The Unity Games That Could be Impacted Most by Controversial Fees, From Silksong to Cult of the Lamb - IGN - eviltoast
  • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So there’s a little nuance here. They aren’t going to charge you for the downloads that already happened, it’s on all downloads moving forward, even if the game has already been released. I still think it’s ridiculous, but it is not the same as suddenly hitting you with a bill for all the downloads the game already had. That would not hold up in any court. But the latter case…we’ll see. Depends on the specifics of the initial agreement I suppose. Totally possible they are within their rights even if it’s scummy.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, that’s my understanding. I don’t think if you had a million downloads last year, for instance, you’ll be charged for those.

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

      No, you won’t be charged retroactively for previous downloads. But the change does retroactively affect games previously released on Unity.

      So last year you made decisions on your game’s price and revenue model that are no longer true. if you made your small game free to play with microtransactions and its had more than 200,000 installs you’re probably shitting yourself. Unity will be charging $0.20 per install even if it’s to the same device multiple times. A million installs of your game is you having to write a check to Unity for $160,000 for installations alone.

      So your microtransactions game now must average a spend of at least $0.20 per install, plus per seat licensing of Unity, plus your overhead for it to even begin to make a profit.

      And Unity has said that multiple installations on the same device will all be charged. So it’s inevitable that script kiddies with bad attitudes are going to install a game thousands of times. Unity has said you can appeal this type of behavior, but that puts the onus of detecting and reporting this stuff on the devs, further increasing their workload and risk.

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

        Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game’s lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

        I read that as it’s billing moving forward but they’ve been very opaque thus far so I’m willing to entertain there’s a contradiction elsewhere lol

        • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          As I understand it, they’re billing moving forward but counting past installs for the purpose of figuring out if you have to pay.

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

          yeah i deleted my post because they keep changing their minds.
          its retroactive (for now) in the sense that they started counting from before, just only billing for new ones.