Unity planning on charging developers *by individual installation* in the near future.

[Krougal]

The big issue for us as consumers is that reinstalls don't make the company any money.

They only make money off the purchase.

So now if they are going to be charged for the reinstallation, they are either going to find a way to pass those costs along to us or just make it more difficult for us to reinstall (like not maintaining free easy downloads).

Also since the GOG installer is self-contained and supposedly free of DRM (one of their main marketing points) I just don't see how they are going to start tracking that without doing some dirty stuff.

[t3hp0larbear]

I've been watching this unfold, and my latest take on the situation is that us as end users analyzing the potential costs devs will incur or trying to determine who exactly is going to be affected by this is missing the forest for the trees. The bottom line is that Unity Technologies is attempting to do something that is questionably legal at best by rug-pulling literally their entire client base and suddenly deciding to charge for things that were not agreed upon or considered by either party when contracts were signed. Even if the fees themselves aren't retroactive, this still affects any Unity-based product back to whenever they started integrating the telemetry into the runtime. This is absolutely not kosher and frankly I won't be surprised if Unity gets sued into the ground for pulling this.

 

I still wonder how TFP will be handling this situation, if Unity doesn't walk back this dumpster fire of a decision. 7 Days has already been in alpha for years and has been getting closer and closer in recent years to looking like a finished title, there is no jumping to a different engine at this point.

[dsZombiex]

11 hours ago, FramFramson said:

 

Notice their Revenue and Profit are within industry standards, and yet they're losing near a billion every year - everyone should start asking where in the hell that two billion is going every year.

 

Expenses. They're a horribly bloated company. For example if we look at Epic Games, they have around ~2200 employees (2022 est). Unity Software Inc however has roughly ~7700 employees (2022 est).

[dsZombiex]

4 hours ago, t3hp0larbear said:

... rug-pulling literally their entire client base and suddenly deciding to charge for things that were not agreed upon or considered by either party when contracts were signed. Even if the fees themselves aren't retroactive, this still affects any Unity-based product back to whenever they started integrating the telemetry into the runtime...

 

Because they're gonna go bankrupt. Not that this is going to help... But it's something to think about. How will Unity devs handle it when Unity goes down and they can't get support anymore?

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by dsZombiex
clarity, typos (see edit history)

[FramFramson]

11 hours ago, dsZombiex said:

 

Expenses. They're a horribly bloated company. For example if we look at Epic Games, they have around ~2200 employees (2022 est). Unity Software Inc however has roughly ~7700 employees (2022 est).

 

Yes, so what does having that many employees do. That's an insane number of employees for an engine developer. WTF

[Tom Stephens]

Well, this is weird.  I'm having problems playing the game, now, partly because I don't know if it has a future.  And I'm having this weird moral issue even looking at the game knowing what kind of creatures the owners of the engine are.

 

It would be nice to hear from TFP about this, how they plan to manage it.  It could help.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Tom Stephens
Edited for splelleing (see edit history)

[meganoth]

1 hour ago, Tom Stephens said:

Well, this is weird.  I'm having problems playing the game, now, partly because I don't know if it has a future.  And I'm having this weird moral issue even looking at the game knowing what kind of creatures the owners of the engine are.

 

It would be nice to hear from TFP about this, how they plan to manage it.  It could help.

 

( Note: I am not speaking for TFP)

 

But I want to mention that if you boycott this game (after already having bought it) because of what Unity does or because of the future, you are only punishing yourself, and maybe TFP a little. Nobody else will notice, especially not Unity.

 

[Tom Stephens]

22 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

( Note: I am not speaking for TFP)

 

But I want to mention that if you boycott this game (after already having bought it) because of what Unity does or because of the future, you are only punishing yourself, and maybe TFP a little. Nobody else will notice, especially not Unity.

 

 

Agreed, to some extent.  I think the word "boycott" is a distraction.  The problem is, where does a game fit in your priorities if you suspect it has no future?  Unity appears to be in a death spiral, demanding more money for a product they can less support, and doing it in a way that screams "we've been planning this for a while but didn't want our customers knowing about it".  Anything tied to that better be super-buoyant, if know what I mean.

 

Hence the 'weird', hence the glance to TFP.  Who knows, maybe they did see this coming and do have an option to exercise.

[The_Great_Sephiroth]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

 

( Note: I am not speaking for TFP)

 

But I want to mention that if you boycott this game (after already having bought it) because of what Unity does or because of the future, you are only punishing yourself, and maybe TFP a little. Nobody else will notice, especially not Unity.

 

Yeah, I am not boycotting any of the great Unity games out there. 7 Days, The Long Dark, Subnautica 1 and 2, The Forest and Sons of The Forest, Thief Simulator and American Theft 80's, Firewatch, Kona, Party Hard and PH2, and so many more. My concern now is if these games will be removed from my library should the companies go away.

[Kazgrel]

Would be nice to have an official word on how this whole shindig will affect 7 Days going forward, but I suspect TFP and other devs have likely lawyered up at this point if Unity shows no sign of walking their decision back.  I would hope this whole thing doesn't end up putting 7 Days going gold into jeopardy.

 

One things for sure; I'm keeping my install in place and may make a backup copy in event the game is removed from Steam (even temporarily).

 

Sorry if this is fear monger-ish, especially since it's mostly baseless speculation on my end.  Simply want to see this game through to the finish and not have it cut short by a monumentally stupid decision by Unity.  TFP has had enough fun with the whole Telltale/console debacle.  Wouldn't have wished this @%$# on them or any other dev.

[dsZombiex]

5 hours ago, Tom Stephens said:

Well, this is weird.  I'm having problems playing the game, now, partly because I don't know if it has a future.  And I'm having this weird moral issue even looking at the game knowing what kind of creatures the owners of the engine are.

 

It would be nice to hear from TFP about this, how they plan to manage it.  It could help.

 

I understand how you'd feel that way. However I think TFP has proven that they're dedicated to making this game happen so I think it'll be ok.

[meganoth]

8 hours ago, Tom Stephens said:

 

Agreed, to some extent.  I think the word "boycott" is a distraction.  The problem is, where does a game fit in your priorities if you suspect it has no future? 

 

I had problems understanding your position because with "future" I thought you meant something like upwards of 2 years from now. But I just realized you probably meant something like "Can I still continue my game in 4 months when I start a new world now?"

 

Well, I can't forsee the future, but:

 

* TFP is definitely in Unity's pro or enterprise support, so they will pay much less than the 20 cent per installation. 

 

* Even with a cash grab like that nobody in his sane mind would try to (immediately) kill the geese that are laying the golden eggs for them. So while this move may possibly kill off very small indie studios or some other special cases where a high charge because of many installs meets low cash reserves (small smartphone game developers are probably one of the corner cases), the charges are surely set up so successful games have no difficulty paying those charges. 

 

* If TFP had any reasons to believe selling the game would leave them no profit after deducing the Unity charges they could always as a last resort declare the game finished, i.e. release it, and stop selling of the game. But since they still want to sell new games they have to stay on the good side of the players, so they would not switch off the possibility to play the game. By making it "abandonware" they could then also prevent paying any charges to Unity. But this is only a worst case scenario.

And if I had to guess I would say any successful PC game developer (who is not creating free-to-play smartphone games) would be able to pay even the 20 cent charge per installation easily.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Tom Stephens]

That third option you outline would be consistent with Unity suddenly folding in the next two quarters and leaving the engine in legal and support limbo.  Although there could be an extreme case of that that even prevents people installing as abandonware while Unity's assets get sorted out (fees owed being among those).

 

I've actually seen it happen to businesses, complete with late-night shredding and moving-out sessions.  Come to think of it, if you wanted to clear out the offices for a mid-day shredding session, you might call in a death threat of some kind...

[Roland]

The future of this game is not in jeopardy no matter what ends up happening with Unity's new pricing. TFP won't call the game finished as it is and cease all work on it. This game is their dream and they are 100% committed to finishing it when it is done as well as supporting it for years afterward. TFP already made the decision to use Unreal for their next game long before this announcement came out. So in the near future things are just fine with regards to getting this game done, and in the long term things will be just fine with regards to sequels and future projects since they won't be using Unity.

 

 

[FinkPloyd]

4 hours ago, meganoth said:

* TFP is definitely in Unity's pro or enterprise support, so they will pay much less than the 20 cent per installation. 

 

 

The pricing for pro and enterprise is based on installs per month, Enterprise is between US$0.125 for under 100K to US$0.01 for > 1 mill (Pro is more expensive).

 

Depending on how the 'installs per month' is estimated by Unity it could cost TFP an extra US$10k per release.

 

That might have an affect on new releases / updates.

 

As a dev I would be very annoyed that a 3rd party vendor I had committed to was changing the billing so dramatically years into the SDLC, without any way to avoid the increase and without accurate accounting of the new billing charges.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by FinkPloyd
clarity (see edit history)

[meganoth]

5 hours ago, FinkPloyd said:

The pricing for pro and enterprise is based on installs per month, Enterprise is between US$0.125 for under 100K to US$0.01 for > 1 mill (Pro is more expensive).

 

Depending on how the 'installs per month' is estimated by Unity it could cost TFP an extra US$10k per release.

 

That might have an affect on new releases / updates.

 

I would consider 10k as marginal for a developer like TFP. Any one of their employees costs them 4 to 10 times as much each year. It will not prevent them from doing releases they consider neccessary. Furthermore Unity already seemed to have backed off from charging for reinstalls (though nothing is set in stone yet it seems). And normally patching a game does not count as reinstall anyway.

 

Again, Unity's move is about getting some more money, but they know they have to keep the games developers operating if they want to earn money from them. They want a bigger slice of the cake but they know they can't have all the cake and still have customers as well.

 

5 hours ago, FinkPloyd said:

As a dev I would be very annoyed that a 3rd party vendor I had committed to was changing the billing so dramatically years into the SDLC, without any way to avoid the increase and without accurate accounting of the new billing charges.

 

You can bet everyone of their customers is annoyed that they suddenly have to pay new unexpected charges. But you don't operate a successful bussiness by holding grudges and doing fights to the death. You may reduce dealings to a minimum with companies that prove unreliable and ask a lawyer what options you have in court. You surely will check your options what is the most cost effective way to still do what you want. And you will take that option even if it means continued dealings with that unreliable company.

 

 

[BFT2020]

1 hour ago, meganoth said:

You can bet everyone of their customers is annoyed that they suddenly have to pay new unexpected charges. But you don't operate a successful bussiness by holding grudges and doing fights to the death. You may reduce dealings to a minimum with companies that prove unreliable and ask a lawyer what options you have in court. You surely will check your options what is the most cost effective way to still do what you want. And you will take that option even if it means continued dealings with that unreliable company.

 

True, but we are already seeing responses to this business model change.  Some developers have already started looking into the process of moving to Unreal with their current game developments, others have stated that future games will be moved towards Unreal, and some have even as gone as far as removing the Unity Ad framework from their games.

 

Unity may make some initial money with this change (based on what the lawyers hash out), but I think this will end up biting them in the rear in the long run; especially for developers that are currently working on games and won't be able to release it prior to January 2024.

[Tom Stephens]

2 hours ago, meganoth said:

 

even if it means continued dealings with that unreliable company.

 

 

 

Maybe not "unreliable", maybe actually untrustworthy.  

 

The install fees in some form are understandable, from a certain point of view.  And maybe there were smarter ways to raise revenue.  But surreptitiously back-editing away past promises in their TOS indicates they knew they were doing something of dubious character, because the back-editing itself is of such character.  And I still have to learn more about their association with advertising and gambling (avarice and vice?).

 

The other thing I've seen attend such behavior in my 60 years is collapse.  When companies (especially smaller ones, but not just) are close to failing, they do some odd things.  Sometimes prosecutable things.

 

One thing that's on my mind is how this will affect modding the game.  I notice some use Unity assets.  I also notice mods can double the life of a game.  What wins out here?

[meganoth]

9 minutes ago, BFT2020 said:

 

True, but we are already seeing responses to this business model change.  Some developers have already started looking into the process of moving to Unreal with their current game developments, others have stated that future games will be moved towards Unreal, and some have even as gone as far as removing the Unity Ad framework from their games.

 

Unity may make some initial money with this change (based on what the lawyers hash out), but I think this will end up biting them in the rear in the long run; especially for developers that are currently working on games and won't be able to release it prior to January 2024.

 

Note that the most severe reactions come from developers with millions of free-to-play smartphone installs where the bussiness model is to give out the game to the whole world and let a small percentage of players pay. A fee per installation is poison for such a model and it is no surprise that those developers have immediately launched every available ICBM 😉.

 

Other developers are just not hit that hard that they would enter a state of panic.

 

 

 

 

[meganoth]

10 minutes ago, Tom Stephens said:

 

Maybe not "unreliable", maybe actually untrustworthy.  

 

The install fees in some form are understandable, from a certain point of view.  And maybe there were smarter ways to raise revenue.  But surreptitiously back-editing away past promises in their TOS indicates they knew they were doing something of dubious character, because the back-editing itself is of such character.  And I still have to learn more about their association with advertising and gambling (avarice and vice?).

 

The other thing I've seen attend such behavior in my 60 years is collapse.  When companies (especially smaller ones, but not just) are close to failing, they do some odd things.  Sometimes prosecutable things.

 

One thing that's on my mind is how this will affect modding the game.  I notice some use Unity assets.  I also notice mods can double the life of a game.  What wins out here?

 

Once the company folds either their property is bought up or a bankruptcy court takes over. In both cases whoever calls the shots wants to get money flowing again. He can only get money out of unity code and asset store if he gives game developers and modders a chance to actually use them.

 

AFAIK most of the assets in an asset store are not property of Unity anyway, they just operate the store. So I don't see a reason why a bought asset would suddenly not be usable anymore.

 

 

[meganoth]

Hehe, just read one of the best replies, from Mega Crit the slay the spire developer: ""we have never made a public statement before. That is how badly you @%$#ed up."

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[BFT2020]

6 minutes ago, meganoth said:

Note that the most severe reactions come from developers with millions of free-to-play smartphone installs where the bussiness model is to give out the game to the whole world and let a small percentage of players pay. A fee per installation is poison for such a model and it is no surprise that those developers have immediately launched every available ICBM 😉.

 

Other developers are just not hit that hard that they would enter a state of panic.

 

True.

 

There are a lot of unknowns.  Even if I was an established developer, I would find it hard to accept that Unity will be informing me how much I owe them based on data they are not willing to share with me.  If I was getting a bill for installs, I would want to understand specifically how that number was established.  Without that knowledge, the developers are having to "trust" what Unity is telling them.

 

There is also the issue with Early access and what constitutes a new install that would be charged.  When A21 dropped, I installed it.  I also went back to A20 and A19, then returned back to A21.  If those are each considered a new install, that would be 4 installs.  At the highest rate level for Unity Pro, that would be an expense of $0.60 for TFP (using the highest rate just as an example).  Even though $0.60 is nothing (I got that loose change in my car), for me it becomes more principle than the actual expense.

 

Throw in the fact that some people are not very trusting of the Unity CEO and some of the things he has said in the past, people are going to assume the worst about this rollout, especially since it was not very clear when it was released in the public space (might have been a better rollout to the developers internally).

 

I think we will be seeing more information come out after the initial rollout was bungled.  I am hoping Unity proves me wrong on some of my thoughts, though I am not a game developer so it is mostly just curiosity on my part than anything else.

[Krougal]

32 minutes ago, BFT2020 said:

 

True.

 

There are a lot of unknowns.  Even if I was an established developer, I would find it hard to accept that Unity will be informing me how much I owe them based on data they are not willing to share with me.  If I was getting a bill for installs, I would want to understand specifically how that number was established.  Without that knowledge, the developers are having to "trust" what Unity is telling them.

 

There is also the issue with Early access and what constitutes a new install that would be charged.  When A21 dropped, I installed it.  I also went back to A20 and A19, then returned back to A21.  If those are each considered a new install, that would be 4 installs.  At the highest rate level for Unity Pro, that would be an expense of $0.60 for TFP (using the highest rate just as an example).  Even though $0.60 is nothing (I got that loose change in my car), for me it becomes more principle than the actual expense.

 

Throw in the fact that some people are not very trusting of the Unity CEO and some of the things he has said in the past, people are going to assume the worst about this rollout, especially since it was not very clear when it was released in the public space (might have been a better rollout to the developers internally).

 

I think we will be seeing more information come out after the initial rollout was bungled.  I am hoping Unity proves me wrong on some of my thoughts, though I am not a game developer so it is mostly just curiosity on my part than anything else.

Well everyone seems to be skipping over the fact that at the moment, Unity has no clue how many actual installs you are doing. They are extrapolating data; AKA "pulling it out of their arses"

Granted I am sure Steam would be happy to start furnishing that data to them, especially for a piece of the action.

Advertising alone payed for the age of TV, but the information age is all about selling people's data.

[meganoth]

A german games magazine did ask a lawyer now. To summarize: Changing the rules on already published games is only possible if the "specific rules of changing" are already a part of the contract and don't constitute unfair practices. Since it is highly unlikely that such terms would be already included in old contracts that Untiy used up to now, games companies would have excellent chances in courts. Also, since Unity has a dominant market position together with Epic (oligopoly) this would even bring antitrust authorities into action.

 

And at least in Europe getting the relevant data for their installation estimations would be either expensive or impossible with current privacy laws.

 

In other news: Unity pedaled back and said it would rethink their approach. Needless to say they want and probably need to increase prices somehow. We'll see what they come up with, but I think they have got a lot of bugs reports for their current plan 😉

 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2023 by meganoth (see edit history)

[YourMirror]

Quote

Editor’s note (Sept. 17, 2023): We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

 

 

You can store your torches and hayforks again.