99
all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mounderfod@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 1 year ago

$0.20 per install when you're over the threshold.... Yikes

[-] nnullzz@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

I was just starting to learn Unity for a game I’ve been wanting to make for years. I don’t how I feel continuing with it knowing that at anytime they can pull shit like this.

[-] LoafyLemon@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

Try Godot. It's not exactly the same, but similar enough to let you switch relatively quickly.

[-] ryan@the.coolest.zone 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

IMPORTANT EDIT: I have learned that Unity is going to charge for games already released now. This is a scummy move. I have still not found info on whether devs will be back-charged, like suddenly a huge bill will show up for games which already have a million downloads and a lot of revenue. I was previously in tentative favor of this change only so long as:

  1. it would apply to newly-released games after the change (no longer valid)
  2. the first 200,000 installs would not be back-charged even after the change over (still unknown to me)

Scummy move, Unity.

ORIGINAL POST:

I'm seeing a couple pieces of misinformation in here so I just wanted to clarify:

  • This applies to the free Unity and Unity Plus - the enterprise version has different thresholds.
  • The fee will apply to games that have made $200,000 USD or more in the last 12 months AND have at least 200,000 per-game lifetime installs.
  • Even then, the costs are different depending on which country you are in - "emerging market" is only $0.02 vs $0.20 for other countries.

Essentially it looks to me like you have to have made a significant amount of money already to be charged these fees - someone releasing a free game that goes viral won't be charged. One thing I haven't found is whether those first 200,000 installs will or won't be back-charged. If the initial installs aren't back-charged then I would consider this very reasonable, frankly, and cheaper than Unreal provided the game you release costs more than $4.00 (since Unreal takes a flat 5% of revenue I believe).

Unity does need to make money to be able to keep developing their engine, and right now as far as I understand it they aren't making money.

Genuine question, are they not making money, or are they not making more money than they did last year? I just tend to hear that companies aren't making money when all they really mean is that profits aren't growing, but they're still making a big profit.

[-] ryan@the.coolest.zone 4 points 1 year ago

I'm just looking at Wikipedia here but their net income in 2022 was US$ –921 million. Granted I'm not a financial wizard but I am at least somewhat confident that a negative number for net income is bad, like they're not actually making money after their expenses.

Thanks for taking the time to respond! Yeah that doesn't sound good.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
99 points (96.3% liked)

Programming

17314 readers
24 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS