480
Unity will start charging developers each time their game is installed
(www.engadget.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
480 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
2790 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This only makes sense. Unity is a very big part of what makes a game work and building and maintaining the Unity engine costs a lot of work. They deserve some share of the money made on a game. That share should ideally be proportional to how much money is made by the developer, which should be proportional to the amount of times the game is downloaded. And this is only one of their plans. There are other plans as well. So maybe someone can explain to me why this is not just a sound business decision apart from: I don't want to pay any money?
Unity already charges money once you hit a certain revenue from your game, it's only free if you don't get a lot of sales.
More importantly, according to the article, when questioned it seems Unity hasn't given any proper thought into this model.
If a user installs the game and then uninstalls and reinstalls, it counts as 2 installs that must be paid for. Not only is that unfair, it can lead to abuse. Angry with a change the developer made? Uninstall and reinstall 30 times (automate it) and you will actually cost the Dev money.
What about pirated copies? Unity will still "phone home" and the result will be a developer paying for 1mil installs that he earned nothing from.
What if your game is free to play?
There were some other issues like that mentioned too (in the twitter post in the article).
I have a 500GB SSD and >300 games. Do you have any idea how often I uninstall and reinstall games? Even smaller Indy games?
This comment section has you covered: to bankrupt a small game company, let's reinstall the games numerous times!
Also, their previous monetization methods are already proportional AFAIK.
"This only makes sense. Ovens are a very big part of what makes food and designing and building the ovens costs a lot of work. They deserve some share of the food made in the oven. That food should ideally be proportional to how many edibles items are made by the chef, which should be proportional to the amount of times the food is baked. And this is only one of their plans. There are other plans as well. So maybe someone can explain to me why this is not just a sound business decision apart from: I don’t want to give away my baked food?"
It's clearly not an oven, but an ingredient.
Holy fucking shit... The game concepts and mechanics are the ingredients!
Does a pizza contain an oven? No. Does a pizza contain tomatoes? Yes. Therefore tomatoes are an ingredient and an oven is not.
Does a game contain Unity? Yes. Therefore Unity is an ingredient.
The game ships with Unity which handles the rendering, physics, sound and a whole bunch more. Basically Unity is a pizza base, but it gives you a bunch of toppings too. The developer combines the base with the toppings and voila you've got a game. Not saying that last part isn't hard, but a business model where Unity, or any game engine for that matter, is charged proportionally to the amount of installs isn't a totally unreasonable business model.
Yes, and that is what they already do, as does Unreal.
Eh, no. How many unique times a game is uninstalled, perhaps, but not how many over all. That's clearly stupid.
I agree with the essence of your post, but the part about Unity already charging devs proportionally based on sales is not true. The editor is currently licensed per-seats and there is currently no cap to how much money you can make if you run the enterprise license, which is 5k/year per employee.
By that logic Microsoft should also be able to charge for any software installation that happens on windows. That also means any and all installations for the customer should be single use, because now all installations cost money.
Would you be willing to pay a certain amount of money any time you want to install some software, doesn't even matter if you've already paid for it? Because that's the business plan you call "sound".
I call that stupid.
Yeah, you can call that stupid, but I am not stupid. But regardless of your insult, let me talk to you.
I am not sure which Microsoft product you are talking about, but certain Microsoft products are indeed charged this way. It is called an OEM license and while typically every OEM license is negotiated on different terms (per license, per revenue, per download, per install, per duration of usage, etc.), the basic idea is usually that some amount of money will be made by Microsoft proportional to how much use your product is getting. In the Enterprise world it is also common to charge by how much value the user is getting out of the product, which whole sales departments are trying to figure out on a case by case basis with complicated excel sheets. I mean, it is not like Unity invented this model. In fact, Microsoft got as big as it got by selling a pay per copy version of MS-DOS to IBM.
Unity is an ingredient that makes games work. The game is made with Unity and is shipped with the Unity engine packaged inside, just like any other ingredient. So explain to my why Unity can not define some metric which will highly correlate with the amount of usage and charge based on that metric?
So what I get from Unity's site is that they will charge per download. So yeah, potentially you can download a game three times to three different devices or even to the same devices you've wiped. But I would claim that generally speaking the number of downloads is a good indicator of how often a game is used. If you don't like a game you are generally going to download it only once. If you really like the game you are likely to download it again and again to new devices and after wipes. It isn't perfect for sure, but every other metric you can come up with also has a fair share of problems. Maybe you tell me which one is the one that does not have any problems and is still simple enough to bill upon?
Windows. If Unity is a large part of what makes games work then Windows is arguably an even larger part of what makes most consumer software work. If it's acceptable to charge for Unity usage then it should also be acceptable to charge for Windows usage. After all if you want to install Unity development tools on Windows you need to use Windows. Then following your logic that means Microsoft should be able to charge, in this example charge Unity Technologies, every time someone installs the Unity development tools because the tools literally won't work without Windows.
And if this became the norm then that cost will be offloaded to the customers. That would mean if you've built a new computer and want to play Skyrim you're going to pay x amount to install Chrome (or Firefox), then pay another x amount to install Steam and finally pay another x amount to install Skyrim. That's stupid.
It's called licensing and Unity developers already pay a licensing fee per year and, in theory, also per user. Some companies reuse keys (not unique to Unity or game dev) between developers because they can get away with it as just the "per user" part is already too hard for licensing companies to properly track and bill.
And to be clear I never said you're stupid. I said your idea is stupid. Smart people can have stupid ideas as well.
Yeah, so Windows is indeed a large part of why software works, but it is infrastructure which is packaged separately. Your reasoning can be extended into even further absurdity, like we should pay Intel each time we run software, etc. But this is just not how Microsoft and Intel operate. They're not part of the product, but just make the product work. It's not like we get another Windows version and Intel chip with each game.
Think of Unity like a frozen pizza bottom. What the developers needs to do is put some ingredients on top and it can be sold. The frozen pizza is clearly sold with the pizza bottom. Should the developer not have to pay per pizza bottom? You can bake the pizza in your oven, but the pizza developer doesn't need to pay for the oven. They can assume people have that in place; it is simply a requirement in order for the pizza to be consumed.
However, if you are going to ship a Microsoft product as part of your product, you can sure as hell expect Microsoft sales people on your doorstep. They'll negotiate an OEM deal and it'll surely depend on things like: number of installs, number of downloads, number of users, time used, value extracted by the users, revenue made by you, etc. I've ran a big company for many years and did a number of OEM deals during that time (both being OEMed and OEMing). This is only reasonable.