So, uh, what's this RPG Maker Unite thing?

[BreakerZero]

You've done this kind of thing before - why? If a forum rule has been broken by someone, you report that person for that rule. But why try to take it upon yourself to say an entire topic should be closed?

Just don't read the freaking thread.

What I mean is that this has strayed too far from the original intentions which is something that we try to avoid, in other words there's a general thing about derailing a conversation that my request to end things and move on was based around (since it's more acceptable to start a separate discussion for another subject than to pile onto something that was intended for an entirely different matter). Granted, it was completely unavoidable in this situation given the severity of what happened (and the fact that it is technically somewhat relevant) but in general this is something that is not exactly 100% acceptable.

That being said, there may be a bit of hope that things may turn around on the matter. Therefore, and regardless of whether or not my request actually does make sense in this situation, I leave you all with this:

https://videogames.si.com/news/unity-apology-reactions

 

[BCj]

You know Unity going bankrupt may also affect Unite, so how's this off-topic again?

 

[AquaEcho]

I was giving insight into why Unity burdened itself with high costs stemming from overhiring and now feel the need to drum up revenue with this fee increase (as well as mass layoffs of the extra staff they took on). It was not out of line with what the entire industry was doing, and the business environment a few years ago was radically different than it is now.

You know Unity going bankrupt may also affect Unite, so how's this off-topic again?

I have no doubt GGG took a bath on Unite after that poor launch and low adoption, even before the Unity fiasco.

 

[SpyroFan67]

RIP Unity 2005-2023.

 

[Ms Littlefish]

Every thread is bound to shift in topic over time, especially large on-going ones with several participants like this one. It still impacts Unite and since the forum doesn’t offer support for Unite, it’s preferable to have a mega thread like this to refer discussion. Getting off topic is really more of a concern if it truly becomes entirely unrelated (especially, especially in support and request threads). Unity does impact Unite, and if there is speculation that overall economic influences have given some amount toward birthing the current Unity situation…then it’s fine.

 

[123edc]

wait, so, we can't talk about uap's and giant jellyfish here ... awww

that said, the direction unity would be going was already somewhat appearent, when they hired that ex-ea guy and choose to partner up with a company, who got a real reputation for all of the malewhare stuff going on around it,

and now that ... so a lot more than just one big red flag ...


though, i'll still stick with my opinion ...
many of the ideas unite tried to make

unlimited / individual tilesheets,
conversion of vroid characters to sprites [even though, i didn't like their style]
prebuilt maps and large objects
the character style in their battler dlc's

are actually quite good,
it's just the execution, that felt way too rushed
like a: hey, manager says deadline, we know, that it isn't presentable, but pr guy said ... kinda thing

ontop of their clear intention, to not communicate (or at least not care about their international community) made the ship dead on arrival

so, back to the gigantic purple jellyfish, where were we?

 

[Storyteller-Hero]

RIP Unity 2005-2023.

Unity has one measure they can use to prevent the engine from largely dying - a perpetual license version with no flat fees that can't be revoked by a new version. Hasbro did something similar during their OGL scandal by putting DnD 5e into Creative Commons.

Otherwise, no investor in their right mind would accept a Unity project pitch when the fees are unpredictable and terms can be changed any time on a whim.

 

[ChamomileHasGames]

I started pivoting away from crowdfunding D&D 5e content when Hasbro tried something similar back in January, and as part of that I started learning Unity, and then this happened so I came here. It's probably not a curse following me, specifically, but maybe start learning Godot just in case.

 

[BCj]

Oh dear, Godot is next

 

[Sword_of_Dusk]

Hopefully not.

 

[SpyroFan67]

Unity has one measure they can use to prevent the engine from largely dying - a perpetual license version with no flat fees that can't be revoked by a new version. Hasbro did something similar during their OGL scandal by putting DnD 5e into Creative Commons.

Otherwise, no investor in their right mind would accept a Unity project pitch when the fees are unpredictable and terms can be changed any time on a whim.

That makes it seem much more likely that to save themselves Unity might decide to do such a thing out of desperation. That does happen a lot when the people working at a company realize that if their company continues such policies they might not have enough money to put food on the table to feed their families.

As far as this sudden policy change, I don't know what the point even is, because it's not like they'll get THAT much more money for doing it, right? Hopefully I'm not wrong. Sometimes I make assumptions that are later proven to be invalid.

 

[ChamomileHasGames]

Unity's move here is definitely stupid, which makes their next move unpredictable. It won't necessarily be something which benefits them. If they need to increase profits and were smart about it, they would've gone with a 5% charge on all profits above $200,000 starting January 1st, 2024. People still wouldn't have liked it, but since it isn't an existential threat to $1 games, they could've ridden out the backlash and ultimately their market hegemony wouldn't have been challenged.

As it stands, people are leaving Unity not just out of outrage, but out of fear that a project might ruin them by being too successful if they don't learn the ins and outs of how Unity plans to charge them starting at $200,000. At 5% of revenue over the threshold, that would be impossible. At $0.20 per install, it's a serious threat for $1 games and could be a major problem even for $3-$5 games in the long run, as new sales drop off but they still get charged every time an old customer reinstalls on a new machine. Unity demanded an essentially random percentage, not even capped at 100%, of revenues, so of course everyone ran screaming. It's a bad business plan and it's a sword of Damocles hanging over your head knowing that a weird abberation in the sales-to-installs ratio could literally bankrupt you at any point in your entire life.

 

[SpyroFan67]

As it stands, people are leaving Unity not just out of outrage, but out of fear that a project might ruin them by being too successful if they don't learn the ins and outs of how Unity plans to charge them starting at $200,000. At 5% of revenue over the threshold, that would be impossible. At $0.20 per install, it's a serious threat for $1 games and could be a major problem even for $3-$5 games in the long run, as new sales drop off but they still get charged every time an old customer reinstalls on a new machine. Unity demanded an essentially random percentage, not even capped at 100%, of revenues, so of course everyone ran screaming. It's a bad business plan and it's a sword of Damocles hanging over your head knowing that a weird abberation in the sales-to-installs ratio could literally bankrupt you at any point in your entire life.

Since when does a simple 3D game engine so many people have slapped together the simplest games with cost you $200,000? Forgive me; I'm ignorant about how business works, and how Unity's contracts work LOL. I'm a normal person.

 

[ChamomileHasGames]

$200,000 isn't what Unity charges. $200,000 is the revenue threshold at which Unity's charges kick in. So, if you've made less than $200,000, Unity won't charge you anything. Above $200,000, they charge you $0.20 per install, retroactively. If you have a $1 game, that's a minimum of 200,000 installs, so you would suddenly owe Unity $40,000, assuming everyone who bought your game installed it exactly once. But since someone who's bought the game might not get around to installing it or might install it on multiple devices, it could be much higher or much lower. So you have no idea how much money Unity is going to take until they send you the bill.

And if you make a game that nets you an average of $20,000 a year for ten years, then hopefully you remembered to set a bunch of that money aside or else you'll wake up one day in 2034 with an email from Unity saying you owe them $40,000 for a game you made ten years ago.

 

[ATT_Turan]

And if you make a game that nets you an average of $20,000 a year for ten years

Then you wouldn't owe anything yet.

Once you meet both the revenue and install thresholds, then you would start owing on each new install.

But, of course, the whole thing is being reconsidered.

 

[Ms Littlefish]

I mean, it wouldn’t be the first time a media company has rolled out something that is old dog water so that when they mildly roll it back they can be all, “WHAT A COMPROMISE?! LOOK, SEE? WE CARE!” Even if they roll it back somewhat considerably…the trust is gone. Either way, we’re helping our friend get their game ported as much of a bear that’s gonna be.

 

[Storyteller-Hero]

Then you wouldn't owe anything yet.

Once you meet both the revenue and install thresholds, then you would start owing on each new install.

But, of course, the whole thing is being reconsidered.

Don't confuse gross revenue with net revenue.

The originally proposed install fee threshold is based on gross revenue.

Net revenue is what the developer gets after costs and platform takes are subtracted.

It's not uncommon for a small profit margin to exist for a popular game, in which case it's not unrealistic for the developer to only make $20k net revenue while the game itself earns $200k GROSS revenue. Even for a non-F2P, a flat fee per install, not sale, but install, can potentially mean the difference between making enough for rent + bills and not making enough for rent + bills.

 

[ATT_Turan]

Don't confuse gross revenue with net revenue.

I'm not confusing any kinds of revenues - the original page of charts for this pricing from Unity clearly states that you start paying on installs made after you meet both the revenue and number of installation thresholds.

The poster I was quoting above is the one who provided numbers - I assume they were giving gross/net revenue numbers as relevant to the Unity chart. If not, then their numbers are meaningless without context.

I was clarifying that it did not say you would suddenly owe tons of money based on how your game did over a long period of time in the past.

 

[Storyteller-Hero]

The poster I was quoting above is the one who provided numbers - I assume they were giving gross/net revenue numbers as relevant to the Unity chart. If not, then their numbers are meaningless without context.

I was clarifying that it did not say you would suddenly owe tons of money based on how your game did over a long period of time in the past.

Well, they did use the word "nets" and the year 2034 as an example rather than 2024, and an install-bombing can happen anytime after reaching the threshold.

 

[ATT_Turan]

Well, they did use the word "nets" and the year 2034 as an example rather than 2024, and an install-bombing can happen anytime after reaching the threshold.

Okay? None of that appears germane to what I said.

@ChamomileHasGames's post was describing a scenario where suddenly you owe money based on how your game has done over the past ten years. That is not correct, according to the information Unity published.

In fact, the specific words were:

they charge you $0.20 per install, retroactively.

That is not what Unity said.


I don't really care about quibbling over the rest of the wording, and I'm not sure why you do. I think my post was very clear that this part of the explanation and logic was incorrect.