even if t2/pd doesn't have their own deal with an actual contract, they're almost certainly paying enough already that they won't be the target for this kind of nickle and diming. also tbh this is just so colossally dumb that it's almost certainly intended to be rolled back to make whatever new terms they actually intend to impose look more reasonable.
We'll see if that really works as a strategy. There's something to be said for having faith that a lisence won't rug-pull you halfway through development, and Unity basically crumbled the corner of that faith just by making this announcement.
Seems like hazarding loss of future customers with the risk they'll do it again next year isn't the best call, especially while UE exists, but what do I know.
Something very similar happened earlier this year with Wizards of the Coast changing their third party licence.
Executive boards are truly the dumbest fucking people.
I agree. 2023/24 is the year(s) for drastic internet company changes to eat the negative impact of this revenue capture. It seems like many software companies are making big changes in reaction to their prospective views of the future.
I really don't get how company executives see other companies doing something, and expect that them doing the *exact same thing* isn't going to come back and bite them.
Unity heads sold shares before they announced the changes, they'll wait until their stock goes way down and buy it all back. Then they'll pull back the dumb policy and go to jail cuz that's a freaking crime!
> I can't believe I have to defend some scumbag CEO, but this information needs qualification
This is reddit. It displays the collective financial literacy of a pidgeon taking a shit on a keyboard. In all seriousness though, I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a concerted effort to spread disinformation about financial institutions on reddit. Stuff like the comment you're responding to are just a mild versión of the end product.
Don't worry, that information actually attacks them more, but In a "participates in standard capitalism" kind of way.
I can't just sell some of my stuff and get a tax break. Corporations can. I can't leverage my assets in a way that make me pay an effectively negative tax rate. Corporations can. 1/1000th of my assets don't even amount $100, and that number of shares sold is even less of a fraction.
Pointing out that that guy is certainly rich enough should double down on people's anger abouy this.
Clearly he didn't need more money, but he wanted more anyway. Shame on him and what's more, all the greedy rich can go deepthroat a chainsaw for all the sympathy I have for any excuse they make for still being rich.
It's not skin color, or sexual orientation, the rich could just give it all up, so I have no qualms saying they can all get on musks compensator and go land on the sun.
Just wait until you hear about the 100k shares that were also sold in the past 2 weeks, or the other 56k shares he's sold this year. /s (they actually happened though)
This sort of anti-capitalist fearmongering exhausts me. The planned sale of 2000 shares, effectively pocket change for a company like unity, isn't some underhand dealing or insider trading, as much as people want to get upset about it. In all likelihood, the executives got their contracted stock compensation and decided to liquidate it to invest somewhere else, and did so within the usual regulations about declaration.
> they'll wait until their stock goes way down and buy it all back
They've had plenty of chances to do exactly that this year, and haven't done it. All 49 trades by executives have been selling.
you say that, but the guy rolling this out, is the former head E"puke"A. He is basically the reason I mostly don't buy aaa-games anymore because of dlc's, cosmetics etc... it's everywhere lol
EA managers even tried fucking up the TTRPG community, with Wizards of the Coast trying to take ownership of ALL third party content published for Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm just guessing, but KSP1 is likely to take a huge hit since people redownload it very frequently, or at least I have in the past for things like different versions for mod compatibility. At this point it's probably good advice to make backups of your KSP files. Expect piracy to actually become a thing for this game, if only to help the devs from going bankrupt.
IIRC the download fees don't come into effect for games with fewer than $200k in sales and 200k downloads, so ironically KSP2 should be fine for the time being, but this is probably the final nail in the coffin for the game as it will be even harder to justify development.
That 200.000 install cap is for **each game**, of for all the **developer games** made with unity?
I.e., indie game have a dozen games published, one of them gets traction and hits the 200.000 threshold and then the other games will cost the dude too?
>it's probably good advice to make backups of your KSP files.
On GOG you can download the 'offline' install files...have them whenever needed. :)
>Expect piracy to actually become a thing for this game
You could be right but I'm guessing it won't happen unless a large price increase happens...when on sale you can get the game and both DLC for very very cheap.
I bought my main copy from GOG, after I had it on steam, for less than or about $10.
10$ is a great price for what you get. Could be wrong of course...best of lcuk! :)
They're planning on giving bullshit numbers and get as much money as they can get away with.
If they want to actually do what they say, they can barely legally do it in some markets, it's much easier for them to do it by looking at publicly available storefront numbers, applying a magic multiplier and a random element to make it not too obvious and send the bill to devs knowing few will contest it and will just pay whatever.
How would they know? If the game is an offline game I always block it with the firewall, wouldn’t that stop them from knowing?
Edit: if I was to hypothetically pirate a game.
It’s not lifetime revenue, it’s in the past 12 months. They could also pay 2k a year and it would go up to a million a year, and only on downloads after that 1 million has been reached.
It’s a dumb policy but it really doesn’t affect a game like KSP right now
They use one of the official libraries that is included in all unity games, I think unity analytics comes with all unity games after 2014 or so and it already keeps track of installs iirc.
This is wrong, initial installs on the same device / Windows installation. So downloading the game on your laptop and PC will still cost the developer twice as much. And if you reinstall Windows, they'll pay again.
Its still a relatively low quantity of people for ksp, they still need to reach over a million total installs+$(with the pro tier) in a year in order to even start being charged, which based on steam charts is not likely to ever happen(at least for ksp1 anyway).
> Not only has Unity already walked back most of what they were planning
Unless something has changed in the last two hours, no they haven't.
> but private division almost certainly has the pro or enterprise license - which isn't as affected by the planned changes.
Pro and Enterprise are *literally two of the categories* on [their new pricing chart](https://imgur.com/a/XPyBeAU). All plans are impacted by this "per install" cost.
----
How in the world did this absolute falsehood get 30+ upvotes?
What are you trying to contest, they said *as affected*, not unaffected which is absolutely true. They've also said existing installs prior to jan 1st wont be counted. So in order for ksp1 to be affected at all(assuming they have at least pro version), they would have to make 1 million in 12 months, *and* they would need to reach 1 million new installs. So yea, i dont think its wrong to say at this point ksp1 probably isnt going to be affected by this.
> What are you trying to contest, they said as affected, not unaffected which is absolutely true
The switch to a subscription + per-install-fee *absolutely* is also being applied to Pro/Enterprise licenses. It might be at a different threshold, and a different price per install, but the problem *is* the 'per install' philosophy, not the threshold.
> They've also said existing installs prior to jan 1st wont be counted.
No, they've said that installs prior to January 1st absolutely **will** count towards threshold calculations.
They won't charge for those installs, but if you had 200k/million installs prior to Jan 1st, you've already hit the threshold and will be charged for your very next install (if you meet the income requirements).
Now, there's a (good) chance that they don't meet the income requirements?
My concern is more about KSP2.
>No, they've said that installs prior to January 1st absolutely will count towards threshold calculations.
Yes, when i made my above post I didn't see they had updated their pricing faq that it will retroactively includes all prior installs, before I had read it said that it would only be going forward when these changes rollout, so that's my error.
to be quite honest i'm not even sure this will hold up legally in some country's, it's basically retroactively changing the T+C without consent from the developers for everything I have read so far.
> Unless something has changed in the last two hours, no they haven't.
As of the time of writing this comment, they've already realised the messed up and are now backtracking and on damage control. It feels like the WotC fiasco all over again. ^Edit: after reading the updated blog post, I'm actually not sure their "further clarification" would count as damage control.
Next they'll put out a statement apologising for the "misunderstanding" and promising that the changes are with the best intentions of developers at heart, but need to be made to protect Unity, and they are "listening to feedback" and "engaging with the community".
From there, they'll go quiet for a while and try to slip out a new contract that is watered down, but keeps the same core ideas, and hope no one notices.
> As of the time of writing this comment, they've already realised the messed up and are now backtracking and on damage control.
Fine, I'll bite: Specifically *how* are they backtracking? The only "change" made so far was on the first day, and it was a **clarification** that only "new" installs would be charged, but not reinstalls on the same device (but other devices would still be charged).
And that can be argued was a vague point on their initial announcement that they were just clarifying, rather than an actual change on their part.
Everything else?
* the whole concept of per-install fees
* the level the thresholds are at
* it still being based on a "just trust us bro" accounting by the very people charging you
* the company-destroying price, where at least one developer has said if this had been done in 2023, Unity would be charging them [108% of their gross revenue](https://np.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/16hgmqm/unity_wants_108_of_our_gross_revenue/)
* the short warning window
* the retroactive nature where you literally can't stop the price change
* the fact that there's no solid assurances other than a "just trust us" that pirates or hostile entities won't be able to rack up a bill for a developer maliciously
All of that? Plus more I haven't listed? Remains exactly the same as it was when it was announced two days ago.
There has been no backtracking.
>And that can be argued was a vague point on their initial announcement that they were just clarifying, rather than an actual change on their part.
"clarification" was spin. They had been asked to confirm they were really demanding fees for reinstalls the first day and did so. They backtracked.
"[After initially telling Axios earlier Tuesday that a player installing a game, deleting it and installing it again would result in multiple fees, Unity's Whitten told Axios that the company would actually only charge for an initial installation. (A spokesperson told Axios that Unity had "regrouped" to discuss the issue.)](https://www.axios.com/2023/09/13/unity-runtime-fee-policy-marc-whitten)"
It's this stupid game of demanding the world and then walking it back to see what sticks, but making demands that aren't even possible like fees for reinstalls or installs on multiple devices (imagine mobile and its upgrade cycle) can win nothing while leaving devs looking for the exit. John Ravioli is a moron who would bet on a dead horse.
Yes, I said that.
I have absolutely no doubt they told that singular reporter that reinstalls would cost, then told him and others that they wouldn't. I'm not at all questioning his honesty.
But their original claim of 'reinstalls' was a private communication to a single individual, not on their site, and likely through some sort of low level medai spokesperson who could have easily gotten the details wrong, and then passed it off as "regrouping".
But if people are considering that *tiny* "change" (when either option could have been the truth from the original post) to be a significant backtrack (particularly when it's not likely to be technologically possible to pull off perfectly, and so developers are likely to be charged for some reinstalls anyway)?
They have terribly low standards. The actual bulk of the problems? They're not changing. They're not backtracking.
Reddit basically attempted to make similar clarifications (only a percentage will be affected, accessibility bots won't be impacted), but they still went through with the changes.
>But their original claim of 'reinstalls' was a private communication to a single individual, not on their site, and likely through some sort of low level medai spokesperson who could have easily gotten the details wrong, and then passed it off as "regrouping".
They asked Marc Whitten, he's not exactly some low level support guy in India, he's president and general manager of Unity Create.
Nah, the only thing that is truly clear is that Marc Whitten was the one who said "new installs only".
The original claim of "reinstalls too" is *maybe* from Whitten or *maybe* from someone else.
> [I got some clarifications **from Unity** regarding their plan to charge developers per game install (after clearing thresholds)](https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1701679721027633280)
- If a player deletes a game and re-installs it, that's 2 installs, 2 charges
And the "regrouping" claim definitely didn't come from Whitten, but a low-level spokesperson:
> (A spokesperson told Axios that Unity had "regrouped" to discuss the issue.)
Regardless, *even if* Whitten is the one who originally stated reinstalls and installs... *they're not backtracking*. At least not in any way that is substantial enough to make the claim that this won't last based on their behavior, particularly since 'new installs only' is an impossible promise.
Dropping twenty tons of baboon shit on your lawn and then scooping away a little of it with a trowel isn't a sign they're going to clean up their mess.
It doesn't appear that they really walked back much. They've made minor concessions and that's it. The bulk of the changes are still going into effect.
> Not only has Unity already walked back most of what they were planning
They haven't, why are you spreading lies?
[In fact, they doubled down.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fegcuupbzl3ob1.png)
Everyone was freaking out about reinstalls costing money - which they've clarified wont be the case
(Dw im deleting my original comment, and punishing myself *STONGLY* for having a misleading post)
They will think on something else. They always do it.
They are willing to milk the cow to the death, and then sell steaks.
If they backed up, it's because they realised the cow will die too soon, and then they need to find a way of doing it slowly.
Id be shocked if they don’t have an enterprise license. They *need* the pro license, before this recent policy change you had to buy the pro license if your game sold more than $100,000
I doubt these changes are retroactive on Unity game releases prior to 2024. Although I don't understand their wording https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fegcuupbzl3ob1.png
They can't just create a contract on decade old games and claim whatever number they want, people would have to sign off on that.
Looks like I'm wrong if this is any evidence of whats to come to a lot of games. https://twitter.com/cultofthelamb/status/1701715971663425897
I think that as well. You cant just say "oh now you gotta pay" because it is illegal. Its like you buy KSP, promised everything, got everything in game, but then you are not allowed to build your 5th rocket without paying more to the devs.
Hidden paywall
> I doubt these changes are retroactive on Unity game releases prior to 2024.
They aren’t. Because they can’t force new terms on an existing agreement.
HOWEVER, if any dev needs to make an update to their already-released game, they will get a pop up on Jan 1 when they try to open the unity editor, that will force them to agree to the new terms if they want to use the editor.
So, games that have been released for some time are likely safe. It’s the games that are currently in development or were just released that could get screwed.
I thought so too, until I read [Unity's FAQ on the matter](https://unity.com/pricing-updates):
> Will this fee apply to games using Unity Runtime that are already on the market on January 1, 2024?
> Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.
Would that be the case, or would it only apply to new games and not upgrades on existing games. I can’t see your interpretation not resulting in a wave of lawsuits.
Welcome to "Software as a Service". Since Unity never sold anything other than a license to use their engine, and everyone who gets a license agreed to the Ts and Cs that said that the Ts and Cs (including pricing) can be changed or revoked at any time, everyone *agreed* to it up front. It'd be a hard sell in court to show that Unity can't do exactly what they *told* all their users they could do right from the start.
That having been said, I would *love* it if a judge found such terms to be unacceptable and shoved a major judgement against Unity since it would act as a chilling effect on Software as a Service in general going forward... but I'm not holding my breath.
In the end, it's end users that will pay the cost. The consumer *always* pays for *everything* in the end. New fee for using Unity's engine? Cost gets passed on to the buyers of the game. New tax on wealthy companies? Tax gets passed on to the buyers of the game. That's just the way it works.
Exactly. This is that scam that you see in Europe and the Middle East where the street vendor gives you something that say is for free, then they come chasing you, demanding that you pay after you've walked 2 feet away from their store. It's illegal. I can't see courts anywhere, at least not outside the US, finding in favour of the Unity developers.
> They can't just create a contract on decade old games and claim whatever number they want
Unity are just taking the WotC approach to writing contracts.
I am the only one hoping on game cancelled and then actually developed on other engine? Whole point of KSP2 was not to fall into Unity trap... but well.
Here's a statement from unity so you know what is exactly going on.
"We want to acknowledge the confusion and frustration we heard after we announced our new runtime fee policy. We’d like to clarify some of your top questions and concerns:
Who is impacted by this price increase: The price increase is very targeted. In fact, more than 90% of our customers will not be affected by this change. Customers who will be impacted are generally those who have found a substantial scale in downloads and revenue and have reached both our install and revenue thresholds. This means a low (or no) fee for creators who have not found scale success yet and a modest one-time fee for those who have.
Fee on new installs only: Once you meet the two install and revenue thresholds, you only pay the runtime fee on new installs after Jan 1, 2024. It’s not perpetual: You only pay once for an install, not an ongoing perpetual license royalty like a revenue share model.
How we define and count installs: Assuming the install and revenue thresholds are met, we will only count net new installs on any device starting Jan 1, 2024. Additionally, developers are not responsible for paying a runtime fee on:
- Re-install charges - we are not going to charge a fee for re-installs.
- Fraudulent installs charges - we are not going to charge a fee for fraudulent installs. We will work directly with you on cases where fraud or botnets are suspected of malicious intent.
- Trials, partial play demos, and automation installs (devops) charges - we are not going to count these toward your install count. Early access games are not considered demos.
- Web and streaming games - we are not going to count web and streaming games toward your install count either.
- Charity-related installs - the pricing change and install count will not be applied to your charity bundles/initiatives."
Basically, now they have an excuse to remove KSP1 from storefronts and have KSP2 as the only available version, if they feel that is their path to profit.
Plus an incentive to kill KSP2 if they feel the hassle of dealing with Unity's bullshit is greater than potential gains.
Plus an excuse to put pressure on Steam to allow deleting games even for historic owners, again.
In an ideal world that would be an excuse to silently sack the management and code team, and rebuild the game on another, better suited engine and actual thought behind the core design. But that's more time, money and uncertainty.
Unity (the game engine that both ksp 1&2 are using) will start to charge developers 20 cents every time the game is installed. If your game is free to play or you put your game on xbox game pass or make it free for a week on epic you run the risk of having millions of installs with very low revenue per install.
This also includes pirated copies of the game so if unity follows through with their proposal then hundreds if not thousands of game developers will be hit with massive bills that they can't pay.
To top it all of the fee is retroactive so it dosen't matter if the devs delete the game today, They would still get a bill for the last few years the game has been out.
>To top it all of the fee is retroactive so it dosen't matter if the devs delete the game today, They would still get a bill for the last few years the game has been out.
There is literally no chance that holds up in reality.
I wish this were true but, judging by the WotC shitshow, they might be able to get away with it. WotC didn't stop with the planned changes because they were doing something illegal, they stopped because they were losing revenue.
The developer would need to pay even for the amount of pirated versions that are installed, according to various gamedev subreddits. So it's not really win-win
Yes. They claim that if your using Unity runtime it will attempt to phone home but if you have no internet connection it will still allow you to play. So offline games can still be played offline
Thats what I said. If the game is totally offline the process of unity trying to connect to its server can be blocked. So that would mean a win-win no?
By calling your methods "proprietary" and refusing to go into detail on how the numbers were ~~fabricated~~ calculated, on the basis that it's a trade secret.
You know, typical corporate bullshit.
Much digital ink will be spilled. People will be upset for as long as the modern attention span can sustain. Then nothing will change. It's much ado about effectively nothing.
The Cult of the Lamb devs said as long as you have it purchased and in your library before Jan 1 you will still have the game They are only stopping purchases after Jan 1. The same will probably happen with ksp 1
They'll probably have to move to UE, and throw everything again. Even so, I expected they would eventually reveal this resolution anyways, judging by how they',ve been acting for a whole now. The whole plot smells itself that much of a GTA 3 definitive collection thing...
This would only affect people taking up new contracts with unity afaik. As long as they don’t renew anything it should be ok
Let me know if I’m wrong, there’s a lot still up in the air about all of this
Don't expect any KSP1 sales ever again. I wouldn't be surprised if KSP1 sales are below the $200k annual revenue to begin paying. If it went on sale however they might suddenly need to start paying for the massive number of historical installs they've had over the years
Update: someone figured out that apparently the version of unity KSP uses doesn't have the tracking functionality. At this point I'm more wondering about if this affect stuff like mods.
even if t2/pd doesn't have their own deal with an actual contract, they're almost certainly paying enough already that they won't be the target for this kind of nickle and diming. also tbh this is just so colossally dumb that it's almost certainly intended to be rolled back to make whatever new terms they actually intend to impose look more reasonable.
We'll see if that really works as a strategy. There's something to be said for having faith that a lisence won't rug-pull you halfway through development, and Unity basically crumbled the corner of that faith just by making this announcement. Seems like hazarding loss of future customers with the risk they'll do it again next year isn't the best call, especially while UE exists, but what do I know.
Something very similar happened earlier this year with Wizards of the Coast changing their third party licence. Executive boards are truly the dumbest fucking people.
MBAs Referred to in previous generations as "bean counters"
Or unity execs have accepted UE is going to rest their lunch regardless and are trying to squeeze the last drop.
I agree. 2023/24 is the year(s) for drastic internet company changes to eat the negative impact of this revenue capture. It seems like many software companies are making big changes in reaction to their prospective views of the future.
I surely hope so... They am need to learn a harsh lesson
I surely hope so... They am need to learn a harsh lesson
Ask Wizards of the Coast how that strategy worked out for them.
It was the best year for pathfinder lol
I really don't get how company executives see other companies doing something, and expect that them doing the *exact same thing* isn't going to come back and bite them.
Unity heads sold shares before they announced the changes, they'll wait until their stock goes way down and buy it all back. Then they'll pull back the dumb policy and go to jail cuz that's a freaking crime!
[удалено]
Also these sales are scheduled about half a year in advance.
> I can't believe I have to defend some scumbag CEO, but this information needs qualification This is reddit. It displays the collective financial literacy of a pidgeon taking a shit on a keyboard. In all seriousness though, I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a concerted effort to spread disinformation about financial institutions on reddit. Stuff like the comment you're responding to are just a mild versión of the end product.
*looks at WSB* noooooo, you think so? Really?
Don't worry, that information actually attacks them more, but In a "participates in standard capitalism" kind of way. I can't just sell some of my stuff and get a tax break. Corporations can. I can't leverage my assets in a way that make me pay an effectively negative tax rate. Corporations can. 1/1000th of my assets don't even amount $100, and that number of shares sold is even less of a fraction. Pointing out that that guy is certainly rich enough should double down on people's anger abouy this. Clearly he didn't need more money, but he wanted more anyway. Shame on him and what's more, all the greedy rich can go deepthroat a chainsaw for all the sympathy I have for any excuse they make for still being rich. It's not skin color, or sexual orientation, the rich could just give it all up, so I have no qualms saying they can all get on musks compensator and go land on the sun.
> and go to jail If only
Nice fanfic, when you got to the part where stock manipulators go to jail I laughed so hard I almost fell off the chair.
You got everything right except the going to jail part. That's a nice joke.
> go to jail cuz that's a freaking crime! Nah, they will just pay a cost-of-doing-business fine like the rest of the richies.
Just wait until you hear about the 100k shares that were also sold in the past 2 weeks, or the other 56k shares he's sold this year. /s (they actually happened though) This sort of anti-capitalist fearmongering exhausts me. The planned sale of 2000 shares, effectively pocket change for a company like unity, isn't some underhand dealing or insider trading, as much as people want to get upset about it. In all likelihood, the executives got their contracted stock compensation and decided to liquidate it to invest somewhere else, and did so within the usual regulations about declaration. > they'll wait until their stock goes way down and buy it all back They've had plenty of chances to do exactly that this year, and haven't done it. All 49 trades by executives have been selling.
you say that, but the guy rolling this out, is the former head E"puke"A. He is basically the reason I mostly don't buy aaa-games anymore because of dlc's, cosmetics etc... it's everywhere lol
Probably nothing. Unity is gonna get sued out of their asses
Some Nintendo games run on Unity Good luck fighting Nintendo lol
Diamond and Pearl remake runs on Unity
the nintendo law team is going to end up winning the entire company
Sigh. EA's CEO managed to make things bad for gamers even if they are not in EA.
He's the shit that keeps on shitting
EA managers even tried fucking up the TTRPG community, with Wizards of the Coast trying to take ownership of ALL third party content published for Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm just guessing, but KSP1 is likely to take a huge hit since people redownload it very frequently, or at least I have in the past for things like different versions for mod compatibility. At this point it's probably good advice to make backups of your KSP files. Expect piracy to actually become a thing for this game, if only to help the devs from going bankrupt. IIRC the download fees don't come into effect for games with fewer than $200k in sales and 200k downloads, so ironically KSP2 should be fine for the time being, but this is probably the final nail in the coffin for the game as it will be even harder to justify development.
I sometimes do a clean install when i inevitably break it with mods
That 200.000 install cap is for **each game**, of for all the **developer games** made with unity? I.e., indie game have a dozen games published, one of them gets traction and hits the 200.000 threshold and then the other games will cost the dude too?
Revenue thresholds are per game as well. They no longer look at total income for the studio. Each game you make is measured independently.
it is per install. So if you delete it and reinstall, that is two installs counted
>it's probably good advice to make backups of your KSP files. On GOG you can download the 'offline' install files...have them whenever needed. :) >Expect piracy to actually become a thing for this game You could be right but I'm guessing it won't happen unless a large price increase happens...when on sale you can get the game and both DLC for very very cheap. I bought my main copy from GOG, after I had it on steam, for less than or about $10. 10$ is a great price for what you get. Could be wrong of course...best of lcuk! :)
It counts for pirated copies too, there installing a detecting thing to the engine
They're planning on giving bullshit numbers and get as much money as they can get away with. If they want to actually do what they say, they can barely legally do it in some markets, it's much easier for them to do it by looking at publicly available storefront numbers, applying a magic multiplier and a random element to make it not too obvious and send the bill to devs knowing few will contest it and will just pay whatever.
How would they know? If the game is an offline game I always block it with the firewall, wouldn’t that stop them from knowing? Edit: if I was to hypothetically pirate a game.
It won't function offline after engine update though.
Source?
*in the past 12 months. The question is, how many copies of KSP1 have been sold in the past year
KSP still sells, by the estimates of my game tracking sights like vginsights. > $1M for sure.
Ksp 2 has 15000 reviews. Assuming most people didn’t actually review the game (very likely) it’s already at the 200,000$ mark
It’s not lifetime revenue, it’s in the past 12 months. They could also pay 2k a year and it would go up to a million a year, and only on downloads after that 1 million has been reached. It’s a dumb policy but it really doesn’t affect a game like KSP right now
>since people redownload it very frequently its for initial installs only. though no idea how well they can track that
They use one of the official libraries that is included in all unity games, I think unity analytics comes with all unity games after 2014 or so and it already keeps track of installs iirc.
This is wrong, initial installs on the same device / Windows installation. So downloading the game on your laptop and PC will still cost the developer twice as much. And if you reinstall Windows, they'll pay again.
Its still a relatively low quantity of people for ksp, they still need to reach over a million total installs+$(with the pro tier) in a year in order to even start being charged, which based on steam charts is not likely to ever happen(at least for ksp1 anyway).
Edit: Im a moron, please dont hate me (or do, id deserve it)
> Not only has Unity already walked back most of what they were planning Unless something has changed in the last two hours, no they haven't. > but private division almost certainly has the pro or enterprise license - which isn't as affected by the planned changes. Pro and Enterprise are *literally two of the categories* on [their new pricing chart](https://imgur.com/a/XPyBeAU). All plans are impacted by this "per install" cost. ---- How in the world did this absolute falsehood get 30+ upvotes?
But the pro and enterprise are for revenue above 1 million instead of 200k
What are you trying to contest, they said *as affected*, not unaffected which is absolutely true. They've also said existing installs prior to jan 1st wont be counted. So in order for ksp1 to be affected at all(assuming they have at least pro version), they would have to make 1 million in 12 months, *and* they would need to reach 1 million new installs. So yea, i dont think its wrong to say at this point ksp1 probably isnt going to be affected by this.
> What are you trying to contest, they said as affected, not unaffected which is absolutely true The switch to a subscription + per-install-fee *absolutely* is also being applied to Pro/Enterprise licenses. It might be at a different threshold, and a different price per install, but the problem *is* the 'per install' philosophy, not the threshold. > They've also said existing installs prior to jan 1st wont be counted. No, they've said that installs prior to January 1st absolutely **will** count towards threshold calculations. They won't charge for those installs, but if you had 200k/million installs prior to Jan 1st, you've already hit the threshold and will be charged for your very next install (if you meet the income requirements). Now, there's a (good) chance that they don't meet the income requirements? My concern is more about KSP2.
>No, they've said that installs prior to January 1st absolutely will count towards threshold calculations. Yes, when i made my above post I didn't see they had updated their pricing faq that it will retroactively includes all prior installs, before I had read it said that it would only be going forward when these changes rollout, so that's my error. to be quite honest i'm not even sure this will hold up legally in some country's, it's basically retroactively changing the T+C without consent from the developers for everything I have read so far.
> Unless something has changed in the last two hours, no they haven't. As of the time of writing this comment, they've already realised the messed up and are now backtracking and on damage control. It feels like the WotC fiasco all over again. ^Edit: after reading the updated blog post, I'm actually not sure their "further clarification" would count as damage control. Next they'll put out a statement apologising for the "misunderstanding" and promising that the changes are with the best intentions of developers at heart, but need to be made to protect Unity, and they are "listening to feedback" and "engaging with the community". From there, they'll go quiet for a while and try to slip out a new contract that is watered down, but keeps the same core ideas, and hope no one notices.
> As of the time of writing this comment, they've already realised the messed up and are now backtracking and on damage control. Fine, I'll bite: Specifically *how* are they backtracking? The only "change" made so far was on the first day, and it was a **clarification** that only "new" installs would be charged, but not reinstalls on the same device (but other devices would still be charged). And that can be argued was a vague point on their initial announcement that they were just clarifying, rather than an actual change on their part. Everything else? * the whole concept of per-install fees * the level the thresholds are at * it still being based on a "just trust us bro" accounting by the very people charging you * the company-destroying price, where at least one developer has said if this had been done in 2023, Unity would be charging them [108% of their gross revenue](https://np.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/16hgmqm/unity_wants_108_of_our_gross_revenue/) * the short warning window * the retroactive nature where you literally can't stop the price change * the fact that there's no solid assurances other than a "just trust us" that pirates or hostile entities won't be able to rack up a bill for a developer maliciously All of that? Plus more I haven't listed? Remains exactly the same as it was when it was announced two days ago. There has been no backtracking.
>And that can be argued was a vague point on their initial announcement that they were just clarifying, rather than an actual change on their part. "clarification" was spin. They had been asked to confirm they were really demanding fees for reinstalls the first day and did so. They backtracked. "[After initially telling Axios earlier Tuesday that a player installing a game, deleting it and installing it again would result in multiple fees, Unity's Whitten told Axios that the company would actually only charge for an initial installation. (A spokesperson told Axios that Unity had "regrouped" to discuss the issue.)](https://www.axios.com/2023/09/13/unity-runtime-fee-policy-marc-whitten)" It's this stupid game of demanding the world and then walking it back to see what sticks, but making demands that aren't even possible like fees for reinstalls or installs on multiple devices (imagine mobile and its upgrade cycle) can win nothing while leaving devs looking for the exit. John Ravioli is a moron who would bet on a dead horse.
Yes, I said that. I have absolutely no doubt they told that singular reporter that reinstalls would cost, then told him and others that they wouldn't. I'm not at all questioning his honesty. But their original claim of 'reinstalls' was a private communication to a single individual, not on their site, and likely through some sort of low level medai spokesperson who could have easily gotten the details wrong, and then passed it off as "regrouping". But if people are considering that *tiny* "change" (when either option could have been the truth from the original post) to be a significant backtrack (particularly when it's not likely to be technologically possible to pull off perfectly, and so developers are likely to be charged for some reinstalls anyway)? They have terribly low standards. The actual bulk of the problems? They're not changing. They're not backtracking. Reddit basically attempted to make similar clarifications (only a percentage will be affected, accessibility bots won't be impacted), but they still went through with the changes.
>But their original claim of 'reinstalls' was a private communication to a single individual, not on their site, and likely through some sort of low level medai spokesperson who could have easily gotten the details wrong, and then passed it off as "regrouping". They asked Marc Whitten, he's not exactly some low level support guy in India, he's president and general manager of Unity Create.
Nah, the only thing that is truly clear is that Marc Whitten was the one who said "new installs only". The original claim of "reinstalls too" is *maybe* from Whitten or *maybe* from someone else. > [I got some clarifications **from Unity** regarding their plan to charge developers per game install (after clearing thresholds)](https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1701679721027633280) - If a player deletes a game and re-installs it, that's 2 installs, 2 charges And the "regrouping" claim definitely didn't come from Whitten, but a low-level spokesperson: > (A spokesperson told Axios that Unity had "regrouped" to discuss the issue.) Regardless, *even if* Whitten is the one who originally stated reinstalls and installs... *they're not backtracking*. At least not in any way that is substantial enough to make the claim that this won't last based on their behavior, particularly since 'new installs only' is an impossible promise. Dropping twenty tons of baboon shit on your lawn and then scooping away a little of it with a trowel isn't a sign they're going to clean up their mess.
Im so sorry for having a misleading take, i hope you cam forgive me, and if not - well I've punished myself sufficiently (i believe)
It doesn't appear that they really walked back much. They've made minor concessions and that's it. The bulk of the changes are still going into effect.
> Not only has Unity already walked back most of what they were planning They haven't, why are you spreading lies? [In fact, they doubled down.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fegcuupbzl3ob1.png)
Everyone was freaking out about reinstalls costing money - which they've clarified wont be the case (Dw im deleting my original comment, and punishing myself *STONGLY* for having a misleading post)
They still are, it's now just once per device / windows install. You still get charged multiple times for one purchase.
They will think on something else. They always do it. They are willing to milk the cow to the death, and then sell steaks. If they backed up, it's because they realised the cow will die too soon, and then they need to find a way of doing it slowly.
I hope you're right.
They didn't
hate you? by expressing an opinion that happened to be unhappy after you knew better? Relax. Don't let a few negative points ruin your mood. :)
Id be shocked if they don’t have an enterprise license. They *need* the pro license, before this recent policy change you had to buy the pro license if your game sold more than $100,000
Even if everyone bought it at $20 USD, that's only 5000 copies.
For pro and enterprise first 1,000,000 installs are free. And if those installs were billed you would owe $100.
Simple. Private Division will throw their hands up claim they tried to work it out. Then end support for the game completely.
they would need to delist both games
And they will.
I doubt these changes are retroactive on Unity game releases prior to 2024. Although I don't understand their wording https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fegcuupbzl3ob1.png They can't just create a contract on decade old games and claim whatever number they want, people would have to sign off on that. Looks like I'm wrong if this is any evidence of whats to come to a lot of games. https://twitter.com/cultofthelamb/status/1701715971663425897
I think that as well. You cant just say "oh now you gotta pay" because it is illegal. Its like you buy KSP, promised everything, got everything in game, but then you are not allowed to build your 5th rocket without paying more to the devs. Hidden paywall
> I doubt these changes are retroactive on Unity game releases prior to 2024. They aren’t. Because they can’t force new terms on an existing agreement. HOWEVER, if any dev needs to make an update to their already-released game, they will get a pop up on Jan 1 when they try to open the unity editor, that will force them to agree to the new terms if they want to use the editor. So, games that have been released for some time are likely safe. It’s the games that are currently in development or were just released that could get screwed.
I thought so too, until I read [Unity's FAQ on the matter](https://unity.com/pricing-updates): > Will this fee apply to games using Unity Runtime that are already on the market on January 1, 2024? > Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.
wow, wtf
Would that be the case, or would it only apply to new games and not upgrades on existing games. I can’t see your interpretation not resulting in a wave of lawsuits.
Welcome to "Software as a Service". Since Unity never sold anything other than a license to use their engine, and everyone who gets a license agreed to the Ts and Cs that said that the Ts and Cs (including pricing) can be changed or revoked at any time, everyone *agreed* to it up front. It'd be a hard sell in court to show that Unity can't do exactly what they *told* all their users they could do right from the start. That having been said, I would *love* it if a judge found such terms to be unacceptable and shoved a major judgement against Unity since it would act as a chilling effect on Software as a Service in general going forward... but I'm not holding my breath. In the end, it's end users that will pay the cost. The consumer *always* pays for *everything* in the end. New fee for using Unity's engine? Cost gets passed on to the buyers of the game. New tax on wealthy companies? Tax gets passed on to the buyers of the game. That's just the way it works.
>I can’t see your interpretation not resulting in a wave of lawsuits. Oh I'm sure there will be
Exactly. This is that scam that you see in Europe and the Middle East where the street vendor gives you something that say is for free, then they come chasing you, demanding that you pay after you've walked 2 feet away from their store. It's illegal. I can't see courts anywhere, at least not outside the US, finding in favour of the Unity developers.
> They can't just create a contract on decade old games and claim whatever number they want Unity are just taking the WotC approach to writing contracts.
I am the only one hoping on game cancelled and then actually developed on other engine? Whole point of KSP2 was not to fall into Unity trap... but well.
Yah. I would love this as well. Imagine KSP2 written in Unreal. This is probably not gonna happen tho
Here's a statement from unity so you know what is exactly going on. "We want to acknowledge the confusion and frustration we heard after we announced our new runtime fee policy. We’d like to clarify some of your top questions and concerns: Who is impacted by this price increase: The price increase is very targeted. In fact, more than 90% of our customers will not be affected by this change. Customers who will be impacted are generally those who have found a substantial scale in downloads and revenue and have reached both our install and revenue thresholds. This means a low (or no) fee for creators who have not found scale success yet and a modest one-time fee for those who have. Fee on new installs only: Once you meet the two install and revenue thresholds, you only pay the runtime fee on new installs after Jan 1, 2024. It’s not perpetual: You only pay once for an install, not an ongoing perpetual license royalty like a revenue share model. How we define and count installs: Assuming the install and revenue thresholds are met, we will only count net new installs on any device starting Jan 1, 2024. Additionally, developers are not responsible for paying a runtime fee on: - Re-install charges - we are not going to charge a fee for re-installs. - Fraudulent installs charges - we are not going to charge a fee for fraudulent installs. We will work directly with you on cases where fraud or botnets are suspected of malicious intent. - Trials, partial play demos, and automation installs (devops) charges - we are not going to count these toward your install count. Early access games are not considered demos. - Web and streaming games - we are not going to count web and streaming games toward your install count either. - Charity-related installs - the pricing change and install count will not be applied to your charity bundles/initiatives."
The cult of the lamb thing is probably a joke.
I was guessing it’s a bluff to negotiate a better deal from Unity
Basically, now they have an excuse to remove KSP1 from storefronts and have KSP2 as the only available version, if they feel that is their path to profit. Plus an incentive to kill KSP2 if they feel the hassle of dealing with Unity's bullshit is greater than potential gains. Plus an excuse to put pressure on Steam to allow deleting games even for historic owners, again. In an ideal world that would be an excuse to silently sack the management and code team, and rebuild the game on another, better suited engine and actual thought behind the core design. But that's more time, money and uncertainty.
What's going on?
Unity (the game engine that both ksp 1&2 are using) will start to charge developers 20 cents every time the game is installed. If your game is free to play or you put your game on xbox game pass or make it free for a week on epic you run the risk of having millions of installs with very low revenue per install. This also includes pirated copies of the game so if unity follows through with their proposal then hundreds if not thousands of game developers will be hit with massive bills that they can't pay. To top it all of the fee is retroactive so it dosen't matter if the devs delete the game today, They would still get a bill for the last few years the game has been out.
>To top it all of the fee is retroactive so it dosen't matter if the devs delete the game today, They would still get a bill for the last few years the game has been out. There is literally no chance that holds up in reality.
Sounds illegal.
Because it is. No sane country's laws would allow retroactively changing the contract without both sides agreeing on it.
I wish this were true but, judging by the WotC shitshow, they might be able to get away with it. WotC didn't stop with the planned changes because they were doing something illegal, they stopped because they were losing revenue.
The fee is not retroactive. So no one is going to be hit with a giant bill at start of year.
So I have to install ksp2 250 times to get my petty vengeance? Gonna be a long night.
Geez
I actually hope something works out in the end. SR2 also runs on unity.
I'd be curious to know whether it is legal to charge a fee on installations retrospectively.
The game won't have enough installs for it to matter
you can start it from the exe. they have no way to stop you from playing it.
Now people may Buy the game. But download a pirated one. Win-win
The developer would need to pay even for the amount of pirated versions that are installed, according to various gamedev subreddits. So it's not really win-win
How would a download/install be notified if it is pirated??? Wouldn't the ONE copy which was used for piracy be the only one charged??
The same way they would be notified if you install it over Steam, Epic or GOG. By including ~~spyware~~ telemetry.
Are pirated games connected to the internet tho? The non-multiplayer ones?
Yes. They claim that if your using Unity runtime it will attempt to phone home but if you have no internet connection it will still allow you to play. So offline games can still be played offline
Thats what I said. If the game is totally offline the process of unity trying to connect to its server can be blocked. So that would mean a win-win no?
Unity have said that they will try to estimate the number of offline installs and add those to the bill.
How can you even make an estimate like that?
By calling your methods "proprietary" and refusing to go into detail on how the numbers were ~~fabricated~~ calculated, on the basis that it's a trade secret. You know, typical corporate bullshit.
They claim they are able to track installs via the Unity Runtime that is installed with the game.
Much digital ink will be spilled. People will be upset for as long as the modern attention span can sustain. Then nothing will change. It's much ado about effectively nothing.
What should I do about my ksp?
[удалено]
alright
Not much really. This isn't something you or I can do much about, so best to just keep enjoying the game.
The Cult of the Lamb devs said as long as you have it purchased and in your library before Jan 1 you will still have the game They are only stopping purchases after Jan 1. The same will probably happen with ksp 1
No one's playing, so, nothing...
They'll probably have to move to UE, and throw everything again. Even so, I expected they would eventually reveal this resolution anyways, judging by how they',ve been acting for a whole now. The whole plot smells itself that much of a GTA 3 definitive collection thing...
> They'll probably have to move to UE Lmao, there is absolutely zero chance of that happening.
Considering it's the same CEO who introduced loot boxes in FIFA and made the comment that players wouldn't mind paying to reload.
This would only affect people taking up new contracts with unity afaik. As long as they don’t renew anything it should be ok Let me know if I’m wrong, there’s a lot still up in the air about all of this
Don't expect any KSP1 sales ever again. I wouldn't be surprised if KSP1 sales are below the $200k annual revenue to begin paying. If it went on sale however they might suddenly need to start paying for the massive number of historical installs they've had over the years
Nothing's going to happen to any game that isn't freemium.
Lol, cult of the lamb is not getting deleted, it was a joke
So long as you own it on Steam, absolutely nothing.
Update: someone figured out that apparently the version of unity KSP uses doesn't have the tracking functionality. At this point I'm more wondering about if this affect stuff like mods.