Until we have a proper EULA, all we have is "we promise we wont do it again". This isn't even the first time Unity has pulled this kind of stunt (see 2019). It is just too volitile for me to continue using.
@@FlameHaze285 You can search for "Recent ToS update blocks the use of SpatialOS to make games in Unity". There is a blog post in the Unity forums. It was a similar situation where they retroactively changed the terms of service. I don't like it when companies try to hurt their competition with dirty tricks, and personally I am getting these kind of vibes from Unity, so I don't think I will be switching back. I don't even know how they would be able to be trusted again, but that is really just my opinion.
To get rid of the splash screen you need to upgrade to the newest LTS version, oh and in the time while you do not report download numbers, you get calculated on their blackbox algorithem.
Thank you for the video. Good to know that people won't be screwed for having made games on Unity, and that there's at least some time before they can try to screw everyone over again. I personally don't see consoles being all that relevant in the future, aside from Nintendo (them making so many beloved IPs exclusive to their console has been a powerful strategy that Sony and Microsoft simply haven't been able to emulate to such a significant degree.), with so many console games also being available on PC, but it's definitely a good idea to diversify, just in case.
Yeah definitely a change that gives peace of mind to lots of people. I personally disagree regarding the consoles, but that would definitely make my job easier as a developer if it were true! 😂
Back when Outbound Ghost was on Kickstarter, I backed some other games and most of the ones that're still in development all use Unity. As you said it's pretty much impossible to switch gears middle or even tailend of development. However, I believe many of them have since stated they're going to begin moving to Godot or Unreal following the completion of their current projects. The trust is just shattered and trust, in general, is such a hard thing to regain once it's been lost. I agree with you that if this had been their *initial proposal* then it would've gone over better. Not ideal, but nowhere near as incendiary as what they actually wanted to do.
Thank you for sticking around for so long, always notice you around ;) Yeah from what I've heard, that seems to be the consensus - good enough for now, but it's time to look for alternatives.
Basically they massively overstepped the line with plan A, walked back with plan B, and now it's up to us to decide if they crossed back from the line, or if the initial crossing was a dealbreaker. The upper crust that proposed this need some punishment though, even if they're not fired they should cut their own salaries like Japanese executives do when they screw up.
Yeah I agree, personally I feel like it's definitely made them lose lots of trust so you have to approach the engine with an eye behind your back. Agree, felt kind of strange that nobody in the board/executive showed up in the letter either.
There should be more clarification, how and when new fees would change further, in form or binding treaty those they could not withdraw or secretly change. For example, make fees fixed for each editor version, with changes no more than per second year, no more than 20%. And a way for developers/publishers to plan their business 4-6 years ahead with those fees applied. How to make fees fixed or predictable to the very end of game development cycle.
Yeah that would be ideal, but I think they've effectively done that by saying that we're bound to the editor version. So in a way, we can plan for that editor version, but we still have no real assurance that they won't increase the percentage to some ridiculous amount.
@@Conradical As I understand, they actually said, that previous and current versions will not have the fee, but they didn't say that 2.5% fee conditions, those they'll introduce in 2024 release, would always be fixed for that 2024 release further. That should be stated and bound in release-related documents (f/ex. ToS).
I think the best part of all of this is no longer requiring the Unity splash screen, cause _they know_ they've _forever_ tarnished their reputation, _even further_ , so they're allowing people to not have that red flag on the booting of a game Dang tho you can't catch a break! First The Outbound Ghost publisher, now Unity 😓
not jumping ship yet and first learning new engines sounds like a good plan. I hear Godot is making good progress. In a few years Godot might even be on par with Unity and switching would be a no brainer. who knows i remember when Linux was a niche OS and only the biggest nerds used it. I think even Apple OS is based on a version if Linux now. Remember hearing something like that were switching when their OS 10 came out. Anyway Linux is now all over the place with Android and Chromebooks etc.
Godot is already really good for 2d games, and has some decent 3d functionality. Another option for 3d is Unreal, which has far less of a learning curve than it used to, with the blueprint scripting tools being really good. You don't have to even touch c++ if you don't want to, though really fiddly game logic might be easier to do in c++ than blueprints.
The fact that it's FOSS is a massive benefit, I think the second Godot is a viable alternative in every single use case, there's no more reason to use Unity. I think it will be incredibly difficult to get to that point, but I'm rooting for it :)
great video & thanks for your perspective as a dev in the midst of releasing games soon. i think this change does sound good esp from the vantage of giving games in production reasonable terms within the TOS of the Unity version theyre using, but also giving teams some lead time to move away from Unity. Unity might genuinely d*e in about 5 years bc of the last 2 weeks, which sucks but like...bad move was bad. the engineers at Unity sound (from that recent press release & industry insiders) like they just fought an actual war over the last year leading up to this & geez were there casualties. it's gonna take a minute to see how much this actually damages the company but i really think theyre damaged badly & permanently. good luck to AppLovin's UniFree migration program & to everyone who will be learning Godot, Unreal & Cocos
@@Conradical I think the play for Indie and small studio's is Godot actually. Godot is FOSS, meaning it's Free and Open-Source under the MIT license. You will never be charged, you can tailor the source code to your game if you so choose, You can even fork the engine entirely. any copy of it in your possession, you actually have total control over. It's capable of 2D and 3D game development, and it's already got a incredible features in it. Here's the thing with Unreal, While it is on the cutting edge of graphical fidelity which cannot be denied, it's still a proprietary software under a closed-source proprietary license agreement which CAN potentially be changed. Epic Games is not free from scandals in the past, such as ruining the development of UT4 and removing all their Unreal Tournament games from the Steam Store. Epic Games could one day just flip a switch and do exactly what Unity did. While i cannot say one way or the other if or when that will happen, the fact is that it could. you put yourself under the whims of whatever a small group of corporate heads have in mind. and even if the corporate heads currently in charge want to change nothing, who's to say some group of slimeballs wont get in down the road and start shaking things up in every way that's bad for game developers. This is very possible in the long run. With FOSS tools, you're entirely free from that potential instability and blackmail/entrapment. I'm not saying that every studio that uses unreal should switch, My commentary should not be mistaken that "if you use a proprietary software, like unreal, you suck". My commentary is about being trapped by the whims of a corporation. If a game studio has to use Unreal for their projects, because they are into cutting edge graphics for their games, more power to them. But if you want a rock solid foundation for game development that can never significantly betray you under any circumstance due to the nature of it being under a FOSS license and entirely free of any cost, then a FOSS software like Godot is an incredible way to go. Either way you wind up going, good luck to you.
I think there is a little detail wrong in your explanation. You could choose between having to pay the runtime fee (capped for 2.5% of revenue) or only pay revenue share which is always 2.5% of gross revenue.
I kind of have the same take, I'm not going to boycott unity because I love the engine and have invested so much time into it. But i will start learning other engines for my own peace of mind. :) just to be OVERLY optimistic about the situation, I'd say this was the push i needed to finally diversify :P
Fair enough - while I'm not a fan of this deal overall, I do think that what they have here is better than just a flat 2.5%. For example, if you make over $6 per copy sold in real revenue, it's mathematically better to go with the "unique initial engagement" model instead of the 2.5%.
You see, they likely don't care if you report it right. They can't even verify it's correct in any meaningful way. They are already profiting from the subscriptions, install fee is just a bonus profit from people who fall for it.
These percentage models get a hugeeeeee percentage of their revenues from the top AAA companies, so I think that while it's not possible to enforce the little guy giving accurate numbers, AAA studios definitely will because Unity could realistically sue them for big money.
Until we have a proper EULA, all we have is "we promise we wont do it again". This isn't even the first time Unity has pulled this kind of stunt (see 2019). It is just too volitile for me to continue using.
Doesn't help that they're really hard to trust now. Definitely the time to learn new engines at the very least
@khairulhamdan762 What did they do in 2019? I'm not aware and having trouble finding info based off your writing. Thanks.
@@FlameHaze285 You can search for "Recent ToS update blocks the use of SpatialOS to make games in Unity". There is a blog post in the Unity forums. It was a similar situation where they retroactively changed the terms of service. I don't like it when companies try to hurt their competition with dirty tricks, and personally I am getting these kind of vibes from Unity, so I don't think I will be switching back. I don't even know how they would be able to be trusted again, but that is really just my opinion.
@@FlameHaze285 Google Unity vs Improbable
to my knowledge. trust is hard to gain, easy to lose, and only becomes harder to gain and easier to lose every time its lost
100% true, they have lost so much trust, and they may never gain it back tbh
To get rid of the splash screen you need to upgrade to the newest LTS version, oh and in the time while you do not report download numbers, you get calculated on their blackbox algorithem.
Ah yeah missed that one. Worth noting the 2.5% limit still exists with the blackbox method, but not great either way.
Thank you for the video. Good to know that people won't be screwed for having made games on Unity, and that there's at least some time before they can try to screw everyone over again. I personally don't see consoles being all that relevant in the future, aside from Nintendo (them making so many beloved IPs exclusive to their console has been a powerful strategy that Sony and Microsoft simply haven't been able to emulate to such a significant degree.), with so many console games also being available on PC, but it's definitely a good idea to diversify, just in case.
Yeah definitely a change that gives peace of mind to lots of people. I personally disagree regarding the consoles, but that would definitely make my job easier as a developer if it were true! 😂
Back when Outbound Ghost was on Kickstarter, I backed some other games and most of the ones that're still in development all use Unity. As you said it's pretty much impossible to switch gears middle or even tailend of development. However, I believe many of them have since stated they're going to begin moving to Godot or Unreal following the completion of their current projects. The trust is just shattered and trust, in general, is such a hard thing to regain once it's been lost.
I agree with you that if this had been their *initial proposal* then it would've gone over better. Not ideal, but nowhere near as incendiary as what they actually wanted to do.
Thank you for sticking around for so long, always notice you around ;)
Yeah from what I've heard, that seems to be the consensus - good enough for now, but it's time to look for alternatives.
Thank you for the great explanation!👏👏👏
I gotchu ;)
I am mostly just happy they now properly give developers time to move away from their engine :)
Should've been this way from the start, but at least it's less stressful than the worst case scenario...!
yep people who are already on a project shouldnt swap but people who are learning or just starting definitely should choose another one
💯
Basically they massively overstepped the line with plan A, walked back with plan B, and now it's up to us to decide if they crossed back from the line, or if the initial crossing was a dealbreaker. The upper crust that proposed this need some punishment though, even if they're not fired they should cut their own salaries like Japanese executives do when they screw up.
Yeah I agree, personally I feel like it's definitely made them lose lots of trust so you have to approach the engine with an eye behind your back.
Agree, felt kind of strange that nobody in the board/executive showed up in the letter either.
There should be more clarification, how and when new fees would change further, in form or binding treaty those they could not withdraw or secretly change.
For example, make fees fixed for each editor version, with changes no more than per second year, no more than 20%.
And a way for developers/publishers to plan their business 4-6 years ahead with those fees applied. How to make fees fixed or predictable to the very end of game development cycle.
Yeah that would be ideal, but I think they've effectively done that by saying that we're bound to the editor version. So in a way, we can plan for that editor version, but we still have no real assurance that they won't increase the percentage to some ridiculous amount.
@@Conradical As I understand, they actually said, that previous and current versions will not have the fee, but they didn't say that 2.5% fee conditions, those they'll introduce in 2024 release, would always be fixed for that 2024 release further. That should be stated and bound in release-related documents (f/ex. ToS).
Appreciate your balanced take!
I think the best part of all of this is no longer requiring the Unity splash screen, cause _they know_ they've _forever_ tarnished their reputation, _even further_ , so they're allowing people to not have that red flag on the booting of a game
Dang tho you can't catch a break! First The Outbound Ghost publisher, now Unity 😓
The games industry is not for the faint of heart...! 😅
You got the LTS years mixed up 2022 and earlier are safe 2023 the new terms kick in
Ah yeah I was referring to them by their year of release instead of the official name, my bad!
not jumping ship yet and first learning new engines sounds like a good plan. I hear Godot is making good progress. In a few years Godot might even be on par with Unity and switching would be a no brainer. who knows i remember when Linux was a niche OS and only the biggest nerds used it. I think even Apple OS is based on a version if Linux now. Remember hearing something like that were switching when their OS 10 came out. Anyway Linux is now all over the place with Android and Chromebooks etc.
@@RynAndReggie so a cousin to Linux?
@@ttrev007 Close enough for most discussions I'd guess :)
Godot is already really good for 2d games, and has some decent 3d functionality. Another option for 3d is Unreal, which has far less of a learning curve than it used to, with the blueprint scripting tools being really good. You don't have to even touch c++ if you don't want to, though really fiddly game logic might be easier to do in c++ than blueprints.
The fact that it's FOSS is a massive benefit, I think the second Godot is a viable alternative in every single use case, there's no more reason to use Unity. I think it will be incredibly difficult to get to that point, but I'm rooting for it :)
great video & thanks for your perspective as a dev in the midst of releasing games soon. i think this change does sound good esp from the vantage of giving games in production reasonable terms within the TOS of the Unity version theyre using, but also giving teams some lead time to move away from Unity. Unity might genuinely d*e in about 5 years bc of the last 2 weeks, which sucks but like...bad move was bad. the engineers at Unity sound (from that recent press release & industry insiders) like they just fought an actual war over the last year leading up to this & geez were there casualties. it's gonna take a minute to see how much this actually damages the company but i really think theyre damaged badly & permanently. good luck to AppLovin's UniFree migration program & to everyone who will be learning Godot, Unreal & Cocos
this change is way better. but still if im learning another engine its unreal
Definitely the play to diversify
@@Conradical I think the play for Indie and small studio's is Godot actually. Godot is FOSS, meaning it's Free and Open-Source under the MIT license. You will never be charged, you can tailor the source code to your game if you so choose, You can even fork the engine entirely. any copy of it in your possession, you actually have total control over. It's capable of 2D and 3D game development, and it's already got a incredible features in it.
Here's the thing with Unreal, While it is on the cutting edge of graphical fidelity which cannot be denied, it's still a proprietary software under a closed-source proprietary license agreement which CAN potentially be changed. Epic Games is not free from scandals in the past, such as ruining the development of UT4 and removing all their Unreal Tournament games from the Steam Store.
Epic Games could one day just flip a switch and do exactly what Unity did. While i cannot say one way or the other if or when that will happen, the fact is that it could. you put yourself under the whims of whatever a small group of corporate heads have in mind. and even if the corporate heads currently in charge want to change nothing, who's to say some group of slimeballs wont get in down the road and start shaking things up in every way that's bad for game developers. This is very possible in the long run.
With FOSS tools, you're entirely free from that potential instability and blackmail/entrapment.
I'm not saying that every studio that uses unreal should switch, My commentary should not be mistaken that "if you use a proprietary software, like unreal, you suck". My commentary is about being trapped by the whims of a corporation. If a game studio has to use Unreal for their projects, because they are into cutting edge graphics for their games, more power to them. But if you want a rock solid foundation for game development that can never significantly betray you under any circumstance due to the nature of it being under a FOSS license and entirely free of any cost, then a FOSS software like Godot is an incredible way to go.
Either way you wind up going, good luck to you.
I think there is a little detail wrong in your explanation. You could choose between having to pay the runtime fee (capped for 2.5% of revenue) or only pay revenue share which is always 2.5% of gross revenue.
While you could "choose", in practice this just means it's a cap!
I kind of have the same take, I'm not going to boycott unity because I love the engine and have invested so much time into it. But i will start learning other engines for my own peace of mind. :) just to be OVERLY optimistic about the situation, I'd say this was the push i needed to finally diversify :P
Yeah I agree! Great time to learn new stuff, and that will give all of us more leverage if they ever try this again in the future
I think they should just have 1 Unity version, that has 2.5% rev share above $1 mil. Simple and easy, and twice as good as Unreal
Fair enough - while I'm not a fan of this deal overall, I do think that what they have here is better than just a flat 2.5%. For example, if you make over $6 per copy sold in real revenue, it's mathematically better to go with the "unique initial engagement" model instead of the 2.5%.
That mean if we not made 1mil in 12 months, then we not pay for per installation fee?
Yep! + you need to reach 1 million purchases/"unique initial engagements".
If it's self-reported, won't some studios abuse it and give numbers lower than reality?
You see, they likely don't care if you report it right. They can't even verify it's correct in any meaningful way.
They are already profiting from the subscriptions, install fee is just a bonus profit from people who fall for it.
These percentage models get a hugeeeeee percentage of their revenues from the top AAA companies, so I think that while it's not possible to enforce the little guy giving accurate numbers, AAA studios definitely will because Unity could realistically sue them for big money.
but what if I *DO* want them to go bankrupt because of this?
Fair enough 😂