually expected by everyone in the industry that Unity would change its pricing scheme - it made sense, because for over a decade Unity has been operating at a loss. It was unsustainable, and needed to start making some profit or it would close up shop sooner or later (which would be the worse possible outcome for everyone currently using the Unity engine). All the complaints after the price change announcement were not about the fact that there was a pricing scheme change, but about:
1- how easily exploitable the "pay-per-installation" was, making developers pay when someone would cyclically uninstall-reinstall a game
2- the fact that it retroactively applied to any previously developed game
3- the vagueness on how would Unity determine if an installation was legit or pirate - and since it's factually impossible, the risk that developers would pay for pirated installations, instead of the pirates
4- the fact that most freemium mobile games developed with Unity easily surpassed the installation threshold before making ANY kind of money
5- the idea that a demo with "full acces to the code" would pay the installation fee, even though the user has no access to the full features set - this would have affected FGU in particular
6- the claim that the change would affect "only 10% of Unity's users", which was blatantly false
7- more importantly, the fact that the pricing scheme was designed, decided and published without any consultation with the teams actually using Unity (which would have immediately shown that the pricing scheme was designed with one single and limited commercial model in mind, that of AAA videogames, and was not compatible with the dozens of other commercial models such as FGU's where players play free with the "demo" and only DM/GMs pay licences subscriptions).

In fact, the first suggestion that the Azure collective made when they published their open letter was not "roll back the changes to how it was before", it was "why didn't you instead ask for a percentage of revenue like your competition?"

So, keeping in mind that some pricing change was not only going to happen, but expected to happen anyway already before this ****-show, I'd say booting the guy who didn't think about involving the game development companies before designing this price change is a bit more than just a lump of sugar. More like a rather welcome Snickers bar when you're not yourself because you're hungry.

I am hungry now... and not until I read this! ��

Good point.