Welp, guess it’s time to uninstall Unity
Unity adding a fee for devs for each time a game is installed, after certain thresholds
Submitted 1 year ago by lazycouchpotato@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/unity-adding-a-fee-for-each-time-a-game-is-installed
Comments
pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
SamboT@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That’ll be $10.
pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
You know, at some point Microsoft and Apple are going to enable developers to charge people to uninstall their software, and that’ll be the driving force that finally forces the public o adopt Linux en masse.
NecoArcKbinAccount@kbin.social 1 year ago
Switch to Godot or FTEQW, screw Unity.
ICastFist@programming.dev 1 year ago
FTEQW
Quake world engine. Huh, wasn’t aware of that one! Speaking of which, you can do all sorts of silly stuff with Doom sourceports, so that’s also a valid alternative.
ICastFist@programming.dev 1 year ago
For Unity Personal and Unity Plus users, the thresholds are $200,000 in revenue a year and 200,000 lifetime installs.
The fees also vary, with Unity Personal developers having to pay the most for every install above the threshold ($0.20)
So, if you get 200k lifetime installs but don’t get the 200k revenue a year, you don’t have to pay it?
Existing games built on Unity will also be hit with Runtime Fees if they meet the thresholds starting January 1.
OOOHOOOOO BOY, now, that’s going to hurt a fair amount of people!
Also, what about web play? I guess that’ll only count towards revenue, but not towards downloads?
wax@lemmy.wtf 1 year ago
If their licencing agreement permits retroactive changes like this, that is reason enough to gtfo
ICastFist@programming.dev 1 year ago
I sure feel glad to never have gotten into developing with it. When I saw that a blank project generated a ~231MB executable back in 4.1 or so, I simply ditched it.
Licenses that allow retroactive changes are terrible for the end user, fuck up the company’s image and might give a significant boost to competition. Hasbro trying to pull that shit with DnD earlier this year comes to mind.
Syndic@feddit.de 1 year ago
I’m pretty sure that even if the license agreement does have such language that it won’t uphold in court. And there are enough big companies using Unity for this to go to court if they try to come to collect.
I mean seriously, if that would be legally possible, nothing would prevent them from uping the charge to $10, $20 or even $100 per installation, applied retroactively.
trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
I think they have the web play question in their FAQ somewhere and it does include as a download. There’s no real way to know how their telemetry is calculating this though.
trustnoone@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Q: Does this affect WebGL and streamed games? A: Games on all platforms are eligible for the fee but will only incur costs if both the install and revenue thresholds are crossed. Installs - which involves initialization of the runtime on a client device - are counted on all platforms the same way (WebGL and streaming included
Raz@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Wanna bet he secretly has a bunch of Epic Games stock?
Lemminary@lemmy.world 1 year ago
They did sell their stock before this shit so I wouldn’t be surprised
Raz@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Looks like they know very well what they are doing. This seems illegal, but we all know they get away with it.
MooseBoys@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Starting January 1, a Unity Runtime Fee will be charged to any game that has passed a revenue threshold in the past year and a lifetime install count.
Still shitty, but at least the fee only applies if you’ve already hit the revenue threshold. Maybe this is an ill-conceived effort to raise the floor on game prices (or price out low-cost ones)? A $60 game can afford a 20-cent extra fee a few dozen times. A 99-cent game is a non-starter though.
BURN@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s exactly what this is. They want to price out the $3-$5 games that unity is primarily used for. They make no revenue from those since the revenue threshold never gets hit.
They’ll almost certainly lower the revenue threshold next too
colonial@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I can’t decide if they’ll get away with this or if they’re committing corporate suicide.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
And that’s why we need more than one standard
smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
[deleted]HawlSera@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Play an AAA game in the past… 10,000 years?
scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 1 year ago
This makes sense to me, it looks like it’s $0.20 for each install, only if
- you have passed a threshold of installs
- you yourself are charging for your game
Which, I know Lemmy has issues with proprietary software, but if you are charging for your software and it’s built off this, I don’t think $0.20 is too much to pay them. Unreal takes a percentage I believe, sounds like this is a “keep the lights on” charge.
Justdaveisfine@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There are a lot of cases where this might suck if you’re a full time Unity dev. Getting on Gamepass was already a bit dicey as it cannibalizes sales, but now you got an extra Unity tax on that.
Give a bunch of keys to a charity auction? Guess you’re paying extra. Got a demo that’s doing wonders on Steam NextFest? Those are installs. Is your game being pirated? Those look like installs, gotta pay up.
I don’t think this will bankrupt any dev, but all those above decisions will hurt.
schmidtster@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I think gamepass doesn’t fall under you charging yourself for the game, so those devs may not be affected.
TwilightVulpine@kbin.social 1 year ago
Charging "per install" as opposed to "per sale" will be goddamn awful. At best it might lead to DRM where you'll have a limited number of installs before you lose the game you bought.
neshura@bookwormstory.social 1 year ago
Or more cases of devs saying “Just pirate the game, it’s cheaper for us that way”
makatwork@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Except steam will let you install something infinite times.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Is that really how it works? That seems like a pretty egregious oversight if so, couldn’t groups of people bankrupt devs, especially small ones with small file size games that are easy to reinstall over and over?
PixxlMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s without a doubt not what Unity means here though
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
as already confirmed by others, it is per install, not per sale. Meaning that if you uninstall your game and mhen reinstall it, the dev has to pay twice. You buy the game and install it on your pc, and your steam deck so you can play it whenever you want? developer pays twice.
that sort of thing
Floey@lemm.ee 1 year ago
The model makes no sense.
Consider how it affects $60 AAA games vs close to free $1 games, it’s wildly disproportional and somehow the $1 game dev starts paying significantly earlier. Now consider how it affects games that make far less than a dollar per user, this is true of many free-with-in-game-purchase mobile games.
Then consider demos, refunds, piracy, and advisarial attacks.
It would have been simpler, more balanced approach, and have none of the pitfalls if they had just gone with a profit share scheme.
ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 1 year ago
Sooo… they want Unity games to be built with kill switches from this point forwards. A dev ends support for a game and makes it so that the game can no longer even be installed because otherwise they have to foot a bill.
Fuck younity.
mojo@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That’s pretty awesome of them to do such a great Godot advertisement