I’m pretty sure gaming studios would be mostly fine with paying a percentage of the sales revenue to unity too, the problem is that Unity wants a flat fee even when studios aren’t making any money.
No, fuck that. Paying a game engine for based on the success of my product is asinine. Absurd.
That’s like car companies asking Uber drivers for a cut of their revenues.
Or knife companies asking restaurants for a cut (heh) of their revenues too.
It’s sheer, sheer greed and nothing more.
Edit: I didn’t convey well what I meant. Yes, of course you should pay for a commercial game engine. That’s not asinine. I meant to say that it should be a flat fee, or maybe a tiered fee. But not something proportional to the amount of downloads.
Well, unity’s business model was always to make it free and then ask for a fee on revenue because it’s easier for small studios. The alternative business model would be to sell a direct license of the 3D engine, which will likely cost in the 10s of thousands.
It’s expensive building a 3D/game engine, they sell one to you.
I’m not saying their latest move is not a real dick move, but it’s normal that they want to be paid for the product they sell. Uber drivers have paid for their cars, right?
Sure, but per download, and retroactively? Absurd.
I like Reaper’s business model better. Yes, it’s audio, and yes it’s simpler, but it makes more sense. “You poor? Pay USD 60. Pay us USD 240 for the next upgrade when you make it big.” Imagine if they said “pay us 0.10 per download.” It would be total bullshit.
I don’t follow the Uber driver having paid for their cars. Yes, yes they have. Just like game studios paid for the offices, hardware and human resources.
Again, I agree that Unity’s move is bad, they’re just forcing people to their monetisation platform and to a per download system which will hurt a lot of studios.
The 3D/game engine for a studio is, in my opinion, the main tool that game studios will r to make their game. Without it, they won’t be able to develop or it would cost them 100 times more. That’s why I compared to the Uber driver’s car, it’s also his main tool for his job. Both cannot expect to have it free.
I think there should be some different metric, but for a lets say one man firm trying to be next concernedape and fail, not having huge debt is kinda big deal…
You can always build your own engine, if you think you can do better. Creating a game engine like Unreal or Unity is anything but an easy task, and they should get renumerated for that work. However, a more sensible pricing model than the shitshow Unity did is Unreal’s: The first $1m in revenue is yours, after that, a constant 5% fee. Sounds reasonable to me.
I’m pretty sure gaming studios would be mostly fine with paying a percentage of the sales revenue to unity too, the problem is that Unity wants a flat fee even when studios aren’t making any money.
I think the real problem is changing the terms of the agreement and making it retroactive.
Yes, the question is what will happen next year and the year after that.
Pandora’s box has been opened.
Exactly. If they are willing to fuck over the creatives like this the best thing to do is to cut their losses and move to a different engine.
No, fuck that. Paying a game engine
forbased on the success of my product is asinine. Absurd.That’s like car companies asking Uber drivers for a cut of their revenues.
Or knife companies asking restaurants for a cut (heh) of their revenues too.
It’s sheer, sheer greed and nothing more.
Edit: I didn’t convey well what I meant. Yes, of course you should pay for a commercial game engine. That’s not asinine. I meant to say that it should be a flat fee, or maybe a tiered fee. But not something proportional to the amount of downloads.
Well, unity’s business model was always to make it free and then ask for a fee on revenue because it’s easier for small studios. The alternative business model would be to sell a direct license of the 3D engine, which will likely cost in the 10s of thousands.
It’s expensive building a 3D/game engine, they sell one to you.
I’m not saying their latest move is not a real dick move, but it’s normal that they want to be paid for the product they sell. Uber drivers have paid for their cars, right?
Sure, but per download, and retroactively? Absurd.
I like Reaper’s business model better. Yes, it’s audio, and yes it’s simpler, but it makes more sense. “You poor? Pay USD 60. Pay us USD 240 for the next upgrade when you make it big.” Imagine if they said “pay us 0.10 per download.” It would be total bullshit.
I don’t follow the Uber driver having paid for their cars. Yes, yes they have. Just like game studios paid for the offices, hardware and human resources.
Again, I agree that Unity’s move is bad, they’re just forcing people to their monetisation platform and to a per download system which will hurt a lot of studios.
The 3D/game engine for a studio is, in my opinion, the main tool that game studios will r to make their game. Without it, they won’t be able to develop or it would cost them 100 times more. That’s why I compared to the Uber driver’s car, it’s also his main tool for his job. Both cannot expect to have it free.
I think there should be some different metric, but for a lets say one man firm trying to be next concernedape and fail, not having huge debt is kinda big deal…
More like if car companies charged dealerships every time someone started their car.
You can always build your own engine, if you think you can do better. Creating a game engine like Unreal or Unity is anything but an easy task, and they should get renumerated for that work. However, a more sensible pricing model than the shitshow Unity did is Unreal’s: The first $1m in revenue is yours, after that, a constant 5% fee. Sounds reasonable to me.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the engine should be free. More like it shouldn’t be tied to the number of downloads.
That is Unreal’s model.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]