The overhauled Runtime Fee policy plan being considered by Unity Technologies will cap the fee to 4% of the game’s revenues over $1 million.

While the changes aren’t official yet, Bloomberg got hold of a meeting recording where Unity executives outlined the new plan, which reportedly caps the Runtime Fee at 4% of the game’s revenues over one million dollars. Developers will also be asked to report the installation figures themselves instead of being forced to deal with Unity’s proprietary technology. Lastly, the installation threshold won’t be retroactive, so only new installations made after the policy’s announcement will count toward reaching the Runtime Fee thresholds.

  • Electric_Druid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago
    1. Company makes wildly negative changes
    2. Public outcry occurs
    3. Company walks back overwhelmingly negative parts of the deal to what they originally intended to happen
    4. The public is placated into thinking they won the fight

    We’re at step 3, y’all

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah and it won’t work this time.

      Unity is B2B, they tried to change the deal retrospectively. That’s toxic to a business relationship, it’s not viable to do business with such a company because they may try to do it again.

      The only thing they can do now is fire the CEO.

    • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean you definitely got a point, but don’t forget that there are long term consequences. The trust is completely gone (which is needed if you invest in this game engine and you will probably see the unity market share drop in the coming year.

      • filister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But don’t you think that pretty much this debacle resembles Reddit and by now most of the users are back to their platform, exactly what they wanted.

        Only the nerds and some mods left their platform permanently but percentage wise the number is probably very low and now Reddit is probably earning even more than before. So it is a win win situation for them.

        • Lmaydev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The big difference is Reddit isn’t taking a portion of their wages. It was purely moral outrage.

          Things are different once money is involved.

          Choosing an engine is a business decision for a lot of people and using a free alternative that isn’t quite as feature rich sure seems like the better option now.

        • hoshikarakitaridia@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Idk why everyone is like “well Reddit won and we’re just on Lemmy because we’re nerds and no one believes in FOSS anyway”. Yes, I get you, there’s currently not much consequence visible for the Reddit debacle. I genuinely think we’re in the middle of a slow and painful death to Reddit. A lot of big companies don’t implode, but they die slowly in front of their competition. Yeah, currently we only are a fraction of users compared to Reddit, but if people truly believe in Lemmy as the better platform, this will be competition.

        • uskok@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe not today, but getting serious competitors is another long term consequence.

      • Electric_Druid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree- hopefully we can remember long enough for it to really matter in the long term. Just wanted to bring attention to this cycle because it’s been happening a lot lately (Facebook, DnD, etc) and I think the companies are starting to copy eachother.

  • InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Lastly, the installation threshold won’t be retroactive, so only new installations made after the policy’s announcement will count toward reaching the Runtime Fee thresholds.

    That’s still retroactive though.

  • hypelightfly@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Still trying to shoehorn in a “runtime fee”. That’s not going to work and with this model it’s pointless anyway. Just make it a 4% revenue for sales after $1 million. Same end results (actually potentially more in fees) without all the runtime issues. Make it apply only to a specific version and later and after a certain date and then you also don’t have the retroactive problem and the massive blowback.

    • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They’re trying to monetize the free-to-play mobile market, which is much more lucrative than a percentage of the sales. Cunning bastards.

      • hypelightfly@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        It works for that market too even without install fees, you just make it a percentage of revenue generated from microtransactions. It’s still tied to the game.

        • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          For every paying customer, there are one thousand installations. A quick maths will tell you why they are trying so much to be paid for runtime.

          • hypelightfly@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Quick math shows that’s irrelevant with a 4% revenue cap, as I pointed out in my original comment, and at best they will be paid the same as just doing a 4% revenue fee. More likely they will get some amount less than 4% from most devs.

            The only reason I see for them going this route instead is to claim they are still royalty free, install fees aren’t royalties. Which is BS anyway.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know whats better? Not reporting shit, I just published my game. I don’t want to report a bunch of numbers to Unity each month. I want to push updates to fix issues my users are complaining about. How the fuck are the biggest chucklefucks in charge of every company? Give me the fucking reigns I can do better than this.

    • BaskinRobbins@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I saw a theory from another lemmy user a while back that made a lot of sense. Basically shareholders get to a point where the want cash now. So they make a deal with the current CEO to do something shitty for short term profits. The shareholders get paid in the short term and then once the share price takes a hit they buy more shares at a discount. They then fire the current CEO who takes a nice exit fee and install someone else to do damage control and grow the stock price again. This is the only thing that makes sense to me because the alternative is that the current CEO is just actually that dumb.

    • noyou@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the infinite growth bullshit that every publicly traded company suffers from. They’re making enough money, but with capitalism it’s never enough…

    • filister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      For me the problem is that the shareholders are putting enormous pressure on publicly traded companies requiring ever lasting exponential growth.

      Back then I posted a thread about why I think publicly traded companies are bad for our society, as an unpopular opinion and I got severely downvoted, but hey isn’t this another example for the latter?

      This SaaS model was born exactly out of this and it is the worst offender.

      Back then we were able to own our own software/hardware, now everything is leasing and perpetual paying for things you need/use everyday. Thank God we have foss apps that in most cases are better alternatives.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wow, thats amazing! You know what is even more trivial? Not having to do it at all.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can when I didn’t have to do it before and this policy is forced upon me by an established vendor. Thats like saying you can’t removed about material vendors in the construction industry, you absolutely can because they make your business work and you’ve entrusted them not to fuck you.

              • Sanctus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Its not the tracking of sales thats the issue. Its having to report it to someone so they can take even more of my money when we haven’t been doing that for years.

  • Jamie@jamie.moe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hopefully development studios can hold strong and continue their boycott anyway. Backing down now basically means Unity got away with it, in a sense. Plus, companies are learning from each other’s shitty tactics lately ala Twitter, Reddit, and Recently Facebook coming out with payment schemes on things that used to be free.

    So if Unity does this, other software companies will probably try some similar stuff.

  • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    “It’s the craziest thing Unity™, I know people have bought my game, but I shit you not, not one person has actually installed it.”

  • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The games making over a million are the ones who can afford the new rates. This is so regressive. It should get more expensive as your sales go up, not down. Small devs should be charged less than big studios

    • Jo Miran
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fee is zero for games making less than $1,000,000.

      • ZephyrXero@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh did they change that too? I was just going off the “capped at 4%” part. Before you only had to exceed $200k to have to start paying

        • Jo Miran
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The grammar in the article is not great.