> I think dev tools should be provided for free or cheap to people experimenting or starting out, but there is a point where people are taking the piss if they sell 200k copies and they still think they should be able to use the tools for free(or nearly free).
You have completely misunderstood the discussions if you think the issue is indie devs wanting to use the engine for free. If it were just a percentage of revenue, few people would complain. Instead the pricing structure is explicitly made in a way that puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral.
>> puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral.
Please explain how exactly, because I'm really not grokking it.
If your small free game goes viral = you pay nothing.
If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem.
From my perspective it seems like a lot of complaining is being done by people on Unity Personal licences who are now upset they will have to pay to use the engine if they actually make money - I don't support those people. I'm yet to see a legitimate example of a business that would be put in any kind of danger because of these rules.
> If your small paid game goes viral = you pay a small fee per install, but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue(please convince me otherwise) and I don't see the problem.
No, that's the issue! It's possible for you to owe more to Unity than you took in from the sale. It's not tied to your revenue. If a user re-installs your game too many times you will literally owe Unity more money than you earned.
I'm not sure how you want me to convince you otherwise. The formula for calculating how much devs owe due to installs is: install_count * amount_per_install. There simply is no revenue involved.
>>It's possible for you to owe more to Unity than you took in from the sale. It's not tied to your revenue
I think you don't understand what revenue is. It's entirely possible for a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale. In that sense this system is the same - under some circumstances you can lose money on a sale.
>> If a user re-installs your game too many times you will literally owe Unity more money than you earned.
I agree that Unity shouldn't be charging per install if the dev can prove all installations were done by the same user.
> I think you don't understand what revenue is. It's entirely possible for a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale. In that sense this system is the same - under some circumstances you can lose money on a sale.
I perfectly understand what revenue is, thank you. I am not talking about a revenue based percentage system where you lose money on every sale.
Please explain to me how a developer can owe more than their revenue in a system where they owe a percentage of their revenue. You literally stated "but since you are making money on these sales this is functionality identical to perfentage of revenue". How can this situation happen in such a system?
> I agree that Unity shouldn't be charging per install if the dev can prove all installations were done by the same user.
But that is exactly the issue. Unity is charging per install, even if the dev can prove all installations were done by the same user. So why are you saying:
> From my perspective it seems like a lot of complaining is being done by people on Unity Personal licences who are now upset they will have to pay to use the engine if they actually make money
if you yourself agree with the point people are making, which is that Unity should not be charging per install?
I don't want to get in to deep. But they said "lose money on each sale" not that the fee would be greater than your revenue. If you make $1 in revenue, pay 90 cents in various fees, and then 20% (20 cents) to unity, you've lost money on the sale, despite them taking only a percentage of the sales revenue.
And my point is: you make 1$ in revenue, and it's possible for you to owe more than 1$ to Unity. That is the problem with the per-install fee, and it's the reason it's not comparable with a cut of revenue.
You have completely misunderstood the discussions if you think the issue is indie devs wanting to use the engine for free. If it were just a percentage of revenue, few people would complain. Instead the pricing structure is explicitly made in a way that puts small developers at risk if their cheap small game happens to go viral.