201–210 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it ready nowadays? What does "ready" mean?
"Can you develop and ship a non-trivial game with it, ideally on multiple platforms, without spending loads of time debugging the internals of the engine?"
>Imagine releasing a game for 99 cents under the personal plan, where Steam takes 30% off the top for their platform fee, and then unity takes 20 cents per install, and now you're making a maximum of 46 cents on the dollar. Not only that, but with this predatory practice of taking any percent (steam, apple) or fix dollar value, makes just having a game up a potential liability. If you need to refund anyone you are re…
What I am confused about is WHY is the CEO taking such a brain-dead executive decision on a stable, profit earning cash-cow. I mean - this is something that all high-level executives should have pointed out to Riccitiello as a very dumb idea. This isn't rocket science or some financial black-magic wizkid deduction. This is basically committing hara-kiri on the product and looks to be effectively a company killing dec…
But it's not. Unity is extremely unprofitable as a company (-50% operating margin.. lol..).
They would be fine if they hadn't started burning money like there is no tomorrow after their IPO back in 2020. The company was still unprofitable but had decent growth and would've broken even in a year or two. Then they decided that they need to double their headcount (to almost 8000 people...) in two years and start buying random companies for exorbitant prices (I guess why not? Money is free after-all).
Now they don't have a choice and have to maximize their rev. growth or the company is f**d. IMHO the engine itself would probably be in a much better spot had MS (or even FB) bought them 5-10 years ago and they could've easily paid as much as their current valuation minus Weta, IronSource, whatever they bought before.
> company killing decision, unless there is something we are missing ?
Probably. I mean the pricing changes seem to be very complicated and most people are only looking at a single number ($0.2) which seems to be there only to force everyone above the 200k revenue/install threshold to upgrade to Pro tier. Seems like 80-90% of all users won't pay anything for installs and the average for those who do is probably to be somewhere between 2-5 cents which is not unreasonable financial (it still seems like a slightly bizarre price model in general).
The way they presented this seems to be a disaster marketing wise. But about on par given the general level of idiocy amongst their upper management (especially their "marketing department").
>Imagine releasing a game for 99 cents under the personal plan, where Steam takes 30% off the top for their platform fee, and then unity takes 20 cents per install, and now you're making a maximum of 46 cents on the dollar. Not only that, but with this predatory practice of taking any percent (steam, apple) or fix dollar value, makes just having a game up a potential liability. If you need to refund anyone you are re…
What I am confused about is WHY is the CEO taking such a brain-dead executive decision on a stable, profit earning cash-cow. I mean - this is something that all high-level executives should have pointed out to Riccitiello as a very dumb idea. This isn't rocket science or some financial black-magic wizkid deduction. This is basically committing hara-kiri on the product and looks to be effectively a company killing dec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I am confused about is WHY is the CEO taking such a brain-dead executive decision on a stable, profit earning cash-cow. I mean - this is something that all high-level executives should have pointed out to Riccitiello as a very dumb idea. This isn't rocket science or some financial black-magic wizkid deduction. This is basically committing hara-kiri on the product and looks to be effectively a company killing dec…
The obvious answer is Wall Street brainrot: Stable profits are worthless. (Forget the fact that, y'know, they keep the company alive, everyone paid, and everything that actually matters to 95% of people working fine.) All that matters is growth. Growth is what gets CEOs praise from shareholders, bonuses from boards, and even-higher-paying CEO jobs elsewhere.
Unity never had those though or any profits for that matter (they have been burning cash for almost two decades..)
> All that matters is growth
Yeah, but in this case they have been more focused on growing their costs rather than revenue (which is not exactly ideal even from the "Wall Street" perspective).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obvious answer is Wall Street brainrot: Stable profits are worthless. (Forget the fact that, y'know, they keep the company alive, everyone paid, and everything that actually matters to 95% of people working fine.) All that matters is growth. Growth is what gets CEOs praise from shareholders, bonuses from boards, and even-higher-paying CEO jobs elsewhere.
> Stable profits are worthless Unity never had those though or any profits for that matter (they have been burning cash for almost two decades..) > All that matters is growth Yeah, but in this case they have been more focused on growing their costs rather than revenue (which is not exactly ideal even from the "Wall Street" perspective).
If what you say is the case, then this is still a dumb move, because it's still acting as if the choices existing Unity developers have are "pay Unity whatever they want, or get out of the business", but it's at least not quite as directly related to Wall Street brainrot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unreal is cheaper if you intend to stay within the free threshold of less than $1 million in sales, you can't beat free. But if you have dreams of having a hit with more than $1million then I can't find any scenarios where unreal is cheaper. Let me know if you can think of an example. And very very quickly unreal is more expensive. For example at $2 million in revenue unreal would cost $50k in royalties. Assuming a g…
>Assuming a game with a price of $1 and 2 million installs unity is $10k in install fees. Assuming Unity Pro ($2000 per seat per year) - first 1000000 installs are free, next 1000000 priced as follows: 0.15 * 100000 + 0.075 * 400000 + 0.03 * 500000 = 60000$ + Unity Pro for each seat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stable profits are worthless Unity never had those though or any profits for that matter (they have been burning cash for almost two decades..) > All that matters is growth Yeah, but in this case they have been more focused on growing their costs rather than revenue (which is not exactly ideal even from the "Wall Street" perspective).
Now, that's a different matter—the post I was replying to posited that they were stably profitable (and I have no outside information either way). If what you say is the case, then this is still a dumb move, because it's still acting as if the choices existing Unity developers have are "pay Unity whatever they want, or get out of the business", but it's at least not quite as directly related to Wall Street brainrot.
I guess it's down to how the video game/engine market works. A tiny proportion of their users make massive amounts of money while essentially paying peanuts to Unity (well.. I guess at least in relation to what value it provides compared to storefronts/ad companies/platform owners etc.), while the bulk makes barely anything.
They don't want to go with a rev. share model due to various (pretty valid reasons) and therefore they seem to be really struggling with monetization. So they came up with this Frankensteinian compromise/abomination which hardly solves anything:
- most of their biggest customer will continue paying pennies (as % of revenue).
- most users are under the 200k/1000k limit so these changed don't even affect them in short term (of course it might make them reconsider whether they really want to continue using Unity)
- the not that large but very vocal (their corporate won't go around complaining on twitter/reddit/etc.) group of mainly indie developers in between is kind of screwed (at least if they make F2P or cheap mobile games). However it's not like they pay Unity that much money currently, so their executives who obsessed with maximizing short-term revenue growth don't have any reason to care about what happens to them.
About time. What makes a game unique in spirit is its engine.
This isn’t true about websites and frameworks or sculptures and chisels. There’s no reason why it should be true of games and their engines. It is a poetic statement though.
My opinion is that, in all of these processes, people are the ones that bring the spirit and thus are its source in the final product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stable profits are worthless Unity never had those though or any profits for that matter (they have been burning cash for almost two decades..) > All that matters is growth Yeah, but in this case they have been more focused on growing their costs rather than revenue (which is not exactly ideal even from the "Wall Street" perspective).
Now, that's a different matter—the post I was replying to posited that they were stably profitable (and I have no outside information either way). If what you say is the case, then this is still a dumb move, because it's still acting as if the choices existing Unity developers have are "pay Unity whatever they want, or get out of the business", but it's at least not quite as directly related to Wall Street brainrot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDScript can be made to use static typing: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/scripting/g... Additionally, C# has first class support and community supported languages include stuff like Nim, Rust, and Typescript: https://github.com/Vivraan/godot-lang-support Compilation is irrelevant to a game engine scripting language. I think Godot does some magic on their end to make the interpreted nature of GDScri…
Compilation is quite relevant when targeting mobile and game consoles.