A Potential Earthquake in the Videogame Industry: UNITY Install Fees

[Paul Farquhar]

"1 + 1 = 3, b****es!"

That's maths, not science.

 

[Bagpuss]

Another update from the Axios reporter:


"NEW - I got a major update from Unity about their new fees

• Unity "regrouped" and now says ONLY the initial installation of a game triggers a fee
• Demos mostly won't trigger fees
• Devs not on the hook for Game Pass"

Why does this sound like Wizards rolling back a bit from the OGL 2.0, trying to clarify that it isn't as bad as you think, by which point the damage is done and it is still pretty bad. But the point is they have lost the trust by then, all that good will has gone, no one will ever trust them again and even when they eventually cancel the idea, people will move to a different system.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Why does this sound like Wizards rolling back a bit from the OGL 2.0, trying to clarify that it isn't as bad as you think, by which point the damage is done and it is still pretty bad. But the point is they have lost the trust by then, all that good will has gone, no one will ever trust them again and even when they eventually cancel the idea, people will move to a different system.

Unity's situation is worse than Wizard's since Wizards sell to retail. Unity sells to developers and has been proven to arbitrarily change terms and conditions in way that can destroy the value of your product.

 

[Ryujin]

Why does this sound like Wizards rolling back a bit from the OGL 2.0, trying to clarify that it isn't as bad as you think, by which point the damage is done and it is still pretty bad. But the point is they have lost the trust by then, all that good will has gone, no one will ever trust them again and even when they eventually cancel the idea, people will move to a different system.

It's more like the Patreon issue that I've mentioned previously. In that incident people moved to other platforms and it was the impetus for Kickstarter to start work on their own monthly support platform.

 

[Parmandur]

Unity's situation is worse than Wizard's since Wizards sell to retail. Unity sells to developers and has been proven to arbitrarily change terms and conditions in way that can destroy the value of your product.

Yeah, some of the shape of poor corporate decision making is similar, but the difference is details is huge: WotC actions were not aimed at their customers directly.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah, some of the shape of poor corporate decision making is similar, but the difference is details is huge: WotC actions were not aimed at their customers directly.

Unity would probably have gotten away with it, if the changes only applied to future development but in attempting to retroactively apply it to people that had already entered into development under different terms and conditions, that was always going to set people off.

 

[Parmandur]

Unity would probably have gotten away with it, if the changes only applied to future development but in attempting to retroactively apply it to people that had already entered into development under different terms and conditions, that was always going to set people off.

Even then, the gorm of monetization is so unreasonable and unpredictable it would have dampened developers desire to go with them. Even the OGL 2.0 was a modest percentage royalty: a hard $0.20 gor every install is insane. It would be like WotC trying to charge players a flat fee for opening books.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Unity would probably have gotten away with it, if the changes only applied to future development but in attempting to retroactively apply it to people that had already entered into development under different terms and conditions, that was always going to set people off.

No, being based on guesstimated install amounts was always going drive any but the biggest devs away. You cannot take the chance that your game is going to cost you money year after year.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Even then, the gorm of monetization is so unreasonable and unpredictable it would have dampened developers desire to go with them. Even the OGL 2.0 was a modest percentage royalty: a hard $0.20 gor every install is insane. It would be like WotC trying to charge players a flat fee for opening books.

The rate that Unity was seeking, is I believe in line with what is charged by Epic for the UnReal engine but with a much reduced threshold. The biggest issue would be the retroactive nature. Suddenly a lot of existing games in development that had a chance may not be viable under the new licence.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

No, being based on guesstimated install amounts was always going drive any but the biggest devs away. You cannot take the chance that your game is going to cost you money year after year.

That is probably true but if it was future dated a lot of those devs would have never considered Unity after their initial scoping but if you are year 4 of a 5 year cycle and the terms and conditions are changed under you going to get very vocal about it all of a sudden.
What I am trying to say is, that this was handled for maximum outrage. So much so that if I was the SEC I would be wondering about stock manipulation.