Unity stirs up more confusion and ire as FAQ indicates platforms will also be charged...

[Alfonso Maruccia]

A hot potato: Unity's shocking reveal of its new "Runtime Fee" still baffles the gaming world. A mix of confusion, rage, and uncertainty is spreading throughout the internet, and the latest update to Unity's official FAQs could bring even more chaos – and legal threats – to an already messy situation.

Unity Technologies unveiled its controversial Unity Runtime Fee a few days ago, and the entire gaming market is still trying to understand what to do with it. Game developers are mostly fuming against the additional fee, threatening to abandon the engine or remove their game from stores like Cult of the Lamb studio Massive Monster has threatened. Unity even closed its offices after a "credible" death threat. An investigation revealed one of its employees was behind the threat.

Now, it appears that Unity is even going to war against platform holders. A new FAQ update seemingly suggests that Unity will charge any "entity that distributes the runtime."

Unity's vaguely worded statement could be explosive, as every single copy of a game with Unity contains a Unity Runtime. Therefore, companies that provide the most popular digital delivery services for all the major gaming platforms would be charged with a waterfall of Unity Runtime Fee micro-payments.

The FAQ in question, which is still online at the time of writing, suggests corporations like Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Valve, and Epic cover the runtime fee for each game sale from digital stores on PlayStation, Xbox, Switch, and PC. So Unity has once again added more confusion because the same FAQ page indicates the fee applies to developers.

Unity clarified further the fee for developers worried about pirated copies of their games. The company said it would be "happy to work" with anyone who has been a victim of piracy, which suggests that game studios and indie devs would have to prove that non-paying customers downloaded some of their game runtimes.

Every new "clarification" statement made by Unity seemingly confirms the worst fears about the new runtime fee expressed by gamers and developers while becoming even more confusing and convoluted than necessary. The company is still experiencing many negative comments, statements, and threats against the new business model. Bringing the "Big Three" of the console market and PC giants like Valve into the fray has escalated the situation to unprecedented levels.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/100165-unity-now-wants-charge-game-distributors-controversial-runtime.html

 

[m4a4]

And it's a great way to get it blacklisted, making sure no one uses your "runtime".

I can't tell if the top investors are just dumb, or complicit with this change (for underhanded reasons), as it doesn't seem like they're backing down (at least not yet).

 

[mrtraver]

Are we certain that Elon Musk or Steve Huffman haven't taken over Unity?

 

[Theinsanegamer]

And it's a great way to get it blacklisted, making sure no one uses your "runtime".

I can't tell if the top investors are just dumb, or complicit with this change (for underhanded reasons), as it doesn't seem like they're backing down (at least not yet).

If the console makers and valve refuse to list any new projects using unity it will be a death knell and a warning to other software companies.

God I wish that would happen now.

 

[robb213]

Are we certain that Elon Musk or Steve Huffman haven't taken over Unity?

No, John Riccitiello, the former CEO of EA Games did.

But in all seriousness with him at the helm this shenanigan is no surprise. It's like Japan thinking they could take on the US in WW2 all over again.

 

[m4a4]

If the console makers and valve refuse to list any new projects using unity it will be a death knell and a warning to other software companies.

God I wish that would happen now.

It won't until Unity starts foolishly demanding a cut from them. And if Unity is insistent about it, I can see it happening like dominoes after the first platform blacklists them.

Though, if a big player did release a PR statement warning about any attempt to do so, it might help convince the id!ots in charge of this stupid decision to walk it back....

 

[brucek]

This fee structure seems like Unity going out of its way to say "our platform is a terrible choice for low-priced indies, games with clients on multiple platforms, games you might one day want to sell to Game Pass or license as a freebie/promo, or have a F2P biz model, or games that might be pirated" Which is really dumb because all of these either apply to most games, or specifically apply to the types of situations Unity is supposed to be good for (multi-platform).

Like m4a4, I can't decode what's really happening here. They can't be so dumb as to not understand why this model doesn't work; or why no one with a finance department will be able to accept a fee structure with uncapped, unpredictable payments not correlated to revenue due in perpetuity; but I also can't think of any reason why'd they'd believe this is a good idea.

At this point the reputational damage feels fatal absent selling just the game engine business to a new party, or changing the management team.

 

[brucek]

Re: collecting from platforms - does Unity have an agreement with any of these platforms? Because absent that, it feels like the platforms will just send Unity a link to their DMCA copyright complaint form, ask them to report which title(s) that include their runtime or other copyrighted content they'd like taken down, and leave it at that.

 

[toooooot]

They are literally burying their engine.

 

[Uncle Al]

Not a problem, the biggest and best will abandon them quickly, especially if the game owners demand it. Big companies cannot withstand boycotts of their games if they want to survive ....

 

[ET3D]

They can't be so dumb as to not understand why this model doesn't work; or why no one with a finance department will be able to accept a fee structure with uncapped, unpredictable payments not correlated to revenue due in perpetuity; but I also can't think of any reason why'd they'd believe this is a good idea.

I think that most people miss the fact that anyone who buys a Unity Pro (or Enterprise) license is subject to a completely different price structure, which not only starts at $1M and 1M installs, but also becomes cheaper per unit the more units are sold.

So basically all that's needed is to pay about $2000 per seat per year to Unity.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I think that most people miss the fact that anyone who buys a Unity Pro (or Enterprise) license is subject to a completely different price structure, which not only starts at $1M and 1M installs, but also becomes cheaper per unit the more units are sold.

So basically all that's needed is to pay about $2000 per seat per year to Unity.

Oh I forgot, predatory pricing is OK if you're rich. Somehow this makes it OK.

 

[ET3D]

Oh I forgot, predatory pricing is OK if you're rich. Somehow this makes it OK.

Now, that's just a FUD response. Many people, including myself, had a knee jerk reaction to the new policy (which Unity is now reevaluating), but after thinking about it, the short of it is this:

Previously, if you made more than $100K a year, you had to buy the Plus plan. If you made more than $200K a year, you had to buy Pro.

With the new plan, you could continue to use the free plan, but you'd be subject to high per-install fees if you make more than $200K a year. If you pay for a for Pro, which you were previously forced to buy when earning more than $200K, then the extra charges are a lot less of an issue (only start at $1M and 1M installs, and can be quite low if you sell a lot).

So while there's still a charge if you make more than $1M a year, the rest is actually an improvement. You can choose between buying Pro and paying less on the install fees, or not buying Pro and paying install fees. For games being sold at a high price, and therefore getting to $200K a lot sooner than selling 200K units, this can save quite a bit of money over the years.