[EdwardDiego]

> Cult of the Lamb developer Massive Monster, which has produced one of the biggest roguelike hits in recent memory, writes: "The demo we made for Steam Next Fest had over a million downloads - which would have put us over the install threshold before our game even launched

I paid $25 USD for this game based on videos alone, no demo was available on Steam prior to doing so. I'm guessing that Next Fest demo was a limited time thing?

Is that 20c for Unity from my $25 install really going to break them?

And according to Unity...

> Will installs of a demo, or a game in open access or beta, count toward the Unity Runtime Fee?

> If a user can access a full game (e.g. via an in-game upgrade or purchase), then installs count toward the fee. If a user can't access the full game (e.g. only one level is offered) then that demo would be considered a separate package and not count toward the fee. Early access games are not considered demos. In addition, we don’t intend to capture or count installs for QA testing.

I've not encountered a demo on Steam you can purchase the full game within.

[RugnirViking]

It just makes no sense though? like if you install the game on your laptop and your desktop, suddenly it costs the developer 40c even though you still only payed $25. Maybe you mess up the configuration while modding their game, and had to reinstall. Another 20c. It hangs over the developer's head like a sword of damocles long after you paid your money. It has literally infinate potential costs, and will keep ticking away costing them money long after they stopped bringing in much from the game.

Surely in all respects a percentage fee from all sales does the same job but with much less BS random edge cases, and can never be a net negative for the developer

[HelloNurse]

The typical scenario is a demo/shareware/free to play game: 1000 installs cost $200 in install fees, up front, and therefore require an amazing conversion rate and/or an amazing income per paying user to break even.

[EdwardDiego]

Yep, that's a fair point.

[nullandvoid]

As an anecdote there are games I have easily re-installed 20-30+ times as I quit for a time, change machine etc.

[Akronymus]

For KSP1 alone I made about 30 installs due to modding alone. Different versions and different modsets.

[GaelFG]

A bit ranting : Working with unity for some years, I think the problem is not specifically the fee in itself, it's the context.

It need polishing, there are edge case and abuse potential to work but if I were to consider the new Unity offer without prior background "why not".

The real main problem with this announce it that it confirm that Unity management have a hard time on monetizing their product (you can see it in their services) and don't care about backstabbing you and will use it's leverage. The problem is not about if 20 cents per install after the 200k one is fair. The problem is that Unity say 'hey you know about the game you made some years ago with our engine ? Now you must either kill it or pay us a new tax AND that tax will be based on an arbitrary known by us only secret proprietary data but trust us we know what is good.

And, and that's finally the main problem, they are bad with stability and keeping up promises. I, and probably a lot of other dev would give up for any new features for like 2-4 years if they just MAKE WORKING THE ONES EXISTING.

And I'm not even talking about engine features. I'm just talking about service like VCS ou Cloud Build or Remote configuration or multiplayer hosting or adressable assets (ok this one is probably more an engine problem).

Is paying 20 cents per install for indy studio a huge bankrupting event ? Probably not, but what is the next step now we know their strategy for making more money from engine is firing developpers, upping prices and making fusion with shady ad networks known for spyware controversies ?

[JohnFen]

> Is paying 20 cents per install for indy studio a huge bankrupting event ?

I know that I frequently uninstall and reinstall games that I've purchased, so I'd be costing the game dev much more than 20 cents.

[distract8901]

The problem is that the "installs" that unity is counting is totally decoupled from you paying for the game.

A pretty common scenario is purchasing a game once and installing it on many different machines. If I install a game on my steam deck, laptop, and desktop, that counts as three "installs" and unity charges the developer more money.

If I play a game for a while, uninstall it, but come back some time later to play again, guess what, that's a new install and unity charges the developer more money.

You paid the developer $25 for your copy of the game, but there is seemingly no limit for how much Unity is going to charge the developer for your copy of the game. They charge you every time you install it, on every device, every time.

There's already developers out there complaining that unity would take more than 100% of their revenue with this scheme

[LocalH]

Unless they’ve walked it back, they even seem to be claiming that pirated installs will count. How is that even legal? It’s certainly not moral.

[distract8901]

Either unity will walk everything back or we'll see some interesting lawsuits against them soon.

I really don't think their terms can actually stand

[jncfhnb]

You acknowledge that they said millions of free demo downloads were the problem, state that you were not part of this, and then ask if you were really part of the problem.

No. You were not.