Ok so if they are now only charging for the first install, why aren’t they just charging an extra fee per sale? Wouldn’t that accomplish effectively the same thing? (And actually work out in unity favour since not everyone who buys a game downloads it)
Because they realize that a huge number of their customers are small indies, and they want to be able to squeeze them - the majority of their customer base - not just the minority of big companies (who are also the most likely to fight back legally).
Just look at how their scheme squeezes smaller, poorer developers way more than big ones. If Unity went by points like, say Epic does with Unreal, they could shake down the big developers… but wouldn’t get much out of the indies.
Which is the opposite of what smart companies like Adobe do. You facilitate the small players in hope that they grow big and keep using your products at a larger scale.
That’s probably pretty negligible numbers. In fact I’d suspect that the number of people who buy a single copy that they then install on multiple devices is lower than the number of people who buy a game and never play it.
It’s also much simpler to implement and the numbers are verifiable. Unless… that’s exactly what Unity wants; just “trust me bro this is the correct number” kind of deal.
The only major reason I can think of is people playing on PC and Steam Deck, using the cloud save to play on both. Sometimes I want to play the same game on the big screen and sometimes in bed.
Also Steam Deck - every install and uninstall is considered a new computer. That’s true for Linux gaming using Proton in general, but the rest of Linux gaming is not as relevant.
Right, but how many people keep games for that long? How often do they reinstall? It’s tiny numbers. Even if it’s 1 in 100 installs that’s a tiny extra cost compared to the rest. In reality it will probably be much lower, and - again - most games have at least about 30% unplayed ratio.
They’re offering to reduce/wave the fee if you’re using other Unity services. Given this change has the biggest impact on freemium games that rely on free downloads to get a large install bases and which rely on the kind of services that Unity will give you a discount for using, well, it’s not hard to connect the dots. Especially when you remember Unity merged with a ad company recently.
Other than that it might be a way to take a bite out of services like Game Pass or Geforce Now. The deals devlopers get for theses are potentially very low revenue per “install” so it’s possible this would make them more money than taking a percentage of the revenue.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
Ok so if they are now only charging for the first install, why aren’t they just charging an extra fee per sale? Wouldn’t that accomplish effectively the same thing? (And actually work out in unity favour since not everyone who buys a game downloads it)
Because they realize that a huge number of their customers are small indies, and they want to be able to squeeze them - the majority of their customer base - not just the minority of big companies (who are also the most likely to fight back legally).
Just look at how their scheme squeezes smaller, poorer developers way more than big ones. If Unity went by points like, say Epic does with Unreal, they could shake down the big developers… but wouldn’t get much out of the indies.
Which is the opposite of what smart companies like Adobe do. You facilitate the small players in hope that they grow big and keep using your products at a larger scale.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
That’s probably pretty negligible numbers. In fact I’d suspect that the number of people who buy a single copy that they then install on multiple devices is lower than the number of people who buy a game and never play it.
It’s also much simpler to implement and the numbers are verifiable. Unless… that’s exactly what Unity wants; just “trust me bro this is the correct number” kind of deal.
The only major reason I can think of is people playing on PC and Steam Deck, using the cloud save to play on both. Sometimes I want to play the same game on the big screen and sometimes in bed.
Trust me bro won’t work when devs phone home custom install analytics tho.
People eventually upgrade their computers. Swapping out mainboards and/or reinstalling Windows probably counts as a new device.
Also Steam Deck - every install and uninstall is considered a new computer. That’s true for Linux gaming using Proton in general, but the rest of Linux gaming is not as relevant.
Right, but how many people keep games for that long? How often do they reinstall? It’s tiny numbers. Even if it’s 1 in 100 installs that’s a tiny extra cost compared to the rest. In reality it will probably be much lower, and - again - most games have at least about 30% unplayed ratio.
I don’t think so. Even casual players reinstall their favorite games on everything they can manage. Think of Stardew Valley.
Favorite, long lasting games will definitely suffer more from this. But it should still be a tiny issue.
It work for paid games, youd have to apply it to microtransaction level if by f2p game, which is the real target for the change.
Which is why Unreal Engine charges by revenue rather than by sale/install. It doesn’t matter if the game if F2P, money earned is money earned.
They’re offering to reduce/wave the fee if you’re using other Unity services. Given this change has the biggest impact on freemium games that rely on free downloads to get a large install bases and which rely on the kind of services that Unity will give you a discount for using, well, it’s not hard to connect the dots. Especially when you remember Unity merged with a ad company recently.
Other than that it might be a way to take a bite out of services like Game Pass or Geforce Now. The deals devlopers get for theses are potentially very low revenue per “install” so it’s possible this would make them more money than taking a percentage of the revenue.