Unity Is NOT Dead! | A Solo Dev's Perspective

[@WebstersYouTube]

Unity have provided an update: blog.unity.com/news/open-letter-on-runtime-fee?

[@SlayerDUDE1993]

It's about trust, not money

[@der-Dritte]

I agree the way its just showed up out of nowhere but i will still use it i dont see myself making that money but i fear for the future

[@D3X1K_AXYZ]

I think you have this incorrect. They started with per install, then stepped back to initial install per device. There is no way they could track owns what device without requiring gamers open an account and registering devices to that device. Either way, i do not feel comfortable with this as a consumer. This doesn't sit well with me. I will be thinking twice about installing unity games after this is put in place. Note: i could be the one who is wrong, but my final opinion still stands. This doesn't sit well with me regardless. I am not directly impacted financially by this, nor do i have any experience with the engine. The fee still doesn't sit right with me. The fee needs to go. If this means raising the price of the licenses, so be it.

[@diligencehumility6971]

You can use C# with Godot, and the c++ with Unreal is easier than regular c++ since Unreal made their own data types which prevents memory leaks. Unity is 100% dead.

[@GouShin1]

C# in Godot isn't that great, there's also almost double the cost if you want to port to consoles.

[@HarmedStudiosDxFanatic]

Wrong unity is not dead you fool!

[@sxrevived1087]

unity is still alive c# godot sucks and unreal engine take a lot of time to learn and its not easy

[@aaronmarko]

Sure, most indies will never earn those kinds of figures that you'd need to trigger the per-install charge. I think the average game on Steam earns about $5000. So really this is a measure meant to be targeted at companies like Tencent, Microsoft or Nintendo. Companies who already have deep pockets who probably will wind up litigating this in court. But I have to ask you if this is the kind of company that you can trust into the future to not do something horrible to their existing userbase. I'm sure that all of this decision lies squarely with corporate, but if this is the direction the company wants to take, I believe they have genuinely broken consumer trust. I've already heard that Devolver Digital is going to be requesting what engine you're using on future pitches, presumably so they can avoid incurring potential fees from Unity. I wouldn't be surprised if other publishers follow their lead. So yeah, at this point, I won't be surprised if that Unity logo becomes a massive albatross around the neck of game developers into the future. I fully expect a migration away from the engine because this is truly one of the most boneheaded moves I've seen a company make in a very, very long time. Perhaps not since the Coca Cola company unveiled New Coke. And maybe like New Coke, all of these changes will go away, but I doubt it. Anyway, thanks for reading all of that if you did. I threw your game on the ol' wishlist and here's hoping you trigger that million dollar Unity sales mark.

[@WebstersYouTube]

I agree that there is a trust issue now. If they're willing to even attempt this, what else might they try to pull? Is that a partner you want to work with? Most likely not. I can also see it making publishers think twice before taking on a Unity project, knowing that fee is lurking somewhere.

[@Saerthen]

A modest team of 5 people, working remotely full-time for 6 months, will already cost you $200K+, so, when you sold enough copies to generate $200K of revenue, you have not even covered the initial costs. That's not a successful project; that's more like a "barely made it" project.

[@vinhill1456]

Great video, Sam. The issues I had were based on the initial press release. However, they've still not clarified on piracy, and demo installs enough for me to be against it still. Until clarity is given on those, I'll still be holding off release a public demo of my personal game. My day job is another issue though; we do fall into that mid-tier where these things could hurt us the most. Overall, one thing can be said and that is that the Unity PR department needs reform. They frankly should have known better.

[@WebstersYouTube]

What gets me is that the CEO selling shares less than a week before implies that they knew this was going to go down like a wet fart at a funeral, they knew it would cause backlash, and they went ahead with it anyway. Nevermind reforming the PR team, the Board needs to go.

[@Saerthen]

The problem with runtime fees is not in numbers, it's with how the changes are implemented. And if Unity can get away with changing the deal retroactively, it will be a green light for anyone in the industry to do the same. They also made some shady probably illegal moves like providing a 90% cut on runtime fees for companies, who integrate their ad platform into a game.

[@justinmcmichael6048]

Yes, it's hard to justify working with a company that makes changes like this. There was a response like this back when they changed to a subscription model. End of the day, people realized it wasn't a big deal and got over it. The tool is you is and should be a business decision. If you want a successful company, money is important. Unity's runtime fees are important insofar as they impact your ability to do that. Compare how well off you'd be using an alternative engine, such as Unreal, factor in the time and cost to switch, and go from there. If it's cheaper to use Unity for the remainder of the project, then do that. Unity *might* change their pricing in the future, but they can only charge going forward, not retroactively (in this current change, there aren't retroactive charges, but they do count installs and revenue retroactively - a crappy thing to do which I hope they'll go back on). Also, keep in mind that any engine can choose to change their licensing fees, not just Unity.

[@Saerthen]

​@@justinmcmichael6048 Well, first, Unreal states in their license that they can't change it retroactively. Unity had such a statement, but they removed it and tried to say that this decision was retroactive. That is plainly illegal, and they can and should be sued for that (but most likely, they will walk it back totally, so no one could actually sue them for it). Unreal and any other engine can change their license; there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There are just good ways to do it and bad ways. Unith just showed everyone how one shouldn't implement a license change. Unreal already uses a 5% revenue share, and you don't have to pay it for the sales through the Epic Store. They may increase it someday, but it won't affect already released projects because their license text protects you from them doing exactly that. In the case of Godot, even if they switch to a proprietary license, you can still use their source code released under the MIT license. No one can sue you for that.

[@gfdgdfgdfgdfggfdgdfgdfgdfg9709]

you need to add shadow ovals under each character in your game

[@obsoleteobsession]

I truly don't believe it's about the numbers for most developers who are speaking out. I think it's more about suits hijacking an art form for the sole purpose of monetizing it. Happened to music, and now artists make 1/10 of a cent per stream. Happened to TV shows, and there is an industry-wide writer's strike preventing some of the highest-anticipated series from being filmed. There are consequences for the industry as a whole if Unity gets away with a scheme of this nature. I wish-listed Crisis Island. I will only install it once, I promise!

[@jaroslavholy4746]

There is an issue with your calculation. If the pricing change would be what you presented there would be very little pushback. Unity is not doing well financially. So as Unity developer I want them to get to positive numbers to make sure the engine keeps being developed. (They could improve financials by stopping buying other companies and focusing on their product but that's different discussion) People protesting this change are generally not protesting price increase. You say that when you sell a game you pay one time install fee. But that's not what they charge. Even when it's what they want us to believe they charge. What they charge is very poorly defined and is at the end calculated by their proprietary model they will not share (Their words). Yes they say they will not count piracy cases, etc. but no company was able to solve piracy and most installs are pirate installs. So we are no suppose to trust unity they solved piracy. And even if they did it's not feasible for any business to be charged royalty based on blackbox model. You can ask any lawyer and they will tell you that's a no go.

[@tonywars]

It’s a good time to make a update video on the unity drama because it has gotten a hell a lot worse than ever.

[@AxioMATlC]

Even if you hit 200,000 installs, you'd probably just buy Unity Pro and would be good until 1 million installs.

[@WebstersYouTube]

... I hadn't thought of that :O I doubt Unity's ExCo saw that loophole either.

[@AxioMATlC]

@@WebstersKZbin I think they did, I think they were trying to sell more subscription packages instead of nickel and diming smaller developers who are growing (many installs a month). They couldn't just say once you hit 200k lifetime installs you must buy Pro because then older games that have fallen off who only get say ~200 new installs a month can just get away at paying ~$500 a year instead of needing to buy Pro - perhaps I am giving them too much credit though. They would of been better off to just targetted 1 million though like unreal because then it feels more psychologically justified

[@TravisBerthelot]

Anything more than 3 cents per install is crazy expensive. It is not a nothing burger. It is crazy as f**k expensive. I am glad I do not use it. Your examples only cover the good cases.

[@MrVexedviper]

Thoughts on the Tomb Raider remaster collection?

[@Alec3099]

Just found this channel recently, it's an absolute gem and was a nice surprise to see you covering game dev stuff, keep up the good work. As a professional Software Engineer, and very much a hobbyist Game Developer (in Unity), I had pretty much done the same as you and ran the numbers, and figured out it likely wasn't that big of a deal for me personally (if anything it raises the threshold for paying at the low-end). However after doing a little more research into it, there are a few points that were later clarified that make this much more concerncing (see unity forum/blog posts): It was clarified that they are trying to track "installs" as opposed to "digital licenses" (which was how I had initially interpreted it). So installing a game on my Desktop, Steam Deck, and laptop would count as 3 installs for a single purchase. It was also clarified this is pre-platform fees, so I think steams cut still counts as revenue. I also have privacy concerns about how it's tracking that data (presumably sending a MAC address to a server somewhere), and it's definitely not something I'd want to distribute along with my application (this approach would also be impossible to implement retroactively, and could also be blocked by the user). I don’t want to support these practices from an Ethical standpoint, and am much more likely to give up Game Dev entirely than switch to another engine.

[@WebstersYouTube]

I could certainly see someone raising a legal challenge if they tried to class revenue as being before the storefront takes its cut. Also, they're still saying the same user installing on three different devices counts as three? I can see that getting a lot of pushback. "We say you had 300,000 installs." "Funny, because I've only sold 3,000 copies."

[@genericuser1546]

@@WebstersKZbin As I understand it initially they said that for every install you'd have to pay the fee, irregardless of which device or how many times the game was installed previously. They then walked that back to only counting the first install per device. On the part about what the announcement called "total revenue" they say this: > Total revenue is calculated without deduction, including any relevant digital > store fees.

[@GouShin1]

I'm also sticking to Unity, I thought about Godot but after playing with it for the last couple of months I already saw glaring issues... 1:) C# implementation isn't that great, 2:) Physics is.. barely usable, 3:) GDscript is just GML 2.0

[@stonythewoke9921]

You spread misleading information in your video. Your analogy that you have to suddenly pay 5 Euros for every 100km you drive in a car you purchased years ago is not at all even close to what those Unity policy changes mean. In fact people who bought games won't be affected by this in any way. And developers don't have to pay concurrent fees like the one you descibed (5 Euros for each 100km they drive) either. In fact it is a one time payment, no concurrent fee. Compare this to Unreal Engine where developers actually have to pay substantial concurrent fees for any revenue they make for a game they developed.

[@WebstersYouTube]

I disagree. I go to lengths to show the maths and my workings out. I even conclude that the Unity Runtime Fee is reasonable and encourage people to compare it to Unreal's 5% royalties at over $1,000,000 setup.

[@stonythewoke9921]

@@WebstersKZbin I was talking about your misleading analogy, which you just failed to address. I'm not saying your whole video is misleading. Tho talking about it, you did actually use wrong numbers in many of your calculations, and while you acknowledged the error with an onscreen text, you didn't bother to fix your major errors in the tables you show and your voice over. You could have fixed all this before uploading, or even prevented this by doing accurate research before you produced the video. All this being said, I appreciate you responding in a civil manner, and also for making a video thats actually alot more accurate and fair than 90% of what other youtubers fabricated on this topic in the last few days. My criticism should just help you do better in future, and not hurt you.

[@Saerthen]

​@@WebstersKZbin It might be insignificant for games that cost $50-70 per copy. But if you make a small game and try selling it for less than 8$, the impact will be more significant than Unreal's 5% revenue share. And if your game is free to play, everything becomes complicated.

[@WebstersYouTube]

@@Saerthen I can only see discouraging free to play games as a good thing.

[@Saerthen]

@@WebstersKZbin It will have the opposite effect on free-to-play games in general. More ads, more purchases, more predatory monetization. Other kinds of free games (ones you can actually enjoy without paying) won't be viable. So, ho, it's not a good thing. It'll encourage the market to have more games like FIFA and fewer games like Vampire Survivors.

[@jeffreyjumisko5165]

Thanks for the voice of reason. I felt this was getting blown out of proportion, and it truly is. I do think this is meant to drive successful indie developers to buy a license. In the mean time, I will remain with Unity. I am grateful that I can use it for FREE, have bucket loads of tutorials, a thriving asset store and a developer community from which to draw upon. I would never give up the years of learning C# and Unity Engine to start all over with Godot. That is certainly not worthwhile for the pittance they are asking IF my games ever get popular at all.

[@RossonAaronTogether]

You are awesome! Do you want to do a collab about our history with video games

[@mickaelgodard]

Very good analysis with a cool head, I hope your video goes viral and shows that while Unity is not a trustable company (who has questionable communication methods), the bigger problem has been the dramatic emotional reaction of the community, as usual. People weren't hurt, but now many are under stress for... nothing. And not really because of Unity.

[@tonywars]

It has only gotten much, much worse as of now.

[@Saerthen]

There is a reason for such a reaction. We're living in times when outrage or organized boycott seems to be the only working instruments that can put at least some pressure on big companies. Because reasonable dialogue is considered to be an outdated option. So, people use the only tool they think they have in this situation. And it did some good. The first version of the announcement stated that all reinstalls will be billed. They changed that one only because of the outrage. I think they will finally retract the "retroactive" part and move from per-install to a classic revenue share, like Unreal. That will be a good result for everyone, including Unity. But the fact that they actually tried that kind of change in the first place hurts the long-term trust significantly.

[@mickaelgodard]

@@Saerthen Thanks for your answer, nice to have a constructive discussion. There was a post on linkedin of someone who did the maths, and rev share is more expensive for devs than what unity proposes. I believe there were problems in their first propositions because lot of cases were not explained. Where it is now is more acceptable. I still dont like the CEO and where the company is at. But that's nowhere as bad as people try to make it looks like. I don't agree that people do only outrage because this is the only thing that works. I don't think people have this amount of self awareness when they are all emotional. And even if it would be the only thing that works, it's not worth it because in that instance, the outrage created more stress than the actual problem. Outrage is the default mob behavior and it's a problem by itself.

[@Saerthen]

​@@mickaelgodard Well, in my opinion, all outrage is totally justified in this situation. It even does not matter if you are well below the threshold or far beyond it. Unity trying to retroactively change the rules, going as far as taking down their GitHub repository, created for tracking license changes, is enough already. They need to be taken to court by those companies in the market who can afford such battles. And insider trading also needs to be investigated. I spent the past 6 years working with Unity on different projects, and I care for this engine. But it should be called out when someone in the industry does something illegal (like a retroactive change of license) and immoral (like not honoring part promises). Otherwise, things like this will become an industry standard.

[@dm1199]

@@mickaelgodard i agree on the thing that outrage is more emotional than like a tool but this outrage is 100% unity s horrible comunication fault, You are charging an overcomplicated way of fee and you post it on twitter full of holes,where a lot of ppl thougt it was games apocalyse. This is entirely unitys stupidity s and lazynes fault because you are bringing a BIG change maybe not monetary wise but on the way you calculate, and not taking the job of explaining it properly. I would say theres no other thing expectable but a huge outrage. If unity changes were lets say 7% of revenue i bet outrage would be less. Now unitys trust is shattered