Perpetual license going to be ceased in March 2017?

Why must I have definite plans for a platform? Simply put being a hobbyist allows me to work on projects that interest me and I can't always predict what a future project will run best on. There have been times in the past where I wished I could have targeted a television, a virtual reality headset, etc but was held back by either the technology or the developer tools.

There were numerous factors for my choosing Unity and one of those factors was the platform support. I wouldn't state it was the most important feature for me but the other features aren't exactly relevant to this discussion either.

 

Well, maybe they could do ramped pricing by platform - more sub'd plats = lower cost per plat? For instance...

• $50/mo: First Base platform of your choice
• +$45/mo: Additional platform of your choice
• +$40/mo: Next additional platform of your choice
  
• +$20/mo: Next and any additional platform of your choice

So effectively if you wanted to only publish to Windows, get a Windows subscription and move on. If you wanted more, subscribe to more. I suppose you would have to lock into a year or something of subscription to avoid the sub on month 1 and drop.

Meh, in hindsight they'll never do this anyway. Doesn't really fit into their Personal/Pro scheme.

It's really screwy because they have such a weird situation and have to cater to so many different types of developers. I mean, one guy only wants to publish on iOS while some only want Windows and others actually publish to iOS, Android. Windows. Mac and Linux with some products.... so how are they even supposed to make that fair with the pricing anyway? You can't say you get *all* platforms for x cost because 2/3rds of people will get pissy about not needing the other platforms, then cry for modularization of the pricing structure because they're effectively wasting their money on stuff they don't need. But how would Free/Personal fit into all that? What's a fair compromise for that license type? The splash screen? Dark skin?

 

I think the reason Unity hasn't responded is because the entire thread is based on air, and has no substance other than occupying some forum space for a chat. It's meaningless treading over old ground, which I'm guilty of too

If something is happening, it's happening to Unity 6 and I'm pretty sure Unity is comfortable addressing that much closer to the time (since they probably still don't know).

 

I might go for $50 a month for Pro, even though I definitely don't need Pro and I'd prefer to be able to choose which of those platforms that $50 a month applies for but I have no ideal of the business economics of this for Unity. That $50 a month would just just getting rid of the splash screen for me, but I think the splash screen is the best looking graphic in my game anyway so maybe not, lol.

 

It's 100% conjecture. We only know for a fact what the text says but no replacement is defined.

I don't really mind a healthy discussion of what the new structure might be like but I think its pretty easy to get carried away and be upset about potentially stupid license structures. They still have over a year to really iron it out and that is more than enough time to change their mind several times over or even revert that change and stick to the existing structure. I'm not surprised they aren't commenting on this, because there's probably nothing conclusive to say about it other than 'we're working on it'.

 

I am guessing you are sarcastic. Ignore me if you want. My opinions are as valuable as yours and mine are not self-motivated at all, since I don't create mobile apps.

 

I think Unity need to change their licensing, because as it stands right now pro has little value for single developers or small teams because of the generosity of the free edition. I think a lot of users would happily pay for Unity, but $225 / month is just too much when you can get all the engine features for free.

I wonder how they're gonna do it without either removing free or somehow make free worse than it is today.

 

All Unity needs to do is lower the income threshold on the Pro license, 100k is extremely generous(too generous). If people aren't making much money with the software, generosity is a good thing on Unity's end. Unity still makes money off free users on the Asset store. However when you start to make money with Unity, you should go Pro and start financially supporting the tools that make your product possible.

 

It is not enough for customers to make a good decision on either, but it is better info than the message on the store page, so is the best resource for making a decision on by default.

 

Well, to me it looks like their goal is to make money from successful developers. So, the more successful developers there are the better things are for Unity, because growing studios are where licenses are purchased. With that in mind...

I think they said that the old "Indie" license wasn't making a lot of income anyway, so giving that away for free gave more people access to the tools which might eventually lead to success. People with experience in Unity are more likely to end up using Unity professionally later. So by giving it away for free to people who they weren't making much money from they potentially grow their future share in the market they are making money from. (I believe this was Epic's strategy with making earlier versions of UE available to educational institutions in the past.)

Then, competitors came along which offered shinier effects at a very competitive price. So, to keep free users sticking to Unity rather than moving to other engines, they ponied up comparable features to stay competitive. They probably lost some sales in doing so, but that's the nature of a competitive market, and is in line with a strategy of getting user experience at the ground level so that they (or their employers) purchase licenses later.

That also fits with the income cap. The vast majority of individual or startup indie developers don't need to pay licensing fees. On the other hand, any studio with a little bit of commercial success is going to hit that cap very quickly.

With all of that in mind, I don't think that Unity needs to change the license to get individuals or startup teams to buy licenses. I don't think that's their goal. I think they want to get their product into as many such hands as they possibly can, as easily as they can, as quickly as they can, so that instead of buying one or two licenses now they instead buy many licenses for multiple versions in the future, at the same time as getting more people on board with the engine to perpetuate that cycle.

If I'm reading their strategy correctly then the free license is critical.

 

Get em young.

 

It seems that all big software companies are moving to subscription model.
Xamarin proposal seems to be the most fair to me.

https://store.xamarin.com/

 

Well, the most fair of all is the allegorithmic one.

It will allow people to aim for a perpetual license paying monthly.

 

This would not work with Unity. Allegorithmic doesn't have the option to use it for free as Unity does.

 

Yes but it will allow free users to think about paying something or why not the full amount in the end.

For pro users, like me, the monthly subscription will alienate me.
Because I don't have good contracts all the time to pay for a unity pro license that will mean nothing to me.

 

It would work in away that you get access to the major you were subscribed long enough, like 24 months of U5 subscription will give you permanent license to the program itself but you lose services if you cancel. AFAIK currently even if you cancel after 12-24+ month you lose the access for good.

 

You could do all the work in the free version and once you deliver the result, you can pay for a certain amount of time. That would not pay off for Unity since the abuse rate would be enormous.

 

Right, didn't consider the services. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

So we come to the conclusion that free users must die

 

To all the Unity officials out there, we found THE solution!

Please PM us to get our wire transfer information for our monthly share.

 

usually I wouldn't go the subscription way, but if Unity decided to only offer that and remove the free version, I would be happy to subscribe.

yes death to FREE version.

 

The answer to the whole March 2017 question was answered by users in the first page really so let me confirm. We tend (read as try) to work on a 2 year release cycle, Unity 5 took a while to get out the door so there was a little knock on effect with the length of time we supported 4 (i.e. if 5 was out sooner, 4 would have ended sooner). So while this March date was normal for us and known to anyone who read our FAQ when buying, I can see how it seems like a little bit of a doomsday countdown.

Nothing has changed; you can get perpetual if you wish to but our support for it ends like it has done for every large version, you can get subscription, during the length of your subscription even if there is a major change, you still get Unity [insert whatever version here], you can download it for free (now & always) and do whatever you will with it.

And yes @hippocoder there are crazies but there is still some interesting points made here on the forums, we include these with data from customer meetings, feedback at conferences and user groups, sales statistics & surveys, which by the way are often sent out to a random selection of users, some surveys like the yearly ones are sent to everyone.

 

Suspicions confirmed - you just play it safe. Everything is fine

 

Thanks Aurore

 

Many people avoid Xamarin subscription, and it is a failure with Unreal 4.
Ikinema integration with Unreal 4 was subscription and it didn't worked , so they propose now a perpetual license instead.
Stingray engine subscription is not working today, etc ... Subscription is not always the best path.

You are a Pro user, but like many users we are not Pro users, i would not pay subscription if i don't make money with games or until i make a great game. If it wasn't some free version there still be great alternatives like UE4 and Royalties or CryEngine and low price subscription with no Royalties, and for mobile games there is good open source and paid engines.

Anyway , the Free version seems to annoy Pro users again , if Pro users are not happy , ask or blame Unity, but let the Free version outside of your concern

 

I feel like this entire misunderstanding could have been prevented (or at least the chance of it greatly reduced) if the version number the date is referring to had been included in the text like below.

"Support of Unity Pro 5 perpetual licenses with new features, improvements, fixes and services will stop in March, 2017."

 

Or even "is not guaranteed after March 2017".

Personally, my main support concern is that there will be support for those platforms with forced update requirements, like iOS. For anything else I can't rely on support anyway (I've had great support experiences with Unity, it's just that I can't expect them to magic away all of my problems), but I need to be able to deploy my project to devices, and get it approved for publishing to storefronts. That's where I absolutely need Unity's support to be solid, even if the next major release is late.

 

Maybe version numbers should be the year! Unity 2017 p3

 

Yikes, I better run for cover.

I think much of the "free user" banter is just fun but there are some that really think we are taking something away from them. However, nothing has changed. You still have pro, and you can still pay for it, the prices are the same as before Personal edition, and honestly, there has been a free version of Unity for a very long time.

The market changed and Unity changed to fit into that market. I get it. Personally, I was shocked when it went free with all the Pro features minus services. I had advocated for a lower cost version with some of the features that were required to make a game that worked in today's world. Little did I know that they would give us a gift. I am very grateful for that gift.

Every cent of the money we saved to buy our Pro licenses is now in the hands of Unity and some very deserving asset store developers.

If we hit the limit, we will buy Pro licenses and not regret using Unity. If there was not a free or lower cost version, we would have been forced to try something else. Since we now have two programmers with C++ experience it would not have been a huge set back for them. For me, it would have been sad because I enjoy working with Unity.

I know a lot of Pro Users and learn a great deal from them. That, in itself, is a good reason to have all of us in this community. Since we all use the same engine, we can share ideas and teach each other, making better Unity games at all levels and increasing the reputation of the engine. I find those people to be much more prevalent on these forums and they are the ones who are the movers and shakers here, not the people who "hate" free users..if they even still exist other than in a sarcastic joke.

So..no worries. We probably outnumber the Pro folks these days anyway, so just try to come and get us!

 

Free users don't have the 2-computer activation limit either. Perpetual and infinite!

 

True!! Would kind of be hard to do that anyways...lol.

 

Yep, and since each version has month of update, how about following version format:

Unity <month> <year> Update <update number> (i.e. "x" in say, 5.3.x version) <patch number> (if any).

Obviously, stuff in the round brackets isn't part of the versioning scheme. What do you think?

//edit: So current unity, 5.3.1p3 would be called Unity December 2015 Update 1 p3

 

So this means that if I buy perpetual license now i'll receive support and updates till March 2017? And also,does it means that after March 2017 it will be not possible anymore to buy a perpetual license? Its not very clear...
For example, let's say that in April 2017 it will be out Unity 5.7, I will not be able to download it without a subscription?
Or it means that in March 2017 it will be released Unity 6?

I think that it should have been more clear if, instead of a date, support for perpetual license was connected with a major release, in this case Unity 6 ("perpetual license support and updates will end with release of Unity 6").

 

I think support for Unity 5 will end for Pro users, and you will be able to upgrade or buy a new Unity 6 perpetual license.
It makes sense.

 

@Aurore can you please clarify this points?

 

When I spoke with the Unity licensing lady recently here's what she told me:

It sounds to me they're going the route of the Adobe model, unless there's an unusual amount of backlash.

 

Sounds like bad news.

 

I don't think Unity is in the same position as Adobe to allow them to make this kind of change. I just don't see this working out well. When Xamarin did the same thing, they got a lot of backlash and made a lot of enemies. There have been a lot of poor decisions coming from Unity lately. I think they grew too fast and lost sight of why Unity became popular in the first place. Oh well.

 

You can still use personnal edition.

 

Very disappointing and also a bit disturbing that no official notification or warning have been given to customers yet (maybe at/after GDC?). One year is kinda short time when it comes down to these things and this can affect various decisions.

With perpetual I've always pre-ordered since U3 and have had discount on the upgrade cost, Unity 5 was total of 1365 EUR (core + 2 x mobile pro). I guess the subscription has nothing similar(?) so based on current costs that means I will have to pay 4100 EUR (~4400 USD) during the same 2 years perpetual gave. That's 3x increase in costs.

Now it will be harder to decide if I can continue using Unity pro for new customer projects which I would possibly have maintain and update often for few years (mobile). If I cancel the subscription, I lose the ability build it again the same way as before (without splash screen) and this could be bad with contract work that have been also signed. I've been kinda disappointed what Unity 5 pro has had to offer so far. If you go to the page with comparison the only valuable difference is the splash screen and rest of the stuff are meh, not delivered or be can subscribed by anyone. I'm not sure if I'm ready to be locked or trapped with a subscription for years that can cost anything

The contract work I do with Unity is not my main job but more like fun extra income projects so I could just give up on that front or find alternative tools. I don't mind switching to Unity personal for my own projects in future but that might depend what kind of thing it will be in 2017 as in will there be major changes. However there are probably a lot of pro users who will suffer from all of this.

And now before someones chimes in saying we don't know the details yet, don't be so negative. Well that's exactly the problem, the shared info always seems to be too limited or vague. I've seen people struggling when trying to get info about Level 11 for free users, UNET subscriptions plans, or so on

 

Yep. That would be my only realistic option. Which is an option where Unity does not make any money from me.
(except through asset store sales percentages, but that's not what I'm talking about here.)

 

I hope they dont want make 'personal edition' to paid for this too, like cheaper version of subscription option.

 

I think the key take away was:

If nothing has changed, then what that means is like in the past, when the new version is announced, you will only be able to purchase the new one. Like right now, you cannot purchase a perpetual license for Unity 4. (but it is included in a Unity 5 license).

 

yes but then you read this :
By March 2017 Unity will no longer sell perpetual licenses, only subscriptions. When this comes to pass all perpetual licenses will remain active and usable, albeit frozen at the last upgrade release prior to the cutoff. I mention this so you may better weigh the cost benefit of perpetual vs. subscription between now and this date.

Our sales team is working to ensure much pre-emptive customer feedback is collected to make sure the powers that be have the best idea possible in regards to what our customers want to see in our licensing.

Thanks Ben Bearfish for the info.

 

Well for subscription I'd like to see all Unity 12 month period offers be extended to monthly as part of the cost. It's just one less worry.

 

Well... Just for clarity, @Aurore is Unity staff, the other is what someone claims a "license lady" said. It may be true, it may be have misunderstood, either way, right now the only official information is that it won't change.

Really isn't nothing to be concerned about now, it's a over a year away, and remember that last time Unity changed its plan was the day 5 launched.

 

@zombiegorilla Yes that's a good point.

Well for me it's down to how much money I'm making when that time comes. And I think most people will look at it that way. If you're making say 1000$ from Unity for personal project or clients are you really not going to pay 200$ per month? I think most people would pay.

The thing is most people wont be making much money in this over saturated market so I don't think many people would pay anything near 200$ per month.

Unity has a lot of free users. These users everyday say how wonderful unity is. well I think it would be great to see happy free users pay something a month... maybe 20$ ? how much do you love unity??

 

It strongly depends on where you live in the world. Around here, both for cities and rural areas, that $1,000 often won't cover renting a small apartment let alone the other costs of life.

 

Yes I agree but would that mean you wouldn't spend 200$ and lose 1000$?

 

Why would I lose the $1,000?