Having read the room, Unity goes back to drawing board on runtime fee policy
- Reference: 1695038411
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2023/09/18/unity_runtime_fee_changes/
- Source link:
Sister publication DevClass [1]reported on the fees the game engine company said it would be charging developers from January 1 if they exceed certain thresholds for revenue and installs. The [2]argument was that every game built on the engine also installs the Unity runtime to make the product work on a user's device.
But because the company had never monetized its operations this way previously, instead charging a flat fee per seat for different licenses rather than taking royalties on game installs, many devs were incensed.
[3]
Unity is a popular tool among solo games developers and small teams precisely because of this model, yet the company's announcement has only served to destroy the trust its customers once had.
[4]
[5]
Garry Newman, creator of Garry's Mod for Half-Life 2 and the popular Unity survival game Rust, [6]explained in a blog post titled "Unity can get fucked":
Let me be clear.. the cost isn't a big issue to us. If everything worked out, the tracking was flawless and it was 10p per sale, no biggy really. If that's what it costs, then that's what it costs. But that's not why we're furious. It hurts because we didn't agree to this. We used the engine because you pay up front and then ship your product. We weren't told this was going to happen. We weren't warned. We weren't consulted. We have spent 10 years making Rust on Unity's engine. We've paid them every year. And now they changed the rules.
[7]Unity closes offices, cancels town hall after threat in wake of runtime fee restructure
[8]Atari pulls nostalgia power move and buys homebrew community forum
[9]Microsoft wants Activision so badly, it's handing streaming rights over to ... Ubisoft?
[10]Unity game engine attracts big cash from China's tech titans
The news was apparently so badly received that Unity had to close two offices last week and cancel a town hall meeting where CEO John Riccitiello was due to address staff because of [11]threats made against the company .
With its reputation in tatters, it now looks like Unity has finally read the room. In a [12]statement released last night, the company said: "We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback."
Whether these "changes" will be a full or partial rowback on the controversial policy is not yet answered, and The Register will report back when something more concrete emerges, though we suspect only a total withdrawal will satisfy the community.
[13]
However, the damage has been done. As Newman said: "Unity has shown its power. We can see what they can and are willing to do. You can't un-ring that bell." ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://devclass.com/2023/09/13/unity-disunity-community-up-in-arms-after-announcement-of-runtime-fee-from-january-2024/
[2] https://blog.unity.com/news/plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2ZQh0JGaVQCMDVQoSxcd65QAAA9U&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQh0JGaVQCMDVQoSxcd65QAAA9U&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33ZQh0JGaVQCMDVQoSxcd65QAAA9U&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://garry.net/posts/unity-can-get-fucked
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/15/unity_runtime_fee_backlash/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/08/atari_snaps_up_atariage/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2023/08/22/microsoft_activision_ubisoft_cma/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/10/unity_china/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/15/unity_runtime_fee_backlash/
[12] https://twitter.com/unity/status/1703547752205218265
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/front&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44ZQh0JGaVQCMDVQoSxcd65QAAA9U&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Too little, too late
I'm not a game dev, but it's clear to me that any commercial product can change the rules and screw you. Only open source is at least partially safe. Partially because it can become close, but a fork is still possible.
Re: Too little, too late
Depends on the license. There are a lot of different open source licenses and some of them could be written in such a way that the developer(s) in charge of the project could prevent forks and allow them to add new terms to the license. Sure, if something is under the GPLv2 and the developers suddenly decide future versions will be closed source, you can always continue on a parallel version using the GPL'd code, but that won't necessarily apply to all licenses.
Re: Too little, too late
It's not really an open vs closed source issue I don't think.
If you build a business around something like this the support is the important thing.
Even if Unity was open sourced many devs impacted by this would be unable to fork it and just carry on, it's a complex piece of software.
Redhat have proved you can do the same thing in the open source world.
Here's a tip... Companies.... stop treating customers like commodities.
Re: Too little, too late
"many devs impacted by this would be unable to fork it and just carry on"
It would only take a few.
Re: Too little, too late
Github and the like are littered with abandoned open source projects. Maybe the dev lost interest, maybe life happened and they didn't have time to devote to it any longer, maybe they got hit by a bus and are no longer among the living. Any number of reasons could have happened. Depending on people to spend their free time to work on something that you depend on probably isn't going to be a good idea. For every Linux there's probably at least two dozen projects that blinked out of existence.
Boy howdy, if I had a dime for everytime someone installed the Unity runtime...
(This space left intentionally non-blank)
big lesson: be ready for change.
I've seen a lot of companies with many decades of history hook themselves to companies with just a few years of history with NO plan for what to do when that vendor becomes "undesirable" for any reason.
When your company is dependent upon another company, you have a risk there. In addition to an implementation plan, you have to have an EXIT plan -- how you get off Product X and move onto some likely unknown Product Y, because you can't bet your company on Product X being around forever in its current form, and always being the best choice. Believing that Open Source (or closed source) is better on this is denying history and reality. The reason you are using product X is probably because you didn't want to implement it from scratch yourself, so the idea that Open Source will save you because "someone else" will take over development is very possibly incorrect, unless you are prepared to commit to being the "someone else". And if they do take over development, it may not be in the direction you chose.
Redhat damaging Alma/Rocky/CentOS/etc was just another example. "Just use Redhat" isn't an answer, because RH may not be around forever in its current form, or be the best answer for you in a few years.
I suspect most companies deal with this in smaller forms, where internal projects end up being "abandonware that must keep running" because the person/people that put it together are no longer around, and no one else knows anything other than, "It must stay running!".
Re: big lesson: be ready for change.
No one ever got fired for buying IBM!
The fact that IBM owns RedHat just adds a new layer.
what an "apology"
We apologize for the confusion and angst
"we're sorry you feel that way" what a non-apology just blaming everyone else for not playing ball
Reading the room after the fact isn't all that useful - they were still stupid enough to think that this might work out for them in the way they tried to do it.
Reverting to previous policy and dumping the CEO are essential first steps, but I'm not sure they will be enough to regain trust just yet. Some incentives to keep developers around long enough to prove that the madness has passed might be in order.
As others have said, there's always a risk in relying on third party tools or services. Developers know that, and that's why trust is so valuable - it can only be earned, not bought, and can be destroyed in an instant. Unity have a lot of earning to do.
Developers might think it's worth donating a little time to one of the open source alternatives while unity tries to get its act together - it might turn out to be their own future they're investing in.
It's a shame, really
But I guess this is what happens when you hire someone from [1]Business School to head an open source project.
Open source and Business are two different mindsets, and they are incompatible.
This is why.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Riccitiello
Re: It's a shame, really
Okay, but in "Business School" they really ought to teach you how to... not fuck up your company's business model? Is there not a lesson somewhere that says "you should know exactly the reasons your customers are choosing your product, because removing those reasons is a bad idea"?
Re: It's a shame, really
As far back as pre-university "business" classes I took, they were harping on the idea of "sustainable competitive advantage" which is a concept that seems completely lost on business leaders of today.
The basic idea is to figure out something you do better than anyone else and make sure you keep doing it better than anyone else so customers keep coming to you. I suppose in a twisted sort of way, kicking customers in the teeth could technically qualify, though I don't imagine there's a lot of repeat business for that model, not that it seems to keep a surprising number of companies from trying.
Re: It's a shame, really
Unity isn't open source. Like at all. It's always been proprietary.
So with hindsight he knows what he did wrong. Hindsight is what you rely on when you don't use foresight.
Too little, too late
If it were me, it wouldn't matter. The trust has been completely shattered and I'd be moving to a different engine for any new projects. It's only a matter of time before the asshole CEO tries this shit again, or something similar. In fact, that's the only way I'd consider sticking with Unity if I were a game dev: if they fired the CEO whose brilliant idea this was.