The Unity engine has always had a bit of a rocky reputation, what with
it being seen as less capable and poorer optimized than its
competitors, and the engine-of-choice for a lot of really low-quality
titles. For some gamers, the use of the Unity engine was reason enough
to avoid a game. But among small developers, it was increasingly
popular thanks to its generous licensing fees (free for tiny
developers, a per-seat fee that only charged you for each developer
using your tools). This was far better than many of its competitors,
which charged you a royalty from each sale; it was generous to
start-up independents and had a predictable pricing model. The CEO
famously said: "No royalties, no fucking around. We're not
nickel-and-diming people, and we're not charging them a royalty. When
we say it's free, it's free."

Well, that's all over. Unity has decided to change their pricing
structure, and these changes aren't sitting well with their customers
and fans.

The biggest upset is a change to a per-install model. Essentially,
Unity now claims that every install - not every sale, but every time a
game is installed - will cost the developer anywhere from $0.01 to
$0.15 USD. And yes, that means EACH and EVERY install. A customer buys
a game, installs it on his machine. That's 15 cents. He then
uninstalls it, does other stuff, then comes back a few months later?
That's another 15 cents. Five years later, the game gets reinstalled a
third time? Another fee. Installing the same game on multiple
machines? Each installation costs the developer.

Worse, Unity says these fees can be applied retroactively for games
already sold. If you are still using Unity after Jan 1 2024 (when this
new fee structure comes into effect), then any game you made that uses
the Unity engine - even if it was released ten years ago - will have
these fees applied to it.

So, yeah, developers aren't happy.

But end-user gamers should be upset too, because Unity's change will
basically KILL freebies for Unity-based games. If each install costs
the developer, giving away a game for free is going to be
prohibitively expensive. Charity bundles are right out too, for the
same reason. Even streaming services are less likely to offer
Unity-based games, since they're the ones who'll get hit with the
'per-install' fee.

Plus, Unity's ability to monitor down to the per-install level (which
is possible because - thanks to their acquisition of IronSource - the
engine now does a lot of 'phoning home' to Unity just for this
purpose.

Unity seems taken aback by the resistance to these plans, but - other
than some half-hearted promises - seems keen on following through. Oh,
did you know Unity's current CEO is John Riccitiello, formerly of EA,
and famous for the acquisition and murder of many classic development
houses? A lot of EA's bad reputation stems from his term in office
there. I guess he wasn't satisfied with staining just ONE company.

Whatever you think of Unity-the-engine, it has been used in a lot of
popular and well-made games ("Timberborn", "Cuphead", "Phoenix Point", "Shipbreaker", "Untitled Goose Game", "Overcooked 2", "Shadow
Tactics", "Superhot" and "Wasteland 2" are just a handful) and helped
create the Indie movement. Without Unity, the quality of Indie games
probably would not have been as good as it has, and Indie games would
not have reached such popularity.

Even though there are alternatives - Unreal Engine, of course, and
open-source engine Godot, as two examples - there are a lot of tools
and tutorials designed with the Unity engine in mind made to help the
Indie developer start creating new games. So a new pricing structure
that discourages Indie developers from using Unity will likely
discourage them from developing games entirely. It's a short-sighted
move by Unity that benefits no-one: not Unity-the-company, not the
developers who depend on their product, nor the end-users who play the
games.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 14.09.23 um 15:38 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

Even though there are alternatives - Unreal Engine, of course, and open-source engine Godot, as two examples - there are a lot of tools
and tutorials designed with the Unity engine in mind made to help the
Indie developer start creating new games. So a new pricing structure
that discourages Indie developers from using Unity will likely
discourage them from developing games entirely. It's a short-sighted
move by Unity that benefits no-one: not Unity-the-company, not the
developers who depend on their product, nor the end-users who play the
games.

Uups you beat me to it, if I had seen you also started a thread on this...
Does not help that their CEO is a micro transaction loving POS... who
had brilliant ideas at EA like charging users per loading screen or for
bullet reloads in shooters!

Either way Unity even if they row back have burned a ton of bridges and probably most small projects in the future are better off with something
like Godot anyway, which lacks the assets unity has, but that is a
solvable problem bigger scope projects also can move upwards to unreal
which has a more solid business and license model and a more reliable
(despite having a half whacko at the helm) customer relationship than
unity ever had!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:38:52 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The Unity engine has always had a bit of a rocky reputation, what with

Your header tells me that continued exposure to Rin might not be
beneficial for you.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:07:53 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

Am 14.09.23 um 15:38 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

Even though there are alternatives - Unreal Engine, of course, and
open-source engine Godot, as two examples - there are a lot of tools
and tutorials designed with the Unity engine in mind made to help the
Indie developer start creating new games. So a new pricing structure
that discourages Indie developers from using Unity will likely
discourage them from developing games entirely. It's a short-sighted
move by Unity that benefits no-one: not Unity-the-company, not the
developers who depend on their product, nor the end-users who play the
games.

Uups you beat me to it, if I had seen you also started a thread on this...

Actually, I think your post came first. Unfortunately, I hadn't
refreshed the newsgroup prior to posting my sermon, so we got
duplicates ;-)

TL;DR: Everybody should respond to Werner P's post rather than mine.
Even /if/ my post does have the more exciting subject line ;-)

Does not help that their CEO is a micro transaction loving POS... who
had brilliant ideas at EA like charging users per loading screen or for >bullet reloads in shooters!

Actually, I think it was Wilson who was the MTX-CEO; Riccitiello came
before him. Wilson started at EA working in EA Sports and made a name
for himself shoving as many micro transactions into FIFA as he could;
the profits that made EA are why he got the big seat after Riccitiello
stepped down.

Although the particular examples you cited may be Riccitiello's. I
just associate MTX more with Wilson.

Either way Unity even if they row back have burned a ton of bridges and >probably most small projects in the future are better off with something
like Godot anyway, which lacks the assets unity has, but that is a
solvable problem bigger scope projects also can move upwards to unreal
which has a more solid business and license model and a more reliable >(despite having a half whacko at the helm) customer relationship than
unity ever had!

Godot, from what I understand, is far behind in capabilities, assets
and documentation. It's not really a drop-in replacement for Unity
(much less something like Unreal). Using it will probably be - in the
short term - more expensive and more difficult for new developers, if
only because it'll take longer to create games with the engine than
the better supported Unity. It's a common problem with open-source
products. But hopefully it will grow and improve to the point where it
IS a feasible replacement. But it's not quite there yet.

Regardless, Unity's move is pretty short-sighted and not well thought
out (they've since backtracked a bit, saying "charity" bundles will be
exempt, and (maybe?) multiple installs on the same computer... but
they apparently hadn't given these ideas any thought before hand. It
all feels like a desperate attempt to pump up the value of the company
before an IPO or purchase, and not something intended to really
strengthen the company.

There are shades of Reddit and Hasbro/D&D shenanigans going on here.
Those companies too tossed away a lot of trust and loyalty of their
customers in the chase of a quick buck.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 9/14/2023 12:47 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 16:07:53 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

Am 14.09.23 um 15:38 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:

Even though there are alternatives - Unreal Engine, of course, and
open-source engine Godot, as two examples - there are a lot of tools
and tutorials designed with the Unity engine in mind made to help the
Indie developer start creating new games. So a new pricing structure
that discourages Indie developers from using Unity will likely
discourage them from developing games entirely. It's a short-sighted
move by Unity that benefits no-one: not Unity-the-company, not the
developers who depend on their product, nor the end-users who play the
games.

Uups you beat me to it, if I had seen you also started a thread on this...

Actually, I think your post came first. Unfortunately, I hadn't
refreshed the newsgroup prior to posting my sermon, so we got
duplicates ;-)

TL;DR: Everybody should respond to Werner P's post rather than mine.
Even /if/ my post does have the more exciting subject line ;-)

Does not help that their CEO is a micro transaction loving POS... who
had brilliant ideas at EA like charging users per loading screen or for
bullet reloads in shooters!

Actually, I think it was Wilson who was the MTX-CEO; Riccitiello came
before him. Wilson started at EA working in EA Sports and made a name
for himself shoving as many micro transactions into FIFA as he could;
the profits that made EA are why he got the big seat after Riccitiello stepped down.

Although the particular examples you cited may be Riccitiello's. I
just associate MTX more with Wilson.

Either way Unity even if they row back have burned a ton of bridges and
probably most small projects in the future are better off with something
like Godot anyway, which lacks the assets unity has, but that is a
solvable problem bigger scope projects also can move upwards to unreal
which has a more solid business and license model and a more reliable
(despite having a half whacko at the helm) customer relationship than
unity ever had!

Godot, from what I understand, is far behind in capabilities, assets
and documentation. It's not really a drop-in replacement for Unity
(much less something like Unreal). Using it will probably be - in the
short term - more expensive and more difficult for new developers, if
only because it'll take longer to create games with the engine than
the better supported Unity. It's a common problem with open-source
products. But hopefully it will grow and improve to the point where it
IS a feasible replacement. But it's not quite there yet.

Regardless, Unity's move is pretty short-sighted and not well thought
out (they've since backtracked a bit, saying "charity" bundles will be exempt, and (maybe?) multiple installs on the same computer... but
they apparently hadn't given these ideas any thought before hand. It
all feels like a desperate attempt to pump up the value of the company
before an IPO or purchase, and not something intended to really
strengthen the company.

There are shades of Reddit and Hasbro/D&D shenanigans going on here.
Those companies too tossed away a lot of trust and loyalty of their
customers in the chase of a quick buck.

End of September would be end of quarter with a quarterly report for the board....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 14.09.23 um 16:51 schrieb Zaghadka:

On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 09:38:52 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

The Unity engine has always had a bit of a rocky reputation, what with

Your header tells me that continued exposure to Rin might not be
beneficial for you.

After reading some forum comments by smaller devs. The bigger problem
than even the install issue (which happens after the game has earned
200.000 USD per year which many do not reach) is and this is even more
serious, from now onwards Unity basically allows itselfs due to the new
terms of service to be ablke the aspect of the contracts retroactively
aka, in 5 years they can lower the threshold to 10k and given the piracy
this might drive small studios into the abyss.
So there is no security anymore for small devs that they wont be driven
out of business by using unity.
And thats an even more serious issue which basically goes a little bit
under the radar of the entire discussion!

How much this would hold up in court is another question, but how much
can a small dev afford to go against a company with big pockets.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 14/09/2023 20:47, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

There are shades of Reddit and Hasbro/D&D shenanigans going on here.
Those companies too tossed away a lot of trust and loyalty of their
customers in the chase of a quick buck.

WoTC did seem to shot themselves in the foot with their new licence
proposals. Yes, they basically backed down but if you look at something
like Critical Role, that seems to have made the decision easier to
possibly move away from D&D.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)