3/18/2024 0 Comments Download attachment ludeon forumWe used Unity for the lack of rev-share in the first place, and you somehow managed to make it feel extra predatory. It is irrelevant to me that someone's math worked out that it might be cheaper for some people to use this model instead of a standard rev-share model. For a company to continuously decrease the quality of its core product, bloat it with useless features, and then have the audacity to change the deal (and apply it retroactively) in an attempt to nickle and dime us to death is irredeemable. Even if this change were completely reverted immediately after this message was published, this announcement has done irreparable harm to my trust in Unity. Additionally, effective immediately, any new projects my company, or companies I consult with, are intending to publish will use a different platform. Very interested if anyone is talking to Unreal about grasping this opportunity Unity has once again provided us today.Īs an indie studio founder, guest lecturer at top game development schools/universities, former CTO, Unity consultant, asset store publisher, Unite conference attender, shareholder, one who has sat and had many conversations with Unity employees (virtually, and at your offices), and an indie game dev using Unity since Unity 3, I can no longer, in good faith, recommend Unity as a development platform. Has anyone reached out to Unreal leadership? I use to have contacts over there and I may still have Tim's email but last time Unity did this Unreal offered a huge, no strings attached grant program to convert your Unity project to Unreal. Millions of clients could be DL'd and if we kickstart or raise funding across the $200K level now all the sudden we have to give 10% of our revenue to Unity? We require a F2P model with monetization. My studio has been developing for 6+ years in Unity and this craters us. Every indie works out a monetization plan base don what we know. Saying over and over again this wont impact indies is BS. TO BE CLEAR, NO ONE IS UPSET THAT UNITY WANTS MORE MONEY.īut FFS work out a fair plan that has some semblance of the realities of indie game dev. A 16 year old with a spreadsheet could have foreseen the pitfalls here and developer d a better system. Leadership at the executive level doesn't understand basic economics. It does not make much sense unless they have had many devs in that range cheating with their revenue numbers (which I doubt).Īll this ofc only applies if I understood the terms correctlyĬlick to expand.True story. Problems arise if you are beyond the $ 1 mio / year / game limit.įrankly I don't understand why they introduced the install limit for that cohort. Which I think is fair if you make that kind of money. You pay nothing if below $200k / year / game and if you are between 200k and 1 million / year / game you pay 2k per dev seat. Though, for most indies these limits (1 mio / game / year) are out of reach anyways and costs are predictable until you reach that 1 mio threshold. Yes, this sucks for mid-sized f2p devs and I don't get why they are going after them so hard. If you are above that you pay $ installs. If you approach 200k rev / year then simply upgrade to Pro which costs 2k / year / seat and gives you a 1 million limit / year / game. On the actual effects of the current terms I am not sure. Click to expand.On this I agree, the install based approach is nuts.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |