Search Unity

Over the last days I’ve been reading all comments about the new products and prices, and first of all, do know that we are very carefully listening to everything, discussing a lot especially what we can do to make the subscription pricing appealing especially to Indie devs who have been using Unity Pro for the longest time.

Update 2: Please note that “Pay to Own” is no longer supported.

Update: We’ve made some changes to the new products and prices based on the feedback we received. Please see this blog post for the updates!

I especially care a lot about this group of developers, who effectively funded this company with us and have been with us on this journey for a very long time. So we will figure something out. Needs a bit of time but we’ll follow up soon…

In the meantime I want to give a bit of background about why we are doing this subscription thing and some thoughts on what was a bit lost in the announcement so far.

Why Subscription?

When we started Unity, we would ship Unity every once in a while on just 2 platforms. Initially just Aras and I, gradually adding a couple engineers every few months. We’d decide on a couple major features and focus working on that for a year and a bit, go through beta and then ship it.

Today Unity lets you target 28 platforms. No one targets all platforms at the same time, but the ability to choose to easily switch your game to any platform gives Unity developers incredible advantages.

Each platform is supported by a team of dedicated engineers. We have teams focused on different areas of the engine, working on improving each major area all the time.

We ship a patch release every week. Supported by the awesome Sustained Engineering team.

We ship point releases with major new features and improvements multiple times per year.

All of this is necessary because the platforms we support rapidly change. In today’s world, we can’t leave customers behind for a year because we are in the process of releasing a major version. We think it would be very bad for Unity developers if we held features for a full number release, rather than launch these features along the way, when they are ready.

With this in mind, we want to be clear. There will be no major Unity 6 release.

In the dev team we wanted to stop doing major releases for a long time. With the major releases model we had done up until Unity 5, it has always forced us to bundle up a bunch of features and release them in one big splash. Usually it results in that good & complete features would be artificially held back for a long time while other features are still maturing, and eventually releasing some of these features before they are ready. All in the name of creating one big splashy release that customers feel is worth upgrading to. It’s what we did because we had to in a model where we worked toward an unnatural new major release every few years. This is not some evil marketing team pushing for it, it is the inherent nature of that business model. It was always a painful process for us and you and it really serves no one.

With our switch to subscription we can make Unity incrementally better, every week. When a feature is complete, we will ship it. If it is not ready we will wait for the next point release.

Our switch to subscription is absolutely necessary in order for us to provide a robust and stable platform.

Thanks for listening, I hope this gives some much needed background on our switch to subscription.

235 Comments

Subscribe to comments

Comments are closed.

  1. I don’t agree

  2. Hi,

    Couldn’t find an answer to this in QA.

    What happens if you go over the revenue limit on each plan?

    1. Hello,

      Once users go over the revenue cap, they should upgrade their plan to the tier that applies to them.

  3. I can’t say I’m happy with the changes. Any software that has changed to subscription base I have simply dropped or stuck with the older version. Hopefully by the time I finish my game my perpetual Unity 5 will still work, as the options of paying a lot more for the perpetual Unity Pro or renting Unity Plus does not appeal to an indie developer.

    1. If I’ve read all of this correctly, I paid $1,500 in February 2016 for Unity 5 Pro License. Then in March of 2016, less than 1 month later, Unity Technologies announces this subscription nonsense in which I have until March of 2017 to use this highly over priced and far from stable version before its swept away by Unity 6. At which point in time, anyone and their mother must pay $125 a month for Unity Pro 6? And for some reason, Unity Technologies thinks that should include me and others in my position, who have already shelled out plenty of money for what I was led to believe included all future versions of unity? Not cool Unity, not cool at all. How about this, you reimburse me for my $1,500 waste of money and maybe I will consider the $125 subscription and continue to be a customer of yours. As it stand, I haven’t even had an opportunity to use my Unity 5 Pro yet because I was not informed there would be an expiration date and that eventually I would be forced to pay your company additional monthly fees in the future. I likely won’t even utilize my Unity 5 Pro until about March of 2017 anyways so I want my money back. Unless of course I’ve completely misread everything that has been posted. Here’s a breakdown of what I expect, I should never have to and will never pay any additional monthly fees for your software. My professional license will continue to work for any and all future versions of Unity3D. If that is not the case, I want every penny of my money back and I will find a game development platform that isn’t going to behave in this incredibly shady fashion. This is by no means a joke, I do not joke about my money and neither does my attorney. You have my contact info on file and I expect you to use it soon, very soon, immediately if that hasn’t been made clear. Thank you and have a wonderful day.

      PS- Consider getting a 24/7 customer support phone number because I have a feeling you’re going to need it sooner than you might think.

      1. Hi Milo,

        Users who have bought a perpetual license for Unity 5 do not have any sort of expiration date. After the lifecycle of Unity 5 end in March 2017, if you want to move forward with our next iteration of the engine then you will need to be part of a subscription. This will not stop you from using any aspect of Unity 5 or the license you have already purchased. Please also note that we have a follow up blog post with updated information here.

        1. Thanks for the links, Unity Technologies has a tremendous amount of potential, but this upset will likely cause more strife than its worth. Consider offering professional development coaches and freelance developers for rent in an independent developers local area. Establish a profitable business structure similar to that of Uber and endeavor to create a mutually beneficial relationship with your clients. If you do not fully believe that monetizing a small piece of a bored developer’s down time can be profitable to Unity Technologies, then you probably haven’t ever heard of Uber. Get rid of Subscriptions and offer a “Work to Own” program so that these naturally reclusive “Mobile DevProfessors” can go out and teach others who might be struggling to get their games off the ground. Some of these really great developers are young men and women who aren’t even making enough money to purchase a Professional version that live near a 6 figure hobbyist who just wants make a game. Fortunately, they have an extra $100 every month they’d be willing to spend on someone willing to help them make or fix their game. That 6 figure hobbyist pays the Mobile DevProfessor who pays Unity Technologies a reasonably small, predetermined percentage on every transaction which inevitably leads to unlocking certain tiers and features of the Professional software eventually allowing them full access to software they otherwise probably never would have purchased. It’s a much cleaner way of getting your name out there, offering quality updates faster than your competitors, and make an unspeakable amount of revenue in the process.

      2. “If I’ve read all of this correctly…”
        You haven’t.

        “highly over priced”
        At $125/month, that’s a full year to accrue the same cost as the Unity 5 Pro License you bought. At the special rate of $75/month that you’re entitled to, that’s 20 months. Not overpriced at all, at least in your own opinion.

        “far from stable version”
        If you read the post, they’ll release weekly incremental updates and patches. They’ll also release major features and improvements earlier, since they aren’t tethered to a major release cycle.

        “before its swept away by Unity 6.”
        From the post: “With this in mind, we want to be clear. There will be no major Unity 6 release.”

        “for what I was led to believe included all future versions of unity?”
        I’m not sure where you thought that came from. Unity 4 and Unity 5 were released about 2.5 years apart. If you bought a Unity 4 Pro license, you would only have had 2.5 years with that license. Makes sense that it’s the same for Unity 5.

        “I haven’t even had an opportunity to use my Unity 5 Pro yet because I was not informed there would be an expiration date… I likely won’t even utilize my Unity 5 Pro until about March of 2017 anyways”
        So you bought Unity 5 Pro, not expecting to use it until more than a year later (you bought it in February 2016 by your own first sentence), and you’re only motivated to use it now? Seems like you owe Unity a favor for encouraging you to actually open up Unity and do something with it.

        “Unless of course I’ve completely misread everything that has been posted.”
        Ding ding ding!

        “My professional license will continue to work for any and all future versions of Unity3D.”
        So you want your grandkids to develop games using your license? That hasn’t happened with any previous version, that won’t happen now.

        “If that is not the case, I want every penny of my money back and I will find a game development platform that isn’t going to behave in this incredibly shady fashion.”
        Adobe Creative Cloud switched to the same pricing scheme, are you gonna call them incredibly shady too?

        “This is by no means a joke, I do not joke about my money”
        Says the person who bought a $1,500 license they haven’t used in half a year.

        “and neither does my attorney.”
        FYI, attorneys charge by the hour… I hope you didn’t hire him six months ago too.

        “Consider getting a 24/7 customer support phone number because I have a feeling you’re going to need it sooner than you might think.”
        There is in fact a 10AM to 6PM support number that you can call. It’s not 24/7, but I guess you’ll have to get home from middle school earlier if you want to make use of it.

        1. You’re strange and insignificant little person, I don’t recall anyone asking for Deadpool’s opinion. Have you ever heard of any scam in the history of ever? This right here, from the salesperson your assistant contacts to the blog posts about making a more stable and more capable version, changing to subscription plans and so forth. When a game development platform of any kind inches forward in the upgrades that they push out in order to get people caught in some never ending loop of payment, it can very well be perceived as a scam.

          That sales rep took advantage of a young woman’s lack of experience and sold her a product that had no real future to it. The alleged sales rep in question was somehow unable adequately explain to her that it was like purchasing a PS2 or a PS3, every so often you’re going to have to buy a new one.

          The issue at hand, my little friend, is that I am trying to run a business. The business that I run needs software for the fresh fleet of programmers who’ll soon be rushing in to develop real games for real people. Picture this: You invest $1,500 in a piece of software, you go through a rigorous hiring process in an effort to find the right guy for the job so that the two of you can test the limitations of what appears to be a very promising game development platform. Somewhere in the mix, you find your way engaged in leasing an office. Now you start setting up your studio, it becomes time consuming so you want to hire a few extra hands to catch up on development. You check back with the site your assistant purchased software from to see how much more it would cost you for your small fleet of developers to all receive a Professional “PERPETUAL” License and discover that 7 months of a product that had yet to even be used, had evaporated while you were hard at work setting up a business.

          Well son, that’s what you call a pickle and I’m not fond of pickles. Ask yourself this, why would a company who values it’s customers make them wait for features that AAA video game studios seem to always have access to first. Furthermore, why force them to continue paying more money to upgrade features they already paid $1,500 for which served no purpose?

          This darn comment took so long that I don’t even care anymore, I will accept this as a poor investment and move on. I now have to waste more of my time finding an alternate video game development platform that doesn’t remind me so much of the way Sony does business. Hopefully I can still find some use for this software, but I doubt there will be further purchases. If it came across as if I didn’t understand what was happening here, it was likely to catch a few of you less enlightened folks off guard.

          Thank you Unity for your responses and recommended links, I have reviewed them feel even less intrigued with your product than I was originally. Your friend Wade (a.k.a. Deadpool) was also somewhat of a deterrent as well.

          Perpetual – never ending or changing.
          “deep caves in perpetual darkness”
          synonyms: everlasting, never-ending, eternal, permanent, unending, endless, without end, lasting, long-lasting, constant, abiding, enduring, perennial, timeless, ageless, deathless, undying, immortal; More
          (“Google Definition”)

  4. Ryan Mccarthy

    July 12, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    Do i need to buy an ios license also to launch my game on ios with unity plus???

    1. Hello Ryan,

      With Unity Plus you have unrestricted freedom to deploy across all supported platforms including iOS, Android, VR, AR, and many more. – https://store.unity.com/

  5. rugved chavan

    July 12, 2016 at 8:44 pm

    So if i buy Unity plus do i need to buy a ios license also for 75 dollars to launch my game on ios platforms, The site is not helping me ,i cant see where can i buy an ios license.please help me!!

    1. Hi. With Unity Plus you have unrestricted freedom to deploy across all supported platforms including iOS, Android, VR, AR, and many more. – https://store.unity.com/

  6. I observed that most of the frustrated comments due to Unity new pricing model is not flexible enough for those who only develop for a certain platform and don’t want to pay more than that, I guess just need one FIX is to offer an extra subscription model called “Unity Flat” which you only need to pay for the platform group that you need (desktop, console, mobile), and half price to 2/3 of the Pro is a good start I guess. Just a thought from me, that would make Unity’s pricing model flexible enough and keep all of us happy.

    Apparently, this would potentially makes the Pro license going to be no-use, but Unity could always tweak the Revenue Capacity limit (maybe 1-2 million) to make sure Pro or Enterprise will be where user need to end up if their small indie studio/company ever grows big enough to earn that much.

    I think Unity is heading the right direction of its pricing mode, an engine need a good and stable financial support so that there will be more bug fixes, more features, more researches, more cool free assets, etc… and most importantly so that it won’t die off. I’m just glad and thankful that they are still loyal with supporting and developing the Personal Edition as it has helped myself a lots in many ways.

  7. Do you guys understand that you’re killing Unity by doing this? You guys made the free version pretty much fully featured and you put the fear of death into Unreal and CryEngine. So much so that they followed suit and offered everything for free. Now, you’re going to take all the success that you’ve gained, all the market share, and all the popularity of Unity and throw it all away.

    When I purchased Unity 4, I paid $1500 to buy in, then another $600 to upgrade to 5, and was planning another $600 to go to Unity 6 without hesitation. It would be one thing if the sub cost roughly the same (i.e. $50 a month) for a year, but you’re charging a ridiculous amount. And for what exactly? People grumbled about Adobe going subscription, but then realized that it was going to cost them LESS in the long run. You’re charging us an arm and a leg more for the same functionality and incremental updates (not to mention the buggy and rushed releases that characterize the 5.3 cycle, *cough* 5.4 still in beta *cough*).

    Also, you talk about the need to patch and develop and the money necessary to do that, yet how much are you raking in from the asset store? 30% of each sale? That was one of the reasons Unreal and CryEngine decided to go free, they saw the huge potential for monetizing the assets for use with the engine.

    I can’t see myself signing up for the pro subscription with the availability of so many other options. Definitely time to download Unreal and give it a spin. (Or CryEngine, or Lumberyard, or if I want to pay a more reasonable amount I’ll pay $240 PER YEAR for Stingray).

    Congratulations, you’ve blown it all to hell.

    1. Hello John – If you fall under the 200K revenue cap, you have the option to use our new Plus plan for $35/month ($420/year). You can read our blog with the updated prices and details or our blog post today about the store going live for more details.

      1. Hi Alice,

        The new pricing structure for Plus (which is where I would fall as a single developer) is much better, I agree. I am somewhat mollified. The only thing I think would fix it completely for me is to add back in the pay to own option for the plus. I don’t see why you removed that option. Just leave the 200k cap in place but let me keep my software if I decide after two years that I don’t like the direction you’re going.

        Bring back pay to own for plus, and I will gladly shut up.

  8. Thumbs up from long term Pro license holder

    June 18, 2016 at 2:03 pm

    Thank you for listening to our concerns!

    This new pricing is a reasonable trade-off between financing the widely spread future development of Unity and still regarding and appreciating the support you received by 1 to 2 person studios who payed and supported you right from the start without using all platforms and services.

    As for perpetual Pro license holders: considering a major release cycle of two years, March 2017 (plus / minus a few months) would have anyway been the time to decide how to proceed further. The transition offer is a great concession and the improved plus license now also makes sense.

    Thanks again also to Joachim Ante for taking the communities’ reservations seriously.
    Cheers!

  9. For people who strongly prefer working with dark themes, withholding the dark theme behind a massive paywall is akin to having a game asking you for $1k+ for the option to play with your preferred mouse Y-axis inversion setting. People are not used to having to pay for such things so it just looks like spite and leaves them feeling… bad. Please reconsider, the consumer psychology is all wrong. Also note that many of your free users would probably like to give you some money, just to support the project, but currently they have no option to do so because their only option is very steep.

  10. “There will be no major Unity 6 release.”

    Does this mean no unity 6.0 or does it mean no big changes when unity 6.0 is released? Obviously there will be more stuff added to unity and the number will keep going up 5.35, 5.4….and so forth. Eventually there will be a need after 5.99 to go to 6.0. Or will it be something like ‘Unity Z’? But still, would need a numbering system as well.

    1. More likely it will be called Unity 2017 since Unity follows the Autodesk model.

  11. It’s a yearly subscription really. You could say it’s a daily fee of $1.15 for plus (or something even smaller) but in the end you still have to pay that same yearly amount, so saying per month seems kinda misleading.

    I’m not a huge fan of Subscription, I prefer to just buy something outright as I’ve done with the past 3 major versions of Unity. I hope this works out okay but it raises a bunch of questions.

    Since there wont be a V6, when will current Unity 5 pro (outright owners) have to go on subscription?

  12. “Our switch to subscription is absolutely necessary in order for us to provide a robust and stable platform”. I wonder how all other major Engines manage to provide robust and stable platforms without that, huh?

    It’s a shame that Unity even considered those new plans and formats and prices. It’s even more shameful that Unity now comes up with this article as such a bad excuse. When we are in some positions it’s just too hard to admit we made a mistake. But guess what, Unity has made a big mistake.

    You’re wrong and I have no doubts that the community will continue to show you that. It’s time to acknowledge it before too late. Spinning the issue here and there won’t to you or us any favors. Your “new” business model is outdated, anachronistic even. Either keep things as they currently are or change forward, not backward in time

    1. “Your “new” business model is outdated, anachronistic even.”
      Microsoft (Microsoft Office), Adobe (Adobe Creative Cloud), Autodesk (AutoCAD, Maya, 3DS Max) and lots more companies beg to differ.

  13. Spin it however you wish, you’re still tripling the price for desktop developers. And what do we get with this massive price hike? Nothing.

    Regarding the splash screen, I actually have no problems with it at all, with one small but critical issue: the ‘Personal Edition’ tag. Slapping the personal edition label on there serves no purpose other than to degrade the perceived value of the game and strong arm developers into paying. Remove that tag and you’ll probably make a lot of developers very happy. I know it would make me happy.

    1. Everything is going sub? What about Unreal going free for usage and 5% royalties if you game sales? And what about CryEngine going totally pay-what-you-want, i.e. free for usage and even without royalties? Unity and Unity community have to start looking out there how the game engine environment is these days

  14. It has begun … the slow, silent death of unity. RIP I switch to UNREAL

  15. No answer yet to my questions, when I was asked about the questions because they were not clearly stated or understood, I rephrased them but still no answer…

  16. If you’re working in a first-world country, congratulations. You shouldn’t have to worry about the monthly price for the upcoming Unity subscription model.

    Realize, though, that there are numerous developers who *don’t* work with first-world salaries, and $125 a month is pretty steep for them. So they have to make do working with Unity personal, which then places a huge barrier for them to be able to eventually afford the $125 a month because audiences have come to loathe any game that includes the Unity splash screen from the get-go through no fault of their own. Other developers did that.

    Now, I also do understand where Unity Technologies is coming from, and I don’t begrudge them wanting to monetize their hard work. Why not emulate Unreal’s pricing scheme for people who can’t fork cash monthly for now? Between taking a share of profits and the extra residuals Unity receives from the Asset Store and cloud services, that could result in a tidy sum for them. Then users/companies can just switch over to monthly subscriptions when they hit their stride.

    Or if that’s really not in the cards, I’m also not averse to shilling Unity through the splash screen for personal edition users. But maybe make the splash screen a bit more customizable, instead of the ham-fisted one-default-splash-screen-for-all approach that they mandate. How about mandating the Unity branding be there, but customizable on where on the screen to place it, overlain on a user-provided image? That would at least provide a pleasing, custom splash screen but still doing marketing for Unity. Is that not a good solution, or at least better than just the default screen?

  17. My Take

    I agree completely with their theory on patches and going to a subscription model. I think an example would have made the point better.. tell us about a feature that was finished, but we did not get for 6 months because you were waiting for the next Unity upgrade.

    For developers, If you are making so little that $1500 per year is an issue, then just use Unity Free. I´ve heard many people say ´but my external customers demand no splash screen´… at which point I will say that you need to find better external customers. Seriously, $1500 a year is nothing if you are actually producing games for an external customer. Heck, sign up for a weekend game jam once a month as your ´pay for Unity´project and list it on itch.

    My other issue is confidence in your project. You do not need to use Unity Pro during development to make your game if you only want to remove the splash screen and get some of the analytics. Make your game, subscribe to Unity near the end, and then have confidence in your game that the $1500 will be insignificant over the next year.

    I have no problem with what they are doing, even as a mainly desktop developer. My only small grip would be that they remove the ´personal edition´ from the splash screen. Even when I go pro, I will not be removing the splash screen because I think it is bad developers who blame the splash screen for bad sales of a bad game, it is simply their excuse so they don´t have to blame themselves. Every game I have seen on Steam that has a negative comment about ´oh, another Unity game´ is because the developer did not even do the basics with lighting and shaders.. they were copy-paste games that were horrible, not because of Unity, but because the developer did not use any of the tools available within Unity.

    1. 1 – If you make a little over 1500 from outsourcing… then unity screen will kill you. basically Unity with the new pricing make a category of user to have a hard time evolving
      2 – yes you can use unity free (or switch engines) BUT that’s a very bad thing for unity! that means the new pricing model is s**t! the purpose of the new pricing modes was (or at least should be) for unity to make more money and users, NOT less money and users!
      3 – a price increase (when other engines are basically free) is suicide! the only things are keeping users here are the asset store and easy to use… but easy to use is a double edge sword because good developers are more likely to switch.
      4 – unity lack a LOT of features unreal and cryengine have! sure most of them are on the asset store (and some the other engine don’t have) but that means… again a lot of money! unity is becoming the most expensive engine out there! and that might be the downfall of it! again keep in mind that it lacks basic features that other engines have!
      Unity needs a more flexible pricing model, not a more rigid one! something like: you want cloud you pay X, you want removing os splash screen you pay Y, you want all the services you pay Z etc. even a revenue base royalty might be a good thing!
      royalty free is good for companies that actually make money (most of which will use other engines anyway). royalty free is 0 for indies with 200-500 income per month. but have to pay for subscription.
      unity pricing is good for big companies that don’t use unity, but is bad for indies that use unity…

    2. But tbh, the splash screen is just too ugly that Unity seems to do it intentionally so developers are willing to pay money to remove this shit. I wouldn’t complain if it is good looking. Unfortunately, it is not.
      Unity just doesn’t worth that price. Like LIVIU said, Unity is still lacking many features. Let’s not forget there are many free alternatives outside. I have tried UE4 yesterday. I have to say I love it immediately. The documentation, the editor UI, the start-up materials, etc. are much better than Unity. The splash screen is customisable. Yet, it is FREE. No subscription, no licensing fee. UE4 was once more expansive than Unity, Unity users often used this for supporting Unity. But now, this statement is invalid. UE4 is much cheaper than before and therefore becomes much more famous. However, what Unity doing is the opposite. They are going to make Unity more expensive. The result? You guess. Good luck Unity. Also, good luck for me. I don’t know what our company will do after our pro licenses expire.

    3. But tbh, the splash screen is just too ugly that Unity seems to do it intentionally so developers are willing to pay money to remove this shit. I wouldn’t complain if it is good looking. Unfortunately, it is not.
      Unity just doesn’t worth that price. Like LIVIU said, Unity is still lacking many features. Let’s not forget there are many free alternatives outside. I have tried UE4 yesterday. I have to say I love it immediately. The documentation, the editor UI, the start-up materials, etc. are much better than Unity. The splash screen is customisable. Yet, it is FREE. No subscription, no licensing fee. UE4 was once more expansive than Unity, Unity users often used this for supporting Unity. But now, this statement is invalid. UE4 is much cheaper than before and therefore becomes much more famous. However, what Unity doing is the opposite. They are going to make Unity more expensive. The result? You guess. Good luck Unity. Also, good luck for me. I don’t know what our company will do after our pro licenses expire. Maybe change to UE4?

  18. – Why don’t you go the same route as Xamarin when Microsoft bought it: make it free and sell your cloud build? Seriously, I don’t care about 28 platforms you said, I care about Universal Windows Platform and Android only. So, I must pay for over 20 platforms I don’t want? What a joke!!
    – A second joke is you need to pay 1500$ or 75$/month just to remove Unity Splash Screen. I don’t care about extra features like skin, analytics, performance… Why don’t just give it free and require they buy PRO if they can reach some revenue. People surely can pay you double, triple price if they can really reach around 50.000$ -> over 100.000$ per year. The Splash Screen make the game a little bit stupid when it is on store
    – To sell something, at least make it better. There’s no stable version, we get patch release every week and it has more buggy features need to be fixed. If you look at Windows Phone 10 insider, you will see you are doing some kind of stupid as them. Ex: drained battery is fixed then some patch come and it is draining battery again and wait for fix and then happen again… But at least they are insider for testing, MS only give a stable for normal user while you gave us a testing version each week.

  19. overdisappointed

    June 12, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Well, they are moderating comments, deleting anything that has actual value, so I guess this is it…l well… this very comment won’t make it through right? Thank you Unity people for showing how much you don’t care about your long time paying customers…

  20. Pino of DFT Games Ltd.

    June 12, 2016 at 11:19 am

    This comment is even worse than the first price change announcement… do you people thing we can’t do math? I feel offended by this lame justification: it’s insulting my intelligence.

  21. What people are interpreting this as is that Unity is trying to sell a product instead of helping you make one. If Unity went the Unreal route and took a percentage of profits, that shows that they’re in that race with you. Unreal now doesn’t make a penny unless people can make good games with their engine. But the way Unity has this payment system now, and with consideration of how unstable and feature-lacking the engine is, it looks like Unity is only interested in selling a product, not helping make one.

    You should have made plans to make the engine more stable and feature complete before going the subscription route to at least prove that the intention good will is there.

    Also, you should be requiring a splash screen on every game, and selectively asking certain crappier developers to remove it. This model basically makes it so that only the crappy games show the Unity logo, and the good games made with Unity aren’t obvious (like Ori and the Blind Forest, Hand of Fate, Hearthstone, Final Fantasy, Cities Skylines, the list goes on).

    1. Interesting point, but following your way of reasoning, Unreal is not really interested whether you make a “good game”. Only whether you make a lot of money.

      So your argument is only true, if you define that “good” means “makes money”. Not always the case..

  22. If you guys aren’t even making 125$ a month from Unity you are being selfish for wanting to remove the splash screen. I make over 100 times that monthly and game development is just a hobby not my day job. Really, you can’t afford 4$ a day? Maybe you should make a good game with the splash screen that gets you to 4$ a day (I have made games in under 24 hours that make me 50$ a day) and then buy the license.

    In short, if you are too stupid to make an easy extra 125$ a month with Unity, consider using the free version until you can, different career, or a different engine.

    1. So stupid comment. Unity is not a money making system, it is an entertainment development tool that can be used for many project, not only commercial.
      If you think that what Unity is doing is normal, then apply it to your Cannon camera, yes if you are not making more than $125 with your camera, then use a phone, you do not deserve to be a photographer.
      Or you can apply it to your car. You are not making money with your car, use a bicycle.

      What about paying our camera every month, or your car, but you never own it?

      1. Michał Leszczyński

        June 10, 2016 at 4:19 pm

        So if you are not doing commercial product than why free version is bad for you. Your product is free so anybody can try it without any risk, even if he assumes that games made with Unity are bad.

      2. Actually, Apple has started to do this with iPhones.

        http://9to5mac.com/2015/09/09/apple-announces-new-iphone-upgrade-program-new-iphone-every-year-for-32-month/

        Now that technology is advancing, it’s becoming possible to put this sort of subscription model in place reliably on anything.

        Also, there are many places that rent expensive equipment like small cameras, large movie quality camera sets, and instruments. The thing is those things don’t easily go obsolete and have to be constantly supported after its creation, and they’re physical so there’s a chance of them breaking and needing to buy more, so they can sell it once and move on.

        Software is different in that they constantly HAVE to support it to keep it working, and there’s now download servers to make sure you never lose it (unlike the old software days where your CD was the evidence).

        Basically, old Unity versions will inevitably become obsolete in time as different devices update themselves and the engines have to keep up to be compatible. There’s no real reason to own them. I own Unity 3 and 4, and there is no reason what so ever to even open them up again. Owning a closed source engine and compiler is just pointless if it’s not updated.

    2. nice comment…
      so you basically make 99% of this planet stupid because they can’t afford 4$/day…
      nice…

      1 – make things more expensive will ALWAYS make you loose costumers
      2 – unity doesn’t care if you make or don’t make money! they only care if you buy/don’t buy unity engine!
      3 – most of people discard a game which has unity logo…
      4 – some jobs require to remove the logo (i have once one of those).

      To unity it will only matter if they will make more or less money. with this change they hope to make more, but looking at what the answer was, they will make less. They don’t have production costs for selling a product, so I think a more affordable for hobbists approach with benefits for people making big games will be the best choice…. but that’s my 2 cents

      1. He is not saying anyone is dumb. He is saying anyone is dumb if they have Unity Pro and can not make $4 per day from their games. If you cannot manage to make $4 per day from your games, then the splashscreen is not your problem.

        Just use Unity free

    3. The question is whether it is worth to spend the money. If you paid money without questioning what is it for, then I think we have found the real stupid person.

    4. Hello Dan I`m interested in what games have you made

  23. So once my support runs out in March 2017, given that I attempt to make PC games and don’t earn over 100K, that my best option would be to use the free version as that will continue to get bugfixes and updates beyond that date and only subscribe to the pro subscription when absolutely necessary?

    Am I right in assuming that all the perpetual pro users and pro subscribers will lose the bugfixes and updates once the subscription is cancelled, or at the latest from 2017, but the free users continue to get the updates and bugfixes going forward because they didn’t subscribe and they didn’t support the company in any meaningful way?

    I have the feeling that when UE4 released their new business model you guys panicked and shot yourselves in the foot by making the free version fully featured.

    I can’t see any reason to subscribe after 2017, if one makes good games the logo doesn’t matter, if one makes bad games the logo doesn’t matter. Logos only need removing when contracting for third parties and to get on some platforms so if you open up the logo at the $35 limit you really will have done a great deal of damage to your own business model. As far as I can see the only way to make pro more attractive to a certain portion of the pro user demographic is to release a new free version infrequently and provide constant updates only for paying customers and differentiate that way.

    Of course, most companies have over 100K turnover anyway so I suppose this only effects a limited part of the user base.

  24. Upset about it

    June 9, 2016 at 9:58 am

    Don’t need to justify yourself. You work in California, with a good pay. Not everyone is like you.
    How many times we have paid this development tool, over and over? It ain’t the price of Photoshop!

    And what do we get for being ‘founders” as you say?
    Nothing.
    We just pay and pay more every year, regardless where we live or what we selling.

    It is sad that you guys have lost all contact with the real world.
    Ultimately by doing this, Unity will go where Garagegame is…

    1. Their main development is in Helsinki in Finland and Stockholm in Sweden, not California. They acquired an analytics company in California.

  25. So in the end you said the same thing with other words… what were you expecting out of this post?

    What you said is “we hear you… but it’s subscription or subscription… and if you own the software… you won’t have any fixes unless you pay more… hey bugs are our fault… but you pay or you pay, otherwise… no fixes… no matter if they are our fault…”

    Also you did not talk about money… what is the cost of the Pay-To-Own option?
    This is already the third or the fourth time I ask this and no answer here…

    Unless something clearly change you are forcing my hand, and I think the hand of many other developers/designers, you are using the same speech of Autodesk and you know what? Many people is ditching Autodesk and their Rental-Only licenses, I NEVER installed Unreal Engine, NEVER… and now it’s not just that I installed it outr of curiosity, but I’m starting our first project with it, I don’t know how much will it cost to me to develop and learn on it, but I won’t be paying every month to them, and IF I win money with my product, they will win money, I don’t care, but In case things don’t go well… well, I’ll be in the same situation I WAS with Unity.

    I’m sorry, we are not going to rent software, no matter the company, or there is a change, or we change…

  26. Quote
    ” Along with the new subscription model, we are introducing “pay to own”. After having paid for 24 months of subscription, you can stop paying and keep on using the version you have at that point. Of course, you would also stop getting new features, services or fixes; choice is yours.”

    I agree on stop getting new features, but I think fixes must be provided. Because, sometimes a new version of Xcode or iOS would break the build for some reason, while a simple fix would save hard-work and a lot of time spent in development ( as it was the case with Unity 4.7.0 and the fix for Xcode that came with Unity 4.7.1)

    1. I second this. Not getting any bugfixes is the worst with this. I paid a whole bunch of money for the Unity 5 license and you already cut my support time for getting bugfixes short.

    2. There is really no choice here Joachim. If we’re going to stop getting bug fixes and minor compatibility updates after the pay-to-own period, then what is the use of pay to own in the first place? Whatever version we would be using would become obsolete in months. And Xcode or Android lib update will be enough to render it useless.

      So basically, the pay-to-own option is nothing but a big fallacy.

  27. I’d like to add my voice to those asking for splash screen customization on Unity Plus, otherwise I don’t see so much point in that type of license.

  28. German Garces

    June 8, 2016 at 1:25 am

    Pro users should have the option to remove the Made with Unity splash screen.

    Also, I agree that all those other platforms are a complete waste of time. All I need is
    – iOS
    – Android
    – Apple TV
    – PC
    – Mac
    – Windows Store
    – Web player or whatever it is called now.

    Obviously console builds are nice to have, but others are so esoteric that I wonder if it is worth developing for them.

    Thanks

    1. Michał Leszczyński

      June 8, 2016 at 8:41 am

      Yes and somebody else may say, I do not care about so many platforms and list some platforms, which may differ from yours. For example I do not care about AppleTV.

  29. Marc-André Jutras

    June 8, 2016 at 1:05 am

    When do you plan to get rid of useless platform almost nobody care about but most actually fund? 28 platforms, really?

    – PC
    – Mac
    – Linux
    – PS3
    – PS4
    – PSP Vita
    – Xbox 360
    – Xbox One
    – iOS
    – Android
    – Microsoft Store
    – WebGL

    … that’s it. Those 12-13 platform should covers about 98% of your user base.

    1. The exotic platforms are funded by the manufacturers. Unity makes good money out of those.

    2. There’s Wii U too.

  30. So will the Plus edition have a splash screen? If I pay a monthly fee to develop and publish my game, there’s no reason to have a splash screen. I would gladly put the logo in a credits screen, but as we all know, there is a bit of toxicity regarding Unity ands the “crapware” that some developers put out there, resulting in automatic downvotes and bad reviews “just because it was made in Unity”. I’ve been with you guys as a hobbyist since 1.x, and willabsolutely join as a Plus member, if I don’t have to include a splash screen. We have no control over it, it’s gawdy, and it’s a major turnoff for a lot of gamers out there who have been burned by a lot of poor projects. PLEASE don’t make me include splash screen if I’m paying you money, it’s just not right.

  31. Sorry for the somehow double post. But my final analysis of this new model is:

    As Mark Maratea (Principle Gameplay Engineer: Zynga, Ubisoft, EA) said on Quora about big companies not using Unity:

    “Frankly that is all bullshit and unaccpetable for a professional project. I’d estimate we burn around 20% of our week on ‘unity issues.’”

    (https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-big-…or-their-game-development/answer/Mark-Maratea)

    It seems Unity Technologies is in trouble. It can’t even produce a stable version anymore.

    It is trying to embrace the whole world of platforms while there are little focus on what matters to its indie customers. Theres *too much* focus on graphics. It’s a “shinning graphics fetish” that’s not the only selling point for indies. There are old problems with nested prefabs, scene serialization, lost configurations, slow and buggy asset store and lots of glitches, bugs and crashes. We’re losing the right to the whole Unity 5.x updates and there won’t be the old Unity Pro “major-version-perpertual” anymore.

    And now Unity is asking for more money. Way more money. That looks like a joke. A tragedy-comedy.

    Today Unity lets you target 28 platforms.
    Maybe that’s the main problem.

    When someone bought Unity Pro “Perpetual” he didn’t/shouldn’t expect more platforms. It’s great you have more platforms to sell Unity, but don’t expect someone to fund (by this new pricing model) the 20+ newly introduced platforms that one doesn’t need anyway.

    [​IMG]
    You’re spinning too many plates at the expense of old loyal customers.

    Yesterday I installed Lumberyard, Cryengine and Xenko. I didn’t knew about this Xenko until yesterday. All of them are free alternatives. For desktop developers Lumberyard is promising (a fixed Cryengine). I suppose people are at least having a look at future alternatives. We won’t change now. We’ll finish the current game because it would be worst to give up now. But if things stay like this proposition we won’t use Unity again. Now things aren’t predictable anymore. When will be the next huge price increase bullshit?

    I’m really frustrated right now to have chosen Unity as *the* game engine. I’m client since 2.x and already spent a lot of money on Pro and in the asset store. I decided to trust you and now I’m locked in because 200+ assets like shaders, script editors, mecanim animations and the like are not portable. If weren’t that I would not fall for sunk cost fallacy and change right now.

    How long will development hell and horrible marketing take to reach a point of non-return crash?

    So, suggestions:

    Never say “It’s democratization of development at it’s best” and raise the price this high again. This is called bullshit. Find the money somewhere else, not this way.
    Focus on the 10 most used platforms
    Release 2 versions of Unity. Personal would have everything Pro has, except, as the name says, “professionally” looking features like image effects and soft shadows. No dark skin limitations, that doesn’t make someone professional and just make you look bad
    Unity Pro would still have a perpetual license model like before
    The main difference here: Unity Pro would be mandatory for those with revenue above ten thousand dollars/year
    Fix the incomplete Unity Networking
    Fix the asset store problems. Including the organization mess. Create standards for assets locations, installs, uninstalls, package dependency. The absence of standards creates all kinds of troubles like assets that crashes because they have too much free access to hack Unity. Example: Fix things like having to chase duplicate imported classes (and fixing its consequences) because of third party assets have too much liberty to mess with a project. That reflects on your engine anyway. Also, as a plus, create standards for menu creation by third parties.
    Fix the script startup initialization problems. One hasn’t a guarantee that they will be initialized in a specific order. There are exceptions that make the initialization quasi-random.
    Fix the bugs, glitches and crashes
    Fix issues that prevent a better workflow, like nested prefabs.
    Forget about being better than big boys’ graphics. You’re already good enough.
    Buy the Asset Store’s most promising de facto standards and transform them into de jure standards. De jure standards help to give predictability to where the platform is going. And predictability means more money spent.
    Change the name of MonoBehaviour to ‘GameComponent’ ;)

    What would differentiate you the most is if people says to a friend: “yeah, cryengine/unreal is great but I don’t need all of that. Unity is very good and, what’s best, it has a plug-and-play approach. It is very easy to create a game with it”. So focus on asset integration, development collaboration and intelligent workflow. Better off-the-shelf assets would be great. That would require package dependency management. Suppose one wants to create a “FPS Template Project” using the best assets from the asset store. UFPS, Behavior Designer, AAA quality guns etc. S/he wants to publish it on the asset store also. So s/he would buy those best assets, integrate them and sell them on the asset store as a product that ‘requires’ UFPS etc to be installed correctly. Asset integration is the key to expand Unity’s functionality at a lower cost while creating de facto standards that come included in your competition. For indies, better asset integration is the next big step after the great idea that was the asset store.

    My 2 cents.

    1. Why xenko? You can c# now in cryengine.

  32. Another point of concern about Unity’s heath as a company:

    It is great that Joachim, the CTO and founder, is posting here, but how about the CEO showing his face in such an important issue.

    Is he too far from the reality of its customers and ordered the price increase anyway?

  33. Well, it’s good to finally hear from a founder and his thoughts on this. I guess I owe an apology to the dude from EA. That said, I am still not retracting what I said on the previous post about the direction Unity is headed in. For many devs, this is a good deal, still for many more, it is a let down. I understand that Unity is in a difficult position here and I am all for continuous release cycles.

    I was going to do a long philosophical piece on what Unity really stands for, but I’ll scrap that. Unity Tech seems to have grown to a point where they might implode if the revenue strategy is not adjusted to keep this large operation running. And like they said in the earlier post, the current model just won’t cut it. The truth is, this model probably won’t cut it either as many will leave the platform to the many alternatives out there.

    Unity is really left with two options if they want to survive:
    1.) Open source! (This will work, but Unity Tech will have to drastically downsize after this or they’ll just die)
    2.) Sell to Microsoft (MS will probably make it free and open source anyway. Good thing is MS will keep most of the engineering team)

  34. I’m sorry, but 28 platforms is meaningless to most people. Tizen anyone???? Why force everyone to pay for things they don’t use? Wouldn’t it be more sensible to have people pay for things they actually want and need?

    I actually don’t mind a subscription based model, but I don’t think like I’m getting any real value as the end user, because I don’t need majority of these features, but every month I would be paying for them.

    Why not a Subscription based Modular approach to things? $25-$35 month for “Unity CORE,” each module add whatever reasonable price. Higher price for less popular platform i.e. “Tizen” or “Unity VR.”

    I was planning on buying Pro, but now have to reconsider other options.

  35. I’ve been spending a lot of time looking at other engines thanks to this conversation. I see that Epic Games is trying to capitalize on this new pricing decision by creating a very helpful Unity -> Unreal developer road-map to flatten the learning curve. I’d love to see the analytics on the Unreal sight right now.

  36. I find the responses humorous here. It’s called “pro” to mean professional.

    If you’re a student you don’t need pro. If you’re a hobbyist you don’t need pro.

    If you’re a professional game developer and can’t afford 125$ a month for the engine that makes you money, then you’re one of the people saturating the market with crappy games and we all, both developers and gamers, can do without you.

    And anyone using the engine should be forced to show the damn logo. It’s a shame for Unity that games like Hearthstone and Final Fantasy don’t show the Unity logo on startup. That would help so much with credibility. Doesn’t have to be an entire splash screen, it can just be a small logo in the bottom corner.

    If there’s any problem with Unity it’s that it’s unreliable and buggy after a decade of commercial use. Will they really use this opportunity to change that? Probably not, but we can hope they do before crashing.

    1. Actually one of the better comments here, and i use Unity Personal… sadly…
      But I disagree with the splash screen part. It should be optional at most on the middle tier price thingy.

    2. Well said. If you’re in North America and can’t afford the $125/mo AND you are not willing (or smart enough) to pivot to multiplatform, I’m not sure you’re ready to actually do professional game development.

      My software day job is outside of gaming. The tools I use cost thousands of dollars, the hardware and its up keep is also thousands of dollars. My time costs a lot more money than what I get paid, much like lawyers and doctors have to pay for insurance and staffing. Either raise your prices to match the market, or get out of the market because you cannot handle running a business.

      Unity is easy to use. It has loads of features and possibilities, far more than base UE. UE has gotten a lot better, but you’re doing a LOT of manual C/C++ coding — Blueprint isn’t enough if you want performance. Some exec in a gaming company saying “we spent ours on Unity” without being specific likely doesn’t have actual stats on what they spent time on. If they’re using Unity, of course they are working inside it, and more than likely somebody coded something crappily that Unity is balking at for good reason.

      Everybody needs to grow up. Game development is no different than regular software development, except that game developers behave as badly as their own players do. When people wake up to the fact that game development is a business they’ll stop whining and get working.

      That said, Unity *does* need to get a handle on bug fixes and pump out some *very* stable releases. Count stability in the year over year decreased number of bugs while pushing QA to find as many bugs as possible before a release. Tie bonuses to a percentage of bugs submitted prior AND CLOSED before release as opposed to bugs found after release.

  37. Alexander Vourtsis

    June 7, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    Most of the problem with splash screens is either custom branding, external customers and control over the game’s presentation (when/how the splash screen is displayed). I remember that Unity 4 had even a badly cropped logo which annoyed me a lot to have that in my game projects as the first screen that the player saw.

    I think it’d be best to eliminate the splash screen altogether to be honest, and instead demand that an attribution/screen is included somewhere between the first 3-4 screens of the game (also provide ready templates for it that someone could import into his/her project but allow some creative freedom) for the licenses that do not cover it.

  38. Khash Firestorm

    June 7, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    My proposition:

    Leave old model (subscription + “perpetual”) but make perpetual to be updated for the following 12 months. Anywone who want perpetual to be updated after that he/she have to pay $375* (+VAT) for a year.

    That way if someone preffers costing 75pm(+VAT) subscription they are fine, those who want perpetual for 1500 (+VAT) they get perpetual in very cool model which does not have to be locked to Unity X version, and you are free to roll updates as you see fit.

    If you think that all platforms should be under this single licence its fine, but dont force that by increasing cost greatly because you are maing your product losing value for money and endup making people use free version.

    I get mine Unity Pro for valentines day from my wife (we have family game development company) it wouldnt be possible nor sensibel for us with subscription only.

    Note as well that buying extension to subscription is a common and nice form of paying for software on the internet, so its not something untested.

    * – this is 750$ / 2 of an previous upgrade from version to version in unity, which were rolling every two years roughly.

    Note2 that way you will keep people happy and paying. Have subscription and regular model and does not have constrain you are not happy with BUT if the problem is that you are not getting enough money and all of the above subscription stuff is a risky move trying to save company (which is nothing to be ashamed of, everyone form game industry know the feeling) you shoudl consider the fact that not high prices but low prices drives sales. Especially that you dont have to produce extra copies! Anyone selling games on steam would tell you that when price goes down sales skyrocket so much that developers try to be “on sales” as much as they can to achieve better sales! Look on the sales from asset store, when my product there was on sales for two weeks it get about 60% of the lifetime sales! Yes you will earn more by making Unity cheaper!

    I hope it would be helpful in your considerations :)

    yours Khash ;D

  39. As to the “pay to own” option, I do not think that the user not receiving new features, services or fixes is the biggest potential problem.

    For there to be any actual value for the user in holding on to the version they have after 24 months (as opposed to continuing to pay Unity for a monthly subscription), there should be some commitment on part of Unity to help protect the value of that investment.

    The biggest potential problem is not knowing if Unity decides to come with some modification to file formats, services, or something else that makes a particular version incompatible.

    As an example of how some other software company handles this is that I have MS Visio 2010 (that I use very occasionally) and I recently received a Visio file, created with a newer version, from a colleague. My older version was not able to directly open the file but it prompted me to download a compatibility pack from Microsoft. After installing that I was able to work on the received file.

    Unity on another may do the same thing they did with the transition from version 4 to version 5. The newer version was not backwards compatible and no “compatibility pack” was provided.

    Another thing that Unity should do is to offer some kind of discount on the subscription after the 24 months; or alternatively offer some kind of a “compatibility pack”/”maintenance” subscription for a lower fee after that time (or the possibility to upgrade later for a lower price).

    Judging from the comments it looks like overall the subscription model will require some more creativity to fit into the different situations Unity customers are in.

  40. The whole shakeup of Unity products and price structure is quite interesting. As noted, any company making money, this will be as no consequence and might save them money.

    Any hobbyist who is a developer by day and is paid an average salary in line with the top countries of the world, will have no problem either…if you ignore the people who hate paying for software regardless of personal wealth of course.

    A hobbyist who just loves making games and not concerned about making money, won’t have a problem either.

    It’s the hobbyist not making much in their day job and hoping their game will bring them fame and fortune, which is hit the hardest. You’d also have to assume they are using freeware as well such as GIMP, Blender etc.

    The price change is obviously to increase revenue and in turn, investment back into Unity. Conversely it’s probably that last group of hobbyists who are most vocal about bugs, delayed features etc in Unity.

    1. Just to add that I think the Unity Plus package will probably be taken up by few people and retired after 12-24 months.

      I also that the 12 month subscription model is the correct business option. Unity doesn’t have the range or depth of customers like Adobe does, for people to just get a 1 month subscription to publish their game.

      Finally – Unreal/Epic’s business model probably can’t be applied to Unity. Unity games will not bring in the same revenue that Unreal games will receive currently from royalties. Unreal games tend to be AAA games making billions!

  41. Philippe Côté

    June 7, 2016 at 5:35 pm

    Could Unity Plus just remove the Unity Splash Screen please? That could make us switch to Unity Plus. We don’t have enough money for the Pro version… this is WAY too expensive for us.

    Thanks.

    P.S: You guys could have developed a model based upon the number of platforms we want to publish to. Right now, our only platform is WebGL. We don’t care about the 27 others.

  42. I’ve been working on my first game (found here http://wildscript.co.uk/) for about a year and a half, on and off as i have bills to pay. It began as a learning exercise, Unity looked like the perfect engine at the time to use. Now this learning project has becoming something that can be released onto some consoles and steam. I’m really proud of it as it’s the first game i’ve actually stuck to and continue to work on. I’ve poured a lot of personal time into it and I mean A LOT. Unity free edition made that a possibility for me and for that I am grateful, thank you Unity team.

    However now it seems like i’ll never get hold of pro license. I feel this new approach to licensing doesn’t accommodate or take into consideration those that work entirely alone, whom work other jobs for a living and are simply trying to get their foot in the door with something they actually love doing. That being said, why should it? You’re a business, your aim is to make money I guess,not help those that aren’t professional with little to no money.. You could argue, yes we do try to help, that’s why we offer the free edition. Thing is with that, you aren’t offering any options for someone in my position and maybe thousands of others to take that next step away from the free edition. So is that really helping us? Maybe. Maybe it’ll push some to gather the money asked for in any way they can possible. Maybe it’ll just shut down a lot of projects. Maybe we’ll continue to see games with the current splash screen regardless. I don’t know, I do know that this puts a downer on my future using this engine. I simply don’t have the money required.

    The current splash screen has to go, please make it go away. It’s a must for anyone who has invested so much time into creating a video game that they love. It’s like smearing rubbish over something you love (not to say Unity logo is rubbish) it just gives it the vibe of, “you probably shouldn’t of paid for this” when that splash screen pops up. If the splash screen was just black, with the Unity logo lets say, that’d be awesome. It’d look more professional this way, as apposed to the current theme and text. However I get the feeling you won’t incorporate that because as you probably already know, that’s the main gripe with the majority of developers using Unity. You’ve already included the majority of features needed with the free version. You’d be losing a lot of money if you completely ripped it out.

    I’d like to see a more affordable pricing structure for those that are in my shoes. An independent one man introductory price, that will allow us to work around the current splash screen theme, making it more attractive and less amateur looking. A small price we can pay from the get go and with time (and hopefully success) this price could scale with income made from whatever title made with Unity Independent?

    Whatever happens I still continue to enjoy developing in Unity, so it’ll probably remain a hobby

  43. All of my hopes and dreams have been squashed into the ground like a fly under a boot.

    I’ve been working on my first game (found here http://wildscript.co.uk/) for about a year and a half, on and off as i have bills to pay. It began as a learning exercise, Unity looked like the perfect engine at the time to use. Now this learning project has becoming something that can be released onto some consoles and steam. I’m really proud of it as it’s the first game i’ve actually stuck to and continue to work on. I’ve poured a lot of personal time into it and I mean A LOT. Unity free edition made that a possibility for me and for that I am grateful, thank you Unity team.

    However now it seems like i’ll never get hold of pro license. I feel this new approach to licensing doesn’t accommodate or take into consideration those that work entirely alone, whom work other jobs for a living and are simply trying to get their foot in the door with something they actually love doing. That being said, why should it? You’re a business, your aim is to make money I guess,not help those that aren’t professional with little to no money.. You could argue, yes we do try to help, that’s why we offer the free edition. Thing is with that, you aren’t offering any options for someone in my position and maybe thousands of others to take that next step away from the free edition. So is that really helping us? Maybe. Maybe it’ll push some to gather the money asked for in any way they can possible. Maybe it’ll just shut down a lot of projects. Maybe we’ll continue to see games with the current splash screen regardless. I don’t know, I do know that this puts a downer on my future using this engine. I simply don’t have the money required.

    The current splash screen has to go, please make it go away. It’s a must for anyone who has invested so much time into creating a video game that they love. It’s like smearing rubbish over something you love (not to say Unity logo is rubbish) it just gives it the vibe of, “you probably shouldn’t of paid for this” when that splash screen pops up. If the splash screen was just black, with the Unity logo lets say, that’d be awesome. It’d look more professional this way, as apposed to the current theme and text. However I get the feeling you won’t incorporate that because as you probably already know, that’s the main gripe with the majority of developers using Unity. You’ve already included the majority of features needed with the free version. You’d be losing a lot of money if you completely ripped it out.

    I’d like to see a more affordable pricing structure for those that are in my shoes. An independent one man introductory price, that will allow us to work around the current splash screen theme, making it more attractive and less amateur looking. A small price we can pay from the get go and with time (and hopefully success) this price could scale with income made from whatever title made with Unity Independent?

    Whatever happens I still continue to enjoy developing in Unity, so it’ll probably remain a hobby.

  44. For a long time I have been using unity free to get experiance with my two friends. We are preparing our first official game project to turn it into profit and to start as an official studio, so we’ll have to buy a Pro licence of one of the Engines – will it be a solid amount of money per month (Unity) or a simple 5% of revenue (Unreal).

    We don’t know how our game will sell – it can be a success or just a start-up project. For a long time I have been considering only Unity, but as I see right now, the subscription method is highly unstable and chaotic, without any kind of idea standing behind it, throwing several options, each of them as vulnerable to future changes as it can be.

    Right now we can buy a subscription which we can afford, but which will show everyone that we are still poor and unworthy, equaling us to GameJolt gamejammers (Unity Splash Screen) or we can buy a subscription which will sink a huge chunk of our income in case the game brings modest revenue.

    As a starting-up studio, our work brings a big risk for us – we can’t afford any more “sudden changes in subscription policy” or other humiliating splash screens, lowering our public image. We have to stick to everything which will give us an upper hand, and this subscription is not an investment – it’s a gamble. Big studios will be happy (especialy if they are making android copies of Match-Three), but it’s absolutely not aimed at indie studios, who try to ship their first products.

    The Unreal’s clean, simple and most importantly – scaling – subscription is right now safer choice for an Indie. To further dig into this statement, the Unreal Engine’s subscription model will “not” change suddenly, infuriating most of the game developers worldwide, what happened just now with Unity.

    I will stick to Unity Free Licence as my hobby and small, irrelevant projects and game jams, but for our Studio, which requires stability and safety – Unreal.

    1. Søren Løvborg

      June 7, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      Although the announcement itself might seem sudden, I have to emphasize that we are not in the business of dropping sudden price changes on our customers, which is why existing subscribers can keep subscribing at their current price point for another two years.

      I realize that doesn’t affect whether you (as a new, cash-strapped customer) can afford the new subscription price or not. As mentioned elsewhere, we are currently overhauling the splash screen, so you may want to wait and see whether those changes make it workable for you to stay on Unity Personal or Unity Plus.

      (Either way, whichever engine you end up using, I wish you the best of luck with your project.)

    2. Michał Leszczyński

      June 8, 2016 at 9:04 am

      You can develop a game using free license and when it is close to be finished buy a license. 35$ a moth is not that bad. Now 5% seems not that much but when your game start selling you will see that it is bad deal for you. With 3 licenses 35$ for twelve moths, if you will earn more than 26400 dollars per year Unreal will be more expensive. Assuming you will earn 2$ per copy (if you are doing mobile game) that is only 13400 copies sold.

  45. Panayiotis Yianni

    June 7, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    It is a necessity, the subscription model. There’s no ‘profiteering’ in how the decision was made as, thanks to the explanation provided by Joachim Ante, the blueprint powering the decision holds its weight strongly.

    Sometimes, thanks to the world and local economies, prices change and consumers are hit with price hikes that seem unreasonable and unfair. Look at the history of Unity and what it has provided with Unity3D and compare, for each phase of release, the asking price. What you will see is a dedication in pricing targeted at the indie studio and small teams; affordability being the icon and what you got with it the ultimate bang for buck.

    The prices have increased. The digital economy will leave you behind in a fast and incredible way if you don’t master how to adapt and flow with it. Digital Games production techs like Unity3D, Unreal4 are not immune to it and are just as vulnerable to lagging behind and disappearing as a notepad clone is.

    Just trust in Unity. They have a vast history of being good to people that want to, professionally or as a hobby, make games. It’s why you are all here.

    Regards
    Panayiotis Yianni

    1. Hmmmm
      sorry. but I don’t agree with you.
      I see facts: I have to pay 3-4 times for the same thing, the competition is free or almost free.
      The subscription model may be ok IF they will change it. if the 35/month subscription will include customizable logo AND dark ui then it’s fine for me (even if i will have to pay more money than for the 750 update but hey… i can live with that) but if they don’t do that or changing the price model… i will go to free (to much money invested and time to switch to unreal for now, but i wil start learning it as an alternative).
      I am pretty sure that unity doesn’t want me to drop buying they’r engine… i really hope they are smart enough to change the pricing

      1. Panayiotis Yianni

        June 9, 2016 at 5:03 am

        My friend, Liviu.

        Your apology is not accepted. You have done nothing wrong.

        Please, do not apologise for disagreeing with my post regarding my thoughts about the current price change. In fact, I would ask you to never apologise ever, to anyone, for disagreeing with them whether it is a post on a forum, idea, opinion, claim e.t.c, you do not owe an apology to me or to anyone else for disagreeing. Do not grant others a power over you to weaken you. Grant them instead a power over you to amplify and strengthen you.

        So, yes. Apology not accepted. You have done no wrong to me. Instead, apologise to yourself, for providing a way to weaken your psychological strength.

        With Respect to you,
        Panayiotis, — Amon

  46. Great post Joachim, incremental updates does make more sense. But …

    I will be downgrading my license from Pro to Plus while upgrading my pay from $375/year (half the two year cycle Unity5 update) to $420/year. Every app I produce will advertise Unity with a forced splash screen. And I hate subscriptions.

    That will make your marketing department clap. But not me.

    1. yeah…
      plus is a slight price increase for perpetual users with only desktop… with less features (revenue cap, less services included etc) and splash screen…. so basically USELESS!!!

      I have only two options : downgrade to free or switch to unreal. what does the marketing team think about that?! they are happy?!

      I payed U5 for dark skin, removable splash and Level11 (which where worse by the month)… now i have to pay the same amount of money for a strip down level11, dark skin and that’s it…. OR a lot more money for what i had in U5 for 750 once 2 years… well… no thanks!

  47. Thanks a lot for this post. It explains multiple things and I clearly understand that major releases are bad for you.
    Question is: Why don’t you allow me to pay $1500 and get Unity desktop with upgrades for two years. That would be the same for us and change for you, as there is no per release number sell but per date. Everything would be fine. But now you are forcing me to pay for 24 months. I’m freelancer, sometimes I do get some contracts to do something in Unity, sometimes I don’t. Paying upfront I know I have cash and I’ll be fine, agreeing for two years is something different. Is not flexible for me at all.
    If you need to increase price, then fine, could make it $1500 for 18 months, that would be bearable as well. Still this like-old-model-payments would be much cheaper for me.

    1. Søren Løvborg

      June 7, 2016 at 7:23 pm

      To clarify, the Pro license requires a 12 month commitment, not 24 months. (The 24 months are for “pay to own”, which may or may not be of interest to you.)

      We will have an option to pay for a whole year (or even two years) at once, if monthly payments are inconvenient (e.g. in regards to billing clients), though it doesn’t change the actual price.

  48. For our studio, we currently pay $75/mo x 12 months per year x 10 devs = $9,000

    We’ll now pay $125/mo x 12 months per year x 10 devs = $15,000

    So the impact of this announcement is a $6,000/year profit reduction for us, with no advantages over our previous subscription arrangement.

    Note: It’s not an option for us to display Unity’s logo on our clients applications.

    Unity is a fantastic tool that gives us a ton of leverage for a thriving simulation-based training business, and the pricing is still a no-brainer for us. With that said, it’s a tough pill to swallow. If Unity needed to roll-out a price increase to support the insanely awesome and broad work it does, so be it — but I’d frame it in just that way.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    Adam Kane, CTO, ForgeFX Simulations
    http://www.forgefx.com

    1. wow, just took a look at your website, you could save 15000/m switching to unreal.

      Unreal has better graphics for type of work your company does. and i dont even think the 5% applies to your type of work .

      I love unity for what it can do on mobile. every tool has its power and strength. i think when it comes to mobile unity hands down is the best but for desktop , that award goes to unreal .

    2. Robert W Chalmers

      June 7, 2016 at 7:26 pm

      Almost an identical situation for us, Adam. We have roughly a dozen Pro licenses here we use for many of our simulations and I had been doing a lot of internal free marketing for Unity because I love the product.

      Despite that, this represents a massive price increase with no benefit, and we are currently reevaluating our best way-ahead.

      Alex – yes, we are looking at Unreal very closely now. It is 100% free for us. Only thing stopping us is time investment in our existing code base and assets, but that may well be mitigated by our large existing C++ code base for our other systems, and overwhelmed by the reduction in both cost and grief (subscriptions are hard to do here – one-time purchases are MUCH easier to execute) dealing with the new pricing model.

      Robert Chalmers, Autonomous Systems
      Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

  49. I have a perpetual standalone license so, if I have read the blogpost correctly, after March 2017 and I sign up for a subscription, if I cancel that subscription five months later I will get to own that version of UNity at the point at which I cancel the subscription? THe follow on question then is: does this only count if I go straight into the subscription from March 2017? i.e. if I waited until March 2018 before subscribing and then cancelled after 5 months would I own that Unity version at that point?

    Basically, this new business model only makes matter worse for the small demographic of lone developers that develop games or apps as a service or for those platforms that require one to have access and customise a logo, so I appreciate that Unity are trying to meet us halfway with the pay as you go. My only problem with it is the fact that games take a long time to develop as a lone developer so one’s income is precarious at best and a subscription model is a poor alternative to purchasing upfront in this situation.

    It might be worthwhile considering allowing different access points to the subscription i.e. when there is a largely stable version available, at that point developers could subscribe for a year and get the full Unity pro which means perpetual owners would periodically pay out $1500 for the engine and might be encouraged to do this several times over a few years and the development team doesn’t need to get into the cycle Unity wishes to stop, at the same time there are clearly points in the devlopment of Unity when it is better to subscribe.

    As it stands Unity is favouring small companies and teams and hobbyists, but one can’t please everyone. There’s no need to remove the logo for steam or the app stores, only working as a third party developer or submitting games to certain platforms/publishers require customising the logo, however, there is a lot under the hood with Unity that requires pro to make use of, it’s not just about the logo it’s about being able to solve rarely encoutered problems that arise. As such I still consider it worthwhile to own the pro version but my current financial situation doesn’t allow for a monthly subscription, of course, if it changes when the next game is sold, then I would consider the subscription especially with the pay to own option to get an updated version.

    As things are now the option of updating is no longer there, but that’s perfectly fine, my current pro version allows me to make the type of games I make for several more years I would imagine. If I wished to make realistic, large scale AAA games and had the resources to do that and Steam Greenlight suddenly vanished overnight, I would already be using UE4, Unity is still my engine of choice for perfectly understandable selfish reasons, it’s simply a tool, it’s not a philosophy.

  50. Hi Joachim,

    to me you are sending a mixed message – you say in one breath “All of this is necessary because the platforms we support rapidly change. In today’s world, we can’t leave customers behind for a year because we are in the process of releasing a major version.” then you turn around and say “After having paid for 24 months of subscription, you can stop paying and keep on using the version you have at that point. Of course, you would also stop getting new features, services or fixes; choice is yours.”

    As a long time pro user (6+ years) I can see the long term benefits of moving to a subscription model. The first quote above clearly illustrates to me, a pay to own model is pointless without future support. Like some, I have just amortized my investments in Pro over the years and end up with a $35 to $40 per month per platform cost. I was a Pro user of both Base and iOS until V5 was released but had to drop iOS Pro when you made the full engine free as I could no longer justify the splash screen as a $750 iOS upgrade (I only bought Pro in the first place to run external iOS code).

    I see now “Plus” was meant to entice “free” users to become paid users but us lower income Pro users saw it as a not so attractive alternative to $125 per month and so here we are.

    I really think you missed your opportunity of leaving Pro at the old $75 per month level (dark UI, no splash screen, 100K income cap, base starter services and all current desktop and mobile platforms). You then could have offered a new Pro Plus (which would have included all of Pro, with additional service levels, all current 28 platforms and no income cap at $125 per month). I think you would have found folks to be initially more receptive to something like that. Oh sure there would still be some complaining about paying for stuff they don’t want or need but hey you can’t please everyone.

  51. Brian Bucklew

    June 7, 2016 at 4:41 am

    “There will be no major Unity 6 release.”, is the perfect thing to hear.

    There’s no question in my mind a subscription model is the right one. The artificial need to focus on getting paying customers to convert major version to major version was incredibly disruptive.

    I think the root problem is really twofold:

    1. Perceived forced bundling of services and additional platforms into a single high priced tier.
    2. A middle tier that doesn’t seem to make sense to anyone.

    It seems you could solve these two by making the middle tier make sense to single platform developers that want the professional splash screen, even if mean a price increase. This seems to be the major demographic left out in the cold, and a core historic demographic for unity.

    Keep fighting the good fight. (and upgrade the MONO spec/GC implementation! ;)

  52. When will the new subscription model begin?

  53. Today Unity lets you target 28 platforms.

    Maybe that’s the main problem.

    When someone bought Unity Pro “Perpetual” he didn’t/shouldn’t expect more platforms. It’s great you have more platforms to sell, but don’t expect someone to fund (by this new pricing model) the 20+ newly introduced platforms that one doesn’t need anyway.

    You’re spinning to many plates at the expense of old loyal customers.

    Today I installed Lumberyard, Cryengine and Xenko. I didn’t knew about this Xenko until today. All of them are free alternatives. For desktop developers Lumberyard is promising (a fixed Cryengine). I suppose people are at least having a look at future alternatives. We won’t change now, but I don’t know in the long run. I wouldn’t mind being locked in asset store’s shaders, mecanim animations and script editors, but now things are different. Though I would like to stay with Unity. Seriously.

    Rod

    1. Your post nudged me to look at UE and Lumberyard. I had not looked at UE for at least two years. I don’t know about the quality of the engine, but the user community is a lot bigger than it used to be. Might be worth playing around with…

  54. So I’m coming at this from a little bit of a different angle. I’ve been using Unity for a couple of years now, but only as a hobbyist. I make a little bit of money on my releases, but it goes towards beer and poker instead of food and rent. I don’t need to see a profit or even a break-even – again, it’s a hobby.

    That being said, if I was an indie or small studio that needed to make a profit, this new pricing would price me so far out of the market that I would not be able to stick with Unity. It sounds like a lot of people are in that boat. You’re hearing a lot of anger and frustration, but keep in mind where this is coming from – fear of not being able to continue with your platform. Just like when Unity was small and just starting out, you needed every advantage you could get to compete. Well, your customers are in the same boat. The small guy needs to be able to cover his costs and have enough left to invest back into his company.

    You’re a business and deserve to make money, but please keep in mind how important your user community was in getting you here. Think about how important that same community will be in the future – don’t be short-sighted, it’s a long way down!

  55. Bawenang Rukmoko

    June 7, 2016 at 2:27 am

    You know, I actually don’t have any beef about the subscription model. But I do have a problem with having to subscribe for the whole 12 months for it. Simply put, I can’t afford it. $1500 is a whole year’s food expense for me, a decent one. Although if I change my diet into a full instant ramen one, I can probably live with only a third of that. Guess which one I will prioritize. Sadly, if I’m using the personal edition splash screen, it will be a very long way to get the subscription. Since most players and publishers will just skip my games altogether. So I guess I should just do freelancing mobile apps instead until I can rack up the cash for the full Pro version. :(

  56. No, this is not the democratization:
    1) cant pay via cash.
    2) You obligate us to have bank account (fiat monopolio?).
    3) You obligate us to have mastercard or visa American monopolio.
    You create now an authoritarian system. So this is not democratization. Since the direction is to increase the cost each year so as to get hidden royalties directly from the bank account.
    So if us users don’t get a saying in this decision, then why do you preach of democracy in your industry?
    Not everyone can afford an actual bank account, especially in countries with a “Argentinean corralito” in the near future. Malta, Greece, Portugal, Spain etc.
    Plus south american and african countries with 40% inflation rates, nobody wants to be forced to have an account.

    You have barely finished 4.7, and that’s a finished product. Version 5 is under development, and I have purchased and paid to own all its updates, up to its final version. But now you tell me that I don’t have those rights anymore?

    Why don’t you want to preserve the classic purchase and own model? What is the reason for this?

  57. user since 2008

    June 7, 2016 at 1:31 am

    Someone working at Microsoft told me that MS pays Unity a lot of money to support windows store. Same for Sony to get UT to support Morpheus.

    So I am wondering: out of the 28 platforms , how many are subsidized by the platform owner?

    Oh and people at Unity, stop spinning lies, we always catch you: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cfidr_YW4AAFbCo.jpg:large

  58. I think the primary issue people are having with the new pricing model is the perceived loss of choice. The new model is a great deal for those that already deploy to multiple platforms, but for lone indies that only deploy to a single platform and/or don’t use any services, this price hike offers zero benefits and feels like a simple shakedown.

    This move favors the big, well-off developers that can afford it. However, the increase in price feels completely unfair to those devs that only paid to remove the splash screen and/or wanted to support Unity in some small way, and this may eventually force many of them to downgrade to the free version.

    I guess only time will tell if such a move will hurt Unity, since it really all depends on how many pro users will stick with the increased price versus how many will leave or downgrade to free. I do, however, think more flexible choices pricing options here are a must.

    If anyone is interested in giving Unity some feedback related to these changes, you can checkout the suggestions below:

    https://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/keep-current-unity-pro-subscription-price-for-single-platform-use

    https://feedback.unity3d.com/suggestions/customizable-splash-screen-and-pro-editor-skin-for-unity-plus

    1. you forget about perpetual license user… i pay 750 / two years upgrade… 75E/month will still be double the price i pay today…

      but then again… the second option is fine.. I don’t really like the subscription model… but well… I can live with that if the 35/month WILL include dark skin and removable logo

  59. Darn. We just started a new project with Unity. The pro prices are just too high.

    UE is now looking better and better, plus you get the source code for free.

    I think I’m going to take another look.

    1. Good luck with UE4 with its royalty model and C++.

      Unity is by far more a lot more efficient to develop in.

      Try factor those things into your thinking.

  60. I like to own my software and upgrade when I can connect the cash flow to the upgrades when I have the money.

    I’ve yet to see a dime from the gaming business. I’ve only made one game title, but it’s buried in 1.5 million apps on the app store. I ported it over to the Apple TV in the hopes of getting more exposure among thousands of games, not millions. -Not one download. Not one user.

    Besides that, everything is free. Nobody [users] wants to pay for anything.

    I’m starting to think JOHNATHAN ROSSITTER is right. There isn’t a place for the small indie game developer and I “am probably in the wrong business”.

    There are no Unity jobs in my town, and at present I have no way to justify the cost of the Unity software over and over again, every single year for ever and ever. So here’s what I have to say about the subscription idea:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzOirDbImdk

  61. Long time Unity user

    June 6, 2016 at 11:42 pm

    There’s a lot of hate here over the price change, but the new prices are really not that horrible for an actual professional in the industry. In fact, it was Unity that actually initially shattered the insane AAA pay boundaries of good 3D engines that forced the entire industry to change its pay structure completely. Remember when Unreal was $1,000,000 dollars? That wouldn’t have changed without Unity. I will always be grateful for what Unity has done for the game industry in that regard.

    If you have a problem with the price, just let the Unity logo show. The only reason that logo devalues any game is because the good games made with Unity AREN’T using the logo. Unity should be requiring the logo at all levels, with customizable options for the splash screen, like a smaller logo so the company logo is dominant. We should all be using the logo in some capacity to show that good games can be made with Unity.

    However, while I’m not concerned directly with the price, I am concerned with the future of Unity considering the past few years. This subscription route COULD be a great thing! It could allow Unity to buckle down and focus on stabilizing their engine and focusing on what’s important instead of trying to inject flashy half-baked features in Unity version X. But unfortunately what it most likely will mean, with how obviously corporate and out of touch Unity has become, that they will just try to sit back and relax while the cash flows in monthly. With the way Unity reps talk, it’s obvious the leaders at Unity assume they’ve already secured their monopoly on the industry (especially in the mobile market).

    Unity has always touted itself as multi platform, but too often we see huge platform specific bugs, and all of the new features added to Unity are somehow rushed even though a paid team spent years on them.

    Remember when Mecanim came out and they ignored users when they said they needed animation events? Remember how the Beast light mapping in Unity 3 and 4 just worked, but the new light mapping system is practically broken? Remember how they promised to keep the Beast lighting system as an option for people that didn’t like the new one? Remember how they hired the NGUI developer to fix their horrible GUI system, then they ran him off with corporate politics instead of caring about an end result? And remember how NGUI was created so quickly by one guy, but just joining Unity made it takes years for a half baked system to finally release?

    And there’s so many bugs with the internal workings of unity that I can’t even list them without getting angry, especially platform specific bugs. These bugs make us look like bad developers, and I have to constantly remind my fans that it’s the closed source engine I use that’s the problem and there’s nothing I can do but wait for a patch. Almost always they respond “then why use it?” That question is starting to have some heavy weight on me at this point.

    And then there’s the next big concern, which is the long term viability of assets on the asset store. There are assets on the asset store that should come packaged with Unity. The assets on the store SHOULD NOT be making Unity a good engine, it should be a good engine itself and the packages should help for very specific nuances. Like Unity’s navmesh should not be so horribly broken that we have to rely on other packages to use instead. And the terrain engine shouldn’t be so horrible that several packages are needed to get it working well. And something as critical as Playmaker (visual scripting) and Nodecanvas (behavior trees) should just be acquired. And graphical effects like a decent and optimized AA and depth of field effects should just be working well. By adding these critical features it would allow ALL games made with Unity to work and look better, increasing the perceived value of the engine.

    There is already plenty of evidence of how damaging some of these critical assets can be if they become abandoned. When these assets have such a high risk of being abandoned, it does not allow for professionals to rely on them in their game’s development. They can end up costing exponentially more by having to learn the package, implement it, then gut it out when the developer abandons it instead of fixing it.

    I believe the above issues are why people are upset at the huge price increase. There doesn’t appear to be any value being added to Unity for the price increase, and at this point developers have lost faith in Unity’s ability to stabilize their engine while also making decent strides at innovation.

    As a note, I believe that the issues above are because Unity does not actually create games with their own engine. This should be a HUGE red flag. I don’t want to say which engine is better, as I only have experience with Unity, but the Unreal engine looks very impressive and I believe that’s because Epic uses the engine to make award winning games. Unity on the other hand creates only small test cases and simple vertical slices. I believe if they actually cared about making games that their engine would be much stronger for it.

    Unity is the first game engine that really inspired me to become a developer and start my own professional project, and I was hoping it would be the one I stick with for the rest of my career. However, because I believe that the increased price will not come with a resolution to the problems above, I’m going to be researching into other engines for future projects, in particular the Unreal Engine. I will consider returning to Unity when the issues above have been worked out and not just “promised”.

    1. Just for historical clarity, Torque broke the price barrier for 3D engines long before Unity was around. Unity has obviously eclipsed Torque as a popular engine, but it followed the lead of Jeff Tunnell, Tim Gift, Mark Frohnmayer and Rick Overman when they formed GarageGames with the express intent of making state of the art game engine tech available to the masses.

    2. “but the new prices are really not that horrible for an actual professional in the industry”
      well most of us aren’t. We have a job as programmers, but we only use unity in our spare time!

      3-4 times more expensive is horrible for me…

  62. Johnathan Rossitter

    June 6, 2016 at 11:04 pm

    This seems to be a very controversial thing and while I don’t drink the Kool-Aid, I do agree with most of this.
    I have had Unity Pro subscription since they offered it. It has always been very flexible for me. Granted, I have past my required period and on month to month at this point.

    I hear people constantly complaining about the splash screen, and if you are ashamed for people to know you that you made a game with Unity, then maybe you are in this for the wrong reasons. If you can’t afford $125 a month, then get the free version.

    You are not ENTITLED to free software.

    If this is your profession, and you can’t afford $125.00 a month to pay for the tool that is your primary development tool, then you are probably in the wrong business.

    For the most part, the only people I really hear complaining about this are the same ones who complain about everything even when it is already free.

    If you were an existing Pro subscriber like me, you effectively just got your price cut in half as well as support for mobile platforms just by switching to Plus.

    1. Really?
      Let me tell you some things:
      1 – From 750 every two years to 1500/year is a BIG change! I can afford 125/month but I don’t want to. 325/year was pretty resonable for a hobbist. I have a job… I don’t earn that much money to be able to pay 125/month from money earned in my spare time… then again… some clients don’t want unity logo…

      2 – unity doesn’t earn money from royalties so they couldn’t care less if you publish something or not. They only care for you to give them money… so… what you say (“you can’;t afford, switch to free”) is actually VERY bad for them.

      3 – Please don’t thing that everything is about yourself… you got a price cut in half… i got a price increase of 3-4 times…. Don’t you understand the issue? for perpetual license users who only need desktop this change is a HUGE price increase!

  63. Pro 5 user R.I.P

    what an absolute waste of money…..

  64. I am buying Pro, since version 3.5 (Pro and iOS Pro), so i am supporting this company from some time now.

    I was buying Pro, not because i realy needed it.
    Honestly i could’ve get it from some torrent tracker. I am buying it because i think it’s an awesome software and the people behind it needs support.
    They need it because keeping such software updated with the latest technologies needs a LOT of money. When i have released a free game with video ads, i have included the Unity Ads, not because i coudn’t include some others (Cuz some of them have a lot better control panel and monitoring).
    I’ve included the Unity Ads, because i know, that while i earn money, Unity Technologies will earn money as well…
    Meaning i am supporting them, to continue the development…

    Unlike many others, that use the free version i have never complained, from the software. It have some limitations,
    but with good knowledge and workarounds, one can achieve pretty much everything.

    So i have that Pro version and i am happy with it. I can work, play, learn… I’ve worked pretty hard to be able to buy it.
    You know that feeling, that you own it? This is how i feel. And it feels good… From psychological point of view this is very important.
    To have the feeling that you own something, that you pay for. VERY IMPORTANT!

    Honestly most of the time, that i used Unity was either for prototyping games, that never got released, or learning. I’ve released few games, but nothing too serious.

    Ok. Let’s say that it’s better for Unity Technologies to move to subscription plans. I understand that. Keeping it up-to date with the latest technologies needs money,
    no doubt about this. But guys.. Joachim, i just want to write this, in a way, that you can understand it: I CAN’T AFFORD IT!
    I want to be able to pay for it, but i CAN’T okay…
    So what will happen is that after March 2017 i will just continue working on the latest version that i have, or just move to the free version…
    I don’t want to use the light skin and have splash screens, but i don’t have a choice.

    This is just way too expensive. You know, that if you sell something for $100, maybe 10, 15 people will buy it, but if you release it for $40,
    more than 100 people will buy it and you will get 2x more money from it. Make it cheap and make more money from it, it’s that simple.
    This is something that allways works, no matter if you are selling clothes, cars or fruits.

    This price will force more and more people to start using only the Free version and eventually, more and more people will start digging, in the trackers for a cracked Unity to release their games….

    I really want to continue supporting you, cuz Unity is an awesome engine. Everything is so well made… But i just can’t…

    I’m sorry… but i can’t.

  65. I have two things to say:

    1- I still think $1500 a year is cheaper than 5% royalties. HOWEVER, I have made the decision to abandon Unity. Mostly because the engine seems to be stuck in development hell, and Unity, because of its business model, seems to be putting all of its efforts into its subscription services instead of making the engine better. Unity tries to do too much stuff at the same time. I’d much rather have them abandon all of their services, make only one totally free version of the engine, and take 5% royalty. That way they could focus on improving the engine.

    2- Nobody likes being bulls***ted. This switch to $125/month isn’t “to make things simpler” for us. It’s not to provide better value for us. It’s just a straight-up price increase. If you’re gonna increase your prices, just own it. Just say “now we’ve increased our prices, because that’s how it is”. People would react better to it, because by trying to disguise it as something that’s good for us, it just feels insulting.

  66. Gregg Tavares

    June 6, 2016 at 8:22 pm

    I love it!

    But PLEASE OPTIMIZE YOUR UPDATE SYSTEM. I can’t afford to download 1-5 gig for every update!

  67. This is not some evil marketing team pushing for it, it is the inherent nature of that business model. It was always a painful process for us and you and it really serves no one.

    With our switch to subscription we can make Unity incrementally better, every week. When a feature is complete, we will ship it. If it is not ready we will wait for the next point release.

    Our switch to subscription is absolutely necessary in order for us to provide a robust and stable platform.

    You are missing the point entirely with this new subscription model. No one was forcing you to switch over your business model. All you are doing is internally managing your team from a block/point based release schedule to a more regular one. Saying the subscription model directly allows you to do work this way is a misrepresentation of the true reasoning behind this switch. The reason is greed and locked subscriptions. Why else would you just double the cost of a “perpetual license”.

    Let me bring you back to reality a little bit so all at Unity know where your current standing is. Competition is already very fierce and be prepared to lose users along the way. Both Unity and Cryengine are open source, which means they will win in the end due to the quick turnaround of features and bug fixes. All you have going for your engine is the asset store and the community support. One of which you are destroying slowly.

    I for one won’t be making the switch immediately for obvious reasons but I will be evaluating my standing with Unity in the next 6 months.

    1. But are you really ‘subscription’ in software terms if you have a 12 month lock in?

  68. Does the pay to own after 24 months apply to Plus as well?

  69. Was wondering how long it’d take until Unity became another EA after they announced the CEO change.
    Wasn’t a long wait, apparently.

    Congratulations on slowly destroying your reputation and losing all good-will accrued over the years. Bravo.

    Unity is becoming as out of touch with their users as EA was.

    1. Come on they have a way to go to be that bad, a scumbag games company that locks multiplayer games to their servers then turns them off when they’re bored with them.

      1. well… actually EA is beginning to learn from they’r mistakes…
        I wander when unity will learn…

        Not as bad as EA means that they are not selling DLC right? because I really don’t remember EA to double the price of theyr games over night: “You want only sims? well for just 49.99 / month you can also get mass effect… even if you don’t want it”
        Or let me take that back… for only 7E / month you can get FIFA for as long as you are subscribed… and we included NFL in that just for you!

  70. If I use the Personal Edition (I earn less than 100.000), am I then allowed to get my game published by a publisher on the App Store? Because it’s hard to get a game featured on the front page of the App Store without a publisher.

    Many publishers don’t wan’t the splash screen, and that makes it hard to get your game featured on the App Store.

    I think you should let the Unity Plus users remove the splash screen. I’m sure you would get a lot of subscribers who (like me) can’t afford the pro version. This would mean that publishers are more willing to feature our games so that we can make money and be able to afford the Pro later. You could also let us semi-customize the splash screen to show out own logo and beneath that show the “made with unity” logo.

    You can still differentiate the Pro from Plus and Personal with all the enhanced services like you do now. By the way – I really think you did a great move by making the free Personal Edition fully featured back then. A big thumbs up for that. :-)

    1. Yes, I would rather buy Unity Plus if it has no Splash screen.

    2. If they removed the stupid 12 month lock in there would be a lot of Indie people who would write their game then pay $125 for a months pro to remove the splash screen, there’s no logistical reason for not doing this other than they choose not to. Imagine how much they’d make from tons of people coughing up $125 each time they released a new game.

  71. With this subscription model, i will be able to use PayPal to pay monthly?

    1. Kristyna Paskova

      June 6, 2016 at 7:00 pm

      No, subscriptions have to be paid through a credit card: https://unity3d.com/unity/faq/2494

      1. So dose how use paypal must purchase a paypal mastercad and then charge it each month and then make the payment. So mastercard is happy in the transaction…. Is more expencive in this way…
        Nice think! How is asking or pushing for making paypal out and creditcards the only solution only in the Unity company exactly?

      2. So dose how use paypal must purchase a paypal mastercad and then charge it each month and then make the payment. So mastercard is happy in the transaction…. Is more expensive in this way…
        Nice think! How is asking or pushing for making paypal out and creditcards the only solution only in the Unity company exactly?

  72. It is still to expensive. In the age of free multi platform tolls/langugages/engines like OPENFL, etc it will be useless to pay 200$ just to have splash screen out and few options available. Unity should find a different business model for creating income.

  73. Subscription is the way to go! Switching to subscription model was painful for Adobe and Jetbrains, but as a subscriber to both of those offerings – I’m satisfied with them.

    With software of such scale, stability and continuous bug-fixing updates are of very high priority. And subscription business model should allow Unity to focus on that.

  74. I am okay with the splash in the beginning of the free version. I am also ok with 10% royalty … for the start.

    But since I intend to develop for the vive.

    Will valve accept my game with the free version splash in the beginning?

    It would be very cool if you could answer this.

    Thanks.

    1. Kristyna Paskova

      June 6, 2016 at 5:36 pm

      Yes, splash screens are ok with platform holders. Just to clear out: there’s no 10% royalty. We never take any royalties!

    2. Valve doesn’t care if you’ve done your game with free or paid version of Unity. You’ll still have to get through Greenlight voting and at that point nobody would even know which version you are using – after you get greenlit, you can publish your game with or without the splash screen.

  75. If unity had announced this new policy while removing the minimum 12 month lock in I don’t think we’d have seen half the negativity. Unity seem to be trying to sit on both sides of the fence, saying they’re moving to a subscription model but effectively just creating a hire purchase system that doubles the price.

  76. I have one Pro license and change activation with a PC of OS X for iOS build, Windows for main develop and android build, Note PC for Marketing.
    Is payment necessary for three subscriptions?
    I am dissatisfied for the price of Pro subscription, but I find value in it if activation to three is accepted.

    1. Søren Løvborg

      June 6, 2016 at 6:36 pm

      You should buy one license per user.

      A Pro license is good for two concurrent activations per user (allowing one user to install and use Unity on two computers). If you need it on three machines, you’ll currently have to return the license on one machine before activating on another, which is admittedly a bit cumbersome.

      That said, if you find yourself moving between machines just to build for iOS and Android, you might want to look at Cloud Build (if you haven’t already), which removes much of that hassle.

  77. I’m probably adding this comment way to late to be read. I’ve been using pro for Unity 4 and 5. I am extremely disappointed to hear that I paid for a Unity Pro perpetual license for ALL of Unity 5 and now we are being told that there will be NO Unity 6. If that is the case, why is my support ending in March of 2017? A new version of Unity is not being released, so I should still have support for Unity until 6 comes out. I don’t recall it saying anywhere that the perpetual license was timed.

    This “pay to own” option is just plain crap. To get pay to own I have to pay for 24 months and then I get to keep that forever at THAT version only with nothing new. I didn’t pay to own anything then as everything I was paying for was being updated. This is saying that I paid $3,000 for exactly one point release of Unity. I paid $1,500 before for all point releases! If the pay to own turned into own it for the rest of time or even till the rest of the numbered cycle then it would be fine. Right now it’s literally no different then when the subscription ends, because then we would just go to free and have more support then our pay to own license that we actually paid for has.

    1. PerpetualUnity5User

      June 6, 2016 at 4:23 pm

      “I don’t recall it saying anywhere that the perpetual license was timed.”

      I agree with this. I am a 5.x perpetual license owner too, and the purchase was made with the idea that I would get all the releases until Unity 6.0. So a working, polished, bug-fixed release that i would keep if not interested in the next big release.
      But what Unity staff says is: get it until March 2017, no matter how well polished and bug-fixed, we are going to subscription because our product is “never finished” by design.. that means “always bugged” to me.

      I don’t think this enforcement of March 2017 is in the agreement i had when purchasing and would be interested in other perpetual owners join and evaluate a class action against Unity if terms are on our side.

      1. They told you that you would get all products in the product cycle of 5.x. In march 2017 they could just call the version number 6.0 without adding anything new and just brand it as Unity instead of unity 6. In this way they don’t break your agreement. Nobody ever promised you that 6.0 would get a major upgrade in functionality.

      2. Michał Leszczyński

        June 6, 2016 at 6:07 pm

        There will be no new features after March 2017 but they will have bug fixes. As they where supporting 4 after 5 release.
        License does not entitle you to every update until next major release. You are entitled to everything they promised you Unity is or will be capable of at the time you have purchased it.

      3. “I don’t think this enforcement of March 2017 is in the agreement i had when purchasing and would be interested in other perpetual owners join and evaluate a class action against Unity if terms are on our side.”

        I would be 100% ok with this.

      4. I’m not sure that I completely understand what’s going on right now with the licenses, but I purchased $1,500 Unity Pro 5 and I was under the impression that I was done shelling out more money to Unity3D. If that is not the case, then that was not part of the agreement and it’s definitely not what their sales rep said to my assistant when the Pro license was purchased in February 2016. I need someone to contact me immediately and please explain this in detail as soon as humanly possible or the next person I contact i my attorney, plain and simple. I do not care that it is a Sunday, make it happen Unity Technologies because you’re about to lose a customer.

    2. Consider this: The typical release timeline is about 1.5, and they continue adding onto the previous version for about 6 months, bugfixing and whatnot. March 2017 is a bit more than 2 years after the release of Unity 5; if they were going to release a Unity 6, it would likely be in about September, and the Unity 5 updates would stop in March – you’re getting the same thing, it’s just called something else.

  78. Correct me if I am wrong. does that mean that you guys will stop supporting unity Personal?

    1. Kristyna Paskova

      June 6, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      From http://blogs.unity3d.com/2016/05/31/new-products-and-prices/
      What are the new products and prices?

      Unity Personal

      Personal stays as it is. Free and fully featured. It’s democratization of development at it’s best. Revenue or funding cap of $100k per year.

      1. “Personal stays as it is. Free and fully featured. It’s democratization of development at it’s best. Revenue or funding cap of $100k per year.”

        Please…. drop the “democratization of development” line… just please…
        Cryengine is pay what you want…. and royalty free…
        It was a good line a year ago… but not anymore…

  79. A subscription model is fine and dandy, I’ve expected Unity to change to that for a while now.

    The huge price increase is insanity.

    I’m not willing to spend a penny, much less $420 a year on a *partially* removed splash screen either. These changes really suck, and I hate that as a paying customer Unity is forcing me to not give them money going forward. I imagine a lot of other people are in my same situation.

  80. Jeremy McCurdy

    June 6, 2016 at 1:50 pm

    Why not give all of the features of pro at the $35 price point, and require users to upgrade to the more expensive option if they make over $100,000?

    1. Because unity know most of us will never reach the 100k mark.

  81. The main issue I have other than price is that you’re going to a subscription model, then forcing a minimum 12 month lock in….not exactly subscription like.

  82. First of all, i respect Unity Team. They are the main reason i am a developer. Unity was my first and only engine and i hope it will be in the future too.
    Unity is Easy to use, with great minimal editor design, great community, easy to find tutorials etc

    Some Recommendations:

    1)Unity Personal = as it is right now but Dark UI (Some indies Can’t pay for Oculist and Glasses, you must Understand this finally ) /cap at 50k one man studio, 100k 2+/ and finaly, rename it to Unity Entry
    This way unity free will stay a good entry level for new developers. (and it will be easier for newbies to watch tutorials on youtube with dark skin)

    2)Unity Plus $25/month = No Free Services/ No Splash screen/ no one month rent, only annual/ cap at 50k one man studio, 100k 2+/
    This way a lot of free users will Subscribe to a paid version for the first time, creating a serious income for Unity team

    3) Unity Platform = $59/Month for single Platform Publishing, no Cap, no lots of services, something similar to Pro as it is right now.
    This way Desktop developers will stay with you, they will continue to be a part of the community etc. And developers with a good app in Google/app store will go to Pro if their app is making money and need more platforms.

    4)Unity Pro = $125/month All platforms

    5) Focus on a bug free Stable Engine, and then on other Services Please!

    6) Focus on Major tools in stead of services. We finally need a terrain editor, a node based shader editor, a build in simple modeling tool
    this way NO one will find any reason to go with other Engines

    7)Use a “Subscribe to Services” model, if someone needs Cloud, or analytics, they will pay for them, if not they will at least stay with unity and not migrate to other engines…

  83. I understand that people are unhappy with the price changes but bashing Unity and threatening to other engines does not help ether.

    The official comments witch people do not seem to read or ignore are looking promising and is proof that Unity is listening. I only wish Unity would have thought things true more before releasing the new prices and services. There are 2 blog posts and different form threads on the subject(s) that dasn’t make things much clearer also.

    What is left in my humble opinion:

    – a price option between the Unity+ and the Pro for single platform developers without the earnings platform.
    -No Project packs but Free asset store credits depending on subscription type (As what assets are use full are developer / project depended)
    -Focus more on bug fixing and the core engine itself rather then all the other bells and whistles.

    I personal will be looking at the Unity+ version as that i can effort and the official statements make this option interesting for me now (if the options for the splash screen are reasanable) . I Will however not have the cash for assets anymore that I spend now so i am hoping there will be some changing on the project packs.

    I really love working with Unity so I hope all will turn out well in the end.

    Thanks for reading.

    1. they listen how exactly?!
      All that I saw was absolute silence by the Unity team (except for this blog).
      No price change, no nothing!
      I saw an article in which they tell us why they did the subscription model. Of fine, as i tell in my comment, I can (i will not like it but i can) understand the subscription model…. but not the price change! I bought unity i i expected in this autumn or spring an 750Euro update NOT 3000E “update”.
      Threatening unity to engine change may not be constructive, but at least they understand that you are not happy!
      If they will make changes according to what we will want everything will be fine, but if now, I really am looking for alternatives to unity. For the begining only as a back-up. U4 and cryengine are basically free. Unity had problems with those two as it is (I look at kickstarter and more pleople are using other engine than unity), but this price change will make unity even less appealing.
      unity has a GREAT community and the assestore is again… GREAT! but if a part of the community will live they will have serious problems…
      let’s face it… unity has 2 main advantages : easy to use AND community/assetstore… beside that is less stable than other engine, less feature reach and more expensive.

      1. I’m sorry, but I have to be harsh on you right now. If you’re not satisfied with the prices of unity at the moment, you should fund the development of your own engine and report back to us in a year.

        1. Why should I develop my own engine when i fave FREE ( F R E E ) (and better in many aspects) alternatives?! (CryEngine, Unreal (yah yah 5% …. but that AFTER you earn something) etc).

          I earn some money from development but nothing that will justify me paying 4 much as I pay now.
          And yes… I need the removable logo… you know some clients don;t want unity logo….

          PS: Please comment again in that matter and Unity will only have one advantage over other engine (the great community will be no more).

  84. Switching to Unreal or Cryengine! Why?

    Because Unity doesn’t listen and/or care about what the community wants!
    Because they make the engine more expensive!
    Because they want to make you pay for stuff you don’t want (mobile, subsciption, services)!
    Because the competition is free or almost free!

    PS: When Unity did give all the features free, I choose not to request a refund. I will NOT make the same mistake again!

    1. > “Switching to Unreal or Cryengine!”

      Have you tried Xenko?

      1. Hmmm. I’ll look at it. 10x for the info :)

    2. Ok… let me be a little constructive now

      1 – you launched a new price model which is clear that upsets a LOT of people… but you don’t seam to be willing to change it.
      2 – For a perpetual license user an upgrade costs 750E / 2 years, now I MUST pay 3000E / 2 years to get the same features (and some mobile platforms that i don’t need).
      3 – I DO have a problem with subscription model, but I am willing to get pass that IF the pricing is fair… I can let’s say pay 750-1000E / 2 years for the aproximately SAME features as today (that includes removable logo), but I am NOT willing to pay 3000E ! You are forcing user to buy something that they don’t need! You are making price increases and expect people to be happy. It doesn’t work this way!

      PS: The assets in Europe are expensive but I got pass that… the VAT in Romania is now 20 or 21%… you still charge 24% … but I got pass that… I am NOT willing to get pass this new price model! Sorry but I will user Unity free or change to another engine If you will not change your new price model!

  85. It’s way too expensive! If you won’t change your pricing, competion is over and Unity will loose many customers (the paying ones)!

    As perpetual customer the new pricing is insane, from 750$ per Update (perpetual 2 year cycle, before 3-4 years) to 1500$ per year = 400% rising price ?!? For subscription?? I do not need any of the new services, developing for desktop and spending lot of bucks at the asset store.

    I hope you will release “Pay-to-own” prices soon. Will you take care of your loyal paying customers and give appropriate discount?

  86. Jashan Chittesh

    June 6, 2016 at 11:05 am

    Thanks Joachim – this is so much better than the PR-talk in that other blog-posting! So, I’m with you about the subscriptions (and that’s a big step given that I passionately hated subscriptions until I read this posting). A great part of why I think your subscription model works for me is that you do have “Pay-to-own”. That way, much of the ugliness of other subscription models is not an issue with what you offer. This seems inspired by Allegorithmic, and that’s a great thing!

    However, in my perception, there’s a significant difference between perpetual licenses and subscriptions when it comes to the granularity of what I’m paying for: With a perpetual license, I’m not quite happy that I’ve paid for mobile when I’m not using those licenses about 90% of the time – but I kind of feel like I’ve made an investment for a potential future where I might need it, so it’s acceptable. With a subscription, paying every single month for platforms / services that I don’t need that given month is simply not acceptable and will have me looking for alternatives every month.

    So, I would very much prefer more flexibility for the subscription:

    a) Subscribe only for those target platforms and services that you actually need, with a one year minimum subscription time the first time you add any given platform or service and then maybe three months. So when I don’t do any mobile development for several years, I don’t feel like wasting a lot of money; and when I have mobile contract work that takes 4 or 5 months, I don’t feel I’m wasting money for 7 or 8 months afterwards.

    b) Three months minimum subscription for any additional subscriptions per studio: When I have two interns for only two or three months, I really don’t want to have to pay for these two licenses for a whole year. I don’t mind paying for three months when I only really need the extra license for two months – but having to pay for a year just because I need that extra license for three months is simply ridiculous.

    The tricky part with this is pay-to-own, I guess: But personally, I wouldn’t mind if this was solved like this: Right now, I own Unity Pro with everything. Once this goes into subscription, I’d immediately drop all of mobile. So for mobile, I’d be stuck with whatever version that was at that time. If I decide I need mobile again a year later, I’d need to keep that subscription for 24 months to “own” it again at whatever version it will be at the end of that period.

    So, for platforms, it’s a little tricky – but I think this is a reasonable solution.

    With services, it’s even easier: I want to pay for the service when I use it, and I really do not want to pay for services that I’m not using. If you have a service that isn’t profitable with that approach, you might as well consider dropping it.

  87. 1. Does it mean Personal license stays unchanged (free )?
    2. Will you keep free Cloud Build plan?

    1. Kristyna Paskova

      June 6, 2016 at 1:40 pm

      Yes on both counts.

  88. > “No one targets all platforms at the same time, but the ability to choose to easily switch your game to any platform gives Unity developers incredible advantages.”

    No, it doesn’t. Massive crossplatformness should actually be considered as disadvantage: http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/xamarin-now-free-and-supposedly-open-source.395040/page-4
    As it is used as excuse to not “upgrade .NET profile”, because il2cpp is not ready for all supported platforms.

    > “Today Unity lets you target 28 platforms.”

    Unity is still based on outdated (archaic, obsolete) technology — Mono 2.x. So please, stop forcing 28 platforms as huge advantage. It requires noticeable effort of you to support all the 28; and all users have to pay for them implicitly (in some cases even explicitly now), disregard if they actually don’t need all this crossplatformness.

    > “Each platform is supported by a team of dedicated engineers.”

    I’d rather prefer developers to focus on stability, modernizing and general quality, than on bunch of exotic platforms.

  89. The issue is the way that pricing is set. As a user I can not choose to have services or not, have mobile and/or desktop or not.
    Imagine I build a game for desktop with multiplayer and the only pro thing I need is big CCU for match making, do you think $125 additional per month justifies buying a pro for the right to use your match making? writing a simple match maker and renting a server for a month would cost about a month of development for me (3 months maybe for some one else, 2 weeks for some other) and the price will be cheaper but if I could buy subscription for that easily, I would not even think of making a match making server and woud use yours happily.

    Just a real use case of mine, and I’m a user since 2.5 windows beta which bought 3.x pro despite it’s hard to do so as an indie in middle east with a poor economy countriwise.

    I helped your guys to fix bugs and made good stuff for my customers as a contractor. not the noob I mean.

    1. Søren Løvborg

      June 6, 2016 at 2:39 pm

      For your specific example of Unity hosted multiplayer services, note that the listed CCUs are what you get for free in each plan. You can always switch to the unrestricted (but metered) multiplayer, where you pay for the actual bandwidth used, also when using Unity Personal.

      See our Multiplayer FAQ: http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/unity-multiplayer-launch-faq-march-2016.392474/
      and our Multiplayer service page: https://unity3d.com/services/multiplayer

  90. Just too expensive, especially when one looks at moves competitors in this space are making recently. I would not pick Unity on the basis of this pricing model.

    Would also like to echo the “i don’t need or want to target all platforms”, I don’t even want mobile.

    Also I’m increasingly annoyed at finding things which should be in the core product being asset store add-ons (decent SSAO, build size optimization…), which I can’t help feeling disincentivises adding them to core, and avoiding major releases disincentivises still further.

  91. I echo many of the sentiments here. This is primarily a pricing issue.
    People only get upset because we actually love using Unity and it looks like Unity are f**king everything up!

    If you want to be a subscription model then act like one. I subscribe to the FULL Adobe Creative Suite for $50/month, and many other software subs for that matter. I can stop at any time without any catches. Don’t force me to subscribe for a minimum of 12 months. Work ebbs and flows and not every project I do uses Unity. Your pricing should reflect the work practices of your core users.

    I have always opted to buy outright till now because quite frankly it was the cheapest way to use Unity. I’ve owned Unity Pro back to 2.X and Android/iOS Pro from when they’ve been available. I am one of those who will be killed by your new pricing model.

    You want to maximise your cashflow Unity? Well significantly putting the prices up (for a big use case ) is not the way to do this. As you’ve seen, you have a lot of people using the Pro license for many years that will either stop using Unity completely or just downgrade.

    Give people flexibility, and give them value for money, then we will all be better off, and Unity will be richer for it.

    I also echo sentiments of maintaining stability. Drop some platforms for goodness sake? Thankyou for dropping Windows Mobile MS. How about letting your user base vote on your roadmap features?….get a sense of what might actually be useful for the greatest number of people!

    I for one would love to keep using Unity so I’m happy that there has at least been a response.

  92. Hi,

    You said :no one is targeting the 28 platforms. So why not make a subscription model based on this parameter. The user get to choose what platforms to target and pay per platform when subscribing

    They should make tiers based on x possible choices for platform deploy.

    free – splash screen
    2x platform – 15/month
    4x platform – 25/month
    6x… etc

    All Unity Services should have dedicated subscriptions.

    Any additional platform would cost $10 more per month cause obviously once picked you would not change them, so after a while and if your business grows you get all the platforms you need. With this no one would feel paying for unused platforms.

    Bye,

    Jean

    1. yep this makes good sense, unity makes no sense

  93. Surena "IVY" Karimpour

    June 6, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Ok, Ok….
    I’m fine with this pricing and all BUT would you guys come and support goddamned Iranian banks?
    I mean i want to pay for this, BUT i have to go on a looooooong journey ONLY because Unity doesn’t gives a single sh** about iranian banks…. yeah thanks.
    Also the sanctions are lifted if you (strangely) didn’t know…. so… eh?
    (also sorry for clunky english, not my first language, so whatever…..)

  94. It’s not the subscription its the cost and splash screen. I have about a dozen games live on IOS and Android, I’ve paid for Pro + Pro IOS for 3.x and 4.x but for 5.x I’ve reverted to free. My cost for all this was $1500 USD or $2100 AUD over about 24 months so $62.50 per month. You have just doubled that for me to $125 and I just can’t afford it, my game income has dropped 50% over the last year and on a trajectory down, no matter how many more games I release my income is dropping.

    Your Plus plan would have been fine, I would even have paid double on that, but not to have the splash screen and the same revenue cap as the free version, plus the skin colour being behind the pro paywall is pathetic in the extreme. Name another piece of software that does this.

    I’ve now had to reluctantly spend all week learning Unreal and will have to jump ship when I really don’t want to, so well done Unity for forcing me away.

  95. After the end of Unity Free and the born of Unity Personal Edition y was think that Unity Team was changed, but with this new prices of Pro i see that Unity never change, I hope that Microsoft will be buy the company, give money to owners and make the same with make with Xamarin, a really free tool.

  96. Keep in mind that they do not take a royalty from your games. I think 125$/mo is fair. And to go so up in arms over the splash screen being there on Plus is really silly.

    If you really have a game that could be hurt be the scammy developers abusing greenlight on Steam etc, you should get the Pro license. (And other dragging the Unity brand down).

    Remember when Free did not have realtime shadows? And many other features where missing.

    Again, once you make decent selling game. Any amount of royalty is way more than 125$ a month

  97. Ex-Pro Downgrader

    June 6, 2016 at 4:21 am

    I use: Dark skin, no splash screen, I’ve used a few level 11 assets. That’s what the $1500 got me, but I was ok with it, supporting unity, would take the $750 upgrades, worked out ok over time. Maybe around $35 a month in the end if I went on with $750 upgrades.

    Now, if I take the $35 a month option, I still have the splash screen. To keep what I have today, I need to pay $125 a month?

    “You get mobiles and services etc…” is not important to me. What is important to me is what I use: Desktop. Even the $35 option is not enough value for me. It used to let me make my own choices about a splash screen.

    To be clear, I’m ok with a subscription model, I pretty much thought of it as a per month cost before anyway, now just a *greatly* more expensive one.

  98. So if there is no Unity 6 & I “own” Untiy 5 pro, what version of Unity will be my last available update under the Pro name without getting a subscription?

    1. Kristyna Paskova

      June 6, 2016 at 9:49 am

      You get all updates until March 2017. Check out the last point in the FAQ here: http://unity3d.com/unity/faq/4520

    2. Great! Thank you for the reply.

      While I’m not a fan of subscription based products. I am glad to see that there is a pay to own option, unlike almost every other subscription based service. So that is good news.

      Like others have posted the product levels are just wrong for me.

      T1-Free : should have dark-UI but no services.

      T2-$35 should have basic services & no splash screen.

      T3-Pro+ Fully featured services with priority.

      For my self I play in unity as a hobby, but have purchased the Pro versions because I wanted full engine feature access for desktop. Analytics, mobile, & adds mean nothing to me.

      This is why I will be switching to the free version. The only thing I request is the dark-UI.

  99. I just want you guys to know, since I haven’t seen many other people on here speak from this perspective, that I am fine with the pricing change.

    I work for a small company in the Midwest making interactive apps and games for companies big and small. We are often asked to do versions of these apps for multiple platforms at a time (iOS, Android, and PC, sometimes Mac as well). For many years, we developed these games in the Adobe Flash pipeline, but with the release of the often cumbersome Action Script 3.0 and the blocking of Flash from the web we had to find a new development platform. Unity has been the best technology so far for this business.

    The added features to this payment structure (mainly the new Unet functionality, source code, and premium support) are well worth the $125/mo. When you released pro features to free users in the beginning of the 5.0 cycle, I was a little angry as I felt we were only paying the $225 monthly fee to remove the splash screen. I now feel as if my company is getting something for the money we are paying, and I couldn’t be happier.

    I feel as though a lot of people in this forum are going to take issue with this and might even take offense at this, but I feel that if you are passionate about making games and have the correct skills, $125/mo is manageable (especially considering the costs that were once associated with game development. Go research the dev cost in the NES era). The company for which I work would love nothing more than to make games all day and never consider the costs of P&L, but in keeping with the end goals we want to attain, we work on the jobs we need to work on to keep the lights on and software active. Before Bethesda even got a start on their first Elder Scrolls game, they developed Wayne Gretzky Hockey, Home Alone, and a number of other paid titles in order to get the funds necessary to launch Arena.

    Unity, thank you for adding features for your paying customers. Thank you for offering a free options for me to tinker with while away from the office and for the budding devs out their who need their start. Thank you for offering premium support (I am looking forward to calling you whenever we need a billing issue resolved in a hurry). And thank you for offering an (often) stable development environment (something your competitor Adobe seems incapable of doing).

    I say if people keep complaining, take movie textures, render to texture, real time shadows, and the profiler back out and start asking for 5% of revenue per quarter.

    1. Kenneth Burkhart

      June 6, 2016 at 3:23 am

      I should remind you that for people who actually use all of those features, and for people that use several of the build options like iOS/Android, the $125 can be a pretty good deal. But for the desktop only crowd, we now have to pay that higher price too, even though we DON’T export to anything but Windows. I understand with Unity that it is hard to satisfy everybody. I can imagine that even if there were multiple options, and fair prices, where we could only pay for what we want, there would somehow be someone complaining that they would rather just pay a big full price for everything and having to choose makes things complicated.

      So yes, just remember, that while you personally feel that you got a good deal(and you aren’t the only one), other people feel that they are not getting a good deal, rather they feel like they are being given the purple shaft.

  100. upset unity pro user

    June 6, 2016 at 2:52 am

    so, you guys there are still ignoring the community :(

  101. I don’t understand this blog post. People are not against the subscription model. They are against that enormous price increase attached to it. (200% to 500% increase)

    Pay to own is not perpetual license as you don’t have any update.
    It’s twice more expensif with less advantage.

    I really don’t understand what Unity are doing…

  102. Call me conversative, but I like perpetual licences. Why? I get what I paid for: engine, updates and bug fixes.

    I wouldn’t like to have a subscription lincense, develop a game with it and at some point I find a bug or a feature is not working in my case. Now would I be tied to my subscription and have to wait untill the fix comes out, paying every month the subscription fee, even if I don’t need it (just waiting for this one fix)?
    If I cancel my subscription, upload the game with a workaround and two month later comes out the fix for my problem, do I have to start a new subscription for 24 month?

    The perpetual license would give me in the end a (stable) fix version of the engine and I know what features are in. If I need newer features in it, I upgrade my old license to the new version and pay for it.

    I can imagine that the process to determine when to upgrade the major version is not that easy, but I think you can create a licensing model around that too.

    Just my 2 cent.

  103. So it does not make sense to write an article like this … and after just IGNORE what everybody is writing.

    Yes it is the pricepoint problem, nothing else.

    Okay one could argue it is the Game Devs problem, that they are to dumb to make a living with Unity3D. If they could the new pro price would be easy for them.

    But many Devs appearantly are too poor to even pay this quite small amount, which shocks me most. That is very sad for the future of games.

    As I recall approx 2 years ago, Unity Technologies was forced to make a free version of unity by Epic games. Since Epic decided to make Unreal for free.

    Now you corrected this error, because unfortunately Unity3D is the best product out there.

    So I am guessing, very soon there will be increased pirating going on with unity3D, see the DRM issue of Oculus, if you treat the “fans” like s***** they will take revenge. Or simply choose another product.

  104. Carlos Eduardo Neitzke Alves

    June 5, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    Hello. I have a question regarding this post which I believe has not been asked yet here. Since this work model hints at a fast pace of changes for unity, are there plans to change the way we update Unity? Such as including a download manager for new versions or even a built-in patch system? Every new update for unity for me feels like a new clean install mostly, and keeping more than one version of unity feels clumsy.

  105. The monthly subscription fee basically kills any indie projects. Especially ones that have been in development a long time.

    For those projects, this is basically a form of blackmail. I use that word on purpose. You’ve put developers in a situation where they’ve spent months developing their titles only to now be forced to pay $125/ month (that by the way is USD, it’s actually closer to $180 CAD for my group) just to keep going.

    Keep in mind that the overwelming majorty of indie developers are pre-revenue. So where is the money coming from to allow them to pay their subscription?

    I’m 100% noone from unity will address this post but anyway…

    1. Søren Løvborg

      June 6, 2016 at 2:55 pm

      Unity Personal continues to be free and fully featured, for the benefit of “pre-revenue” indies.

      For Pro users, we are raising prices, but existing perpetual license owners keep their license, and existing subscribers can stay on their current price point until June, 2018.

  106. Dark Skin 420$/year
    Oculist + Glasses 500/year
    hmm i will rent unity Plus!

  107. This sounds great… for the unity management. Before, the unity team got paid for the work they put in. They had to earn it, with cool new features, releasing and polishing as quickly as possible. Now, you can basically do nothing and get paid even more than you did before. And the user never owns anything. We can pay for ten years and still worry that a price hike is just around the corner.

  108. I personally am looking quite a bit more seriously into Unreal after this change, so odd that unity provides the same service but no source code for 6x the price as Unreal’s subscription. I am a happy perpetual owner since 3.X, but this change will definitely cause many of us to lose interest. Watch the Dominoes fall and the regret set in, the golden age is coming to an end.

  109. The issue isn’t the subscription model, but the absolutely enormous price hike.

    Desktop perpetual license holders are currently paying $750 approximately every two years to upgrade to the latest Unity version. That comes out to just over $31/month.

    The new subscription model at $125/month is a staggering 4x price increase during a time where your competitors are doing the opposite and increasing their value proposition.

    I’m willing to pay a little bit more with the inclusion of IOS and Android, even though I won’t use them and think the smart thing to do is to increase the value proposition like UE and Cryengine have done, but not 4x more. Not 2x more either. A 33% price hike is about the highest I can accept, albeit begrudgingly.

  110. Robert Cummings

    June 5, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    Noticed the blog post was called “SUBSCRIPTION! WHY?” – which indicates upper management might be a little bit out of touch. Users can suffer subscriptions. It’s not the big, major dealbreaker. Most of them probably subscribe to some form of billing or other. It is a minor whinge.

    What users are upset about isn’t subscriptions. It’s what they are paying for, and how much!

  111. I appreciate the honest tone of this post. I fully understand the reasons. I know that subscription model has some advantages for us, developers, as well as to Unity as a business. You can ship features when they are ready, and we get them without artificial delays.

    The only problem that is off, in my opinion, is the pricing itself. Look what Adobe did with the Creative Cloud pricing. It is much cheaper to be a subscriber than to own the perpetual licenses. Nobody would go for this option if that were the other way round.

    1. I feel the same way.

  112. I have a split pov on this. On one hand, I manage a team of about 20 unity devs. The company opted for the perpetual option because of simplicity, so we hope the pay to own will be available as a prepaid option.
    On the other hand, I do a ton of stuff on my own time at home, and the personal edition was good enough. Since I do work on mobile and desktop, the new pricing is actually good for me. I’m often on the go and cloud build is super convenient (but way too slow on the free tier). And while I have no problem displaying some sort of unity splash screen, the Android one is seriously ugly. With that said, I can see why desktop only devs are upset.
    I think another thing that is upsetting people is that while there is value in removing the splash screen, it’s totally artificial value. I’m not advocating the old pro model, but at least there you had very clear value for the price.

  113. Robert Cummings

    June 5, 2016 at 9:08 pm

    Still think charging for skin is acutely embarrassing. What industry firsts do you want to be known by: innovation in technology or innovation in business?

    In any case I think charging money for a product removes the splash. I am a pro user and will remain so regardless of drama. I am merely commenting that I think it’s time to understand what you can and cannot charge for.

    1. 100% agree (though I may end up dropping Pro, not for drama, but cost).

      After all the goodwill Unity has accrued with the game dev community, doing an American Cable TV style bundling mechanism seems regressive and in the opposite direction of “democratizing game development”.

      Heck I’d pay $10/month for the Dark Skin. It’s how I have my VS setup as well, easier on my eyes. I’d be upset, and it’d essentially be the “Horse Armor” of Game Engine DLC, but I’d do it.

      Seriously though, I would have thought the Asset Store is a gold mine. I have no idea how much I’ve spent there over the last few years, but I’m guessing that Unity’s % cut rivals my 3 Pro Licenses. And it’s A-la-carte, I buy what I need, at least that’s staying. Oh wait, now I’m reading about these “Pro Pack” asset store bundles as incentives to subscribe. Can’t wait to see where this goes…

    2. We used to have a very big feature delta between free & pro. It was always very difficult to balance what features should be in pro / free. For different customers different features were important.

      On the one hand hand customers who are actually making money, paying employees full-time salaries find the value of Unity pro easily $125/mo.

      On the other hand indies who haven’t made a game that can sustain their salaries, or maybe aren’t even in it to create a sustainable business. For those it can be difficult to pay $125/mo.

      For this reason with Unity 5 we introduced the free license. And put all features in it, the only differentiator being that if you are in fact making money, you are not allowed to use the free license. This way anyone can get started with Unity, without being held back by arbitrary feature limitations.

      We also needed at least some differentiation, and we really didn’t want it to be features. Thus we chose the splashscreen + dark skin, on top of the $100k revenue limit.

      So yes, you could look at it as “splashscreen + dark skin” costs $35. Thats crazy. But that is not the intent here.
      The intent is that customers who can afford it, pay the cost of Unity Pro. For those who can’t it is important for the ecosystem that they can use the same features.

      Do know, that we are looking at several options especially for the developers who have been using Unity Pro for a very long time and are also maybe not in the group of customers who can really afford Unity Pro.

      1. > For this reason with Unity 5 we introduced the free license. And put all features in it, the only differentiator being that if you are in fact making money, you are not allowed to use the free license.

        There are lots of indies out there though, like myself, who have been buying Unity Pro licences over the years and earn less than $100,000USD. To call anything less than $100,000/yr “not making money” is missing a big market of small indies who have been buying pro but aren’t successful enough to justify the cost of the new subscription model. As others have pointed out, it’s up to a 4x price increase. They’re the ones who are missing out with the new pricing and will end up making do with Unity Free after the subscription change.

      2. If that’s really the case, then why not lower the revenue cap and make the product the same everywhere?

        On the one hand customers who are actually making money, paying employees full-time salaries will find the value of Unity pro easily $125/mo.

        On the other hand indies who haven’t made a game that can sustain their salaries, or maybe aren’t even in it to create a sustainable business will have their hands on a fully featured Unity (as you claim you want it to be).

        This fulfills the intent that customers who can afford it, pay the cost of Unity Pro. For those who can’t the ecosystem is fine as that they can use the same features.

        And if you’re so committed to have at least some differentiation, keep the “engine features” the same, and play on the extra services on top of the $Xk revenue limit.
        To be honest, I think you’re aware many only pay to get the custom splash, thus it’s okay no to include it with the free version, but people will certainly not pay 125$/month for it. We can all compromise and make splash screen removal part of the mid tire.

      3. Gordana Petrovic

        June 6, 2016 at 11:12 pm

        Can? How many? Will anyboddy? Earn abowe the 100.000 with the Unity Splash screen?!?

        1. Khash Firestorm

          June 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm

          Yes, you can easily earn above 100k a year with unity splash screen. But I still think Unity miss the understanding of the splash screen. They should want ppl who do good games to have unity splash to advertise engine, to show that unity is more than teenagers evening production. But instead of making us believe its a good idea to cross promote and be proud of using Unity we are pushed to the feeling that we pay for hiding this fact… which is very bad marketing as it enforces negative perspective

      4. Am I understanding it correctly that Free/Plus/Pro will have the same features as in access to Framebuffers/etc?

      5. So basically you are saying “Yes, we are charging 35 dollars for a dark skin and a splash screen removal but it would be silly to think of it that way because we did that so you can know you are paying money.”

        Literally what? How about you just do like Unreal does and not do something so idiotic. They don’t have to specially “brand” the development environment of developers who don’t give them money.

  114. I’ve bought perpetual Unity licenses for over half a decade. To keep pro, my engine costs will go up 2-3x. That’s my problem with the new pricing. I can’t afford it.

  115. The angle of subscriptions as a way to solve the issue with major releases and holding features was one I hadn’t considered, so that makes a certain amount of sense to me.

    That said, as a non-mobile developer, I’m now essentially going to be asked to pay 3 to 4 times more for Unity Pro than I have over the last ~6 years. I just looked at my invoices and here’s what I paid for Unity Pro PC.

    I bought Pro 3 for $1200 in 2010.
    I upgraded to Pro 4 for $750 in 2012
    I upgraded to Pro 5 for $600 in 2015

    So by the time 2017 rolls around I’ll have paid just $2550 for Unity Pro over 6+ years

    If I was using the sub model for that same period of time it would be $9000.

    *Yes, I get more platforms that I don’t use.
    *Yes, I understand that to a certain extent the new pricing is simpler, but the result is that essentially the PC crowd is subsidizing mobile and other platforms.
    *Yes, I know Unity has grown over the years and has more overhead it needs to cover (but Unity “5” has been the buggiest cycle yet with core issues in each 5.x release not being fixed for weeks-months, to the point that it’s not worth upgrading until a few 5.x.y’s)
    *Yes I realized I got some early bird etc deals in my prices (why not have something in this new sub model for a loyalty discount?)

    But this is still 3.5x the cost!!

    I’ve used Unity Pro for mainly hobby projects and some contract work. My revenue from my personal Unity Pro license have never eclipsed $100k/year. Sad day for me right? I’m not using the software I paid for.

    Well back in the day Free and Pro were different. I get the reasons that switched, and I support that. But going forward, I don’t see any real reason to keep Pro until I’m actually ready to launch a commercial title.

    Maybe the dark skin, but that’s not worth $1500 a year to me. I’ll get over it.

  116. Problem is not subscription by itself, it’s rather the options provided that makes no much sense, some feel that they pay for more than they need compared to the previous model, while some others certainly benefits from it.

    What would make sense, be fair enough to everyone, and still a realistic model from Unity’s business perspective in my opinion is as follow:

    – Dark skin everywhere. This is NOT a feature, please understand it once for all, we’re in 2016, this is a joke and not a good one.
    – Unity splash screen in the free version only (with alts to choose from?), Unity’s splash screen is an advertisement that must not be forced on a paid version.
    – A revenue cap for both Personal and Plus
    – No services for Personal and Plus (minimal services?)
    – No one month option for Plus (as defined in this comment), because we understand you’re aware 90%+ users only care about the splash screen and it wont be lucrative to Unity if people just paid for a month whenever they wanted to publish their games.
    – Minimum subscription duration 6 months (maybe at a slightly higher monthly price compared to longer commitments?)

    That would make many people happy. Free users will jump to Plus, actual profitable companies will either choose Pro because of the services or will have to use it by reaching revenue caps.

    The subscription is not a bad idea by itself, just fix what is included on each subscription. One can’t accept ads (splash screen) in his game while he’s paying a monthly subscription, pay for dark skin is a joke, and pay thousands of dollars to remove the splash screen is a big NONO.

    We understand you wanna make a one package kind of deal that is fully featured with amazing services, no more individual platform supporting and whatnot, but please keep in mind A BIG chunk of your customers only need to target one platform, and use no services whatsoever. Those pay too much for nothing much (there are free alternatives on the market).
    And although you probably can only move forward making Unity a fully featured solid product regardless of customers specific needs, I’m sure you could still figure a sustainable business model close to what we see fair. Some things we can accept and understand, some others we just can’t and you’ll have to rethink and balance.

  117. I don’t understand. If there isn’t going to be a major Unity 6 release, what is the version that you will own when you stop paying the subscription?
    I thought that if you start paying now for example with 5.3, once you own the software that would entitle you to all the releases of Unity 5 even AFTER you stop paying, and Unity 6 would be out of your reach.
    Instead from this blog it seem you only get the latest version out until you pay, so if when you paid last time there was 5.7 and 5.8 come out immediately after, you cannot use it, right?

    1. Kenneth Burkhart

      June 5, 2016 at 8:52 pm

      I’m thinking they will do it like Microsoft Windows, changing the version number once they reach the date in 2017 when Unity 5 support is supposed to end. Who knows what they will call it? They might call it Unity 6, or skip to 10, or maybe there is a name change in the works, calling it Unity Studio or something. At that point, it is officially no longer Unity 5. And they will have to make some kind of change or otherwise they would be obligated to continue supporting the people who paid for Unity 5 perpetual, which includes all of Unity 5.x. And I know they don’t want to do that, which is why they changed it to a date instead of saying the version numbers.

    2. Kristyna Paskova

      June 5, 2016 at 8:57 pm

      Subscription is tied to time, not to a Unity version. If you start paying when Unity 5.3. was released, you commit to 12 months, so you’ll definitely get all new features that will come out within a year after that. Then it’s up to you if you want to keep subscribing to Unity or not.
      We release all features as soon as they’re ready. Hope this clears it out!

      1. I was actually talking of pay to own. What is the latest version that you would own in my above example?

        1. Jashan Chittesh

          June 6, 2016 at 10:50 am

          Hi Chris, this is just a guess, but I think it makes a lot of sense: If you are currently a perpetual license owner, you’ll be getting Unity 5 updates until March 2017. That’s probably when they also release Unity 6, or they might release Unity 6 earlier but you’ll only get it if you switch into the subscription.

          So that’s basically the simplest and fairest way to transition into the new model because to get Unity 6, you’d also have to pay the upgrade (which no longer exists) – but you’ll still get Unity 5 minor updates and patches as you would if they didn’t change the model.

        2. Kristyna Paskova

          June 6, 2016 at 2:09 pm

          Hi Chris and Jashan, as Joachim wrote above, we’re not going to release Unity 6. Instead, it will just be Unity, which we’ll add new features to as soon as they’re ready. An offer to “upgrade” to the new Unity Pro will be coming your way over the next few months. If you’re not interested in the offer, you’ll be getting all the usual updates until March 2017, then just patches for critical issues.

  118. Ippokratis Bournellis

    June 5, 2016 at 8:29 pm

    “In the dev team we wanted to stop doing major releases for a long time”.
    You could let us know before we preorder v5.
    This didn’t happen.

  119. Kenneth Burkhart

    June 5, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    OK, so you are basically turning Unity 5 into something like Windows 10?!?!

    I don’t see anything wrong with that. And I don’t see anything wrong with going subscription only(despite many objections), but that is on the condition of relatively low prices, and not extracting the huge amounts from people for features they don’t want. Adobe did this pretty well. You don’t have to subscribe to the whole creative suite, rather you can only get Photoshop if you want. Unity’s model as announced on the other hand, forces features that aren’t wanted, and doesn’t give the ones they do. With any paid tier, you would expect to get removal of the splash screen, but that is not something you are doing. Instead, you are giving us things like seat management(among many others) that the majority of people would be willing to trade for only the splash screen. Also, the same thing applies to the Pro version. Many of us are only interested in higher end graphics and desktop games, but now we are going to have to pay for the mobile side as well, despite not wanting it.

    I for one am holding total judgement until I see what kind of offers you have for people. I for one subscribed to Pro. The one and only reason I did it wasn’t exactly for the splash screen, rather that I did not like the “personal edition” wording on it. Now that you are changing it to just MWU, removing the personal edition part, I no longer have a reason to use Pro, or even Plus. But, I’m currently stuck in the 12 month cycle. I feel that the fair thing for Unity to do would be to offer me a way to get out of that contract. My reasoning is that I made the decision to forge the contract based on certain facts, and now mid-contract those things are changing. Now, I accept that I have no legal bounds to get out, but it would be the fair/moral thing for Unity to do.

    Basically, I understand Unity wanting to go subscription only. I also understand price increases over time. But, when you make changes, sometimes you have to eat some ugly food in order to sweeten the pot for your core customers. You were quite fair in my opinion when you made the change to Unity 5, making the free version include everything. You can’t satisfy everybody, but…you allowed many people to cancel subscriptions/get refunds when the features between versions changed. It makes sense because those people made the decision to purchase based on needing a certain version to get certain features, and suddenly that changed. Though it is a much smaller thing, the “personal edition” text suddenly being removed from the splash screen is similar in my case, especially because that is the very thing that made me purchase pro. I wouldn’t expect a refund on the months I already paid, but it would be fair to me to let me out of the contract.

    About the plus version…I don’t want it. It seems targeted at me, but it is useless without removing the splash screen. If you add that “feature” I will be wanting that version as it is worth the price with that feature.

    1. Windows 10 is *not* subscription based. The upgrade is free. The license to *completely* purchase is available for around $99 on Newegg.com.

      You can’t even get a subscription to Windows 10 if you wanted to.

  120. Marc-André Jutras

    June 5, 2016 at 7:57 pm

    I think nobody harshly questioned the subscription model. What people pointed out, is that there’s very little worth paying that step. 30$/month/seat for a dark theme? 125$/month/seat for removing the splash screen?

    I know the idea a year ago was to move Unity towards a service model… However, it’s clear that for now most of those services aren’t mature yet. It’s maybe a bad idea, but you could make features and sell them on the asset store. Forget I said that, it’s an horrible idea. :p

    On the other side, you’re making feature like that “VR Editor”, which frankly is just a novelty idea good to brag about in a convention. Nobody in their right might would use a game editor that way for weeks. And yet, some of the core features any editor should have are still crucially missing even after all that time, from the very start. It makes me – and maybe a lot of people – wonder why should we pay so much for a subscription while you guys work on features we arguably don’t give a damn about. It makes me feel that you have a very odd notion of prioritization.

    1. We used to have a very big feature delta between free & pro. It was always very difficult to balance what features should be in pro / free. For different customers different features were important.

      On the one hand hand customers who are actually making money, paying employees full-time salaries find the value of Unity pro easily $125/mo.

      On the other hand indies who haven’t made a game that can sustain their salaries, or maybe aren’t even in it to create a sustainable business. For those it can be difficult to pay $125/mo.

      For this reason with Unity 5 we introduced the free license. And put all features in it, the only differentiator being that if you are in fact making money, you are not allowed to use the free license. This way anyone can get started with Unity, without being held back by arbitrary feature limitations.

      We also needed at least some differentiation, and we really didn’t want it to be features. Thus we chose the splashscreen + dark skin, on top of the $100k revenue limit.

      So yes, you could look at it as “splashscreen + dark skin” costs $35. Thats crazy. But that is not the intent here.
      The intent is that customers who can afford it, pay the cost of Unity Pro. For those who can’t it is important for the eocsystem that they can use the same features.

      Do know, that we are looking at several options especially for the developers who have been using Unity Pro for a very long time and are also maybe not in the group of customers who can really afford Unity Pro.

      1. Hi – I’m an example of someone who has used Pro for ages—since 1.x—and cannot afford a price increase. I’m one guy, with an app that people love but won’t pay more than $0 for, so it doesn’t cover my $99 Apple fee, much less Unity. Client work does cover the price of Unity, but barely. And suddenly adding a Unity logo on to my existing projects is not going to look good at all. They will suddenly lose polish, at best. At worst: a negative perception of “cheapness” (to further hurt the chances of my app taking off) and angry contract clients.

        I don’t want anything for free, and am not opposed to subscription at a fair price, but the massive price hike is impossible for me, and that splash screen really is a deal-breaker. Please let me pay to remove that Unity ad! (And pay-to-own doesn’t help: without ongoing updates, my existing apps will break for my existing users, failing to stay compatible with future OS updates.)

        This is the kind of thing that makes the difference between “enjoy developing in Unity and hope something takes off” or “get out of the business.” I want Unity to become more and more of my daily work! After all these years, to be priced out would be sad.

        I hope Unity isn’t becoming “just for the big guys” because I love it!

      2. I have been using Unity for a long time, but could not afford Unity Pro. I hope you will also look at our group. I was willing to pay Unity for the first time since iOS Indie if I was given the right value proposition, but I was not provided that, and that is still the case. Provide something for the group I am in and perhaps you would not have to give price rises to your current paying customers as the costs would be spread amongst a wider percentage of your user base.

      3. Khash Firestorm

        June 7, 2016 at 12:38 pm

        I’v been using Unity for some time. I have small company with my wife and we cooperate with few friends.
        There is no “salary” involved and yes, our sales passed 100k$, so what? you really think that if you divide that money across the team and consider wroking for two years over the title your offered price is good? I would say it that way: Epic (Unreal ) though the same, but you have offered much better price so far. Now you are deliberately try to switch place with them.
        If you sell game made by 4 ppl over 2 years, you have to pay 5000$ to Epic from your 100k, you will need us to pay 12000 + VAT = 14400$
        So to make it about equal you need to gain 300k in our team size, but then the more you need to gain usually more team members you need to have and the circle closes.

        To be honnest I think you are doing a suicidal movement, and you and all developers who build their company with you will suffer. Developers may have to simply move to better offers. Remember that many of unity develoeprs does not work full time in the engine, they do taht at evenings with groups of friends and seeing many small games on all the markets made by unity I will say you are hitting hard core of your clients with those prices.

        As for the Splash screen: we have unity pro 5, as we calculated that we will need to buy it anyway soon due to the first year passing 100k and to support Unity. On top of that we were happily using Unity Splash screen even when we didnt have to. But you changed it to very ugly ugly screen. We made decision to remove it.
        I know that ugly screen is something what may push more devs to pay to remove it, but in places where this is not removed you are advertising Unity in very ugly way now. It should be your face to the world shouting: WE ARE PROUD TO BE UNITY, and instead you are making people ashamed of your logos…
        You should aim to have a collection of Unity logos, so they are diverse and sexy. You should have some of them themed, some animated and some simple so that any developer who loves unity can prudly show that. Ok fine, leave simple splash screen for free mode, but hire an artist who will do a set of animations and special screens to choose from for those who pay so that they can advertise you with head high.

        I dont know who and why made so many bad decisions, but you need to do somethign about that, and fast, because you already started losing in the comunity.

        I hope I will never have to change engine, I love Unity, but you cannot feed children with love alone.

        1. Søren Løvborg

          June 7, 2016 at 7:59 pm

          Hi,

          Our revenue cap is $100,000 per year, not in total, so your in your price example, you would actually be eligible for Unity Personal. For a four-person team, Unity is only more expensive than Unreal if your yearly revenue is between $100,000 and $132,000.

          We’re currently overhauling the splash screen, which will hopefully address your concerns about it. Details should be announced before too long.

        2. Khash Firestorm

          June 7, 2016 at 8:27 pm

          “Our revenue cap is $100,000 per year, not in total, so your in your price example”

          Not really, when you sell games you dont have income over 2 years, you have income in first 1-2 months after release, you then support your game and work on another over further 2 years.

          So you say we should subscribe every 2 years for a year?

          “We’re currently overhauling the splash screen, which will hopefully address your concerns about it. Details should be announced before too long.”

          Thats very good to hear, whenever we can we say that game is made using Unity, we are proud of it, but the current splash screen is not helping the case XD

          I think unless community will fall apart and leave Unity we will keep paying “asked price” as for now it is still the best engine on the market doing everything the way we love, but we were before with Flash community making games barely giving any income but it was worth it as we love it.
          After some bad Adobe decisions we had to leave and stopped buying all the CSx’es and market slowly died. I really really hope unity will not follow its steps.

  121. Im fine with the subscription model, the pay to own model and think that your conception of development and shipping cycles are spot on. May i ask what the decision (your decision?) behind the MWU splash screen in Unity Plus was and why you think it’s justified to add it in a paid product?

  122. Thanks Joachim! That was incredibly enlightening!

  123. Hi Joachim,

    The shift to a subscription model makes sense on a number of levels and many of us will support that move. However desktop devs who don’t target mobile such as ourselves are being asked to stomach a sizeable increase in cost over two years. That’s going to need a significant increase in the value proposition if you want us to move away from our Unity 5.0 pro licenses.

    Simon

  124. Samuel Morais

    June 5, 2016 at 7:53 pm

    I think that is great news. I was thinking about this (if I would have conditions to buy the next version of Unity or it would be better to subscribe) and this post motivated me to subscribe as soon as Unity 6 is released (because I already own Unity 5).
    In my Country, Brazil, a Dollar costs 3,5 Brazilian Reais and it became expensive in last years (when I bought Unity 5 1 Dollar was 2 Reais).
    So, I think this new model is going to be a great success. Unity, the best engine, my best choice since 2009. Thank you again.

  125. Thanks for clarifying this, i’ll put down my pitchfork now.

  126. Frank Tinsley

    June 5, 2016 at 7:51 pm

    I definitely support the idea of not holding features back so they can be a part of an arbitrary major release. That said I think the pricing might now be a bit too high for a good number of indies that want to hide the splash screen but maybe the splash is going to get changed and that won’t be an issue.

  127. I must say I was sceptical with subscription models, afraid of paying too much and do not own my product.
    On the one hand there was Adobe: Switching to Creative Cloud and let the team focus the last years almost completely on stability and bugfixes without the need of making new features for giving customers the reason to buy a new Version every year was definitiv a good thing.
    The other hand there is Autodesk, taking huge amounts of money for there model, relaxing on their almost monopolistic standing, buying and implementing a feature or two every year and leaving customers with an unstable and buggy Software.
    Time will show what unity will make with this secure, more cash-flowy model.

  128. After having paid for 24 months of subscription, you can stop paying and keep on using the version you have at that point.

    Could we not just get an option to pre-pay for 24 months then (hopefully at a discount), and it would work almost exactly like perpetual does today?

    1. Not exactly, as with the current model, we own the major version, that is generally supported for over 3 years (even after new major release).

      With the new model if your 2 years subscription ends with unity 5.8.3, and 5.8.4 comes out tomorrow you wont get it.

  129. Only in next months (or years) Unity will be accept this error, for now many actual Pro users are preparing the downgrade to the Personal license or migrate to other engine.

    1. Completely agree with this.

      No one was really complaining about subscription (everything is going sub now anyway) its the price tiers which are are ridiculous. Unless some changes are made I think I will start looking at Unreal which is a shame, the Unity community and product are great. I understand the need for change and don’t blame you for trying, but you really need to realise you have made a mistake instead of constantly trying to justify and defend yourselves.

      Charging for the splash screen is cynical at best, remove that and reduce the pro tier and you may be on the right track