Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry • Hacker News Board

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#111

Post by jeremyjh » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

BudaDude wrote: post #59

jeremyjh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are really good reasons to choose Unity over Godot, but C# isn't one of them. You have to learn a whole new API, framework, workflow, etc. Learning GDScript is the least of the issues.

This isn't always true. C# outperform GDScript. Even GDScript 2. GDScript is great for quickly programming certains events. But if you want to create complicated systems that using require thousands or millions of data points, you will notice the speed difference.

And C++ outperforms C#, so native modules are always an option where you really need performance. Yes, you have to build for every platform but most projects really won't need it - but its there so you know you have options when you do. GDNative is also an option to avoid building the core engine, and its still at least as fast as C#.

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#112

Post by Hemospectrum » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #51

Hemospectrum wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Install bombing is still a problem. Unity, for all its "clarifications," keeps promising it won't be a problem and then refusing to be transparent about any of the ways it could possibly be less of a problem. Either they backtrack on this whole lifetime install count scheme or this blows up even more spectacularly when January rolls around.

I don't understand why this is a worry - they will do it the same way Valve/Microsoft/Epic/Blizzard identify how many machines you have their product installed on - with a unique hardware ID that will make sure you aren't charged twice for installing the game on the same machine. It's not rocket science, it's been used in the industry for ages.

They're repurposing an existing telemetry system that already counts installs and cannot distinguish between a new install and a reinstall. They've been using it for at least five years.

I only know this because they specifically pointed it out when announcing the new pricing plan.

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#113

Post by gambiting » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

Timon3 wrote: post #106

gambiting wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But....there is a thriving market for indie games, even with this change. If you make a fantastic little indie game and release it for free = nothing changes, you pay nothing. If you make a little indie game and sell 100k copies = nothing changes, you still pay nothing. If you make a little indie game and sell 200k copies - you will now have to pay a small fee per install, but if you reached 200k sales you are way ou…

> I think dev tools should be provided for free or cheap to people experimenting or starting out, but there is a point where people are taking the piss if they sell 200k copies and they still think they should be able to use the tools for free(or nearly free). You have completely misunderstood the discussions if you think the issue is indie devs wanting to use the engine for free. If it were just a percentage of reve…

No I don't think I have misunderstood at all.

>> puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral.

Please explain how exactly, because I'm really not grokking it.

If your small free game goes viral = you pay nothing. If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem.

From my perspective it seems like a lot of complaining is being done by people on Unity Personal licences who are now upset they will have to pay to use the engine if they actually make money - I don't support those people. I'm yet to see a legitimate example of a business that would be put in any kind of danger because of these rules.

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#114

Post by gambiting » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 5:54 PM UTC

Hemospectrum wrote: post #112

gambiting wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why this is a worry - they will do it the same way Valve/Microsoft/Epic/Blizzard identify how many machines you have their product installed on - with a unique hardware ID that will make sure you aren't charged twice for installing the game on the same machine. It's not rocket science, it's been used in the industry for ages.

They're repurposing an existing telemetry system that already counts installs and cannot distinguish between a new install and a reinstall. They've been using it for at least five years. I only know this because they specifically pointed it out when announcing the new pricing plan.

>>and cannot distinguish between a new install and a reinstall

And they've also specifically said they will not charge twice for a reinstall on the same device. So I guess we'll have to see.

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#115

Post by Timon3 » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #113

Timon3 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think dev tools should be provided for free or cheap to people experimenting or starting out, but there is a point where people are taking the piss if they sell 200k copies and they still think they should be able to use the tools for free(or nearly free). You have completely misunderstood the discussions if you think the issue is indie devs wanting to use the engine for free. If it were just a percentage of reve…

No I don't think I have misunderstood at all. >> puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral. Please explain how exactly, because I'm really not grokking it. If your small free game goes viral = you pay nothing. If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(ple…

> If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem.

No, that's the issue! It's possible for you to owe more to Unity than you took in from the sale. It's not tied to your revenue. If a user re-installs your game too many times you will literally owe Unity more money than you earned.

I'm not sure how you want me to convince you otherwise. The formula for calculating how much devs owe due to installs is: install_count * amount_per_install. There simply is no revenue involved.

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#116

Post by ysavir » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

ralferoo wrote: post #84

ysavir wrote: post #21

Has there been any explanation, from Unity themselves or anyone else, as to why Unity thinks it deserves a cut based on install count? Do installs have to connect to Unity servers to download something? Anything like that? Everything I've seen so far points to no baser an explanation than Unity realizing it had an avenue of attack and deciding to employ it--and an attack is exactly what it is, a raid on other people'…

> Has there been any explanation, from Unity themselves or anyone else, as to why Unity thinks it deserves a cut based on install count? The simplest is that by using Unity, the developer reduces their development costs compared to creating a game without using an engine and the tooling that comes with it. If they don't think the advantages that using Unity gives them is worth $0.20 per copy, they should probably wor…

Unity definitely deserves to get paid for the value they provide. But why should that value scale with install count? Doesn't it already charge for licenses to develop the game?

There is a big disconnect between "We make tools for game developers" and "we should get revenue share of the game developer's income"

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#117

Post by ysavir » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 5:58 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #42

ysavir wrote: post #21

Has there been any explanation, from Unity themselves or anyone else, as to why Unity thinks it deserves a cut based on install count? Do installs have to connect to Unity servers to download something? Anything like that? Everything I've seen so far points to no baser an explanation than Unity realizing it had an avenue of attack and deciding to employ it--and an attack is exactly what it is, a raid on other people'…

"deserves" Do entities (vendors, suppliers, employees) "deserve" to get paid for their costs? Or for the value they add?

Repeating my response to a sister comment for visibility:

Unity definitely deserves to get paid for the value they provide. But why should that value scale with install count? Doesn't it already charge for licenses to develop the game?

There is a big disconnect between "We make tools for game developers" and "we should get revenue share of the game developer's income". In what way does this proposes business model sync up with the value they provide?

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#118

Post by jwells89 » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

starburst wrote: post #68

Airsinner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Unity is the best by a mile it works.

But that's the thing, it isn't, it's simply good enough, get the job done and is so popular that employing people that knows it is easy. I agree it is a good value proposition which is why it is the industry standard for mobile games. However, it isn't some marvelous piece of technology that's irreplaceable and when you factor the fact that they can come up with any kind of ridiculous fees and breaking their TOS at w…

Even before the recent upsets, for technical reasons the vibe I had been getting is that for a long time now Unity has been tolerated, not celebrated, and this latest move has tipped the scales and made tolerance no longer possible for many.

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#119

Post by duped » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

starburst wrote: post #110

duped wrote: post #102

> Meanwhile, time-spent-centric business models mean that games are not competing with just games (like they once used to), but with other entertainment propositions for the limited 24 hours of the day. Yet gaming is winning, it surpassed film and music combined over the last few years. I've been thinking about this a lot the last few days because it doesn't make a ton of sense. They're charging the people who make t…

Short term cash flow but with a potential future of 0 new projects ever being greenlight using Unity... I guess it is still better than going even deeper into debt short term but the thing is that there is so many more ways they could have done that, yet they seems to have picked the one that ensure them in practice no future at all.

Unity is selling picks and shovels to a gold rush, but they aren't as good as Epic's. My guess is their reaching into their customers' pockets today to pay for better picks and shovels tomorrow, but they don't know how to do the latter yet only that they know they need the money today.

Re: Unity’s pricing is a symptom, not the cause of tougher times for the industry

#120

Post by delecti » Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

m_0x wrote: post #76

belltaco wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile Steam takes 30% of indie devs' hard earned revenue and is a monopoly, but Valve seems immune from any criticism or even mention of it, with the pc gamer community reacting with downvotes(like with this comment) and angry replies if it's ever brought up. Think about it, when did you ever see anything critical of Steam on HN or Reddit? Its competitor Epic store which charged only 12% IIRC was demonized and go…

Your comment makes it sound like Epic Store was demonized because they charge 12%. I bet that's the only thing they did not get demonized about. Their shady practices such as forcing exclusivity to Epic Store and suing Apple is what brought them shit all over them. Developers are free to submit their game to Steam and release their game in any other platform. Epic handcuffs the devs to the Epic Store for a while. > w…

Epic pays for temporary exclusivity. Lots of devs turn down that deal and release on both Epic and Steam. The reason so many devs take the offer is because it massively helps reduce risk.

Gamers got angry at Epic because they didn't want to have to install a new launcher for a game they wanted. That's really it. And to be clear, I feel the same way. I have a ton of free games on EGS that I've never installed because I don't want to install another launcher.