Unity President Apologizes, Thanks Devs for 'Feedback', Pledges 'Sustainable' Future (arstechnica.com) 55
In an online Q&A Friday, Unity president Marc Whitten said they're pursuing a "sustainable" long-term future for Unity by creating a "shared success" business model that still allows for "massively, deeply investing in the engine". But Whitten began with acknowledging they had work to do to earn trust. "I just want to say that I'm sorry. I know it's been a very tough week to hear a bunch of the very well-deserved feedback on the changes we made. It's very clear we did not take enough feedback, listen to enough feedback before we rolled out the program."
Ars Technica writes> : If there's one thing Unity Create President and General Manager Marc Whitten wants to make clear, it's that he appreciates your feedback. "It's been a very feedback-giving week for Unity," Whitten told Ars, possibly the biggest understatement he made during an interview accompanying the new, scaled-back fee structure plans... "There was a lot more [feedback than we expected] for sure... I think that feedback has made us better, even though it has sometimes been difficult."
But Whitten was also quick to find the bright side of the tsunami of backlash that came Unity's way in the week since the company announced its (now outdated) plans for per-install fees of up to $0.20 on all Unity games starting in 2024. That's because that anger reflected "the extraordinary passion that our community has for their craft, their livelihoods, and their tools, including Unity," Whitten said. "When Unity disappoints them, in a way where they're overly surprised or whatever, they give very, very critical feedback. I don't love hearing every single one of those pieces of feedback — sometimes they can be pretty pointed — but I love that that passion exists."
"They let us know when we disappoint them," he added. "That's not always easy to hear, but it's really, really great feedback, and it makes us better...."
Whitten said he hopes the new fee structure — which removes ongoing fees for free Unity Personal tier subscribers [and Unity Plus subscribers] — makes it clear that this move was never meant to extract excessive value from the company's smallest development partners. "It was not our intent to nickel-and-dime it, but it came across that way," he said.
Other changes announced by Unity:
Ars Technica writes> : If there's one thing Unity Create President and General Manager Marc Whitten wants to make clear, it's that he appreciates your feedback. "It's been a very feedback-giving week for Unity," Whitten told Ars, possibly the biggest understatement he made during an interview accompanying the new, scaled-back fee structure plans... "There was a lot more [feedback than we expected] for sure... I think that feedback has made us better, even though it has sometimes been difficult."
But Whitten was also quick to find the bright side of the tsunami of backlash that came Unity's way in the week since the company announced its (now outdated) plans for per-install fees of up to $0.20 on all Unity games starting in 2024. That's because that anger reflected "the extraordinary passion that our community has for their craft, their livelihoods, and their tools, including Unity," Whitten said. "When Unity disappoints them, in a way where they're overly surprised or whatever, they give very, very critical feedback. I don't love hearing every single one of those pieces of feedback — sometimes they can be pretty pointed — but I love that that passion exists."
"They let us know when we disappoint them," he added. "That's not always easy to hear, but it's really, really great feedback, and it makes us better...."
Whitten said he hopes the new fee structure — which removes ongoing fees for free Unity Personal tier subscribers [and Unity Plus subscribers] — makes it clear that this move was never meant to extract excessive value from the company's smallest development partners. "It was not our intent to nickel-and-dime it, but it came across that way," he said.
Other changes announced by Unity:
- No games created with any currently supported Unity versions will be impacted. Only those created with or upgraded to the Long Term Support version releasing in 2024 (or later), currently referred to as the 2023 LTS will be impacted.
- For those games, the fee is only applicable after a game has crossed two thresholds: $1,000,000 (USD) in gross revenue (trailing 12 months) AND 1,000,000 initial engagements. After crossing these two thresholds, you can choose to pay the Runtime Fee, either based on monthly initial engagements or 2.5% of your game's monthly gross revenue. Ultimately, you will be charged the lesser of the two.
Sorry for trying to fleece you (Score:5, Funny)
And I still don't like it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bad part of this deal is the "per install" part. The various thresholds soften the blow but don't address the problem. "Per install" is the unacceptable aspect of this, and no plan that includes this aspect is going to be acceptable.
Are you reading this, Marc? You need to do something else instead.
Raise the yearly fee. Add a new tier to the existing tiered system. Sell some new engine feature set separately. Do *ANYTHING* that does not scale up based on how successful the game is! This is THE thing that people dislike about other engines, and THE thing that has made Unity so differentiated in the market. By adding a per-install fee (thresholds and all) you are destroying your primary competitive advantage. DON'T DO IT!
Your apologies mean nothing if you stick the knife in us anyway. You will not regain the community's trust if you keep the poison in the well! Find a different way to make the money you need, one that does not get bigger if the game does better (and especially one that does not push us to inflate prices or use widely-hated DRM).
The road you are about to go down leads to ruin. Change course before it is too late.
Re:And I still don't like it. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the *LOWER* of the two, so per-install fees are fine - because the % of revenue part caps it.
Re: (Score:3)
You are appealing to insight and personal decency. As the motivation behind this move clearly is greed and lack of insight, I think that appeal is futile. Chances are he will do this crap again when they judge things have quieted down enough.
The one move that would have convinced me is immediate removal of the CEO by the board.
Re: (Score:2)
Raise the yearly fee. Add a new tier to the existing tiered system. Sell some new engine feature set separately. Do *ANYTHING* that does not scale up based on how successful the game is!
That is not even the actual problem.
The actual problem is that the fee is per-install.
If the fee were a percentage of the net, or even the gross, that could be justified.
But the fee being based on how many times the game is installed, whether or not those installs are unique or even represent a customer who's going to actually play the game and not just try it out, that's batshit insane.
When you add to that they were planning to charge based on some secret metric it really went completely into la-la land.
Per install, capped at a percentage (Score:2)
If the fee were a percentage of the net, or even the gross, that could be justified.
If the fees were per install, capped at a percentage of the gross revenue (sales of priced game, subscriptions, DLC purchases, purchases of premium in-game currency, etc.), would that satisfy you? Because those are exactly the revised terms.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual problem is that the fee is per-install.
If the fees were per install, capped at a percentage of the gross revenue (sales of priced game, subscriptions, DLC purchases, purchases of premium in-game currency, etc.), would that satisfy you?
Try reading. Try harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading. Try harder.
I understand "Try reading. Try harder." to mean that you would prefer that I reply sentence by sentence as evidence that I have tried reading, tried harder.
That is not even the actual problem.
The actual problem is that the fee is per-install.
The fee is not per-install unless the gross is greater than a particular amount per install.
If the fee were a percentage of the net, or even the gross, that could be justified.
The fee is less than or equal to a percentage of the gross.
But the fee being based on how many times the game is installed, whether or not those installs are unique or even represent a customer who's going to actually play the game and not just try it out, that's batshit insane.
That was the former fee structure. The new fee structure, as described in the summary, is based on "initial engagements." In other words, it counts only unique installs.
When you add to that they were planning to charge based on some secret metric it really went completely into la-la land.
Were, past tense. The metrics are n
Sorry for trying to fleece you so obviously (Score:2)
Next time you won't notice, we promise.
Woob woob (Score:1)
Soooooo (Score:1)
Alternate title: CEO practices dishonesty (Score:5, Insightful)
The developers will not forget this.
Re: (Score:2)
The developers will not forget this.
Most of them will. They will bitch, moan, gripe, and carry on as if nothing had happened.
Re: Alternate title: CEO practices dishonesty (Score:2)
If I was a voting shareholder.. (Score:3)
The split second they proposed these changes, I would have immediately initiated a vote of no confidence procedure and proceeded to do whatever it takes to get the CEO and the Upper management fired.
You don't recover from this short of cleaning house immediately. No one will trust this company anymore and every developer will see Unity as a ticking time bomb until everyone responsible for this decision is gone. Period.
The only way any shareholder is saving their investment in Unity is either by starting over or selling their shares right now while there's still some value left.
Re: (Score:2)
One wonders if this was the plan: tank the stock to allow private equity to do a takeover via leveraged buyout. Then milk Unity until it is dead, dead dead, then hack off pieces to sell, embalm the remaining corpse, and then either IPO or sell the rest to another company.
For sure shareholders should be throwing out the entire board and then have the new board napalm the C-suite, complete with clawbacks, in order to deter future attempts.
Re: (Score:3)
Here, it looks like the board, and by extension the big shareholders are the problem, the CEO just followed their direction (as he is expected to do).
https://www.reddit.com/r/unity... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's time to dump the stock since you're dealing with a quasi Sears situation and there's no hope of saving it.
I get that CEO's take orders for the board, but in the end they should do what's best for all shareholders. If the board is not working for the shareholders best interests. You're almost better off to ultimately get fired and say "I told you so" when the company sinks than to go down with the ship and become unhireable afterwards.
People keep posting about "trust" but... (Score:3)
Trust shouldn't be a part of any decision like this.
You should be locked in to terms when you start and not need to "trust" anything going forward. You never know when something drastic could change even if those you "trust" now don't break that trust. Someone could buy a company. Someone could oust the CEO. So many things could change.
That's why you need to be guaranteed ahead of time what the terms are up front.
And it sounds like that's what they're doing, which is the right thing and now it doesn't matter if they are trustworthy or not.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like all these developers paying for Unity would have been much better off contributing to an open source project.
It's a long shot, but it seems Godot and a few others have seen an uptick in both interest and funding. Hopefully some of both will stick around.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like all these developers paying for Unity would have been much better off contributing to an open source project.
I was thinking the same thing. Game engines are just too fundamental to be at the whims of a for profit company. Even movie studios are now using them. It would behove all media developers to contribute (much less) to an open source project instead, via money or time. That way we could get a reliable "Linux" of media/game engines that won't bankrupt developers.
Re: People keep posting about "trust" but... (Score:2)
What? No! The free platforms out there want to take your children! Also, programming in anything open source means it's just going to be used to spread CSAM. It's also bad for the economy and the environment!
**This message brought to you by the massive marketing and PR firms employed by all the big dev companies. Remember, they're totally in this for you and only want what's best for you. They would never hurt you, Big Dev loves you.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the way it sounds to you? I just skimmed the story, but I didn't see anything that looked like an enforceable commitment. So my take on it is that it's BS...or, if you prefer, PR. If I were more involved, I'd study this more carefully, but I doubt I'd find it reassuring.
Re: (Score:2)
When the ToS say they can be amended unilaterally any time you don't have a contract, just a description of how fucked you are at any given moment.
All of the shrinkwrap agreements say this.
If you haven't negotiated and signed a contract you are getting one of these agreements.
ToS and EULAs should be unenforceable, because they are not contracts. They offer one party nothing — they have already paid for use of the software when the contract is offered.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason I prefer GPL software. (Well, there are multiple reasons, but that's one of them. Some of the other choices are just as good for that reason, like the BSD license, or even the Artistic License. https://opensource.org/license... [opensource.org] )
Re: (Score:1)
Spoiler: He's lying (Score:2)
He's a giant corporate whore, there are two giant private equity vampire squids breathing down their next, he absolutely hated all your feedback, and there is no sustainable future. They will do this again (see the vampire squids part).
Re: (Score:1)
It all comes down to baseline. If it is a profitable move, they will do it.
The one thing, possibly the only thing, that could make them see the error of their ways and stop them would be a massive exodus of game devs to the other big U engine, their main competitor. There is already a delicate balance between the two, and the last thing they want is to topple that balance in the competitor's favor. That would ruin their baseline.
Unity had a more affordable pricing model (for the most part) until this. This
Jeeze (Score:2, Insightful)
What's with everyone commenting against it. The CEO should be commended for yielding. Maybe he did it out of necessity .. so what? Fact is if you continue to denigrate people even after they do right .. you are only encouraging them to hate you more. A dog you train with negative reinforcement will bite you eventually.
Re:Jeeze (Score:5, Insightful)
The CEO should be commended for yielding
Absolutely not. Fuck that guy, fuck that guy in particular.
Maybe he did it out of necessity .. so what?
Because nothing that matters changed. It's still per install. Fuck that cunt.
Fact is if you continue to denigrate people even after they do right
He didn't do right. He still isn't doing right. Fuck them all. Fuck their greedy ass money grab, 3D SDKs abound, jump ship and never look back on these fucking pricks.
you are only encouraging them to hate you more
You know what? I hope they do fucking hate me. They're pieces of shit and they shouldn't give two fucks about what I think of them much like I don't two shits about what they think of me. It's not personal, they're just being greedy bastards and I've had my fill of that kind of shitty type of behavior. Additionally, they've clearly learned nothing because they've changed very little.
A dog you train with negative reinforcement will bite you eventually
I think that's the wrong parallel to draw because if Unity was a dog I would have it euthanized. Fuck those people! Fuck all of them. May they enjoy wrecking their company.
Re:Jeeze (Score:4, Insightful)
Because nothing that matters changed. It's still per install.
Now it's per install up to a maximum of 2.5% of your total revenue, plus it only applies to future versions of the software so you can avoid it entirely if you want to. These are things that matter, and they have changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Now it's per install up to a maximum of 2.5% of your total revenue, plus it only applies to future versions of the software so you can avoid it entirely if you want to. These are things that matter, and they have changed.
If I was a game dev, I'd ask:
How does the developer trust the 'install' count that Unity claims? Since Unity doesn't say how they arrive at the count, doesn't that just amount to a 'trust us: you owe us 2.5%'?
How does a developer know that deal wont change next week/month/year? Has Unity offered any assurance beyond a 'policy' which they reserve the right to change at any time?
Dog already bit (Score:2)
The CEO already called developers "fucking idiots", what July '22? And contextually speaking, that quote speaks to the marketing of video games. I think some caution in approaching the dog might be warranted. And of course the pricing changes, then pulled back until the din subsides--yet remain. Other's have brought up his history with EA and the board's makeup. All the ingredients are here for pissed off "business partners". I like your outlook, OP, but your comment comes across as corporate pollyanna. In
Re: (Score:3)
Because nothing that matters changed. It's still per install. Fuck that cunt.
No, it's not.
"For games that are subject to the runtime fee, we are giving you a choice of either a 2.5% revenue share or the calculated amount based on the number of new people engaging with your game each month. Both of these numbers are self-reported from data you already have available. You will always be billed the lesser amount."
- https://blog.unity.com/news/op... [unity.com]
Re: Jeeze (Score:5, Interesting)
I am Curious (Score:2)
I am a software developer, but not a game developer, so I do not know how much time and effort Unity saves devs. I know it depends on tons of factors and is thus impossible to accurately quantify without much more info, but could someone take a stab at it?
With the understanding that you are answering an unanswerable question, and I am thus just looking for orders of magnitude:
If you took an average Unity game, an instead wrote it with your own vanilla OpenGL/DX/Whatever implementations, how much longer woul
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot. Moreover, it saves you from having to learn a lot of low level stuff. You can think of it as the difference between having to write your own Windows message pump and programming a form by hand and using VS to click one together in C#. Along with all the nifty libraries that C# provides for nearly everything you could possibly want to do, and you'd have to do all that by hand too, from loading files to parsing them to building a linked tree from an XML file... you get the idea.
Re: I am Curious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unity reminds me of VisualBASIC. It gets you to a prototype rapidly but it robs all that time you saved back and then some at the other end. And the way it implements some of this stuff can leave you fighting a fight you didn't expect to fight. Depending on how much of the engine you need it might either be a total waste of your time to learn it for the basic stuff you actually use, or it might save you years of effort. It can either save you massive effort because it can export to win/mac/linux/ps5/xsx/swi
15% of what exactly? (Score:2)
So if I have 20 games representing 100% of my revenue, and I make one game using a 2024 version of Unity, now 15% of my total revenue is now Unity's? Or just the 15% of that one new game?
And I take it the bug fixes will only be coming to newer versions very soon?
This will do little to decelerate the flood of devs already leaving (and the complete collapse of new users).
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
From their website, it looks like it's just 2.5% once you exceed 1M gross revenue for a particular title.
If you get to the happy position of generating $1M revenue from an indie game you have developed in your spare time, $2500 should be pretty affordable.
If you are actually a small studio of developers working professionally, then again, $2500 should be chump change compared to all the other costs you will have, such as salaries, rent, etc.
All in all it's a great deal.
I still won't be using Unity though, n
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's $25,000?
Re: (Score:1)
Uh yep, slipped a zero there.
That's going to sting a bit more but still well worth it.
Re: 15% of what exactly? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I had problems with my animations not importing right - they would be all messed up and the process required a bunch of steps. This was a couple of years ago and I only spend a few days mucking around with it before I decided to flip over to Unreal,m especially once I found Unreal supported multiplayer networking out of the box, which Unity at the time didnt.
For UE on the other hand there is a blender script that lets you directly export meshes, armatures and animations from Blender into your open Unreal pr
Re: 15% of what exactly? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't answer my question.
Get out while you can (Score:2)
If you are using Unity switch engines as soon as you can, this is just the beginning. They have shown what they want too accomplish in the future and even their new fee plan still includes the install fee, they just renamed it to "initial engagement" but it is still the same thing. Don't say I didn't warn you.
still want to see prosecution (Score:1)
...for the insider trading party of this story.
Let's not forget that bit?
Bullets Already Left Gun (Score:2)
Postgame wrapup (Score:2)
Yeah, not bad at all.
I was worried there for a second.
Nah, I told ya, just go over to their land. Squat on it and offer half back to leave. Works every time. Or at least we can tie it all up in legal or reputational FUD.
Sometimes you just have to rip the bandage off. But everything looks good. [duckduckgo.com] Good [pcgamer.com] job guys.
Should bring value. [knoxdaily.com]
Yep, all in a day's work! Time to go home, kiss the wife and pet the dog.
CEO John Riticello (Score:2)
I love that CEO John Riticello, who signed off on this whole plan, has completely written himself out of this story, despite being the guy to greenlight it agains MANY internal objections. Hold the accountable, accountable.
Game Programmers should create their own tools. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Back in the late day, early in my career I wrote my own sound mixer.
I did that for the pocket PC platform - as well as a midi file handler and mini synth so I could play midi files and generate sfx for a game I was writing. Also wrote a game GUI with movable windows, scrollbars, buttons, and a whole bunch of other stuff, for a series of games I was developing for the platform, one of them rogue - like, and another one that was a puzzle game that was based on Klotski - a physical sliding block puzzle game from the early 20th century.
Unfortunately that platform went nowhere
Sorry, you already destroyed the company (Score:2)
Enjoy your golden parachute as you liquidate the company. It's over. You destroyed it. There is no coming back from this. It's over.