The Unity Runtime Fee is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024, and it’s been universally panned by developers on social media since its announcement earlier today.

For instance, if a free-to-play game has made $200,0000 in the last 12 months but has millions of people installing it, the developer could end up owing Unity more than the profit earned from in-game purchases.

Others are worried this could lead some smaller developers who built their games on Unity to pull titles from digital storefronts to prevent more people from racking up downloads.

“I bet Steam, Epic, Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft will love having waves of developers pulling their games,” writes Forest from Among Us developer Innersloth Games. “Innersloth has always paid Unity appropriately for licenses and services we use. I’m not a discourse guy, but this is undue and will force my hand.”

Other developers are actually asking people online to not install their game built in Unity, with Paper Trail developer Huenry Hueffman writing, “if you buy our Unity game, please don’t install it… demos also count, dont install this demo, you’ll literally bankrupt me”.

Unity also clarified that the fee will not apply to charity games or charity bundles. Unity defended the pricing model, saying it’s designed to only charge developers who have already found financial success.

We only succeed when you succeed. Our 5% royalty model only kicks in after your first $1M in gross revenue, meaning that if you make $1,000,001 you owe us 5 cents. And this is per title!
Also, revenue generated from the Epic Games Store will be excluded from that 5% royalty.

Unity has been under pressure lately, laying off hundreds of employees in the first half of 2023. Riccitiello also came under fire in 2022 for referring to developers who don’t focus on microtransactions as the “biggest f*cking idiots” before apologizing. Featured in everything from Cuphead to Beat Saber to Pokemon Go, it has been lauded for ease of use. However, trust in the platform has been declining over the years, leading many developers to look to alternatives.

    • moon_matter@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is they keep changing the license terms every 6-12 months and the changes have always been retroactive. I think they’ve changed it about once every year for the last 5 years and this year they did it twice. Games often take years to make and that means you might have no idea what the terms are going to be by the time you’re ready to release.

      So lets say they walk this back. What about next time?

      • dom
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t seem right that they can retroactively change their terms and just decide you owe them money. I’m guessing this is legal since they are doing it anyways?

        • moon_matter@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s really no different than a service upping their subscription fee or a grocery store raising the price of eggs. There’s no law that says the price will remain the same forever. You can of course add it to the terms of a contract, but it’s at your (in this case Unity’s) own discretion.

          Here’s their Pricing Change FAQ.

          • dom
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            1 year ago

            The main difference is that if you built your product on their platform, you don’t have the option to pick a different vendor for what you’ve already built like you would for subscriptions or eggs. It feels much more akin to extortion to me.

            You built your product on their platform and agreed to the terms they set. Thats a level of commitment you put in. Them changing it afterwards is forcing you to agree to new terms that you wouldn’t agree to if you weren’t forced.

            If the issue is using their servers, or keeping the runtime code updates, there should at least be the option of self hosting or locking into an older version.

            Having said all that, I know very little about vendor contracts and don’t doubt you when you say legally its the same as any other price change. It feels different because of the lack of choice.

    • LillyPip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh, I’ll keep going, for sure! (…with one eye on developments.) But now I also need to prepare contingencies if their licensing goes the way of Avid, Adobe, and most recently Reddit and the bird one.

      Something major might have to change and I can’t be blindsided by it, so I have to carve out time to deal with this, anyhow.