Unity's Per-Install Runtime Fees: The Spreadsheet Every Indie Dev Now Dreads

Description

The image is a black-and-blue table with three columns labeled "Unity Personal and Unity Plus," "Unity Pro," and "Unity Enterprise." The first block, headed "Unity Runtime Fee thresholds to be met," lists a "Revenue Threshold (USD)" of "$200,000 (last 12mo)" for Personal/Plus and "$1,000,000 (last 12mo)" for both Pro and Enterprise, followed by an "Install Threshold" of "200,000 (life to date)" versus "1,000,000 (life to date)." The next section, under "Installs over the Install Threshold - Standard monthly rate," shows tiered fees: 1-100,000 installs cost "$0.20 per install" for Personal/Plus, "$0.15 per install" for Pro, and "$0.125 per install" for Enterprise; 100,001-500,000 installs are "$0.075 per install" and "$0.06 per install" for Pro and Enterprise; 500,001-1,000,000 installs drop to "$0.03 per install" and "$0.02 per install;" 1,000,001+ installs hit "$0.02 per install" and "$0.01 per install." A final block titled "Installs over the Install Threshold - Emerging market monthly rate" notes "1+ $0.02 per install" for Personal/Plus, "$0.01 per install" for Pro, and "$0.005 per install" for Enterprise. Visually it mimics a pricing matrix you’d expect from a SaaS vendor, but here it starkly highlights Unity’s controversial shift to per-install billing. For seasoned engineers, the table screams "new vendor lock-in risk" and foreshadows architecture discussions about engine migrations, sudden CAC spikes, and unforeseen operational accounting overhead

Common Tags

GameDevelopment GameEngine GamingIndustry LicensingCosts DeveloperFrustration IndustryTrends CorporateCulture VendorLockIn

Comments

Anonymous ★ Top Pick Finally, a revenue model that combines the transparency of telecom billing with the predictability of AWS egress - just pay every time someone rage-reinstalls your game

Anonymous ★ Top Pick

Finally, a revenue model that combines the transparency of telecom billing with the predictability of AWS egress - just pay every time someone rage-reinstalls your game
Anonymous

Unity just invented the software equivalent of changing your database schema in production and then billing everyone who ever ran a SELECT query against the old one
Anonymous

Ah yes, Unity's infamous 'pay-per-install' model - because nothing says 'we understand game development economics' quite like charging developers every time someone reinstalls after a bug fix, or when a pirated copy gets distributed, or when your QA team runs automated install tests. It's the pricing model equivalent of 'move fast and break trust,' where the runtime fee threshold creates a perverse incentive to pray your game doesn't go viral. At least they're transparent about the tiers, though I'm sure indie devs loved discovering that hitting 200K installs meant suddenly owing Unity $40,000 in retrospective fees. Classic enterprise move: monetize success in a way that makes developers nostalgic for the simplicity of Unreal's 5% revenue share after $1M
Anonymous

Unity's per-install fees: the ultimate viral coefficient killer for your startup metrics
Anonymous

Our finance model now depends on deduplicating installs better than the engine vendor - otherwise every hotfix becomes a tax event and DAU stands for ‘debt‑accruing users.’
Anonymous

Billing on at-least-once delivery semantics; somewhere a CTO just asked SRE to add an idempotency key to the installer so Finance stops paging
@RiedleroD 2y

the retroactive change is illegal, they can't do that lmao
@RinStar2770 2y

This is inside trading, I can't imagine any other reason. This is literally killswitch of the company
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  all the executives inside unity announced they're selling their stocks 6 months before this happened, so that's very likely
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  oh, context: employees (a CEO is technically still an employee) of companies have to announce stock sales and purchases relating to their company 6 months ahead of time to limit insider trading
  
  @ercolebellucci 2y
  
  Ok that’s 100%
@waifu_anton 2y

I still don't understand why the heck they did this
1. @Zloysvin 2y
  
  Because Unity doesn't earn shit
Deleted Account 2y

nothing is free, agreed with unity
@callofvoid0 2y

right when I wanted to learn unity for future projects damn it I am a white crow
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  learn unreal instead
  
  @callofvoid0 2y
  
  and for 2d ?
  
  @callofvoid0 2y
  
  godot or gamemaker studio?
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  I've heard bad things about gamemaker studio, but I don't remember what that was, exactly
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  godot I guess? unity isn't really made for 2D either tbf
  
  @callofvoid0 2y
  
  oh really? so I didn't lose anything
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  people do use unity for 2D stuff, but it's really bad at it afaik
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  people don't really use unreal for 2D stuff because people using unreal know what they're doing :P
  
  @callofvoid0 2y
  
  maybe 'cause it doesn't have the potential for 2d
@Johnny_bit 2y

Best godot marketing move ever :P
@chipmunkcustodian 2y

I don't think it's retroactive, these are prices for new installs, but thresholds are retroactive. So you won't have to pay if you pull your game. The problem is, they changed TOS so that you can't keep using old versions of Unity. Free to play titles will be dead basically.
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  changing TOS only applies to new versions of unity, so people can just stick with a version before this shit happened
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  unless you're using online unity services, ofc. That includes downloading unity itself, ironically
2. @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  You do still have to pay if you pull your game. Because it's not based on sales, it's whenever someone installs your game. So you cant avoid paying unless you prevent anyone who's ever bought your game from installing it.
@SheepGod 2y

i heard nintendo is already suing
@V0W4N 2y

as they beg for devs to switch to a more stable engine
@Zloysvin 2y

Issue is that, their profits mostly covers theirs expenses, and so, right now they need to increase their overall profit, otherwise, Unity can go bankrupt
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  skill issue
  
  @Zloysvin 2y
  
  No doubts
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  they should've focused on monetizing B2B via a percentage cut of the profits
  
  @callofvoid0 2y
  
  b2b ?
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  business to business
2. @kandiesky 2y
  
  Maybe they shouldn't have bought IronSource at an inflated rate It's all the board's/ceo's fault. They made the worst decisions ever and everybody who payed attention saw it coming
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  and guess who the CEO of unity is? that's right, a former CEO of EA that got removed because idk incompetency or something
  
  @kandiesky 2y
  
  Exactly. He fucked EA, now he's fucking Unity Opening capital is a cancer for any business
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  I said it many times, and I'll say it again: eat the rich
@Zloysvin 2y

Code Monkey did a good explanation/discussion of this issue
@foverzar 2y

> So applied even to games that were released before that license change I doubt that this is even legal.
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  it is kind of legal; only if the games update their version of unity or use some kind of unity service after 01.01.2024
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  Except it doesnt. For some bizarre reason in the US it's so far been considered totally legal to force customers to agree to allow the company to update the contract at any time.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  only if you continue to use services. updating ToS is completely legal, but you don't have to agree to them if you just stop using the service before the terms change
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  and using a piece of software you've licensed and downloaded before the change is absolutely not using a service. That's using a product, which isn't bound by contracts.
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  The legal definition for 'continuing to use a service' is a bit complicated here though. As in unity's perspective, you're continuing to use the unity runtime. Which they continue to own and can legally control access to however they want.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  true, but I think that's not gonna hold up in court. the question is if unity is going to sue a small dev despite that
@LonelyGayTiger 2y

If you agree to a contract that says it may be changed at any time and you must abide by the current version, as far as US law is concerned, that's legal. At least currently.
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  what the hell
2. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  well it isn't in austria at least, so (probably) europe is safe
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  Even anywhere it might not be legal, it only matters if you can win a lawsuit.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  technically yes, but (most) european states also have protections against that; the losing party usually has to cover the costs of the attorney and stuff. depends on circumstances ofc
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  You still have to pay for it until you win, and on the off chance that you lose for whatever reason, that's a big bill.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  assuming a win, it's probably doable for most small dev studios. It's going to at least be a big diruption though
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  And you still have to pay Unity until you win.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  no you don't, that's why you're fighting the case in the first place
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  That's up to the Judge to decide.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  when the judge decides, that's the end of the case. At most you'll have to pay unity after you lose the case.
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  Generally speaking, when you're suing over something, that thing is allowed to continue until the end of the case. Unless the judge says otherwise, usually though some kind of injunction. But unless the judge grants an injunction, you'd be required to pay Unity's fees until the end of the case.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  I doubt that's going to be the case, since the dev is struggling as is, and there's no real reason for unity to need the money now as opposed to after a decision is made
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  That's legally how it's supposed to work. The judge isnt supposed to change anything unless they absolutely have to. They're only supposed to change things after the case has been decided.
@LonelyGayTiger 2y

Which is expensive.
@LonelyGayTiger 2y

Additionally, a judge would be unlikely to grant an injunction. The requirements to grant an injunction are irreparable harm, and how likely you are to win. If you can be financially compensated for the harm, it's not irreparable.
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  also, I assume that's still USA law, which doesn't apply to …well, any country besides the USA
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  The standards for an injunction are largely universal. They're based out of European common law, which through colonialism, spread around the world.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  are you a lawyer or something? that's an impressive amount of knowledge you seem to have
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  Not a lawyer, not legal advice. It's definitely not the same in all countries, but from what I've seen it's usually pretty similar.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  ok fair. in any case, all we can do as bystanders is wait and see. It's going to be interesting…
  
  @LonelyGayTiger 2y
  
  The other problem here, is that if a company does business in the US, they're bound by US law, so they're fucked.
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  true
  
  dev_meme 2y
  
  And there’s ±0% chance to have no bussines in US if you have anything close to functional scaled business
  
  dev_meme 2y
  
  Sadly, US laws unlike laws of other countries are appliead to citizens of almost all countries 🙁
@Saeid025 2y

Why they're doing this to themselves... It can even be end of unity...
1. @RiedleroD 2y
  
  nah, unity is too big to fail. If they go bankrupt, some bigger company will just buy them
  
  @phpzapecanus 2y
  
  I think.this special move was on purpose. Just to get in troubles and get bought
  
  @RiedleroD 2y
  
  I don't think so. bankrupcy severly diminishes their value, so they'd get less money. If they wanted a buy-out, they'd just have offered, and some greedy company would've bought them.
  
  @phpzapecanus 2y
  
  I mean yes, but what if this is diversion from some top managers to decrease company price and buy it by low price. Lil speculative , but funny tho
  
  @Saeid025 2y
  
  Well that's true But it'll for sure have some big impact on it One of which people use it less for their future projects... There are some free (or paid) engines that they can use, I mean yeah not as big as unity but at least they pricing make more sense... One good example is Godot
2. dev_meme 2y
  
  Also there’s a bunch of really big projects (Genshin Impact, Heartstone, etc-etc-etc) who have no chance to change game engine. Basically they will be forced to pay those money. So while being totally immoral and leading to HUGE long-term problems it may generate some really big profits for company in the perspective of the single year of 2024
@Saeid025 2y

Tbh this unity action is kinda nice! This will make people look for new engines and one that they find soon or later is Godot... This can help it to get bigger easier

Use J and K for navigation

Unity's Per-Install Runtime Fees: The Spreadsheet Every Indie Dev Now Dreads

Description

Categories

Common Tags

Comments

More like this

Unity 6 Upgrade Meets a Screaming Console

Game Jam Energy Versus Hackathon Reality

Valve Names a Boolean for Its Dataminers