Game Developer Explains The Unity DISASTER
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Bellular explains how the Unity changes affect their game development studio and their game Pale Beyond.
by @BellularNews • Unity Are In EXTREME T...
► A͏͏s͏͏͏m͏͏͏o͏͏n͏͏͏g͏͏o͏͏͏͏l͏͏͏d͏'s T͏w͏͏i͏tc͏h: / zackrawrr
► A͏͏s͏͏͏m͏͏͏o͏͏n͏͏͏g͏͏o͏͏͏͏l͏͏͏d͏'s Twi͏͏͏t͏͏t͏er: / a͏͏s͏m͏͏͏͏o͏n͏͏͏͏͏g͏o͏...
► A͏͏s͏͏͏m͏͏͏o͏͏n͏͏͏g͏͏o͏͏͏͏l͏͏͏d͏'s 2nd Y͏͏T Ch͏͏an͏͏n͏el: / zackrawrr
► A͏͏s͏͏͏m͏͏͏o͏͏͏n͏͏͏g͏͏o͏͏͏͏l͏͏͏d͏'s S͏͏͏ub-Re͏͏ddi͏t: / a͏͏s͏͏͏m͏͏͏o͏͏n͏͏͏g͏͏o...
Ch͏͏annel Edi͏͏tors: CatDany & Daily Dose of A͏͏s͏͏͏m͏͏͏o͏͏n͏͏͏g͏͏o͏͏͏͏l͏͏͏d͏
If y͏͏o͏͏u own the copyright of cont͏͏͏ent sh͏͏owed in this video and w͏ould lik͏e it to be remov͏͏ed:
/ catdanyru
Fitting that a game engine called Unity would unify the community in disdain and uproar over the awful business decisions made by the creators.
For a while now, ive been waiting for games like F1 to charge microtransaction for fueling.
@@Zolfriedcharging the player be able to go beyond 4th gear. And that´s per gear and per lap. And if you pay the premium pass you get the gear+ kit, that allows you go get the unique 8th gear.
@@Suinekrathey only know loopholes and scheming. Those who are about purely business are literal goblins. No soul. Just a husk.
True😂😂😂😂😂
you have no idea of vrchat creators that abuse unity
Unity just turned itself into the biggest ransomware distributor in the world. Unity's game plan has some serious underpants gnomes vibes going on
technicly, they absorbed a malware company a few years ago lmao. so ransomware is a VERY fitting term
Ransonware is 100% Correct, which is why right now, Every single Dev should stand up, SUE the fuck out of them. And make it LAW to be ILLEGAL for a Licence is be updated or changed in a Negative way for both current owners and new owners. FORCE companies to NEVER be able to do this EVER AGAIN Legally and DESTROY Unity to an extent the company is Destroyed and Unity now becomes Free Ware and Open Source in the Public Domain.
EU won't watch this from the side in peace, EU will intervene.
@@neock They WHAT!
@@jazzratoon Yeah, they acquired a really skeezy company. I remember that.
And here I thought the Open Source community was being paranoid. Moments like this makes me realize how important it's to support projects like Blender, GoDot, Krita, etc.
What is krita? Misread it as my name at first(Kinta), so I'm surprised I haven't heard of it before.
(I tend to obsess over things similar to my name. Watched and fell in love with Nikita just because it's an anagram for "I Kinta".)
@@rmt3589Krita is an art program like photoshop
@@rmt3589 Its a very good painting program, i've been using it for 3 years now
@@rmt3589 a good open source digital painting software.
Personally I think it's better than Photoshop for digital painting. Its brush engine is amazing.
But of course Photoshop is unbeatable when it comes to photos manipulation.
@rmt3589 Krita is an open source painting and drawing app, best one out there for artist.
Let’s be real… Couldn’t expect anything less from an ex EA director, LOL!
Never forget EA = Evil, Always.
From the sounds of it, he's the one who made EA what it is now
@@MultiKool13 Capitalism and greedy shareholders made EA what it is now, he just spearheaded the greedy bastards' aims.
He was the guy that made EA get "the worst company in america" award
Even the reason EA fired the guy is because he's too greedy. Imagine deemed as _too greedy_ by EA. Amazing.
It's impossible to unite the gaming community, but John Riccitiello found a way.
😂
Yea, there are very few ways to unite us. Pissing us off is one of them.
I'm guessing you weren't here for the Wizards of the Coast, D&D catastrophe
The only good thing John has ever done was unintentionally highlight how big of a joke game's "journalism" has always been.
No seriously, someone wrote an article titled "Why People Hate EA" which consisted entirely of said idiot asking John, then CEO of EA, "why do people EA?"
@@Felrohanand?
imagine being a mechanic and buying a wrench but the manufacturer of the wrench now demands a fee for everytime you turned it. truly madness fueled by boundless greed
Not just every time you turn it... every time you turned it retroactively because everything you built with it now has extra fees.
@@pfistor also they have absolutely no idea how many times you actually turned it they just take a guess and claim they know but won't tell you how for no reason whatsoever
Imagine buying a wrench from John Riccitiello... I mean, his history and own words should be putting up red flags all over the place that you need to get off Unity asap.
This sounds like something out of the world of Cyberpunk 2077…
@@enderborn9209 its either they 100% accurately know the exact numbers but can't legally admit it or yea they just guesstimate which is still ridiculous given you would be using that data in order to bill people. Imagine water and electricity companies guesstimating your bill every month and without even transparency how they do this
So that means once they hit 400,000 downloads, and say they only made $200k, they will then owe unity $40k of that $200k. Thats insanity. I hope unity bankrupts for this shit. Its time to start making examples out of these greedy ass companies.
we're about see massive f2p games w/ micro to go down next year if these will push thru.
@bryanstrongwind7020 well they will do 1 of 2 things. Go down like you say, or a massive increase in monetization like micro to make up the cost. Like asmond said they aren't going to eat the cost. Ultimately we will pay for it.
@@bryanstrongwind7020 indeed big one will not be affected, they will push more and more micro and gatcha, but no doubt many of majors will switch engine or develop own, also, do not forget there are more engines and the industry use to develop own engine
@@lgiprodigy7624 Indeed gatcha and mobile games will increase gatcha, they will be free, but more gatcha and micro, but future projects will be on other engines even big, Hoyo, Yostar or Nexon the fee is small but they will make other projects in other engine
You're wrong, it's so much worse.
1. 400k downloads means 80k cut
2. Every patch and update counts to the charge
3. Its retroactive means everything before 1st January 2024 and free games still gets forced to pay Unity
Its far worse than Steam and Unreal together combined cutting your revenue up to 35% because they exempts free games and counts by revenue instead of per installs and initializations.
What it sounds like to me is they have lost a ton of market share to Unreal Engine on the mid to high end projects, and the low end were beginning to eye Godot as an option instead, and no chance of real growth. As a consequence, the CEO, board of directors and shareholders are seeing the demise of the company down the road, so knowing that there are a shit load of developers who are stuck with the engine for at least 3 to 5 years, they can totally loot these guys before the writing hits the wall and everyone jumps ship. This is the thieves guild unibrow school of business strategy. Everything has to be a scam with these guys, they don't know how to run a clean business.
Mhm, Unity is run by what I'd call 21st century "Robber Barons". People who have no regard for the business or users, all they care about is making a quick buck by completely gutting the company through and through with horrid policies like this, selling their shares like they have been doing, etc. For those too deep in on their project, do what you think is best for that project. But Unity is a sinking ship, and it's time to look elsewhere for a good game engine.
Unity won't be around in 10-15 years I bet. It will go the way Flash did. "Remember that old engine everyone used to use, I think it's called Unity?"
"Everything has to he a scam with these guys. They dont know how to run a clean business."
So normal capitalists doing regular capitalism as intended.
Yep. 1000%.
@@exttsectorz923Can you explain how Johnny Ravioli is malice and personal profit by selling almost none of his massive shares while this is happening?
This is incompetence. Capitalism breeds a culture of greed but makes all the capital class incompetent because they are leeches with no value, as they have always been and always will be.
of course they probably didn't consider the possibility they might get sued into oblivion trying to change licencing deals.
That's pure evil and greed
as a Unity dev of 7 years, this hurts a lot. I've spent a lot of time learning the systems and workflow of the engine. its insane.
Sorry, man. I feel for you. Nothing worse than having the rug pulled out from under you like this.
Having to learn a new engine takes a monumental amount of time.
I wish you nothing but the best of luck in your endeavors.
easiest engine ever existed. it is time to learn a half decent engine
@@salepx fortunately i've worked in a few over the years, but I am the most efficient with unity.
what's the most difficult engine?
How are you making money on the games/apps you make? 20 cents a copy shouldn't be a big deal. Unless making the game 100% free no in-game ads or in-game sales. Shouldn't Unity get a cut of the sales? If selling a game for $20 a copy, sell 100k of them it $38k to Unity, if using unreal that would be $50k.
The only problem I see is reinstall fees and aps/games that are 100% free and don't make any money ( no ads no in-game sales)
@@donw4889 I don't create free-to-play games. I rely and appreciate an old tried and true model of buy it once and it's yours.
While using a game engine the user is liable to fees when selling a build, granted they reach a certain threshold (typically $200,000 gross annual revenue). The problem lies in fees of twenty cents per each install per copy. If it was a one- time fee, okay sure, tag it on to the sale I guess?... but adding it per install is ludicrous. Then retroactively adding on all the other times it was installed?? It is maddening.
Can't believe that we're in a timeline where "I'm gonna uninstall the game" can possibly be an actual threat
"I'm gonna reinstall the game" is the threat
@@Henry-sv3wv If you reinstall it you’d be paying money right?
@@alwaysawesome216
the dev who sold me the game would need to pay money. but it looks like the unity people try to change stuff to calm everyone down
@@Henry-sv3wv ah ok I was just a bit confused by this whole thing
True slowly leave while getting anything you can bring towards the new ship
Programmer here: This is very unfair what Unity is doing. These game programmers probably use other libraries/frameworks together with Unity. Switching to a new langauge means learning a whole new eco system. They didn't even give devs a year of time to transition. This is very scummy.
ALSO:
For steam games, this means that if you download the game, play it and ask for a refund, the devleoper is still on the hook for the cost.
😂
Yep, very true. I'm a Unity programmer as well, but I see no choice but to switch to Unreal.
There will probably be lawsuits honestly. This seems completely illegal
As the CEO said: wait till they're invested and, you know... don't gouge them, but charges apply :^)
This is actually a difference between Unity and Unreal. Unity can update their terms whenever they want to, but Epic Games cannot. It's simply a difference in how they put their terms together.@@Vartazian360
As a music producer this is kinda terrifying. Imagine if ableton started tracking how many songs produced with their daw are played on your phone and start charging for them.
that's what the RIAA wanted to do with blockchain.
God writing the Dystopia-Arc:
We need more open source programs. NOW!
They'd be f*cked by the harsh competition - Pro Tools, Cubase, Image-Line FL, Apple Logic Pro X, Studio One, Propellerhead Reason and many many more.
Meanwhile Unity feels they can do anything because there are not so many powerful alternatives beside Unreal Engine.
@@dk-sky3820 1 godot exists, there's fewer alternatives but in both cases there are alternatives. 2 a change that would apply retroactively like in this case. Meaning It would apply to every son ever produced in ableton.
I still think it's scary thinking on this applied to other industries. I know there's plenty of competition in daws. Doesn't matter if It applies retroactively cause even tho producers would change the daw they use, consumers don't know sh about which daw was a song made in.
This is so reminiscent of the Dungeons and Dragons issue that happened in January. Big company changes the contract, shoots self in the foot.
It's extremely reminiscent since just like WotC, they're trying to not just change the future contract, but have at least part of it go retroactive. By going after installations and not just sales it will mean that even a Unity game purchased 2-3 years ago can trigger fees if a customer decides to install it again. This is definitely going to end up in one or more courtrooms and if they don't fully backpedal I'd assume what will be left after settlements are agreed upon will be a per-sale fee starting on a set date, as that won't go retroactive, is traceable with independently verifiable metrics, and isn't exploitable in the ways that installation counters are.
The big difference is that WotC's changes weren't... fundimentally incompatible with the law in various markets.
They're also charging entity A for the actions of entity B that entity A has no control over and gains no benefit from. For services they don't provide... and then they tried to claim that they would infact make entity C (in this case, valve, microsoft, sony, etc.) pay the bill for them!
This seems almost exactly like what Wizards of the Coast had happen with DnD a few months back. They've broken the trust with their community so badly that people have written them off and gone to different games, and other creators/developers are avoiding getting involved with them out of fear they are building a house on sand as well.
The executives have no idea what they are doing at these companies. They think the communities will just accept paying without issue. These execs do not know their audiences. What happened to Budweizer, WoC, Oracle, and now Unity is example of not understanding your base. They destroyed their customer base at these companies due to the actions of execs.
Budwizer and oracle? What did they do?
Reminds me of when Asmongold was talking to Dr. K. There was a moment where Dr. K mentioned how he was at a business connections event and talked to a business bro that basically didn't like games at all but wanted to enter the industry because he saw untapped pathways for monetization. Sadly it's always when these companies get too big and the corporate side becomes disconnected from the creative side that started it all in the first place. My DnD group is currently on break after we finished CoS but I've already decided I'm swapped to being a PF2e DM for the next campaign. Already gave Paizo some of my money and was happy to do so.
It's such a sad thing to see the increasing rise of corporate culture and rampant consumerism with disregard to ethics these last couple decades.
It was the OGL 1.1 situation. WOTC announced that they own everything the developers created and they, in tutn, fled the company for greener pastures and that is ON TOP OF all the weird changes they were making to the game like making it to where you couldn't kill any monsters anymore and took the hard left turn that weirded everyone out. Like one of the scenarios was this weird harry potter like wizard prom sett9jg and i am like "why are these weirdo lefties so obsessed with a school dance?" I mean it is just plain weird to me and ir was modules like that that turned longtime players away. Now Pathfinder has taken D&D's place cause of all the BS WOTC did with D&D and it once was a cult classic game.
@@alecday3775im there are still a lot of people playing dnd even after because unlike video games we don't have to rely on wizzard of the coast for the game and just use whatever we want from any part of the game. Like i still play 5e but is just don't use anything made after fizbans
25:00 this is exactly where we are with our game. We're almost 12 months into development, it's going to be released in open alpha Q1 2024, now this business model has been announced. This could be devastating for us as we're a free to play game :/
Just chill. Raise your voice. Companies with deep pockets figure that out for you in court for sure
What stops Unity from just downloading the games themselves? this is insane
Why would they bother? They can just say you have "x" amount of installs, how would you dispute that? Unless the tracking is made 100% transparent and able to be checked, there is nothing stopping them to simply make up whatever number they want.
@@Rattjathis is such a fcked up system. greed got the better of them
@@Rattja That's fraud....I'm fairly sure platforms like steam know exactly how many times a game has been downloaded.
@@OBEYTHEPYRAMIDthey have already alluded to the installs being an estimation. I have never seen install numbers published. I doubt Steam would just give Unity install numbers. Unity would have to pay for that info which is why they have their own proprietary system so they don't have to pay for data.
@@OBEYTHEPYRAMID Steam isnt the only way to buy a game and if you just get a copy of the installer it doesn't matter how many times steam says you downloaded it from them. As a note you just need to install the runtime program not their actual game.
I have a theory... this is entirely to put indie devs out to reduce competition for the former EA's bros.
YES!
they are definitely doing it to kill indie devs because they have been standing up too much and AAA studios have been getting the shit. They want to teach indie devs their place in the food chain.
Damn
More than just indie. This could push out things to “be AAA or drown.” Look at how butthurt, greedy game devs are in response to Elden Ring, Tears of the Kingdom, Baldur’s Gate. “Noooo you can’t make a good game without predatory practices. Gamers expecting a game to be good, working on day one and without micro transactions on everything is an unrealistic expectation.”
This is the beginning of their counter attack.
les of a theory and more of a fact.
This is heartbreaking to me. Indie games is my light in the darkness that is the modern day gaming industry. Like, i dont want to hurt these beloved developers just for downloading their game :(
2 cents isnt gonna hurt them financially. that is not the bad part of this whole ordeal and people are very much trying to push that part of it. if a game sells 200000 copies right and is selling at 20 dollars each, they make 4 mil right and unity will only take 400 of that. the money aspect is so absolutely miniscule from this. even if the devs get less than half that 4m they still owe 400 which is literally nothing. sure, revenue and profit is different and their calc is just off of revenue but the number is still abysmally low in comparison to the possible profit earned from the game company.
@@kregman6928 it's 20 cents not 2, and it's not charged every time you buy a game, it's every time you INSTALL a game. If you buy a game and install it multiple times it will cost them more.
@@kregman6928the fucking issue is why is this even a thing. You brought the tool, you should own the tool and own anything you do with the tool
@@kregman6928not to mention this 4 million, publisher takes 2m and unity takes 400k, doesn’t include the costs to make a game. If ur making a game that made 4mill overall, the costs to make the game would probably be a crazy amount.
@@Nyilith no, you bought access to the tool xD you can pay for the bigger business tool and pay less money. they are mainly doing this because of mobile devs who get millions of downloads then dump the game and go again with another game. those devs are cash grabbing using unity.
I think we'll see a lot of Unity developers 'reskilling' towards other game engines. I know 'Godot' is getting a lot of funding lately, it's a 100% free open-source game engine with zero royalties whatsoever for any game made with it. Panda3D is another one. Or people will switch to Unreal Engine.
@@DeadManWalking-ym1oo I have some programming experience and would love to dabble in game dev as a hobby. Would definitely use Godot so I never have to worry about licensing if I was accidentally successful.
Godot is the way to go here, yes. Open source prevails over time.
Godot is definitely the way forward. It is not as fleshed out as Unity yet, but more people will now start supporting the development of the framework.
Also, Flax (Source Available like UE5, has C#, C++ and Visual Scripting) and Stride (Open Source, only C#) game engines are another Unity alternatives.
@DeadManWalking-ym1oo square Enix net worth is $4.5 billion. Epic games net worth is 32 billion. As long as the preexisting contract is followed. Square isn't really protected after their contract expires.
It's a bit scary how they give players a direct avenue to hurt companies financially too. could imagine a bot that repeatedly installs and uninstalls on scale just to weaponize this situation.
Not really since pirated versions are also counted towards the install count. So having a bot install games on virtual machines could potentially drain the dev's wallet.
@ReuloricsNope, just one copy. Unity clarified that installing a single purchase on multiple devices counts as multiple installs and each costs the developer. So uninstalling and reinstalling would work.
It's crazy too because it would completely bankrupt every game dev company not named Larian or FromSoft overnight. Maybe Nintendo would survive but probably not. The moment this goes live and tries to get enforced, there'll be at least one person for each medium to large company who bots this and bankrupts them.
and imagine that game is Free game the indie game dev cannot pay their freee games.
@@tenesenka the problem is that big developers will simply negotiate some special license without this kind of fees. I predict that only small and medium sized developers will be affected.
The part about the new fees reduce new indie developer's motivation is real. I just started learning unity 2D at the beginning this month, immediately stop when I read unity 's new fee from their twitter. I don't know what part of the stuff I read is true, what part is wrong, what part is unity's damage control, but I'm now learning another game engine. Kinda lucky I haven't delve deep into unity
Which one did you switch to? No shade, just curious which one attracted you
@@adamuk5037 Out of 4 choices I found (Godot, Cryengine, Unigine, o3de), I choose to learn Godot, mostly because a lot of people recommended it.
Might take a peek into the other engines if I feel my learning progress being too slow or too rough
5 months into Unity and I'm thinking about Godot now
I haven't made a game but definitely something to think about
We are a small indie development team with a lot of hope. We successfully switched to the Unity engine in two years. We started planning content, outsourcing tasks, trusting that with time, we can ensure that we don't just work for breadcrumbs within the team. In practice, if it stays like this, many teams like us will abandon the project, even though we've already made so much progress. I secretly hope that they will reconsider these statements at Unity, although they are slowly becoming increasingly unreliable.
I take it that your company uses frameworks and other libraries together with Unity? So I'm guessing switching to a new language is going to be very hard as you'll have to learn a whole new eco system?
unreal 5 lets gooooooooo
its not about the language its about the engine , u cant just change engines or transfer skill to new engine@@steven7936
@@steven7936 In particular, we do not have Unity Store assets; we create everything ourselves. However, in the case of Unreal, you really have to learn another language again. Asset imports work differently, and you have to rewrite/modify mechanics, complex systems, and scripts. There may be differences in the principle of operation, resource requirements, and the capabilities a new engine can provide in terms of treatments and functions.
@@DimensionDoorTeamis there any other engine in your consideration? Game Maker, Godot?
This reminds me of what they did with Solidworks. They switched from "buy the software" to "rent a license". This is going to happen increasingly more with all software.
It wouldn't surprise me that in 3 more years we'd have to pay to switch on our washingmachine for each washing cycle.
Internet of things.
+
Social credit.
==
Nightmare dystopia.
You own nothing and will be happy.@@TheJeremyKentBGross
Someone actually wrote about it. Unauthorized Bread is a story involving jailbreaking IoT toasters and elevators.
Adobe did exactly the same thing moved from selling the software to selling a subscription to use it
Literally one of the details in the first episode of Cyberpunk: Edgerunners.
The developers behind Halls of Torment switched to Godot before they even started building the game. Looking back, it's clear they made the right call.
Count -'em- it!
They do know we can just make a hardware ID spoof bot and spoof ID and bankrupt every single unity member right? There’s 0 percent chance they can secure this…
true but that would also assume they care about securing the unity members
You can also load up virtual machines. If someone really hates a developer enough, they could bankrupt them just by buying a copy lol.
If I were a cynical sort of guy, I'd guess they're either banking on it or have a dev already make such a bot for when the cocaine bucket gets dry. Of course that's only if I were a cynic.
You know you can do that while being 300% untraceable right?@@Drawingtheplanet
@@DrawingtheplanetThings being illegal have stopped people when
Something to consider is that unity might not be able to implement the garbage that they are claiming especially when they are talking about those who have already used it without signing the updated service system. The next part is if they are not providing adequate proof that their numbers are correct.
They dont need to implement anything. Just made the numbers up. Profit.
@Blackbirdone11 I wasn't saying that they needed to implement something to be able to charge people what I was saying is that unity might not be able to charge people legally even if they used the tools or other services. This is because what they are doing falls under forced compliance, uninformed consent, or none agreed upon changes to a contract. Basically what I'm saying is that they might be able to do that to all users who start using after they announced but they may not be able to force someone who used the software in the past to pay anything. They might not even be able to force someone who is new into paying those prices. It seems kinda like it was more of an insider trading scam where they first sale off their stocks prior to making a horrible announcement then later purchase them back after prices tank.
@@jedstanaland2897 Even if it is illegal, a court case can still take years to resolve, while they will start sending out bills in 3 months.
This is starting to stink of a bait and switch. They still plan some egregious cash grab but put out this first to make the actual implementation seem more palatable. There are already corporate bootlickers making excuses in this comment section for this current fustercluck of a plan.
it might be declared an unconscionable contract. Especially for people who made their games five years ago and fight this unilateral and fundamental change in the agreement.
We're too far into our project to use a different engine. The code weaves through the engine like a Mind Flayer. The actions of Unity this last week might force us back to the design table. We know our projected customer reach, estimated sales, and so have (had) a reasonable revenue expectation. Now, we might have to scale back so we don't have to roll with disadvantage against finances.
Unity is a TOOL. You don't buy a hammer, and then pay more per nail struck. If this decision stands, we will be moving away from Unity after this cycle. Even if in the end they are the lowest cost engine, this is some real snake shit, and I'll adjust my expectations and pay more if I can trust my partners.
Godot is just free. But isn't as strong in the 3D, though its getting better.
In your experience, what part of this proposal hurts the most? For a 20 dollar game, the per-install model is only a 1%, which is a lot more lenient than Unreal Engine.
I do agree that this is going to absolutely kill the free-to-play game scene, as well as very small in scope games (the vampire survivor types for example), effectively forcing Devs to mark up the price to make a profit. Is this the type of game you are trying to make?
My question is, assuming that your game is at least 20 dollars, and that Unity's vague 'fraud detection system' can properly determine the amount of copies distributed, where is the deal-breaker here?
My question isn't meant to antagonise and I'm just curious. I understand a lot of Devs don't want to be in a relationship with unilateral changes in the monitization structure like this.
@allenantony6924 For starters, you'd expect the average consumer in 2023 to install 4-5 times minimum over the lifetime of the purchase, and your target audience would certainly have 2-3 installs just in the first month. Multiple computers and family members.
So at a minimum, for a 20$ game this is a 5% revenue cut at expected rate.
Next, Unity either has Spyware embedded in every unity game to track this accurately, or is literally lying to you and making up numbers to charge you. Both of these situations are very bad relationships with a business partner, and the first one makes you an accessory to a crime of privacy violations.
Also, most indie games do not charge that high a price, and the ones that do have other high production costs they need to pay off. So this is a much higher revenue cut, 40% for a 2$ game.
Finally, they'll do this again.
maybe you should have used the source engine then, as in something high quality and not a garbage taa infested trash like unity
@@allenantony6924 every business have their target sale. let say 100 sell will make them profit. now with new unity fee, developer may need to restructure their business model and may need to get double or triple sell for profit. it is more work for developer company to profit from their project, but easy profit for unity.
They can 100% be sued for the retroactive part. When you use unity you agree to their terms and conditions, which before did not include this scam.
Yeah, you can't give out free samples then charge ppl for the samples right before they leave
they 100% had a scammy lawyer read over their terms and conditions and build in a loophole like "are object/subject to change (if needed)" etc. which people dont expect to happen because its more like a savety rule for extreme cases (so the company can survive in crisis or adapt wording if someone sues for a bad formulation etc. etc. smth they didnt think of.
@@Blisterdude123 you would still have to agree to the new terms in order for that to be legally binding I think.
@@kliersheed you can't agree to limitless liability...there is no way the retroactive costs are not going to be challenged in court.
@@Blisterdude123 pretty sure that they can challenge it in court if the pricing was introduced after the product was being developed. Bait and switch is considered a form of fraud and this would be easily classed as such because the affected party has already sunked costs not knowing this would happen. The live service argument is fine if you are a regular user only, but they are not just users they are also product/brand holders, which means there are more legal protections and contractual obligations.
This is how new engines come to life. Unity is creating future competition. Sure it will take time but this is where it starts
From what I've seemed to have gathered so far from several comments in various places:
1. Unity's CEO is the ex CEO of EA Games and was likely responsible for turning EA into what it is today. (Probably also around when EA did the whole SW Loot Box fiasco, idk)
2. This CEO seemed to have sold a bunch of shares before making this announcement. (Insider Trading perhaps? Need concrete proof.)
3. This CEO said a while back that he believed that fps gamers should have to pay a dollar for every time they reload their weapon. Put this guy in charge of a restaurant and he'll charge customers an extra dollar for every bite of their meal.
4. This CEO insulted other companies for not being more predatory/scummy with monetization.
5. Countless developers are expressing their outrage and claiming to leave to a new engine, yet this CEO is unfazed as if that was part of the plan. (point 2.)
Honestly, removing this CEO from the gaming industry would benefit everyone, he is nothing but a cancer.
Agree~!!!
John Riccitiello, or as I call him - Richy Cello, is the guy who was CEO of Electronic Arts, bought BioWare & Pandemic Studios via an assets holding cash company he owned called Elevation Partners (exactly as you expect from the name, it's a stock price bumping scheme) then sold EP to EA for an obscene amount of money/equity which made no sense as there was no forseeable future (50 years?) that 'investment' would've paid off. He got bonuses from both EA and EP for it (EA being publicly traded company you'd think this is a conflict of interests, but if you bribe the directors with fat bonuses AKA give them their cut from it then they play along). Pandemic folded not too long after and BioWare continued on their steady decline with more and more of their studios closing down until BW was no more.
So all Richy Cello is good at is running inflation on stocks then dumping them for great profit, illegally. As this is a clear violation of the Market Manipulation kind which is forbidden by the Securities Exchange Commission authority.
How this scumbag isn't in jail is anyone's guess. I'd go with lawyers & bribes.
he has sold over 50,000 shares in the last year. it seems this was premeditated.
Unity is a tool for creating games like a hammer is a tool for building a house
now imagine the Company who make hammers want money from you everytime you build a house ... but it's even worse because they want money from you everytime someone goes in and out of the house
Yeah thats a good analogy. Paying a one time fee for the tool is understandable. Paying past that is crazy
Totally right. And thats why they are doing it. Making money!!!
I guess it's time for me to start a hammer company lol
Not a good analogy. It's not just a tool, it's a large portion of the product. Rev share makes sense. Unity's new convoluted scammy rev share model makes no sense.
@@Vartazian360 It's not a good analogy at all. Because the tool constantly gets updated.
I'm SO happy right now about my decision back in the day to start developing my 2D game on Godot.
Lets all take a moment to appreciate Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the guy who invented the World Wide Web and decided to make it free to everyone. Imagine how different the world would be today if it wasnt.
I would like to believe that someone/group would have made a free "version"
Eh thats more of a military thing and at the point of time the WWW was made it was only made for sharing information from point A to B.....
Its not free where I live. I pay £10 a month for 20G of data transfer... consuder yourself priveliged
Whatever troll! everybody knows Al Gore made the internet
@@JLydecka You're paying for the infrastructure that provides the internet, not the internet itself.
Unity just speedran Blizzard%
Kotick is going to get the moldy stick.
This is why i am only playing older games right now. I will not tolerate these kinds of microtransctions period. Sadly you are correct on who ends up paying for this though. It's us, the customer. These massive companies are already so greedy they cut corners and scew the consumer at every turn so i can only see them finding more ways to charg us for the same product or as you said making games smaller or cutting a game into pieces and selling it as seperate pieces.
All they had to do was put a percentage cap on how much they could take, and this wouldn't be such a massive issue. Hell, they could've matched Unreal's 5%. The developers that they claim they are "targeting" with these changes won't be paying them nearly 5%, but those payments will still make up a large majority of Unity's income from this change. The fact that there are real mathematical cases where developers would be paying more than 100% of their game's revenue is just baffling.
Yes. And that's why this situation is so bizarre, there were many ways of monetizing this, but it's like Unity chose the "joke option" in the dialog tree, but took it seriously.
and dont forget unrel tke 5% after your game make 1 million
Steam takes 30%
thing is, this runtime fee is stated to cover upkeep on the downloads. such an upkeep fee is supposed to be in the subscription itself. so your being charged twice for upkeep.... one time being hundred times the first one that also includes royalties and licensing fees
@@aceapocolips Source engine are one time negotiate payment for both, steam state the 30% ages ago and never change even after Epic use it to announce their 12% cut. how does it make Unity decision to remove github ToS and plans better?
I love how the billing and dispute method is just "trust me bro."
I'm a year into development of my own game and while I probably won't hit that threshold, that's besides the point.
The goal is to complete and publish a videogame. Making money off of that would be amazing but my enthusiasm and motivation to use the game engine that I've dedicated the past two years learning is slipping away because of the Unity announcement.
Hope this backfires before others adopt it
what do you mean?
@@fraserodonnell7618 basically if unity succesfully implement this paying system, every other dev tools like unreal can do this shit paying system too.
@@mamokong let's hope they will not do it
Open source, open source, open source
@@mamokong I feel like other engine creators can see how toxic and unhealthy this type of shit is. Now if this becomes a success story for unity, in that they make mad profit and dont go under you can 100000% expect all other engines to follow behind. Tho i legit do not see how anyone will support this insane level of greed..
I just don't know how it's possible for a company to make such bad decisions unilaterally but they united the gaming community in a way not much else has.
because the one making these bad choices is a former CEO of electronic arts. that alone is an explination from the gods... noone who is a manager or higher in that company can make a decision worth its weight in salt. the higher up you go in that structure, the more rotten it gets
It was just explained that it was not unilateral at all. It was just some people, maybe even just a couple of them that pushed all this, maybe even JUST the CEO and we know you don't go against the CEO and keep your job. while everybody around them tried telling them it's stupid, and were ignored.
E
S
That's how.
There would be serious money for software that could convert code from unity to an alternate engine. It also redefines "games as a service." Though it might cause a resurgence to physical media as they could only charge once per copy at that point.
I'm so tired of this "You can buy something, but you still can't own it" type crap. At some point people just won't buy anything other than necessities. I'm nearly at that point already.
This reminds me so much of Blizzard when they changed their policy towards Warcraft III - With Deforged they also added that part, where every palyer created content (like maps, mostly) automatically belongs to Blizzards and you lose all rights over it immediately. They too were hoping for the next Dota / LoL to arise at some point and just claiming it for themselves instead of letting it slip through their hands again, which of course made players create a lot less stuff becasue of this (amonsgt all other issues with the "game" in the first place).
Youre using their program and assests to make something. Of course they own it. Just as if you write a program code at work using work tools then your work owns the code.
Game Devs are so entitled. Worse than gamers
@@paulmcf1115so if I make a beautiful painting then that means the people that sold me the paint and brush own it? If I build a house with tools does that mean the people that made those tools now own it? Gtfo of here with that bs logic.
@@paulmcf1115 This is the problem, one could argue you don't own anything these days with licensing. Where does the rabbit hole end? Did the workplace develop and create those tools themselves or likely they have sourced work and bought it from someone else outright or to be made for them and therefore they have no rights to your work either under your reasoning. If you spent money to buy something shouldn't you own that part or be entitled to your own creations for using something you purchased. Should every baker need to pay the oven company every time they make a loaf of bread?
@@paulmcf1115this is a dumb take, so if I use photoshop to make something it belongs to adobe? If I use an Visual Studio to code something it belongs to Microsoft? The intellectual property itself does not belong to Blizzard, that’s why they felt they had to add a clause to claim it, because by default, by law, it doesn’t.
God you are clueless.
@@paulmcf1115they’re program and assets were only used as the blueprint to go on to make its OWN GAME. They can’t own “ideas” and its wrong of them to act like they can. Little brother basically paints a Picasso and big brother takes it and says “well, you used my paint so this is mine now.”
You are very right about it putting people off dreaming due to the cap. It literally made me think twice, I have been doing 18 hr days on my game for many years. Soon as this was announced I felt some of that passion dwindling. But as any good dev does, I just continued anyway. Its also worth nothing that if you are publishing on console usually "they" will give you a unity pro license, making this limit much harder to ever reach. Basically I think its just a sly way to force everyone to pay for unity pro which is like 1800us/yr I think. This is too steep of course, I paid it once and before I knew it the yr was over and I could not afford to pay it again.
The scummiest part is that you just have to pay unity if you already made a game. Can't really change the engine of like genshin or whatever without creating a new game. They just literally force you to pay for something out of the blue, which Can't be legal
Tencent and Microsoft aren't going to let this slide. They'll both bring in the sleeziest, scummiest, morally bankrupt lawyers that this planet can offer and fucking bury Unity in the courtroom via forcing them to keep bleeding cash on a lawsuit with no end until they either actually go bankrupt or literally have to walk back on everything and settle and still go bankrupt. They really don't want the smoke those companies will absolutely bring
Probably buried in some obscure license clause they agreed to upon downloading unity
@@travelingbard1
True, however at least in US law, there's a lot of precedent that says thar contracts are not necessarily legally binding, so I think someone with big pockets can and will definitely fight with everything they got; indie developers on the other hand are straight up fucked.
yeah this sounds highly illegal, imagine your bank would send you a letter saying, hey we are now charging you retroactivly 10% for every transaction you made because we like money
@@travelingbard1 Even if it's in there, it's still not legal. Contracts aren't law and if someone does something shady like this, then a judge wouldn't let that fly if you took them to court. It's one thing if costs just increased. It's another if you suddenly have to pay for something that had no cost before without even being given a choice. There's limits to the changes they can make and nothing's gonna happen if you let them get away with it.
Google "made with unity" and look how many titles are made with this engine. Some very popular ones off the top of my head: Rust, V Rising, Outer Worlds... then there's the mobile games. My God, there are so many. The people who made this decision need to take a hard, long look at themselves. Disgusting move. I hope those affected can change to a better service.
Garry (creator of Rust) said on his blog that a Rust 2 definitely wouldn't be made with unity
BattleBit
For some historical perspective about profit sharing: When I worked in the gaming industry in the 90's, publishers had absolute control. There was no real digital distribution so everything when through them. The typical rate they kept back then was...I am not kidding...94%. A big dev studio with 'gold' on their hands (think iD Software and Doom 2) could likely negotiate a better contract but this was an outlier. They justified this by claiming they had to handle tech support, physical production of copies, boxes, and manuals, plus logistics of distribution. I get that...but 94%?? Another issue related to this was they were also often 'the banker', having fronted some money for the game's completion. This is actually a conflict of interest if you think about it- they have every incentive to reduce the dev studio to a serf locked into a cycle of having to come to them for future financing because they are just getting by. So they 'owned you' on a lot of levels.
Unity is literally demanding from their indie developers with 2$ games over 40% of their revenue. A cut so large that the game will lose money every sale.
Keep in mind, this is the price point of Vampire Survivors on Switch which is on Unity.
Looks like vampire survivors will cost $10 in the future.
And there are certainly more than me who have installed Vampire Survivor on the Steam deck, 2 Pcs and I already several times. (with one purchase)
and remember that if you sell it on third party storefront, like steam, developers will only see 30% of what the game actually made.
@hypano VS is only Unity on the console, on PC its not Unity
@@stephanreiken9912 oh okay, didnt know thanks. but my point still stands for other games
this what happens when big brother is mad cause your getting so much more money on the side so he makes it so you have to pay him for every little thing
Asmon brings up a good point. If you're a developer that is about to spend time and effort on a project, using a game engine that has less fees attached is just a smart form of "insurance" in case your game takes off.
UE5 is great for 3D, but it's a heavy engine. I mean, you can make low-level stuff with it (I've done 2D games with it before), and the blueprint system is very newbie-friendly, but it's like building a muscle car for drag racing and then only driving it through school zones and neighborhoods. It's a lot to lug around when you're not getting the most out of its capabilities.
Personally, I'm all for Godot. Once you get familiar with it, it's very easy and intuitive to use, and it's free and open source.
Agree, for 2D, unreal engine is overkill, unless you doing Octopath Traveler kind of new genre of 2D with huge ambition, if you are small ambition, you can still workaround with open source game engine. We also cant prevent Unreal Engine to change ToS....I mean all stuff that is not open source, so we should brace ourselves, having a backup plan if needed
well everybody knows that but Godot is trash and a scam, sadly for lowkey 3D on mobiles, Unity really is the only option, if it were just for 2D I can pretty much use anything or even without a real game engine. For all kinds of matters, I'd just still use Unity engine for now since all these shit are never gonna fly anyway, but if there are something really happened then I'd just move to Unreal.
@@gbo2steam You can do a lot with Godot as well, if you're clever enough. Unreal is definitely the best engine out there period, but Godot is a very useful and modular engine.
@@onigumoGodot is not trash or a scam lmao.
@@gbo2steam Godot has a "code of conduct" that's enforced at their sole discretion and explicitly includes behavior "either publicly or privately". Seems at least as dangerous as the possibility of Unreal changing their ToS.
Didn't know much about Unity other than games I've gotten off Steam were developed with it. Once I just heard the other day that the CEO is from EA, that explains all this. I looked into the original creators of this game engine and there were three of them. Think all but one has moved on from Unity.
Thanks to unity i no longer have to worry about whether to learn to program on unity or unreal. Asmondgold was right when he said without a dream people won't want to use unity since i doubt this will affect me as a hobbyist but i don't want it to impact me should i get lucky.
If anyone isn’t aware, Godot is up and coming but VERY much like unity.
It’s free and open source and takes ZERO cut, and because it’s open source it’s constantly updated. It had a recent update comparable(not exactly the same) as Unreal Engine’s lighting system.
Sadly because of its open source license, it makes it difficult to get games into consoles, but there are services that do it. That’s sadly unavoidable though since console licenses ALWAYS cost money.
It also has a sweeping open-ended code of conduct, enforced at their sole discretion, that explicitly includes behaviors "either publicly or privately".
@@ReturnOfHeresy that is a major red flag for anyone in todays climate.
@@ReturnOfHeresya code of conduct is for community contributors, forum posting, bug reporting etc. The licensing is still MIT. basically the community probably won't accept contributions from say the KKK, but if the KKK wants to use Godot they can go right ahead - they have a legal right to.
basically so they cover their ass. see also Richard Stallman and GNU
Just so we are clear, being open source has nothing to do with project being updated. There are plethora of OS projects that are not updated.
What project needs is an industry buy-in (even small one will do) like blender or corporate sponsorship. Both mean resources (= developer time). Godot has 10k+ issues, but Godot development fund has $31k/month. It's the best out of all OS candidates, but simple reality is that it's a race of development resources. Unity squandered their lead and thus is behind in the race. Godot continues, albeit not a breakneck pace.
You've been telling this around here more than once. Read other conducts like from Unreal or even Unity and other platforms and you'll encounter similar wording. @@ReturnOfHeresy
this sucks for devs that are married to unity with their projects, but once that shitshow is resolved, the only thing this means is that Unity is going to die and devs are just going to switch to Godot or Unreal. by next year, this shit wont even matter anymore.
Gambling company's are exempt (includes mobile casinos?) ... meaning Unity isn't dead, it's just niche.
Can you imagine a guitar manufacturer charging artists every time they played a note on their guitar? This is insane
It's capitalism.
Pay or don't play.
@@JoshSweetvale yes you’re right it is. With capitalism and us the consumers of the product (devs and gamers), we’ve forced the market to make the appropriate changes.
They’ve completely backed off their rhetoric, and devs have stated they aren’t going to use them anymore.
Seems a whole lot better than whatever barely functioning authoritarian communistic model you probably worship
biggest issue I have with this is the "per install". making the engine free for everyone and then charging some fee after you start making money is fine as an idea. It dramatically lowers the bar for entry. Imagine if premiere was free and you only started paying a subscription after you make money from it. It gets new people in the field to get used to your engine which works out in the long run. There used to be a joke about photoshop being easy to crack on purpose so all new image/photo editors could use it for free. then when you start working and make money buying the license is no big deal and you wouldn't think twice about using another program. The real issue here is the fee per install.
Never have I ever thought that I will ever say the words, "Don't buy the game if you want to support the developer".
Don’t INSTALL the game. Buying is fine, as long as you don’t install it, it’s all good
They’re encouraging people to buy games but not install them to support developers lmao
What a world we live in....
John Riccitiello, or as I call him - Richy Cello, is the guy who was CEO of Ekectronic Arts, bought Bioware & Pandemic Studios via an assets holding cash company he owned called Elevation Partners (exactly as you expect from the name, it's a stock price bumping scheme) for an obscene amount of money/equity which made no sense as there was no forseeable future (50 years?) that 'investment' would've paid off. He got bonuses from both EA and EP for it. Pandemic folded not too long after and Bioware continued on their steady decline with more and more of their studios closing down until BW was no more.
So all Richy Cello is good at is running inflation on stocks then dumping them for great profit, illegally. As this is a clear violation of the Market Manipulation kind which is forbidden by the Securities Exchange Commission authority.
How this scumbag isn't in jail is anyone's guess. I'd go with lawyers & bribes.
I think a lawsuit is an acceptable response because like unity said, its going to be retrospective. they will be some devs that are potentially on a ticking time bomb with nothing they can do.
This isn't the agreement they had agreed to when they used unity’s products.
to use your own example, it would be like you cutting someone lawn, the AFTER cutting it telling them that any time they have some one walk on the grass they need to pay you extra.
Just took a quick second. It violates the "no hidden cost" rule where in a contract the price of services has to be declared upfront and cant be amended after.
Now! Unity would be allowed to say that a perticular version had costs and give people the option to use the old one for free but they cant suddenly change the old (and only) player with no way of opting out.
For reference: they will not be charging for installs that have already happend.
They've done enough shenanigans that they don't get in trouble for Retroactively charging for things, because they're only charging for things that happen after the date of the change (along with some other contractual nonsense).
They're either violating EU law or commiting fraud when it comes to determining the bill, among other legal problems, but they're not making That basic mistake.
@@laurencefraser oh i understand its not a charge for past installs, but it still acts as an extra hidden charge as all new installs are effected
I bet a good lawyer could make a case that the developers can't affect the amount of new downloads without pulling their game out of the market and maybe not even then, therefore it would indeed be a hidden fee even if it only affects downloads after a certain date. Also, a lot of games are installed over and over again for fixing purposes for one, like I've installed Skyrim probably 7 times because I messed it up with mods. That wouldn't be anything the devs can affect.
This is exactly what Oracle did with java a few years ago. Oracle’s announcement went exactly the same way.
The bigger problem is if this is allowed, it will open a Pandora box.
What makes you think other company won't follow?
that's what i genuinely worried about, since it's makes a lot of sense
As a Unity dev since 2013 I appreciate you talking about this.
I'd start looking into Godot
@@Dedalus94I'd look at what unity actually said. A lot of misconceptions are being said just to scare people.
@@malokegames you mean the actual FAQ, press release, and proposed terms from Unity themselves shown in this video and presented by a developer who'll actually be affected by these changes? Ok bud, ok.
As someone who only game develops as a hobby, I really enjoy Godot. I'm so hopeful that the open source community for Godot just swells because of this. The idea that even more improvements will be made to it with more people is exciting.
@@Dedalus94 Oh, and you don't even realized the contradictions of what was being said and what was written on it?! It's easy to fool people nowhadays, just show them anything and say what you want.
My gutt tells me... that they did this, in preperation of an acquisition. And the shares were sold ahead of this. But also to devalue the company to make it cheaper to purchase by another entity. I cant fathom of any reason why such flagrant egregious policies - so clearly catastrophic would be enacted.
I think you're on the money mate
I was planning on becoming a dev, more to exercise my creative skills in writing, drawing and making music and putting it into a game. I had yet to choose which engine to focus, now it's clear I'll be using Godot. I wasn't planning on making any money, if I finished the game, I'd make it free and probably only have some Patreon service or something, but I don't plan to lose any either.
One thing they didn't mention is upgrades. If I upgrade my PC and re-install everything, that'll mean I'll be downloading again the product (my game) that I paid for. Does the developer have to pay for my upgrade now? That's why that one developer said they are DELETING the game on January 1st, not simply de-listing it.
Wtf does 'deleting' a game even mean? All they can do is delist it from stores. That doesn't prevent people from installing a game they already bought on steam. I have this game called 'Deathgarden: Bloodharvest' which was free to install on steam (or the beta). I just checked steam and the game is not listed on steam store. But I still have it in my library and can still install it (although I won't be able to play it since the game servers don't exist anymore, but I can launch it still).
Callum Upton did a video in Unity's response to questions like this. And yes the dev will be charged again
Yeah new Mac address=new regestry
The real issue is the revenue model and charging per download and not just revenue generated which would put them in line with other engines fee's.
This almost feels like the youtube copyright system. Unity gets to decide if they will dismiss the fraudulent installs or not. They have a lot of power here if this rule passes.
It pretty much hits every single litigious publisher known to man, Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony. I would be very surprised if this actually comes through.
As far as devices - two days ago I installed update on my win11 and steam required me to "authenticate on new device". Granted - it is probably second update overall that triggered that, but then who knows how the unity detection might work. It can be more or less lenient. For example my online banking notices "device change" after each windows update.
And as already stated, they don't even have an actual direct line for this shit, it's literally them just guessing the fucking numbers and billing the devs. They could absolutely lie through their teeth and charge WAY more than they should be and nobody would actually know for 100% fact that it is happening
@@andrewmeyer3599 That's the part that blows me away.
On Steam the 30% isn't because they are hosting the game it's because of the financing. There is a LOT of red tape with setting up a system to accept payments through credit/debt cards and such. The licensing and regulations around having to deal with the financial could be a huge headache for a small company as you have to track orders/sales/keys/etc. Some companies can use other services like paypal but they have fees of their own. Plus all the other features like providing a community board, patch support, store front for advertise in large market place, and so on.
Steam isn't the only game in town. There is Origin, Uplay, GoG, Green Man Games, Epic, Google Play, Apple Store, and etc. The Vast majority of them all Take 30% of sales. A few actually take a larger cut. Steam has just been around the longest with the most support and features. Also there is a benefit of being the largest store front so it's like choosing the release your product in Walmart stores verse some local chain with not as much coverage.
They've managed to Unity all the game developers against them, this is Unreal they Godot be kidding.
_Ba-dum, tss!_
*unite or unify
you missed the joke.@@Kovac_
@@ramaleu7181 and your joke missed the grammar point.
@@ramaleu7181I did not, it's just that it's grammatically incorrect, if they wanted to use the word "unity", they should've worded the joke differently.
Game development is just a hobby for me. Started porting my latest project to a new engine yesterday. Will only take me a few weeks as I did not start the coding that long ago. I will never trust the people behind the unity engine again. I will never look back and will never recommend the engine to anyone again. Do not matter if they would roll back the idea or not. They let the idea even get born. Do not look good for the future. I truly feel bad for the small developers that unlike me try to make game development a living.
Unity truly lived up to it's namesake and united the gaming community in hating the same company
As a developer I will miss using c# in Unity, unity-games are often very clean when it comes to logic-syntax partly because of the programming language being a industrystandard thats why many unity games have few bugs compared to other languages
Does Godot not have c# support?
@@aribjarnason yes
You can literally use C# for everything in Godot, even combine it with GDScript, C++, Lua, Rust...
This announcement may potentially gut the VR industry
It's terrifying as I've been a huge supporter of VR technologies for years now, and it's just finding it's legs.
"Just finding it's legs" I get it because they just added legs to the metaverse.. x)
@@mawkush9223 lmao good one
This terrifies me too. It seems each time VR takes a step forward corpos fuck it over then wonder why it doesn't make them money
@@emeraldblack842 yea no kidding x.x
We're finally settling into an age of creativity and expansion to what was once a hard to approach hobby. Now with this since damn near everyone uses unity for VR games.... I can only imagine how bad this could be
Unreal Engine's EULA is set up in a way that provides protection and peace of mind for developers choosing to use their engine. They have clauses like the following: "If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to."
The problem with Unity's EULA is that it allows them to completely change the license agreement on you at any point in time and you just have to accept those changes. In short, what happened with Unity can't happen with Unreal as you're not required to accept newer versions of the license agreement, it just means you're stuck on your current version of the engine, but then, you also have the full source code, so you've got everything you need to support the version of the engine you're on.
As for the fees of Unreal Engine, their licensing fees are actually pretty incredible for what you're getting. It used to cost around $250,000 just to get your hands on Unreal Engine, and you still had to pay 5% royalties on top of that if you shipped a game. Now the engine (including full source code) is completely free to download and use for anyone, regardless of how big or small you are, and they have a minimum of $1 million profit per title before you start paying royalties. At that point, you just pay the standard 5% they've always charged.
From a productivity perspective, using Unreal Engine can save you a lot of time as well, and chances are, if some game using Unreal Engine does something, it's probably already a standard part of the engine that you can just tap in to. You're saving way more than 5% worth of time/effort using Unreal Engine, so the way I look at it, the engine basically pays for itself.
Thank you for covering stories like these where companies are doing incredibly scummy things. The increased exposure massively helps.
The players have enabled these toxic and scummy behaviors from companies over the last decade. Starfield is a perfect example, it's using ancient game engine technology, doesn't even run at 30fps and has loading screens everywhere and a boring gameplay loop with lots of lazy procedurally generated content. Yet people are still buying it.
But then again,why should the service be free?? Why are the devs so against paying for an engine they didn't have to develop? I think this discussion is more nuance than "big corp wants money from poor devs".
@@cinifiend Yup, consoomers behavior
This is what happens when companies have to always do better than the last quarter.
Like RGE said, when they become a real company
As a dev who works with Unity on the daily basis I'm just moving all my hobby project to UE5 and learning that until I get to the professional level. Because shenanigans like that have a potential to scare off beginners. Which means that in a mid term my skills will Unity will become more expensive and in long term I'll have trouble finding a job. Simply because less new project will be developed in Unity. Things like that happens from time to time in IT. Technologies diying off and become replaced with other technologies so constant learning is a part of a job description. However, it is completely beyond me why Unity decided to do this to itself willingly.
The sunk cost fallacy doesnt work here because if your game actually pops off you risk losing everything or even worse.
The fallacy only works if the final result gives a profit or reward, when that reward is "pay even more money" no one in their right mind will take it.
Yeah switching horses mid race may be painful it may even break you but its better than having to pay in fees 3x what your game even made
Thank you Asmon for pushing this to other avenues than devs. Pushback from multiple angles are important for the well being of the entire gaming community.
I was literally about to start learning Unity to hopefully make my first game. This is insane. I can't possibly support them in any way after this. Unity must die.
i dont want to... unity is still the most accessible game engine for me... they just need a change in leadership seriously
heard of unreal??@@schikey2076
Don't need to die. Just need a strong signal to let this **** CEO go away... How can you still be at that level while sucking so much at your job??
@@schikey2076guys, you are too naive. The CEO is not going anywhere
Time to learn Godot
Honestly, I'm completely fine with companies setting up one method of revenue split. Single time payment, monthly fee, revenue split. But as everyone are saying, updating existing contracts to change what you calculate the price of would definitely tell them to fuck off and it's probably illegal the way they have done it
Just got finished deleting all Unity engines and hub from my system….
Too late, they have your IP
Such a hero, what an amazing act of protest! PEOPLE, GIVE THIS MAN A MEDAL!
You want a cookie? 🍪
@@alm3na284goofy
That'll show'em.
"So what, it's only 20 cents?!" - 500,000 installs (not unique installs or purchases, just installs, including free demos, and reinstalls when a new phone comes out, or upgrade of hardware like a new iPad) = $100 thousand dollars owed to Unity. Complete cash grab.
It's actually surprising he didn't mention it... but Hearthstone was made in Unity. imagine what blizzard would pay because of the downloads.
as a solo dev working on a game for over 7+ years on .. Unity .. this is painful.. thanks for bringing this to light, to more people Asmongold ~> 10:30 you nailed it.
Out of curiosity, will you be moving to UE now?
Oh that's bad. This hurts popular indie games most after all.
Game looks great, hope you find a solution. I won't be trusting unity or proprietary game engines in general again though, personally.
Silksong: We just need to move our game to another engine real quick. It'll only take us a couple of years. 🤣
@@FirstLast-gk6lg It's extremely hard to move game engines if you've been working on a project for years, especially if the programming language is different like Unreal Engine's is (C# to C++).
@@FireCrewGAMING I hear converting a Unity C# project to a Godot C# one is doable.Devduck managed to recreate his 6 month Unity game to Godot 3 in a week, and 3 years later convert that to a Godot 4.0 project in a month.
But doing that for an entire 7 year project would be very difficult I suppose.
It remembers me of the time, when you had to purchase premium ammo in World of Tanks for example to archive better results in battle.
16:09 - Pirates know how they are tracking them because they break up the code anyway to get around various locks. Decompiling software is generally not that hard.
In IT Sec this is called "Security by Obscurity" and that is a bad thing
I'm a business student. When I see complex pricing schemes like this, all I can think of is price discrimination. They are trying to segment their customers and squeeze every penny out of their willingness to pay. But any businessman with half a brain should know that price discrimination only works if your company wield market power, meaning that there are no serious competitors.
Unity is hardly the big dog in the business. Expect other companies to prey on this relentlessly.
Unity is the indépendant studio and béginner friendly engine.. they have 70% market share. Unreal is better but has a Higher Entry Curve (you néed moré skills,knowledge)
It's not about charging new customers. It's about extorting games already made, or at the end stage of development.
Because it is "per install", even if you stop selling your game, they can still send you a bill.
What this says to me is that they're trying to squeeze indie developers out of the game, which is absolutely the worst idea imaginable
Most people are going for the Unreal comparison, but the two engines are quite different, use different languages and are optimized for different things.
Godot seems like a MUCH closer competitor to Unity, they both use C#... oh and Godot is free.
Unreal is to complex and mostly is usable for 3D. Godot to primitive. There is a reason why so many people use unity.
@@Blackbirdone11Godot got a pretty big overhaul recently with its 4.0 release and is, as far as I'm aware, fairly close to Unity now. 3D is still somewhat behind, but it definitely isn't "too primitive".
Fun idea: back to physical games, they can't charge you for installs if they don't know someone installed right?
Send a disc to your players, have them install without connecting to the internet
If you're doing this, you probably aren't making over 200k USD/12 months so you have nothing to worry about. If these Indie devs are making over 200k USD every 12 months from their project then they can afford to pay $200/m for a license to use the engine they based their entire game off of.
This is how business works, it's not a friendly thing. Unity are trying something different, I don't think it will work well for them in the long-term because of the PR implications but the actual monetization system isn't that bad at all, it's just designed to push people into higher subscription tiers.
Imagine you made a product that people use to generate millions and they use your product for free, and constantly demand you maintain and update it.... you need to make money somehow.
Epic takes a much larger cut if you don't use their store only, Unreal is actually way worse for smaller studios.
@@oourdumb i do not agree, because first of all, this model relies on them gathering user information from everyone, wich isn't just a security and privacy threat, it is also illegal in tons of places
On top of that it would be very vulnrable to exploits
And to top it all off, demos and free games would tank their studios
Last but not least, Unreal and Unity aren't the only players in the market, open source alternatives like Godot have been gaining on them rapidly, godot might become like Blender is for the 3D industry, charging your customers exorbitant amounts will be like shooting yourself in the foot for them in the long run
@@oourdumbdid you not watch the video? If you have a free game with lots of installs and only a little bit of money, you'll have to pay them more money then you've ever made.
The reason they don't use physical install anymore is because the physical installer and their distribution is quite expensive for solo/indie studio and can only benefit the big corpo that have lot of money to begin with
@@oourdumb what an L take
I just dont understand why in this mobile gaming industry and engines, etc... there seems to be little to no regulation. People can just make up rules and put as many shady / abusive elements into their games / engines, terms of services and so on. Games are no longer made to be good and therefore attract players. There is this rise of bare minimum or a frame construct of a game being made just far enough so that they can monetize the hell out of it. Disgusting. Eveything!
The Unity engine is so incredible to work with it makes this extra sad. The tech side is knocking it out of the park but the money people gonna money.
Its kinda sad to see how things have been progressing over the last few years... Unity was this engine that everybody wanted to use and opened the way for a lot of "would be" developers. Its like Unity management is seeing how much money Genshin etc make and somehow thought this idea would bring them more revenue from those developers. Godot, Defold etc are going to be the real winners in this.
A lot of pc users also download an android or an IOS emulator so for each instance, it would certainly be counted as one download from a unique device so I could already see a way for people to abuse the developer via this method.
It may actually make more financial sense for Microsoft to buy Unity no joke, but I guarantee they’ve already contacted their lawyers
Devs can sue unity. Unity used to have a clause where you could use a pervious terms of service agreement if you used a version of unity that came out while those terms were active. This clause was removed before the changes.
You have been required to accept the new clauses to continue using unity
Yeah, new unity.
But if your using old unity under the old agreement, then the new agreement doesn't need to apply to you
@@petermills5623 pretty sure they said this new pricing applies to all unity games. Previously released or new
@@joeimjoe Exactly, which is why they should have grounds to sue.