• The Super Mario All-Stars Celebration Event has begun! We're commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Super Mario All-Stars and the upcoming release of Super Mario Bros. Wonder with Famiboards' biggest event yet. From July 14 to September 14, aim to collect 60 badges or land a place on the High Score Tables - lucky participants will have a chance to win one of a few prizes!
  • Hey Famiboards, Episode 4 of the Famiboards Discussion Club is now live! WestEgg, Irene, and VolcanicDynamo discuss Princess Peach: Showtime, Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, F-Zero 99, and the rest of the September Nintendo Direct! Check it out here!

Discussion Unity introducing new fee attached to game installs

The "it's all over no matter what they do" doom posting going on is pretty over the top.

I know most forum posters know Unity as the 2010s asset flip engine, but many developers and hobbyist really like this engine, and for a good reason. It is a damn good engine. There's nothing quite like it.

If Unity decides to come out with a (seemingly) sincere apology and a proper, fair business plan along with a reasonable EULA, I have no doubt developers will keep using the engine. At least until Godot reaches maturity similar to Blender.

Now I'm not expecting a modern capitalist company to do that of course, but to say that Unity has no options to save themselves from this situation is just as foolish as charging 20 cents per install.
Unity is not irreplaceable, and the breach of trust was not insignificant. Even with a 100% ideal response, they've given people a reason to think long and hard about if they want to commit to Unity for future projects. It will be a much slower death, but the end result will pretty similar.
 
Going from "Trust us, bro" to "We trust you, bro" is absolutely one of the decisions of all time.
 
If Unity will not let go of the "pay per install" idea most developers will left the sinking ship sooner than later.

But it's probably to late anyway. Even if Unity would fully backtrack now, and they will just left a little later than sooner.
 
If Unity will not let go of the "pay per install" idea most developers will left the sinking ship sooner than later.

But it's probably to late anyway. Even if Unity would fully backtrack now, and they will just left a little later than sooner.
Trusting them seems like a bad idea after this, in the longterm.
 
Unity is very quiet, I think their plan is to wait for things to calm down and then post a "partial-walk-back" at the end of the week, instead of throwing more gasoline to the fire which is what their latest posts have amounted for. However this waiting time may not be playing in their favour, but against them:
  • More and more devs are using this time to try new engines and discover that there are viable alternatives.
  • Godot seems to be experiencing an exponential growth in their userbase and they are receiving funds and resources for long-term development.
  • App Lovin has started a project to help with migrating Unity projects to other engines (https://www.applovin.com/blog/migrating-from-unity-to-other-game-engines/).
  • A lot of devs are posting about their experiences with other engines or about how migrating their games wasn't as much work as they initially thought and is in fact doable.
  • At the same time, a lot of devs are also using this time to reflect on their experience with Unity and realize how downhill the engine has gone in the last years. There are many posts of people saying how Unity has become a convoluted mess of unfinished features, how the engine breaks all the time with the minimal changes, or how bug reports stay unattended for months and how development of the engine lacks a clear technical lead.
  • Conversely, Unity devs are being pleasantly surprised about how Unreal didn't break their build when they made some big update or how a bug report in Godot got picked up and worked on in a few hours.

I don't think this fiasco will result in the "death of Unity", at least in the short term, but I'm pretty sure that the development landscape has been forever changed: In a couple of years Godot and Unreal (probably other engines as well) will have eaten a big chunk of Unity's userbase. Remaining Unity users will have it easier than ever to jump ship to other engines thanks to all the work that is being done now. But the most important factor will be Unity itself: Users are very displeased with the development of the engine and management doesn't seem to have in their priorities to improve the engine or even listen to the devs to see what they need. A very repeated request I've seen is about Unity uncancell-ing their in-house game and finishing it, as everyone says that the process of making a game will expose a lot of the problems devs have to deal with and would provide a huge improvement to the engine, as well as defining a recipe of "best practices" from the engine makers themselves. But, will Unity really be able to do anything at all? It seems they're greatly in debt and the clock is ticking for them, all economic reports paint a very troubling picture and make it look like it's been trapped in an unsustainable model for years.

As a hobbyist developer, I always felt that Unity was a bit rough, with many bugs in the editor that would have you chasing ghosts for an hour but would get resolved with a restart. I don't have a lot of time to work on gamedev, so it really hurt whenever I had to just stare at the engine doing nothing while it recompiled everything or god knows what after I had only changed one comment in the code. This bug is very descriptive of Unity's state: When everyone complained about it, what did Unity do? Instead of fixing it and stopping the editor from randomly freezing for minutes (and sometimes hours!) they added a progress bar with time so you could see how long you were stuck doing nothing! The install-gate has given me the push I needed to leave Unity behind and try other engines and, after playing with Godot for a bit, I'm in f*cking heaven. I can't understand how I came to accept that just staring at a frozen editor was something acceptable. I love how light Godot is, how fast it starts and reacts to anything I do and how it never gets stuck. The only way I will ever consider touching Unity again is if, some years down the line, it really undergoes a big overhaul, but it all points out that by then Godot will be in an ever better state.
 
Last edited:
These companies are genuinely so stupid, why are companies like this lol.
They’re not stupid. They’re just greedy. Companies are so focused and blind sighted to the maximization of profits that even their own demise as an end result isn’t something they care about.

Or rather, the Board of Directors don’t care. At the last minute, a corporation’s CEO is appointed by and responds to said Board. Even as foolhardy as an idea may be, the CEO has to enact it.

In this case, Unity is being rundown by the vultures that invested in it. They don’t care if they fuck up the company. They’ll just sell before it all goes under and invest in another company
 
They’re not stupid. They’re just greedy. Companies are so focused and blind sighted to the maximization of profits that even their own demise as an end result isn’t something they care about.

Or rather, the Board of Directors don’t care. At the last minute, a corporation’s CEO is appointed by and responds to said Board. Even as foolhardy as an idea may be, the CEO has to enact it.

In this case, Unity is being rundown by the vultures that invested in it. They don’t care if they fuck up the company. They’ll just sell before it all goes under and invest in another company
one of unity's board members was the guy who encouraged Elon to buy twitter sooooo yeah some of them are genuinely stupid
 
one of unity's board members was the guy who encouraged Elon to buy twitter sooooo yeah some of them are genuinely stupid

and the CEO is the guy who thinks people should pay for everytime they reload ammo in a shooting game... that clearly not just greed, but also stupid
 
They’re not stupid. They’re just greedy. Companies are so focused and blind sighted to the maximization of profits that even their own demise as an end result isn’t something they care about.

Or rather, the Board of Directors don’t care. At the last minute, a corporation’s CEO is appointed by and responds to said Board. Even as foolhardy as an idea may be, the CEO has to enact it.

In this case, Unity is being rundown by the vultures that invested in it. They don’t care if they fuck up the company. They’ll just sell before it all goes under and invest in another company
Stupidity is often the enabler of greed. And as greedy as executives can be, intelligence tends to keep their worst ideas in check.
 
This is the most bonkers and blatant corporate shakedown I've seen (not that I'm an expert). I'm not sure how much has been walked back or clarified but I would never use this engine after this.

Love Re-Logic's response to this. Such an awesome supportive move. Would love to see other developers and publishers do some more in kind or at the very least state their refusal to ever use the Unity engine again in a show of solidarity (or uh... unity).
 
Last edited:
Unity has updated their pricing-update page a couple of hours ago:
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.

There is a rumor going around in the Unity forums that Ricitiello has left the company.
 
Unity has updated their pricing-update page a couple of hours ago:


There is a rumor going around in the Unity forums that Ricitiello has left the company.

This is still not a "We're canceling the runtime fee plans."

Also, if that rumor is true, wondering exactly in what terms and how he left. I doubt it's voluntarily and after seeing he fucked up.
 
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
I doubt whatever FAQs they’re outlining is going to help their situation, because they’re clearly not retracting it.
 
The decision in and of itself is horrible, but for me personally, the loss of trust is the biggest stab here, and more or less impossible to repair from here on out, no matter the revisions and walk-backs.
 
It's shocking that they're trying to continue down this installation fee plan. It's not like the heat has cooled off, the heat has just turned into constructive "how do I port my stuff off Unity" which is probably a far worse scenario for Unity.
 
It's shocking that they're trying to continue down this installation fee plan. It's not like the heat has cooled off, the heat has just turned into constructive "how do I port my stuff off Unity" which is probably a far worse scenario for Unity.
I don't understand why they're just staying quiet and not saying anything at all. If you want to fix an issue, you need to keep your stakeholders informed and manage expectations. Staying quiet while you work on a secret miraculous solution is the worse thing you can do: Chances are at that by the time you want to present your wonderful new plan your audience is already gone. So, taking into account the already established bad faith of Unity, I can only think that they are using this time to strike individual deals with as many dev studios at they can. Once they reach a threshold they will deem the losses acceptable and move on with the RunTime Fees, with some small modifications so they can present it like they "have listened".
 
I don't understand why they're just staying quiet and not saying anything at all. If you want to fix an issue, you need to keep your stakeholders informed and manage expectations. Staying quiet while you work on a secret miraculous solution is the worse thing you can do: Chances are at that by the time you want to present your wonderful new plan your audience is already gone. So, taking into account the already established bad faith of Unity, I can only think that they are using this time to strike individual deals with as many dev studios at they can. Once they reach a threshold they will deem the losses acceptable and move on with the RunTime Fees, with some small modifications so they can present it like they "have listened".

That somehow does sound plausible.
 
0
Yeah, it's obvious they're not dropping it, otherwise they would stop saying "in a few days" and just come out and say "the runtime fee is dead".
 
Trusting them seems like a bad idea after this, in the longterm.
Yeah, in the longterm. The thing is, some devs have no other choice right now than to continue to use Unity for the next few years.

Like if you have an Unity Project already far in development, it is very difficult for especially a smaller Studio to change the engine at this point. Especially if the Programming Team who is maybe only made up of 1-2 people worked in the past 10+ years more or less only with Unity. Learning a new Engine is not always that is easy, especially if you might have not really time while you are in active development of a big project.

Many Indie Dev Companies I know are living from Game to Game, especially those who are self publishing.

Of course it depends on your project (how script heavy, which Engine features it needs, etc.) and how far it is in development, but I think it would be stupid to immediately switch the engine. For the next project probably, but as painful it is, at least for indie devs it‘s better to wait right now how the situation evolves.
 
I don't understand why they're just staying quiet and not saying anything at all. If you want to fix an issue, you need to keep your stakeholders informed and manage expectations. Staying quiet while you work on a secret miraculous solution is the worse thing you can do: Chances are at that by the time you want to present your wonderful new plan your audience is already gone. So, taking into account the already established bad faith of Unity, I can only think that they are using this time to strike individual deals with as many dev studios at they can. Once they reach a threshold they will deem the losses acceptable and move on with the RunTime Fees, with some small modifications so they can present it like they "have listened".
All of this is true.

In fairness, when you fuck up as bad as Unity did, it's not unreasonable to feel a need to heavily manage communications while you're trying to unfuck things. If, during the unfuck process, you don't know what to say, or have nothing to say because you're too busy trying to hammer out how to walk things back, saying that you'll have an update in a few days time is better than putting your foot in your mouth before you have a plan that will hopefully improve the situation. Even if, in a case such as this, the situation is already likely beyond full repair.

There is a rumor going around in the Unity forums that Ricitiello has left the company
It's entirely plausible. After this mess, the board probably pinned him to take the fall, and it was either resign or be fired. (Assuming he has indeed left.)
 
Damage has been done at this point, I think. I don't blame any devs who feel they need to stick with Unity for any reason, but I'm going to be looking elsewhere for when I finally get the time to myself to start on something.
 
0
EU game devs ask regulators to look at Unity’s “anti-competitive” bundling

Now is as good of a time as ever to apply pressure to the wound lol.

In an open letter published last week, the European Games Developer Federation goes through a lot of the now-familiar arguments for why Unity's decision to charge up to $0.20 per game install will be bad for the industry. The federation of 23 national game developer trade associations argues that the new fee structure will make it "much harder for [small and midsize developers] to build reliable business plans" by "significantly increas[ing] the game development costs for most game developers relying on [Unity's] services."

The organization also publicly worries about "professional game education institutions" that may need to update their curriculums wholesale if there is a mass exodus from Unity's engine. "Many young industry professionals who have built their career plans on mastering Unity’s tools [will be put] in a very difficult position."

Beyond simply being bad for the industry, though, the EGDF argues that "Unity's move might be anti-competitive" in a way that demands government action. The group takes a special exception to Unity's history of bundling its game engine with services like analytics, in-game chat, ad networks and mediation tools, user acquisition tools, and more. That kind of bundling creates "a significant vendor lock risk for game developers using Unity services," which "also makes it difficult for many game middleware developers to compete against Unity."
 
Re-Logic committing so much money to Godot and FNA is fantastic. I feel like either of those two (likely Godot) needs a serious champions willing to do everything in their power to turn one of them into a AAA-ready engine, like what happened to Blender, which used to be neat but not up to snuff to becoming a seriously good 3D modelling and animation package in the last few years capable of keeping up with Max and Maya.

Having a high-quality AAA open-source product available would do a lot to pressure proprietary engine makers to up their game and having to justify why people should use their offerings. Unity has had serious problems in terms of quality of features, bug fixing and regressions, and ease of transition problems when it comes to moving projects to new versions of Unity (which in my experience Unreal and Godot rarely have).

I feel like Unity's management has been coasting on the fact that Unity has a stranglehold on 60-70% of game engine users right now, and were committed to exponential growth in an age of free credit, but now that inflation has gone up across the world and central banks have been raising interest rates significantly to reduce it, that particular gravy train has crashed and burned and a lot of companies, Unity included, are scrambling to do something about the mountains of debt they've accrued. Reportedly this whole install-based system wasn't even seriously considered up until very recently and completely blindsided most folks within Unity when they realized that management were actually going along with it.

The fact is, Unity has taken too long to properly address this whole fiasco, causing a ton of uncertainty and panic. A ton of devs are looking at moving over to Unreal or Godot, and so are academic institutions that are seeing where the wind is blowing and know Unity is quite likely to be a pariah very soon if not already, which is going to be incredibly messy for students, especially those already midway through or close to the end of their education and all they know is Unity.

Thankfully, if there's one silver lining it's that transitioning isn't that hard. Unreal and Godot aren't that dissimilar to Unity in terms of workflow, Godot supports C# (though GDScript is incredibly easy to learn, especially if you already know C#, and not only is relatively powerful for a scripting language also but allows for hot-swapping, so you can literally change your code while your game is running and have those changes reflected immediately) while Unreal has Blueprints if you don't wanna learn C++, both have "prefabs" (though Godot's node system is significantly more flexible), and I'd honestly say that Godot is pretty much as good if not better than Unity at 2D stuff (you've also got other options like Game Maker for 2D games) while Unreal outdoes it in 3D.
 
Re-Logic committing so much money to Godot and FNA is fantastic. I feel like either of those two (likely Godot) needs a serious champions willing to do everything in their power to turn one of them into a AAA-ready engine, like what happened to Blender, which used to be neat but not up to snuff to becoming a seriously good 3D modelling and animation package in the last few years capable of keeping up with Max and Maya.

Having a high-quality AAA open-source product available would do a lot to pressure proprietary engine makers to up their game and having to justify why people should use their offerings. Unity has had serious problems in terms of quality of features, bug fixing and regressions, and ease of transition problems when it comes to moving projects to new versions of Unity (which in my experience Unreal and Godot rarely have).

I feel like Unity's management has been coasting on the fact that Unity has a stranglehold on 60-70% of game engine users right now, and were committed to exponential growth in an age of free credit, but now that inflation has gone up across the world and central banks have been raising interest rates significantly to reduce it, that particular gravy train has crashed and burned and a lot of companies, Unity included, are scrambling to do something about the mountains of debt they've accrued. Reportedly this whole install-based system wasn't even seriously considered up until very recently and completely blindsided most folks within Unity when they realized that management were actually going along with it.

The fact is, Unity has taken too long to properly address this whole fiasco, causing a ton of uncertainty and panic. A ton of devs are looking at moving over to Unreal or Godot, and so are academic institutions that are seeing where the wind is blowing and know Unity is quite likely to be a pariah very soon if not already, which is going to be incredibly messy for students, especially those already midway through or close to the end of their education and all they know is Unity.

Thankfully, if there's one silver lining it's that transitioning isn't that hard. Unreal and Godot aren't that dissimilar to Unity in terms of workflow, Godot supports C# (though GDScript is incredibly easy to learn, especially if you already know C#, and not only is relatively powerful for a scripting language also but allows for hot-swapping, so you can literally change your code while your game is running and have those changes reflected immediately) while Unreal has Blueprints if you don't wanna learn C++, both have "prefabs" (though Godot's node system is significantly more flexible), and I'd honestly say that Godot is pretty much as good if not better than Unity at 2D stuff (you've also got other options like Game Maker for 2D games) while Unreal outdoes it in 3D.
I'll admit I only really have a passing familiarity with FNA, but it doesn't really seem to be the same sort of "batteries included" sort of solution that Godot, Unreal, or Unity are. It's an interesting project with worthwhile goals, but it's probably not especially well positioned to fill the void left by Unity.

I have some pretty high hopes for Godot, though. Seems like it has a chance to be the real winner of this situation.
 
0
Great podcast episode on Alanah Pearce’s channel about the situation.

 
0
https://blog.unity.com/news/open-letter-on-runtime-fee

TL;DR they've walked back some of the worst parts but are still going forward with the fee. At the very least this should help devs finish the games they're already working on in Unity but I wouldn't be surprised if the trust has been eroded so much that teams will move over to Godot or Unreal for their next projects.
 
0
New Update:

The most important part (apply to Unity Pro and Unity Enterprise
The Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity shipping in 2024 and beyond. Your games that are currently shipped and the projects you are currently working on will not be included – unless you choose to upgrade them to this new version of Unity.

We will make sure that you can stay on the terms applicable for the version of Unity editor you are using – as long as you keep using that version.

For games that are subject to the runtime fee, we are giving you a choice of either a 2.5% revenue share or the calculated amount based on the number of new people engaging with your game each month. Both of these numbers are self-reported from data you already have available. You will always be billed the lesser amount.

So if any games was made before 2024 and still using the old version of Unity (before 2024 change), will not have the fee.

The one who keeps the update will either pay a 2.5% revenue share or pay the runtime fee (I think, IDK what the engaging number means), whatever lower.
 
0
so it seems like everything's fine? all the games currently released or in development on the current versions of unity see no change, and for the new versions you pick between (self-reported) 2.5% revenue share or install fee, whichever is lowest?
 
Guess this FAQ is okay, but I imagine most devs will simply finish up any Unity projects they have then use a different engine for their next work. Too much trouble to stick with Unity, especially since they’ve already proven they can change the terms as they please.
 
Guess this FAQ is okay, but I imagine most devs will simply finish up any Unity projects they have then use a different engine for their next work. Too much trouble to stick with Unity, especially since they’ve already proven they can change the terms as they please.
Yeah, the best part about this appears to be current Unity users can finish whatever they're currently working and then bolt for another engine without being affected by the new fees.
 
If they had at the outset said they're releasing a new version of Unity, and using that comes with a 2.5% revenue share fee, then that would have gone down infinitely better (as that's essentially what Unreal did).

Instead, they torched all their bridges first before rowing back to this announcement, which still has these weird sub clauses about user installs and engagement (except it's now self reported).

Someone on the Unity board has made the decision that charging per install is the way to go in future, so all these announcements are still having to dance around this bloody stupid idea rather than dropping it like the stinking misfire it is.
 
For anyone interested, this is the official runtime fee calculator Unity have released to allow you to try and work out how much they're to going to charge you for installs:


It's still an absolute shit show.

Just go with a fucking revenue percentage like everyone else and stop trying to make install fees happen you absolute chucklefucks...
 
For anyone interested, this is the official runtime fee calculator Unity have released to allow you to try and work out how much they're to going to charge you for installs:


It's still an absolute shit show.

Just go with a fucking revenue percentage like everyone else and stop trying to make install fees happen you absolute chucklefucks...
I find this line of thought weird when the runtime fee does nothing but make the 2.5% revenue share potentially cheaper for some developers that want to go through the trouble of running the numbers. It's straight up better than a pure revenue share model.

I mean, I get it, I probably wouldn't run the numbers either. But for those who can be bothered to, and end up gaining something from it? Good for them! No harm done.

Edit: Quickly looking at it, if you somehow end up making THE next indie game and sell it at $30 per license, after selling 166,667 copies the first month, you would end up paying $16,750 in runtime fees rather than $125,000 in 2.5% revenue share.
 
Last edited:
0
"Here at Unity, we recognize that we've made a mistake. We are sorry for our actions in recent days.

I mean the only reason we're issuing this statement is because we got the popular developers making us the most money breathing down our necks. Those Among Us people wouldn't shut the fuck u-

We are committed to listen to our userbase. We should have consulted with you before we implemented our changes but didn't because we wanted to see how much we could get away with so that they can be more accommodating to our users. Personal users can enjoy all of the great features you come to expect, and we'll be tweaking our plans for our professional users. Look forward to still giving us more of your money the updated Runtime Fee policy with LTS versions of Unity coming in 2024 so you better not need long term support for our engine or get too successful without paying us, you ungrateful little-

Wait, where are you going? Hold on! We've changed! We swear! Look, we'll let you remove our splash screen! That's enough of a reason to trust us again, right? Come on, Godot is a baby engine and Unreal is way too complex. We're the best around, right? No, stop, don't go, come back, please!"

Unity is a joke and the damage to their reputation has been done. I cannot in good faith tell anyone to stick with Unity because there is nothing stopping them from doing this again and being dragged, kicking and screaming, to do another about face. Terrible treatment for devs and a horrific lack of communication.
 
...

Someone on the Unity board has made the decision that charging per install is the way to go in future, so all these announcements are still having to dance around this bloody stupid idea rather than dropping it like the stinking misfire it is.
Yeah, this is my read on this as well. They have successfully introduced the Run Time Fee in their model, now it's just a matter of progressively sneakily moving towards it.

Setting the ToS in stone and accountability should be front and center, without that anything they promise is just wet paper. I really don't think this is a win for Unity devs.
 


Back
Top Bottom