Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Unity caves, is reconsidering new fee structure after developer revolt

Unity has seemingly caved just days after introducing a new pricing structure, apologizing as it attempts to partially backtrack on the controversial policy affecting developers.

The company behind the cross-platform game development engine previously announced that it will start to charge developers a new "Unity Runtime Fee" of 20 cents per install after certain limits are reached, starting January 1, 2024.

The policy was widely criticized by developers, with the backlash prompting Unity late on Sunday to promise that it will rethink the proposals.

"We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused," a Monday tweet reads. "We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy."

An update on the proposals will be shared in "a couple of days," the tweet continued.

The proposals were derided by developers as being a potentially costly enterprise once the thresholds for Unity Personal and Unity Plus of $200,000 in annual revenue or 200,000 lifetime installs are met. Games would be subject to a 20 cents-per-install fee.

There were also fears the system could be abused by fraudulent installations. Further complications such as participation in giveaways, charity sales, and bundles were also issues under the structure, although some of the terms surronuding charity bundles were already eased.

Some also found issue with Unity retroactively changing the pricing terms for games that have already existed for years in some cases. In cases such as Epic's Unreal engine, the licensing deal that is struck before the game's release is maintained going forward.

While Unity's tweet appears to be an acceptance that it got things horribly wrong, it's not quite a reversal of policy. It's possible that Unity can come up with a new policy that maintains some elements, while weakening or removing others, in a hope that offering concessions can allow the policy to be accepted with less community uproar.



6 Comments

beowulfschmidt 12 Years · 2361 comments

While "partially backtracked" is a technically accurate description of what Unity did over the weekend, it doesn't really convey the magnitude of the incredibly minuscule step backwards that Unity actually took.  So far, all they've really backtracked on was that re-installs won't trigger a fee.
At this point, I think there are a number of developers who won't be satisfied with anything except a full reversion to the old structure, and that protections put in place so that any future changes are on a purely "go forward" basis, and not retroactive to the beginning of time.  There are a number of people for whom this reveals the essential un-trustworthiness of Unity executives.

Not even sure how some of the provisions of the proposal are legal.

davidmalcolm 9 Years · 404 comments

Honestly, part of me loved the idea of having to pay on a per install basis but I can get why devs would hate it. 

This could have decimated the crappy freemium game market and actually encouraged developers to charge for good games rather than trying to dupe users into becoming addicts. 

That said it obviously should be per license not per download or install. 

Really what we need are laws banning in app purchases for more slot pulls etc. when you pay additional money in a game it should at least be for cosmetics or tools, or levels or something. You shouldn’t be allowed to sell people in game consumables. It’s just ridiculous. 

StrangeDays 8 Years · 12986 comments

I saw somewhere Unity tried to suggest app stores like Microsoft would cover these fees. I wonder if they got some smack down from big time legal 

mikethemartian 18 Years · 1493 comments

I get the impression that most software developers don’t make much money.

beowulfschmidt 12 Years · 2361 comments

Honestly, part of me loved the idea of having to pay on a per install basis but I can get why devs would hate it. 
This could have decimated the crappy freemium game market and actually encouraged developers to charge for good games rather than trying to dupe users into becoming addicts. 

That said it obviously should be per license not per download or install. 

Really what we need are laws banning in app purchases for more slot pulls etc. when you pay additional money in a game it should at least be for cosmetics or tools, or levels or something. You shouldn’t be allowed to sell people in game consumables. It’s just ridiculous. 

Charging on a per install basis is perfectly acceptable, assuming (IMO) re-installs to the same device only count as one.  It's the fact that Unity wants to count all the existing installs as well as new ones in order to calculate what a dev owes.  There are some very real examples of developers who will end up owing Unity more than they've made on a game because of this.  Like hundreds of thousands more.

Regardless of what one thinks of the "freemium" design (and I for one tend to agree with your implied stance there), changing the terms like this retroactively is ethically wrong, regardless of how legal it might turn out to be.  Especially given the way Unity has removed the provision from the old terms that would have allowed developers to stick with the old license for existing products, and wiping out the repository in which the terms were stored so people could see changes.  I just hope someone forked that repo recently.

The Unity executives who put this in place are pieces of sh!t, plain and simple.