Unity: We have to charge for every install because we only see totals. Also Unity: We can tell which install is which, so you won’t be overcharged.
Unity: We have to charge for every install because we only see totals. Also Unity: We can tell which install is which, so you won’t be overcharged.
Ok so if they are now only charging for the first install, why aren’t they just charging an extra fee per sale? Wouldn’t that accomplish effectively the same thing? (And actually work out in unity favour since not everyone who buys a game downloads it)
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
That’s probably pretty negligible numbers. In fact I’d suspect that the number of people who buy a single copy that they then install on multiple devices is lower than the number of people who buy a game and never play it.
It’s also much simpler to implement and the numbers are verifiable. Unless… that’s exactly what Unity wants; just “trust me bro this is the correct number” kind of deal.
People eventually upgrade their computers. Swapping out mainboards and/or reinstalling Windows probably counts as a new device.
Also Steam Deck - every install and uninstall is considered a new computer. That’s true for Linux gaming using Proton in general, but the rest of Linux gaming is not as relevant.
Right, but how many people keep games for that long? How often do they reinstall? It’s tiny numbers. Even if it’s 1 in 100 installs that’s a tiny extra cost compared to the rest. In reality it will probably be much lower, and - again - most games have at least about 30% unplayed ratio.
I don’t think so. Even casual players reinstall their favorite games on everything they can manage. Think of Stardew Valley.
Favorite, long lasting games will definitely suffer more from this. But it should still be a tiny issue.
Because they realize that a huge number of their customers are small indies, and they want to be able to squeeze them - the majority of their customer base - not just the minority of big companies (who are also the most likely to fight back legally).
Just look at how their scheme squeezes smaller, poorer developers way more than big ones. If Unity went by points like, say Epic does with Unreal, they could shake down the big developers… but wouldn’t get much out of the indies.
Which is the opposite of what smart companies like Adobe do. You facilitate the small players in hope that they grow big and keep using your products at a larger scale.
It work for paid games, youd have to apply it to microtransaction level if by f2p game, which is the real target for the change.
They’re offering to reduce/wave the fee if you’re using other Unity services. Given this change has the biggest impact on freemium games that rely on free downloads to get a large install bases and which rely on the kind of services that Unity will give you a discount for using, well, it’s not hard to connect the dots. Especially when you remember Unity merged with a ad company recently.
Other than that it might be a way to take a bite out of services like Game Pass or Geforce Now. The deals devlopers get for theses are potentially very low revenue per “install” so it’s possible this would make them more money than taking a percentage of the revenue.