Proof me wrong then. Downloads/installs is not proportional to usage? Sounds like a nice null hypothesis that is easily disproven with a bit of data.
Your comment is total nonsense, there is nothing to prove.
Would you pay 20ct every time you open a pdf ? Why not then ?
Would you pay 20ct every time you open a pdf ? Why not then ?
No, but I would pay for a PDF reader based on the number of times I install this PDF reader if for some reason this PDF reader offers features that I can't get from some open-source tool. Especially if that means I get support, bug fixes, support for different devices and the like, which Unity does. This is not an uncommon model at all.
I failed my question.
Would you pay 20ct every time a user open a pdf you made ?
Yes, if I would make more than 20 cents of of it, let's say 40 cents, and the company that I am paying to is offering a major service to me that would make it otherwise near impossible for me to make such a PDF, then sure.
And then he open it 10 times and you are fucked, and your competitor open it thousands of times and you are vastly fucked
If I get payed 40 cents every time it is opened this isn't a problem. He can open it as many times as he wants. I'll happily pay the 20c and keep the rest as profits. If my income is proportional to usage and my costs are proportional to usage there is no problem. I don't see why this could not hold for games or for PDFs?
The bottom line: if somehow you've made a game and it is installed a lot, but you don't make enough money off of that such that you can't pay your suppliers then you've just failed at commerce.
A friend of mine failed at commerce once. She had a clothing store. In the clothing business you've got seasons. So typically shop owners buy a whole lot of clothes in bulk for the entire season. Her shop didn't survive the economic down turn of 2008/2009. So she was left with huge amounts of clothes and an enormous bill to pay, which she had to default on. Unity's business model is extremely mild compared to that industry. I also still fail to see how it is not fair.
That's the problem : it is NOT proportional.
You are not paid everytime a user install your game. Just when he buy it.
I also still fail to see how it is not fair
Yes obviously
Proportional does not mean one equates the other. It means that while one goes up, the other goes up as well. It's not going to be some constant factor and it'll depend on the game, but you should expect that for every license you may have a handful of installs. You simply need to account for that. If you would have to come up with a mathematical function that estimates the number of installs your game is going to have and you know the amount of users, would you use the amount of users as a coefficient in your function? If so, then that means it is proportional. If not, then please enlighten me how you would guess the number of installs without the number of users.
Now the next question is, is it fair? Why not? One business model will be the license model, but another business model could be based on usage. Perhaps long time users are buying in-game items, doing upgrades, looking at ads, are willing to shell out extra money for different devices, etc. Unity's business model should work for all business models in such a way that they can be paid their dues. Also, the more a game is used the more demand this puts on the developer for upgrades, bug/security fixes, supporting other devices, etc. This demand will translate into demand on Unity, which makes it only fair that Unity gets payed some amount based on installs.
No, sorry but it still don't make any sense.
That's why absolutely nobody thought about such a stupid system since the beginning of software.
It's not like your users where using unity's servers. They just want free money for nothing.
Ok, whatever dude. I made a whole bunch of quality arguments, refuted all of yours thus far and you're now only just repeating that it is stupid. I am truly and honestly willing to change my mind if you can come up with a good point that I've not thought of, but I'm not going to spend anymore time on you make until you make an argument.
And it's not only you. I've debated the lot of you. Not a single good argument thus far. Just a bunch of haters who like to name call and tell me that it is stupid or that I am stupid without actually being able to properly provide reasoning for that claim. So at the risk of being the emperor without clothes, it just seems to me that a whole bunch of gamers love hating on Unity without actually understanding why this business model is actually not unreasonable because it threatens the status quo.
If you don't see the problem of arbitrarily having to pay more than you earn using a shady number from their ass I won't be able to convince you.
Maybe ask yourself why you are alone thinking this is a good system and why so much people are ready to yeet their projects or businesses and take the risk of switching to a more honest engine.
It's not just "fail at commerce". What about those who spent the last 10 years developing their projects and fine-tuning their business model, only to get thrown on the toilet like that ?
This is not failing at commerce. Unity failed at commerce, in fact unity failed almost everything, and now it's also a big fucking lack of respect.
If you don’t see the problem of arbitrarily having to pay more than you earn using a shady number from their ass I won’t be able to convince you.
Again no argument.
Let's say you have a free game, that's pretty popular. You offer some cosmetic stuff players can buy, and/or a few ads. The game gets really popular, and you exceed $200000 income. You also have millions of downloads of the game.
In that case you could end up owing unity money, because a download/install is not the same as a sale.
Now imagine you published this game a month ago and it's popularity is climbing, and your income is slowly climbing too.
Do you gamble that the game will be profitable, or do you delist the game because you risk bankrupting yourself if you don't?
Edit: also, what's stopping them from changing it to $2 per install, or $20? You have no guarantee. Not something you'd feel comfortable building your business on, and sink years of development into.
Edit2:
geometry dash lite - 100M+ downloads
Roblox - 500M+ downloads
Solitaire - 10M+ downloads
angry Birds 2 - 100M+ downloads
If they'd be made in unity, they would each have owed unity millions just from downloads. I'm not sure they're that profitable..
If it's a free game then you shouldn't be using a commercial engine. If you do use a commercial engine in a commercial setting then you need to make sure that you make a profit after you've payed your costs. This is not different from any other type of commercial enterprise.
If you are going to go with an ad based model for your game, like you suggest, then you should be able to make a profit if enough people use your game, which should be somewhat proportional to the amount of installs. People aren't just going to install your product and never use it. What could happen of course is that they use it once or twice and determine it's total crap and then don't spend any time actually playing it, so not enough ads can be displayed. In that case you should indeed delist the game, because it isn't viable. This should be easy to track based on the number of downloads and ads revenue. But of course if your game is crap then you can also expect people to not download it in the first place, so it isn't a very realistic scenario. If your game is slowly becoming more popular, like you suggest, then you should be able to make enough of of it to pay your dues.
Perhaps what could happen is that you manage to stir up an incredible amount of hype around your game. A ton of people download it and then simultaneously determine it is crap without listening to game reviews and such. However, in this case I can hardly imagine that the business model was ad based revenue when you've got the marketing budget to stir up such a hype.
Nevertheless I wouldn't say it is completely out of the realm of possibility to get cornered by Unity's business model, or any third party business model as of fact, but it's unlikely if you think it through. And that is actually part of the risk of entrepreneurship that you need manage. A friend of mine also had a clothing store and bought a bunch of clothes that in the end she couldn't sell and needed to default on her payments. It happens. The clothing store industry is much harder than the game industry: you need to buy everything up front and then hope that you're going to be able to sell it.
Unless you're dealing with a liberal open-source license, you can't just expect to go out into the world and use somebody else's work without having to deal with these types of issues. And that is just fair, if you'd ask me.
A few points:
If your revenue is above $100.000 the last 12 months, you need a professional license. Which you pay for. The "free for smaller games" is what allowed Unity to gain it's current foothold in the market. This install fee will be in addition to that. And for all games, including older games or games made on older versions of unity.
It takes years to develop a game, and Unity announced this pretty recently (September 12). If you had a plan that would be profitable with ads or microtransactions and you and your team spent years making it, you'd suddenly might not have a business model any more. And for games already released, it might not be profitable keeping it up any more. Unless you have a way to predict the future, that point is completely moot. If you started developing a new game the last .. 5 days, sure. But then you'd probably pick a different engine that doesn't have such a requirement.
Finally, someone who actually makes arguments! :)
I can fully imagine that some people who counted on the old business model are really fucking bummed out by this change, need to rethink their business strategy and feel forced with their back against the wall. That has got to be a major pain in the ass and disappointment.
I am unsure why Unity is making this change. Perhaps they are just greedy bastards, perhaps they need it to survive or perhaps something in between. Regardless, if you would be in Unity's position and would want to do this change then I don't see a way an easy way around it. Even if they'd decide that older versions are licensed in the old way, then that would potentially mean you'd get a whole bunch of people sticking to an old version, which of course opens up a whole new can of worms that they might have good reasons for not wanting to open up.
While everyone is up in arms and hating on Unity my entire point was only to say that the business model that they are proposing isn't unreasonable. Paying per installation. People are acting like it is totally unreasonable to charge for the number of installs, as if Unity isn't a core ingredient of all those shipped products. It seems like people lose critical thinking skills when they get emotional.
This is not to say that it doesn't suck monkeyballs for those affected. I use a free ferry service quite often where I live. It's great and it would suck ass if the municipality would start charging for it, but I wouldn't pretend that it is totally unfair that they decided to ask money for it.
PS some person accused me of using ChatGPT while directing their Unity hate onto me, but I truly don't, so I am keeping my wall of text because I think it gets my point across more effectively.
Proof me wrong then. Downloads/installs is not proportional to usage? Sounds like a nice null hypothesis that is easily disproven with a bit of data.
Your comment is total nonsense, there is nothing to prove.
Would you pay 20ct every time you open a pdf ? Why not then ?
No, but I would pay for a PDF reader based on the number of times I install this PDF reader if for some reason this PDF reader offers features that I can't get from some open-source tool. Especially if that means I get support, bug fixes, support for different devices and the like, which Unity does. This is not an uncommon model at all.
I failed my question.
Would you pay 20ct every time a user open a pdf you made ?
Yes, if I would make more than 20 cents of of it, let's say 40 cents, and the company that I am paying to is offering a major service to me that would make it otherwise near impossible for me to make such a PDF, then sure.
And then he open it 10 times and you are fucked, and your competitor open it thousands of times and you are vastly fucked
If I get payed 40 cents every time it is opened this isn't a problem. He can open it as many times as he wants. I'll happily pay the 20c and keep the rest as profits. If my income is proportional to usage and my costs are proportional to usage there is no problem. I don't see why this could not hold for games or for PDFs?
The bottom line: if somehow you've made a game and it is installed a lot, but you don't make enough money off of that such that you can't pay your suppliers then you've just failed at commerce.
A friend of mine failed at commerce once. She had a clothing store. In the clothing business you've got seasons. So typically shop owners buy a whole lot of clothes in bulk for the entire season. Her shop didn't survive the economic down turn of 2008/2009. So she was left with huge amounts of clothes and an enormous bill to pay, which she had to default on. Unity's business model is extremely mild compared to that industry. I also still fail to see how it is not fair.
That's the problem : it is NOT proportional.
You are not paid everytime a user install your game. Just when he buy it.
Yes obviously
Proportional does not mean one equates the other. It means that while one goes up, the other goes up as well. It's not going to be some constant factor and it'll depend on the game, but you should expect that for every license you may have a handful of installs. You simply need to account for that. If you would have to come up with a mathematical function that estimates the number of installs your game is going to have and you know the amount of users, would you use the amount of users as a coefficient in your function? If so, then that means it is proportional. If not, then please enlighten me how you would guess the number of installs without the number of users.
Now the next question is, is it fair? Why not? One business model will be the license model, but another business model could be based on usage. Perhaps long time users are buying in-game items, doing upgrades, looking at ads, are willing to shell out extra money for different devices, etc. Unity's business model should work for all business models in such a way that they can be paid their dues. Also, the more a game is used the more demand this puts on the developer for upgrades, bug/security fixes, supporting other devices, etc. This demand will translate into demand on Unity, which makes it only fair that Unity gets payed some amount based on installs.
No, sorry but it still don't make any sense.
That's why absolutely nobody thought about such a stupid system since the beginning of software.
It's not like your users where using unity's servers. They just want free money for nothing.
Ok, whatever dude. I made a whole bunch of quality arguments, refuted all of yours thus far and you're now only just repeating that it is stupid. I am truly and honestly willing to change my mind if you can come up with a good point that I've not thought of, but I'm not going to spend anymore time on you make until you make an argument.
And it's not only you. I've debated the lot of you. Not a single good argument thus far. Just a bunch of haters who like to name call and tell me that it is stupid or that I am stupid without actually being able to properly provide reasoning for that claim. So at the risk of being the emperor without clothes, it just seems to me that a whole bunch of gamers love hating on Unity without actually understanding why this business model is actually not unreasonable because it threatens the status quo.
If you don't see the problem of arbitrarily having to pay more than you earn using a shady number from their ass I won't be able to convince you.
Maybe ask yourself why you are alone thinking this is a good system and why so much people are ready to yeet their projects or businesses and take the risk of switching to a more honest engine.
It's not just "fail at commerce". What about those who spent the last 10 years developing their projects and fine-tuning their business model, only to get thrown on the toilet like that ?
This is not failing at commerce. Unity failed at commerce, in fact unity failed almost everything, and now it's also a big fucking lack of respect.
Again no argument.
Let's say you have a free game, that's pretty popular. You offer some cosmetic stuff players can buy, and/or a few ads. The game gets really popular, and you exceed $200000 income. You also have millions of downloads of the game.
In that case you could end up owing unity money, because a download/install is not the same as a sale.
Now imagine you published this game a month ago and it's popularity is climbing, and your income is slowly climbing too.
Do you gamble that the game will be profitable, or do you delist the game because you risk bankrupting yourself if you don't?
Edit: also, what's stopping them from changing it to $2 per install, or $20? You have no guarantee. Not something you'd feel comfortable building your business on, and sink years of development into.
Edit2:
If they'd be made in unity, they would each have owed unity millions just from downloads. I'm not sure they're that profitable..
If it's a free game then you shouldn't be using a commercial engine. If you do use a commercial engine in a commercial setting then you need to make sure that you make a profit after you've payed your costs. This is not different from any other type of commercial enterprise.
If you are going to go with an ad based model for your game, like you suggest, then you should be able to make a profit if enough people use your game, which should be somewhat proportional to the amount of installs. People aren't just going to install your product and never use it. What could happen of course is that they use it once or twice and determine it's total crap and then don't spend any time actually playing it, so not enough ads can be displayed. In that case you should indeed delist the game, because it isn't viable. This should be easy to track based on the number of downloads and ads revenue. But of course if your game is crap then you can also expect people to not download it in the first place, so it isn't a very realistic scenario. If your game is slowly becoming more popular, like you suggest, then you should be able to make enough of of it to pay your dues.
Perhaps what could happen is that you manage to stir up an incredible amount of hype around your game. A ton of people download it and then simultaneously determine it is crap without listening to game reviews and such. However, in this case I can hardly imagine that the business model was ad based revenue when you've got the marketing budget to stir up such a hype.
Nevertheless I wouldn't say it is completely out of the realm of possibility to get cornered by Unity's business model, or any third party business model as of fact, but it's unlikely if you think it through. And that is actually part of the risk of entrepreneurship that you need manage. A friend of mine also had a clothing store and bought a bunch of clothes that in the end she couldn't sell and needed to default on her payments. It happens. The clothing store industry is much harder than the game industry: you need to buy everything up front and then hope that you're going to be able to sell it.
Unless you're dealing with a liberal open-source license, you can't just expect to go out into the world and use somebody else's work without having to deal with these types of issues. And that is just fair, if you'd ask me.
A few points:
Finally, someone who actually makes arguments! :)
I can fully imagine that some people who counted on the old business model are really fucking bummed out by this change, need to rethink their business strategy and feel forced with their back against the wall. That has got to be a major pain in the ass and disappointment.
I am unsure why Unity is making this change. Perhaps they are just greedy bastards, perhaps they need it to survive or perhaps something in between. Regardless, if you would be in Unity's position and would want to do this change then I don't see a way an easy way around it. Even if they'd decide that older versions are licensed in the old way, then that would potentially mean you'd get a whole bunch of people sticking to an old version, which of course opens up a whole new can of worms that they might have good reasons for not wanting to open up.
While everyone is up in arms and hating on Unity my entire point was only to say that the business model that they are proposing isn't unreasonable. Paying per installation. People are acting like it is totally unreasonable to charge for the number of installs, as if Unity isn't a core ingredient of all those shipped products. It seems like people lose critical thinking skills when they get emotional.
This is not to say that it doesn't suck monkeyballs for those affected. I use a free ferry service quite often where I live. It's great and it would suck ass if the municipality would start charging for it, but I wouldn't pretend that it is totally unfair that they decided to ask money for it.
PS some person accused me of using ChatGPT while directing their Unity hate onto me, but I truly don't, so I am keeping my wall of text because I think it gets my point across more effectively.