How Unity could win the engine war and make more money with it

The great thing about what Unity created with the Forums and the Asset Store is that it brings together different know hows to the benefit of all.
In my daytime job I am the CEO of an online ecommerce and this morning I thought what I would do if I was David Helgason and had to face a similar problem. Obviously I don't have access to the sales figures of Unity so I will be shooting in the dark, but well this forum is called Gossip, so I believe we can gossip about that.


So here it is me with David's hat, asking my community about the new Unity 5 strategy and pricing model in reaction to UE4 decision.

I will go straight to the figures and explain why below so you do not have to read it all....

New Unity 5 pricing

Unity Pro + full source code access : 1500 $ or 75$ month (so basically as it is today)
NEW ! Unity Indie + same features as current Unity Pro : 25$ month cancel when you want
Unity Free same features as today + asset bundles

Reasons for that:

Unity Pro with sources: Unity already has a great community of professional developers as shown in the asset store. Sharing and branching modifications to the engine will definitely improve the overall engine quality as it is in the best interest of the developer to see his new feature incorporated in the engine to avoid seeing it broken in an update release. As mentioned in other posts, the risks of having someone reverse engineering Unity for a competing engine are very limited. Also consider that source code access is in fact a way to create additional documentation cost free. Yesterday I was looking for a specific feature in UE4 which I am evaluating, and found the answer in a few minutes just looking at the source code. So if you are a pro, developer you should go Pro just for that....

Unity Indie: this has no source code access, but will probably be of interest to a substantial % of current Unity Free users. Also asset store sales will increase due to many developers being able to buy assets that only have pro features. Price is higher than UE4 as you are offering a vast Community and asset store, and 6 dollars really don't make a difference to most...

Unity Free: This should be used to bring new users to the Indie / Pro licensing model. Most developers start coding as modders to then do their own game. This is why Unity free should become the favorite modding tool for Unity games. A slightly different asset workflow might be needed to facilitate modding but this should be trivial...

Why will Unity make more money from it ?
1. I believe very few of the current pro users will go back to Indie, while I see a substantial % of current free users will go indie
2. Unity is probably already loosing customers to UE4, keeping them makes more money...
3. Increase in asset store sales pro only assets where unity gets %.

When should it announce it ?
I believe the sooner the better, there's nothing wrong in reacting to a competitor promptly it shows flexibility and not weakness, while waiting another Unity or gaming industry show would just cause more users to get familiar with other engines... Just use the show to display the new features of Unity 5.

Obviously opensourcing the code is a very delicate decision that requires a lot of consideration.

Finally while Unity 5 gets released, concentrate on showcasing the new AAA features through blogs and videos, so users know what to expect.

Just my 2 cents
Fred

 

how about mobile plugins and webgl? if you say free, i say we elect you as new ceo.

 

I did not mention them on purpose, as I wanted to focus on the main licences, I think plugins are a bit overpriced and should be priced at 500$ /25 $ month but I don't know the impact it would have on pro licenses....

 

seriously though, i don't think it is that bad of a plan but why would i get the $1500 when i can just get the $75 with source access, as unity updates are slow... if you were ceo, unity's 150 engineers would be out of job and home. Unreal can survive with their low subscription and source access because their EULA requires 5% split, so they don't care if you don't pay for the upgrade but with unity that would be their main revenue.
Maybe if they got enough Pro users from lowered pricing, they would have an increase in Unity Pro assets sold(which have functionality that couldn't be provided to unity free users) and that would make enough money to offset the lowered pricing.

 

Well I am interested in making networked social mobile games, but only really as a hobby I already have a full time job has a technical lead for a team of 6 creating HR, WFM and mobile data collection software with C# JS MVC etc.

I don't have a lot of spare time but I enjoy creating games in the little I do have, I have been using and paying for unity since version 2, and already know C# very well, I can afford to pay $4500+VAT or $225+VAT per month for unity pro and the mobile pro's as I want profiling and .net socket, but there is no way I can't justify it compared to $19 per month. Especially if the WebGL feature will be another paid feature as I am interested in doing web apps using that too, that would bring it out to $6000 or $300 per month.

Currently I only have Unity 4 pro and the two mobile basic licences from back when that was a thing, giving me the $600's for the pro upgrade and some minor discount on the mobile pro versions. And I have been holding off seeing what Unity's response will be to UE4's pricing.

Honestly I would bite Unity's hand off if they combined all the modules into once licence and made it $50 per month, as I think as a lone developer I can be much more productive in Unity than UE4. Either that or move features like profiling and .net sockets into the free version.

 

I like it. But I'd suggest free plugins and killing Unity Free. Most who have invested time in Unity Free would switch to unity indie.

 

Yes... $1500 once off is substantially worse than $75/month (also known as $1800 over two years).

Oh, and does Unity have 150 Engineers? Where is this number from?

 

IIRC David said that on twitter.

 

Questions/suggestions:
- What happends when subscription ends? (for both PRO and new indie?)
- Why not call it Unity source edition and Unity (former pro)
- OR... why not ONE unity (incl source, like UE4), for 25USD/m for that matter? instead of 75USD/m. So you would get 25USD/m (with e.g. royalty added till certain threshold) and a one time flatfee of 1500USD (no royalty) choice (just curious how you think about this )
- perhaps ditch the free version all together? (again the last one depends on what happends when unsubscribing the new indie)
- What about royalties for "free" and new indie?
- Any other limitations/grands to consider?

You should make this clearer, what happends if doing this or that.. what will be lost, what not. Etc..
The base idea is good, but not detailed enough in my perspective.

One thing though: 25USD/m is still too high imho. I would say 20 or 15USD (to compete more against UE4). There MUST be a reason to go Unity (besides features alone)

Again base idea is good...

 

Surely the number of people wanting sourcecode access is very minimal... so basically you're asking for Unity Pro for $25/mo instead of $75.

 

The point is to give the option to those who do. I would gladly sub if this were the options unity had. They really need to at least get rid of the contract that's a tad much 30 days isn't enough imo to fully explore all the features of unity and see if unity is the engine for you and or your team.

 

Well then IMO you're in the wrong industry, you think the release of UE4 is going to make like easier for games developers? You'll be in a wash of talented students and people who can now afford to use a AAA engine and some of them WILL take advantage of it. Now indie's who rely on the industry for income are going to have to really step up their game to have a cat's chance in hell of competing. Marketing budget's for Indie's are going to have to raise dramatically to even be noticed, Artwork WILL need all the best tools money can offer..

Have the engine as cheap as you like, but in the end $25.00 a month will be the least of your fiscal worries. Unless you're a hobbyist who does it for fun and doesn't really care.

 

This. You need to spend money to make money. It's called investing

 

I was relpying to the OP's idea alone. 25USD/m was brought up.. and from a competition standpoint, i think it should be lowered a bit (if going this route at all). Since 20 USD sounds more compelling than 25, especially since there are well established competitors (and their pricing) wanting a part of the developer crowd.

And now onto what you replied:
I'm not in the wrong industry at all, UE4 IS easy, so is Unity4 (and soon 5). Workflow is adjustable, learnable etc. So change is doable, if willing to.
Besides that, the engine market is about to change, in case you haven't noticed Indies are more populair compared to AAA studios these days. Even console manufacturers acknowledge them, embracing indies even. This means: indies are now target audiences for tech companies. Indies in MOST cased have no multimillion funding, let alone thousands. So they need to stand on their own feet, with the little cash they have. Sure there is kickstarter, but that no guarentee either. To present something, you need to have something. Epic is offering the full set to make something as you please WITHOUT limitation in features. Unity does not (e.g. no source), however... Epic is for small indies and startups, at current price standpoint till say 90K gross revenue is cheaper, compared to the current Unity offering. To be clear i'm talking about an investment of 4500 USD (Unity PRO, IOS Pro, Android PRO bundle). 5% out of 90K = 4500 (3x 1500USD) to pay Epic in royalties. Well it takes quite a while to earn 90K in revenue for most.. so the finance is just better. Unity could sway in and take back those customers, and strengthen it's penetration even more. But they have to response with a good pricing/feature offer in alliance with the competition.

Features and quality of them is important (at current stat UE4 is unforatunately better in features)... equally is cost. (for small studios and startups, who are a big crowd of potential users especially)

Now to lure (not negatively ment) those potential developer in (or back from UE4), something should be done about the offering Unity has compared to the competition.

And on a total different point and not especially geared towards you (there are other doing it too):
Why would you steal your own wallet, by defending UT from a pricepoint?
Thats not logical at all. Your business first, UT second.
If your business can save money, why are you not wanting to save money? (because of the defending UT attitude towards people who want to save, and defendants want to keep the price at current level as much as possible)
hint: business 101, the cheaper the costs, the more profit you earn from revenue. Business is all about profit (that a primary element of being company in the first place!). Why would you be concearned about the amount of profit another business makes? Besides it is also impossible to calculate since you have NO idea what their exact cashflows and savings are, what funding they have left etc. Also It's up to UT to calculate what they are wanting to do financially. Not yours, you have your own worries to think about.. And again, if your company can save money.. the beter i would say. (you are also embaracing UT by defending, since it implies they cannot do this themselves.)

Just sit down, and think what i said.. slowly digesting that 101 line.... interpreting it... vision it..

ok back?
well why?

 

I'll get to this bit later.

So are you not willing to pay what is deserved for that workflow? It's a leg on the competition as far as I'm concerned. I'd say Epic isn't for small indies at all, for you to really take advantage of that platform you need a rather large outfit like a VFX specialist, a material specialist in some respects you'd be better off with CryEngine as an indie all the advanced stuff like shaders / water / post and optimisation is pretty much all done for you, in these respects CryEngine is much easier to use than Unity is (Just a shame about the rest of it ). Our sister company is developing in UE4 and whilst they are MUCH further on than we our they are also much large than we are too. They'll spend double the time on UE4 specific artwork / shaders and setup, which is completely different to how you do things in Unity!.. But they can afford to, we can't!.

There's the problem and it's not just features, support is pretty keen to pick things up and sort it quickly they have a couple of dedicated engineers just on the answer hub. Some fixed bugs for me through that medium alone.. But for the millions they are getting, a couple of tech staff for the answerhub isn't going to cut that deep is it? But here is the thing, you don't know what Unity 5 is going to be like in terms of features and it's still early days for UT5 in general..

You said $25.00 a month is too much, which is ridiculous IMO the cost of engines in the grand scheme of things is sweet nothing. Unity only get's expensive when you start adding on all the additional sections like Android and IOS pro. Which if I was in that segment of the market I'd probably think about dumping Unity in the drop of a hat. $75.00 a month for the whole lot would make much more sense.

On the am I stealing from my own wallet? Come on, do you want to tip Unity so they can't afford to remain competitive. People seem to miss the fact that engines aren't the main source of income for Epic. Hows about their games and AAA licensing? Indies are a bit of pocket money.

Unity are NOT in that position, so we have to remain thoughtful of what will happen later down the road in development. It's fine getting Unity dirt cheap only for them not to have the staff to operate properly, keep up to date and become even more lapse with bugs.

I like the fact that this may knock Unity out of there comfort zone, but let's be reasonable?

 

You honestly think I care at all about what Unity's finances are? I'm even more shocked you believe I'm being emotional about this.

I run a company, our engine is Unity. They need to do their part so we can do ours and I could be straight up honest and say I couldn't give a monkey's uncle what they charge because it means next to nothing to me. I spent more than three months Unity fee's for a team of 15 taking our staff out for a drink and meal the other week But I have friends who develop and I'd like to see them do well with what they have, so if Unity lowers the price then hooray for all!.

BUT neither are YOU in a position to say what they should be charging, because you DON'T know their finances either. What affects my company is when people can't do there job correctly due to bugs and features lacking. That costs me far more than pretty much any engine at full cost or Indie versions ever would. If Unity DON'T have the staff to do what they need to do, then it affects my business.. What also affects me is workflow, the longer it takes my staff to finish the more money I lose and we're not talking change here. We are talking ten's of thousands per week.!

You seem to mis-interpret every single thing I say, probably because I said you're in the wrong industry .

This has really nothing to do with the pricing scheme of Unity, but I'd like you to see where I'm coming from. If Unity screw up and I have to move engine's (Which I happily would, because it's only software and I have no loyalty to it) an engine change would be a HUGE budget blow. Then I have to explain this to my investors, THAT's when I become emotional mate!.

So in essence, let's hope Unity have the money and staff to keep everything in the clear for us dev's right ?

 

the only way that Unity can win this war is Unity Pro at us$5 mo.

 

We should not exaggerate
I think aprox 75 dollars with the possibility to unsubscribe when you want (as suggested by EU4), is enough to stay with unity for me.

 

As a Indie/hobbiest, I would immediately pick up three Indie licenses at $25/month each, so $75 total a month. I would also feel comfortable buying licenses for any new team members we might attract. At that price, even if they leave after a time, the cost would be negligible. One of our team members is interested in phone games so I would be comfortable buying additional licenses at $25 a platform.

We are currently using free so we are giving Unity nothing other than profits off the Asset Store. With an Indie license, we would be giving Unity at least $75 a month and possibly more plus this would step up our development and we could buy some of the nice pro assets. In the future, we could possibly be paying a couple hundred a month for PC, Android and Apple licenses instead of the 0% we pay now (not including assets).

I doubt we are the only small development team that would jump on prices like this. Seems Unity would make more money, attract more users, and the larger Indie market would make up for losses based on lowering the price of the pro license. Also, the real pros would be more than willing to pay for full source. I fear it is the Pro users that are going to be the most tempted to leave as they are the ones who would save the most by switching engines since they will get the full source from UE4 and CryEngine. The Pro users certainly contribute more money to Unity than we do with our free version!

 

This is very similar to what my feedback was. I'm a hobbyist and I do it for fun (and sell an asset on the asset store). I use Unity Free. I've toyed around with the idea of working on a serious project but would want pro to go forward with it. My suggestion was that Unity offer Pro as basically an unlimited trial. So all of the pro features would be available, however you couldn't publish using pro features unless you have a license to do so. I suggested even a small monthly fee (like $10) for the unlimited trial and at that point it just becomes a development cost.

I think this would do a number of things. First of all, even a hobbyist like me would pay that just to play with the features... and if I ever did produce a serious title that I wanted to release with pro features, then I could pony up the $1,500 for the Pro license.

Now here's the other kicker... it's sort of like the "free to play" games out there. I'll use Tribalwars as an example. I started playing that game... then I started buying premium points... soon I was invested in the game and continued to pay. This works the same way with a permanent pro trial if you're charging a small monthly fee (cancel anytime) for it. If I've purchased assets on the asset store that require pro... and I quit paying the monthly fee (unless I buy the full license), then I can't use those assets anymore, even for hobby work.. and if I've purchased even a couple / few, then I am invested in the product.

This gives hobbyists a better chance to test the waters with what they can create, gets them invested in the product, and gives Unity at least some revenue stream. It also creates a wider target market for folks who sell pro-only assets.

 

Ok, i stand corrected I (as it seems now, reading your post) did misinterpreted your posts.
And indeed let's hope UT the money and staff to keep in the clear for our needs.

 

The thing that a lot of Unity apologists are forgetting in all these threads is that in order to get Unity to even come close to UE4 in terms of robustness, workflow and stability, is through a myriad of assets you have to purchase through the Asset Store.

Unity has shown time and time again that they'd rather throw out half baked features that look shiny on the surface but then reveal a large variety of issues when you get past whatever simple use case they show in their demos/tutorials.

When I asked them about complex things at the booth at GDC, they had no idea. Simple things like "Hey my game is dynamic and uses procedural content, how will the new lighting engine handle it? Do I need to create cube maps dynamically or does the new system do it for me? What is that workflow potentially like?" Nothing was answered. Probably because the answer was "even though we advertise this to be great for dynamic environments, to get anything not to look like crap you will need to do significant work on your end that would have been automatically handled by other engines"

This is a common trend with Unity. Mecanim problems? Buy these assets from the store, or wait 2 years before it's usable. Shuriken issues? Try buying a whole new particle system so you can compete visually!

Yet to this day, my Unity editor crashes with out of memory issues about 10 times a day now.

Can you tell which way I'm leaning on the engine war? Having poured 2+ years on Unity already obviously I will finish my projects but you bet I'm going to be taking a really good look at my options for my next projects. Unity does not handle big projects well. It may be ok for simple games but for complex games, well, have fun unveiling all the problems. Oh and hey what about nested prefabs? Oh right, not in Unity 5...

 

Allowing Pro developers to build a base of Free modding customers would be awesome in every way. Better games, more content, more Unity users, more value in choosing Unity. And Unity is going to need to find some additional value given that the true AAA engines just obliterated Unity's pricing model for a large majority of users.

Unity is the de facto engine for nubs with no game development experience. May as well get some useful mileage out of that and give newbies an avenue to gain skills while producing meaningful content rather than just adding to the daily "how do I make game" threads.

 

I don't know that they need any more tiers to fragment their product. Personally I would like to see them condense it to just one product, Unity pro, that all includes all add-ons. That is what the competition is doing. They could keep the current purchase for a perpetual license at $1500, but have an indy license that was free, until you started selling your game, at which point they take a royalty UNTIL you've paid $1500, then they stop taking a royalty.
No more fragmentation of the engine product would help the asset store too.

IMO Unity technologies should stay FAR FAR away from a subscription model until they can up thier service game to a point where it can compete with Epic and justify a monthly expenditure. Right now Unity Technologies is no where near Epic in that area and they would end up doing more damage than good trying to compete with them in that area.

 

Correct. It's the most insane business model I've ever seen. It's like saying "hey unity, how about you go out of business".

While many want pro for free, there are other ways to make this happen without such a huge sacrifice. Particularly, not cancelling at any time could make it work.

 

yet Epic is doing it for 20USD/m (hence with royalty, but still.....)
And they will not get out of business by a long shot. So i wouldn't call it insane, more radical business model change

 

Source access has turned into a huge deal for UE4, people pulling individual fixes and enhancements left and right without having to wait for the next official version. It's not a matter of if it is useful at this point, it already has proven to be.

 

But nobody was supposed to be able to make use of source access! it was supposed to be too complicated for anyone to make heads or tails of without loads of specialized training! But C++ is a super special secret language only a select few will ever understand!

/end sarcasm

 

You sure you thought it through?

1. epic still get bankrolled by their games and their AAA licenses. AAA does not use the royalty scheme.
2. epic get paid at the end. $19 does not pay for anything except pocket change and admin fees, accounting, support. It does not pay for development.
3. epic get paid if you release.


Unity:

1. No royalties, no external revenue except royalty free engine development.
2. Has no choice but to charge more during development.
3. Would have to rely entirely on asset store revenue, means we get less good stuff in Unity. Less licensed stuff.

 

Hehe, C++ doesn't even play into it even though you are being sarcastic. I'm pretty sure any user can see a list of issues, which branches they are fixed on, and pull it from github then click the compile button.

 

Heresy! witchcraft! voodoo!

 

You guys intending to develop or help improve Unity or are you just here to troll? make your minds up.

 

People(including the OP) were discussing whether source access was needed in one of the pricing options...how is that trolling.

 

No, I think Unity should just go with a flat subscription model for all versions.

1.) Remove Unity Free
2.) Let users subscribe for $29.95 per month for pro, and $19.95 extra per additional platform
3.) No royalty fees (David has previously said he will never do this, due to the honesty/admin factor)
4.) Only allow the user to login to the editor and asset store if they have an active subscription. (This is how most software works nowadays, i.e Photoshop etc).

This is a very effective and simple business model.
You now get a monthly subscription from all the free users, and you bring your subscription price fairly in line with other industry standard software and game engine prices. Of course the Unity subscription will be a bit more due to no royalties.

Right now $225 per developer per month for Pro, Android and iOS is a very expensive subscription fee, and when compared to the UE4 of $19 per month with 5%, and CryEngine $9.99, it makes very little sense unless you're developing a title that will bring in excess of $60 000.

 

I don't think a subscription is a good idea until they can find a way to push bug fixes quicker, also not allowing people to terminate while being able to use the version they terminated at won't make their sub competitive with Epics.

With a subscription people want added value every month, if the service isn't up to par to provide that value it could hurt UT.

 

Sure thought trough..

1) In the new situation: UT still gets "bankrolled" by Asset store purchases, And flatfee pro licenses AND (if they don't add it for free) addon licenses as they always used to have.
2) Giving out low subscription models as additional license option: UT will EARN extra through subscribers who would not pay UT with free.
3) Royalty is attached to subscription license, so UT will get paid when you release (just like epic).
4) With the current model (untiy PRO and free), UT misses out a goldmine of potential licensees (and thus a huge sum of income). Plain and simple.
why? because they won't receive anything from the current free users (thousand of users), with a subscription (PRO features etc) however, they will receive subscription income AND continued royalties. WIN situation for UT, compared to current situation AND win for licensees, because all features are becoming in reach for small studios/hobbiest alike and can fullfill their goals/dreams with Unity, on the expense of some royalty percentage and at least a one time subscription payment. For licensees not wanting royalties, they can just purchage licenses as they used to (including upgrades), for about the same price as they used to (1500USD etc)
Why would UT not want (a lot of) extra money, by just changing something in the business model? That would be beyond me and all the logic in the world, so to speak.

So it becomes dual (either WITH or WITHOUT royalties/subscription) and we all can choose what suits our needs. No royalties? pay the full price. Don't mind royalties, go subscription. (subscribers can ofcourse change to no royalty by purchasing full license when needed).

Choice is key here. (and in either case UT earns money)

 

Good idea. Right now, if we continue using Unity Free, we have no idea what we are missing. If we could build our game with Unity Pro and then pay when we are ready to go commercial, we would be "invested" in the pro version and pay for the spectacular extras. If I never publish, I am not out much other than maybe a small monthly fee and the asset store products.

We might actually have a better chance of finishing the project with the pro features if they are as good as advertised so more likely Unity would get our money.

 

This might be true, but pro licenses aren't their only income source (but agreed that its likely their primary one). Asset store offerings count for something, they have to. But the suggestion wasn't to eliminate pro licenses but to move source (if possible) to that pay model. This would instead eliminate their source licenses so yes they take a hit buts hard to say just how much.

It may have been the case that anyone that was buying those licenses would have "costed out" the same if they had gone with pro's for all of their developers on a team. Meaning that likely the folks buy them were large teams anyway so when they looked at pro licenses x 20 devs the cost might have been close to a corporate source code license (again I don't know what that costs but 20 x1500 is 30K for PC only, that seems at least in the realm of a source license).

All that aside this unity unfortunately won't get a by because it had bills to pay. We devs sure don't get that luxury, we either deliver a competitive product and charge appropriately for it or we can get languish at the bottom of an app store search queue. I love unity, I want it to live a very long time. Thinking that it can't or won't change it's price model I don't think helps them.

 

I want Unity to lower the cost of subs and have it rolling but even I think $25 is too low. The only way they'd be able to do that is if they went the same route as Epic and did royalties. Having it so you need to register or something if you plan on releasing something so that they can track your game.

Ideal price point for me at the moment would be half what it currently is so £25-30 a month. Royalty free that still seems a little on the low side.

 

And a pretty S***ty one on top of that. (From the customer's perspective that is)
Not owning anything and only being able to subscribe is the wet dream of most companies, because they still get money even if they don't really do anything.
Usually you had to give your customers a reason to buy the new version (i.e. features). When you're subscription-only, you can take your sweet time with anything.

 

$25 is just too low though. That makes the price of Unity Pro 600/24. 600 dollars. That's great if you're continually upgrading, but it's still not $19 for hobbyists. Chances are, Epic will just give it away for free at some point if they feel they need more bums on seats for their Asset Store.

So the real business model question is - how do you give it away for free? One concept is to make a single Unity - everything is Pro, no trial, and everything is free.

However you pay for export quality: if free, you get the unity free feature set to export with, but if paid or sub, get the pro feature set to export with. It's an interesting alternative. No doubt some will say still not good enough.

 

I've suggested a new price terms in UE4 thread but probably got lost in the wild with so many comments here is again:

To any Unity folk reading this post, here is my suggestions on Unity Pro price adjustments:

Full upfront cost:
Entire life cycle for every major version -> 1000$ (500$ for each additional platforms, consoles excluded). You can upgrade to new major versions for half price (as usual).

Subscription without royalties:
- Yearly cost -> 500$ for desktop/web (250$ for any additional platform, consoles excluded).
- Monthly cost -> 50$ for desktop/web (25$ for each additional platform, consoles excluded).

Note on subscription models: If you ever license this model and your yearly or monthly subscription expires, you can keep using the Pro version but Editor only (no cycles updates, no builds). If a new major version comes by you must pay the full subscription price (being monthly or yearly), no discounts. You are free to unsubscribe at any time, no penalties.


After all this, if you still don't want to pay a dime to Unity for their nice efforts, you can always get Unity Free (actual license terms applies).

 

20$ a month is not pocket change. specially compared to what they get from free users now.

Unity says it as 500K users, convincing 20% of them to pay 20$/ mth = 2 Millions/ month. A drop in/out model would not alienate the subscription "allergic". Convincing 10% to pay for a full year plus another 10% of users to pop in every month would be enough to achieve the same numbers.

The current model of 75+vat is only attractive to companies or high wages country's. I would pay 50$ in a drop in/out model but as it is does not make sense to me. The platform separation makes even less sense. Including Android/ Ios in free was a great move from Unity, Its time to go the extra mile.

Just make one version and keep an older (pro) versions free. With fixed price options or royalty above a threshold or other model.

 

One advantage to a good subscription based model is that it can eliminate the Waterfall software development model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model) and replace it with the Agile software development model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development). The waterfall software development model leads companies to hold back new features until the next major release, and it prioritizes adding checkbox features instead of fixing bugs. Unity should have already at least considered moving away from the outdated waterfall software development model.

Unity should use this as an opportunity to move to the agile software development model. The waterfall software development model is too risky as a long term strategy. For example, if a company is using the waterfall method and putting all of their programming time into building features that the community does not end up wanting, then the company will be left very vulnerable.

Look at Microsoft with their Windows 8 operating system for an example of a bunch of talent people putting a lot of effort into something that the community did not end up wanting. Most people despise Windows 8. If Microsoft had used the agile method, they could have realized that Windows 8 was going to be a failure long before they had finished the product. Microsoft could have retooled the Windows 8 experience to actually make sense to users based on the feedback they would have been receiving to small updates released along the way. Maybe Microsoft could have built Windows 8 to look like Windows 7 if a mouse and keyboard were connected, and automatically go to Windows 8 style tablet mode if no keyboard and mouse were connected. Millions of users would have given Microsoft that information and the Windows 8 nightmare could have been avoided. But Microsoft still uses the outdated waterfall software development method, so they poured their energy into something everybody ultimately despised and Microsoft did not realize the problem until after they announced Windows 8.

Additionally, you never really own software. Even when you think you do, you are still going to rely on the vendor to release fixes and eventually you will want to upgrade to get new features. So while you can buy software, you will often need to buy new version every 2-3 years. For all practical purposes, buying software ends up feeling just like a subscription. I understand your basic point of owning vs renting, but the reality is that software is a subscription regardless of whether you buy it every other year or just pay a monthly fee to rent it.

 

You know Ocid that I'd love Unity to reduce the pricing scheme, the Android and IOS charges at the moment seem like a duff deal compared to UE4. I'm just saying let's be reasonable.

I'd say $75.00 all in (I think it comes to £57.04 including taxes), so android / IOS and PC / MAC.. Not including console obviously!. Or you still have the option for a Cycle license at $1500.00.. Another thing to factor in is you don't have to pay upgrade fees with subscriptions we all get U5 Pro for free..

Or as I keep saying they could do a mid tier version of pro without all the Enlighten stuff, which cost's $25.00 a month or something and you have to pay upgrade fees?

 

QFT

 

Totally agree.

 

now this discussion is not sense, UE4 cost $19.

 

Not arguing the reasonable part. $75 a month for everything all in I think would actually be pretty good even if it doesn't change a whole lot for me. Don't have much interest in mobile stuff but plenty of people do so I can't complain there. Still think it should be a rolling sub just bring it back down to free if you aren't subbed.

Mid-tier though I would totally go for. Not sure what you mean by upgrade fees though. Would it be when 6.0 came out I had to pay an upgrade or if I wanted Enlighten added on to that I'd pay a fee similar to the $495 Speedtree integration?