Unity will start charging developers for each game install

[Stg-Flame]

Unity developers are now supposed to pay up to $0.20 per game install which even applies retroactively to games already released and even counts if you switch hardware and already had the game installed. To me, this just screams "all the other CEOs are price hiking everything, so we should too!" and I feel like this would be the best time for Unreal to capitalize on this outrage and hopefully not follow suit. The more I read about this, the more it seems like this was the last half-assed idea floating around the meeting room and they just decided to run with it and hope everything worked out in the end. My feeling is that if this doesn't explode in their faces and developers stick with Unity, the only ones who will be footing the bill will be us with much more expensive games and seeing games riddled with micro-transactions.

Maybe I'm not seeing something here, but this sounds like a horrible idea all around for anyone that isn't a Unity investor.

Sources:

https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates.1482750/

Unity introducing new fee attached to game installs

Unity's new "Runtime Fee" will kick in after developers cross specific revenue and install thresholds.

www.gamedeveloper.com

Unity reveals plans to charge per game install, drawing criticism from development community

UPDATE 11.45pm: As fury among developers continues to mount following Unity's dramatic changes to its Unity Engine busi…

www.eurogamer.net

Edit: I should clarify that the installment cost will only start after a game has reached 100K installs and over 200K in revenue after January 1, 2024. A lot of people are freaking out and threatening to jump ship, but looking at some of the numbers being thrown around in the forums, it looks like this will only affect the biggest cash cows that use Unity but some of the biggest indie hits that used Unity would likely have barely broke even if they were being charged with this business model.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Stupid MBAs with no working brain cell in their thick skulls.

 

[cherullo]

Unity must think that they have achieved their total addressable market, or that they are so far ahead of the other engines that they are the de facto standard for mobile games.
It's a real shame because the engine has so much potential, but it's riddled with unbelievably bad business and technical decisions (as far as those are separate...)

The previous known bad business decision was to disband the Gigaya team: https://forum.unity.com/threads/int...oming-sample-game.1257135/page-2#post-8278305
It was a in-house game development team dog-fooding the engine. That was a great idea because Unity is full of bugs and many APIs have issues scaling in scope for a full game. Keeping the engine approachable while being scalable is tough.
Anyway, whenever you hit a bug in Unity, the community managers ask you to submit a bug report along with a project reproducing the bug. This is usually a royal pain because you can't submit your multi-gigabyte project, so you must strip a lot of unrelated assets and scripts.
In this process the bug may disappear, because it's not always clear what is causing the bug, so you must be careful to backup the project, strip something, test for the bug, and repeat until the project is the bare minimum to proc the bug.
Meanwhile, you must figure out what can be legally shared with Unity itself (say third-party sources, purchased assets, classified data) that may be essential to proc the bug.
And after all this pain, there are no guarantees that the bug will ever be fixed, let alone in your version of Unity. Sometime in the middle of production you'll want to lock into a LTS version of Unity, because new versions bring all kinds of regressions. So maybe your LTS version will be graced with the bug fix, maybe not, so you MUST look for a work-around anyway.
So Gigaya was a way to skip all this mess: internal project, internal assets, streamlined bug reporting, *POOF*, gone.

And Unity really, really needs better bug tracking and regression testing, it's pretty sad. Just yesterday I stumbled in TWO bugs in the same day.
The first was already reported: https://issuetracker.unity3d.com/is...ollider-when-working-with-multiple-inspectors
Too bad I'm locked to 2021.3 LTS so I'll not get this fix for this game. This bug is not a huge deal, but then again, this feature is TEN YEARS OLD.

The other bug was using the undo feature while moving objects in the hierarchy, pretty basic stuff - moving an object in the hierarchy should not change it's world position, but undoing such hierarchy movement changed the object's world position.
Those are functions and concepts that existed in the engine since forever, that's clearly a regression.

This time the bugs were unimportant, but I stumble in at least one major bug every three months while using well established features, it's pretty bad.
So Unity must do a lot of ground work to be in proper shape going forward if they want to be taken seriously for AA/AAA games. Better documentation, better internal testing, better automated testing, faster bug-fixing.
Instead, they want to chase buzzwords and ride the hype with AI and cinematic rendering.

They fed the cow and brought in the developers. Now that the ensh*ttification process is at full tilt, they'll milk it till it's dead.

 

[igor_kavinski]

And suddenly, millions of game developers went silent.

And started searching for alternatives.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Companies like that recurring revenue

 

[cherullo]

It gets worse:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/16hnibp

Unity silently removed their Github repo to track license changes, then updated their license to remove the clause that lets you use the TOS from the version you shipped with, then insists games already shipped need to pay the new fees.

So, yeah, if you finally finished paying the investors' advancements and is finally reaping the tail-end of revenue, you'll probably be better off delisting your game ASAP before they hit you with a retroactive fee. Nice.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

How is it even remotely legal to change a contract/TOS which traps people/devs/whoever into retroactive fees?

What is even the point of a TOS/Contract at all at that point if you can just make it up as you go and have it apply to any point in time whenever?

I don't understand how this could hold up in court if challenged.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

How is it even remotely legal to change a contract/TOS which traps people/devs/whoever into retroactive fees?

What is even the point of a TOS/Contract at all at that point if you can just make it up as you go and have it apply to any point in time whenever?

I don't understand how this could hold up in court if challenged.

The contract/TOS has some clause like “changes can be made” or effective until x. Stuff like this happens all the time with your wireless or internet or car insurance.

 

[cherullo]

Just read this now, insider trading running wild and games threatening delisting:

Unity Bosses Sold Stock Ahead Of Scummy Dev Fees Announcement

CEO John Riccitiello sold 2,000 shares a week before Unity revealed its Runtime Fee

kotaku.com

Well, it was a nice run, time to look elsewhere.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

While it’s a crappy business practice I feel there is too much drama attached to this change, I may be wrong so feel free to correct me.
To my understanding as of Jan 1st (I think) if a game has sold a decent amount as in 200k plus each instal of the game is a $0.20 fee and install is triggered by a new game purchase that gets installed on the machine. Reinstalls do not count, charity bundle sales do not count and possibly video cards bundles do not count (I’m not so sure of the last item). Basically it’s a 20 cent “commission” on the game install. This doesn’t sound that crazy to me.

 

[Coalfax]

The bricks start falling. On Twitter (X?) stated by the devs of Cult of the Lamb (a by no means small game envelope):

Buy Cult of the Lamb now, cause we're deleting it on Jan 1st. 😘

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The bricks start falling. On Twitter (X?) stated by the devs of Cult of the Lamb (a by no means small game envelope):

Buy Cult of the Lamb now, cause we're deleting it on Jan 1st. 😘

I saw that, why buy it now if it’s going off line soon?
I agree it’s a crappy business practice, I agree it has potential for abuse. The charge is small it should easily be absorbed or just simply sell the game for 25 cents more.
I do imagine one small benefit the change should reduce the number of “free” shovelware games. Those dudes could end up losing money.

 

[Stg-Flame]

I saw that, why buy it now if it’s going off line soon?
I agree it’s a crappy business practice, I agree it has potential for abuse. The charge is small it should easily be absorbed or just simply sell the game for 25 cents more.
I do imagine one small benefit the change should reduce the number of “free” shovelware games. Those dudes could end up losing money.

It's a shady business practice whichever way you look at it. Basically stating "I see you've made a really successful game but we don't like you making all the profit off it, so now we're going to charge you for your success". With the cut that digital distributors take, paying their employees, and now being required to shell out even more money to Unity just seems shitty in my mind. There's really no incentive to make a massively popular game on Unity now because the more popular the game is, the more money you'll owe back to Unity devs and from what I've been reading, they haven't even tried to fix the insurmountable pile of bugs and issues with Unity for years. It seems they're simply falling in line of hiking all the prices simply because they can and I don't blame any developer who jumps ship.

I will admit I know next to nothing about game engines but from a consumer standpoint, if the cost of game development starts increasing, we're the ones who get shafted.

 

[DeathReborn]

While it’s a crappy business practice I feel there is too much drama attached to this change, I may be wrong so feel free to correct me.
To my understanding as of Jan 1st (I think) if a game has sold a decent amount as in 200k plus each instal of the game is a $0.20 fee and install is triggered by a new game purchase that gets installed on the machine. Reinstalls do not count, charity bundle sales do not count and possibly video cards bundles do not count (I’m not so sure of the last item). Basically it’s a 20 cent “commission” on the game install. This doesn’t sound that crazy to me.

They claim to ber able to track installs, hardware changes (even "fake" ones where windows new hardware wizard is triggered), charity based installs & pirated versions (among others). However, this would be a huge violation of GDPR, UK Data Protection, Privacy etc laws & open Unity to massive fines.

You might want to buckle up, this is going to be the mother of all implosions or the hardest U-Turn in history.

 

[Newbian]

They claim to ber able to track installs, hardware changes (even "fake" ones where windows new hardware wizard is triggered), charity based installs & pirated versions (among others). However, this would be a huge violation of GDPR, UK Data Protection, Privacy etc laws & open Unity to massive fines.

You might want to buckle up, this is going to be the mother of all implosions or the hardest U-Turn in history.

Not to mention they are trying to go after a lot of big businesses like all the consoles that have a type of a game subscription program such as game pass where you can get "free games" by using it and want to charge them for any games that uses unity that is on this service.

Good luck doing that if you have no contract with businesses like microsoft / sony / nintendo.

 

[Ranulf]

They claim to ber able to track installs, hardware changes (even "fake" ones where windows new hardware wizard is triggered), charity based installs & pirated versions (among others). However, this would be a huge violation of GDPR, UK Data Protection, Privacy etc laws & open Unity to massive fines.

You might want to buckle up, this is going to be the mother of all implosions or the hardest U-Turn in history.

Yeah, it has the potential to ruin a lot of business models in the gaming industry. Bye bye many humble bundle deals or any bundle deals, charity based or otherwise.

The implications of this change run through the whole industry right down to the average gamer/customer who will probably be paying more for those games to cover the license fees. That or we'll see some sort of 5 install limit in general not just on certain DRM games that limit installs to 5 per day or week that we have now.

 

[BFG10K]

Basically it’s a 20 cent “commission” on the game install. This doesn’t sound that crazy to me.

Not crazy? How do you think they'll track game installs? It'll be telemetry phoning home, aka cloud DRM. It has to be, because they can't track anything being done offline.

Restricting installation behind a mandatory internet connection...where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, Denuvo. And because games can be copied to another PC without installers, they'll have to do the telemetry check every time the game starts up.

There are hundreds of Unity games that are DRM-free through various bundles, GOG, etc. None of that will be possible anymore.

People accepted the "games as a service" model, now they're reaping the consequences, which includes the developers themselves in this case. You own nothing and you continue to pay for the privilege of owning nothing, and having no rights.

 

[Stg-Flame]

It's been interesting watching indie developers weigh in on these changes.

Also, I knew the Unity CEO's name sounded familiar so I looked him up, and sure enough he used to the be the CEO, COO, and President of EA... So now I am not surprised in the slightest by any of these recent changes.

 

[KMFJD]

Some of the stuff i've read about this, people are not happy

~why are veteran Flash devs saying "oh god not again?"In 2012 Adobe announced a 9% fee on net revenue (over $50k) for using hardware acceleration + other modern features (especially those geared towards console/PC development)Many flash devs made the move to Unity

~The Rust cheat community already has a working reinstall script for Rust with a unique HW spoofer on each install #Unity

~Unity is adding extra fees onto developers for a variety of actions, notably the act of end users installing a Unity game. If a game reaches certain thresholds ($200k for the free Unity tier, which sounds high but isn't for a studio), that game will then start incurring fees every time a user installs it.

Not too bad, right? It's like a $0.20 revenue share, which for a $10 game, isn't so bad. Certainly better than Unreal's 5%.
However that's not how this works. It's per install. And you've probably got about 5 different interpretations of how that could work. Take those 5 guesses, pick the stupidest one, and yep, that's what they went with.
Any install, any reinstall, any installation on a second device, each and every one slap the dev with a fee. It gets dumber, because that cracked copy of your game on the high seas still incurs a fee when the pirate installs it.
You might think we're at peak stupidity. You might think anyone who makes anything with Unity is a "fucking idiot" (the CEO certainly does), but we're not done yet.
It's retroactive. No not the install counts, it's retroactive in terms of applying to previously released games. Remember Subnautica from 2014? It's subject to these fees if it meets the yearly install/revenue thresholds. And it certainly will.
But we're still not done yet. You might be thinking, can't a user maliciously install and uninstall your game to incur the fee every time? And yes. Yes they can. Unity's solution to this is to "complain to their frauds department", which sounds like a wonderful way of dealing with something that any individual on the planet can automate.

All in all, it's as though Unity has simply gotten bored of being a business, and decided that they'd rather live out the rest of their days as a clown show.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yeah, it has the potential to ruin a lot of business models in the gaming industry. Bye bye many humble bundle deals or any bundle deals, charity based or otherwise.

The implications of this change run through the whole industry right down to the average gamer/customer who will probably be paying more for those games to cover the license fees. That or we'll see some sort of 5 install limit in general not just on certain DRM games that limit installs to 5 per day or week that we have now.

Charity bundles are exempt

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Chief problem I see with this is it likely will cause games to be de-listed from sale once they hit a point where reinstalls on new devices are close or or outpace sales. Make it so nobody can reinstall then all future charges are obviously fraud.
Weird route they took and all I can think of is from earlier they want recurring revenue. Why not follow what Unreal does and set a rate past a certain amount of unit at the time of sale. Less bookkeeping and easier to understand for everyone. Unfortunately that route doesn’t provide lifetime revenue.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Not crazy? How do you think they'll track game installs? It'll be telemetry phoning home, aka cloud DRM. It has to be, because they can't track anything being done offline.

Restricting installation behind a mandatory internet connection...where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, Denuvo. And because games can be copied to another PC without installers, they'll have to do the telemetry check every time the game starts up.

There are hundreds of Unity games that are DRM-free through various bundles, GOG, etc. None of that will be possible anymore.

People accepted the "games as a service" model, now they're reaping the consequences, which includes the developers themselves in this case. You own nothing and you continue to pay for the privilege of owning nothing, and having no rights.

Per an article I read unity has had tracking tools in it for various performance reasons for a long time. Those DRM free games probably aren’t as DRM free as you think.

 

[Dannar26]

I just read this as:

"Unity takes first step in bold new 'have no customers at all' strategy."

Bold move cotton. Le'ts see how it plays out.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This change probably won’t be good for the mods, I assume those trigger a new install since many times I’ll have a modded version of 7D2D and a vanilla version on the same machine.
As a game maker why allow mods which will trigger a bill to me and I have no ability to charge money for those mods or worse the ability to charge for the mods becomes possible, who gets the new install bill the game maker or the mod maker?

 

[cherullo]

Two things really $%!@#$ me off about this. First, how can it be legally possible to make such one-sided decision, and how progressively Terms-of-Services are becoming meaningless.
If companies can retroactively change them all the time, how can you negotiate a contract with a publisher? How can you plan the usage of said service for the lifetime of a game, from development, to launch, to maintenance?
This kind of drek changes the viable business models negotiated years ago, but you could in theory have set aside some money for unpredictables during the project's planning.
The fee itself is a rug-pull for those invested in the engine, while the shifting terms makes it clear that any involvement with Unity going forward will be as safe as walking on quicksand, this is insane.

The second thing is how this affects the kinds of games developers will decide to make and how it reduces the possibilities for games to change their business models as they age, or to have alternative, innovative business models.
The fee pushes devs to aggressively monetize their games from the concept stages of development, perfectly in line with the Unity-ironSource merger: https://www.pocketgamer.biz/interview/79190/unity-ironsource-john-riccitiello-marc-whitten-merger/
It also makes it more likely that devs or publishers may decide to quickly shut the game down as soon as it starts to decline.
I launched a game back in 2013, it sold around 100k copies and after a while we switched to a free model with cosmetic micro transactions. If we had to pay the fee, the publisher would probably just shut down the game instead.

As for business models not centered in monetization, Toby Fox, from Undertale fame, released for free on Steam a preview version of the follow-up game, Deltarune, as a thank-you gift for the community. It contains 2 chapters of the game, which will remain free until release.
Thankfully the game is not developed on Unity, because otherwise the devs would have already burned through the installation thresholds. No publisher will ever let this kind of thing happen on a Unity game.