| This comment is...kind of all over the place. > And while they pissed away money in the past on useless acquisitions that I wish they hadn't, but they've made significant enough technological progress in the last few years to justify raising more money. Being a profitable billion dollar company seems like the wrong starting point for pissing off users and figuring out monetization, no? > I think people forget before Epic's hit games (which include a $26 Billion golden goose...) Unreal Engine was downright unaffordable for mere indies trying to do anything commercial. But...that's not the world we're in now. Unreal Engine is cheaper and Unity has been, thus far, similarly cheap. > I can forgive the casual observer for not getting all this, but at the end of the day if your business is making games, this is the perspective you probably have. This statement is verifiably untrue. Also personally untrue. |
Unity's latest quarter had them at about... -$200 million in profit.
They had one (!) profitable quarter in eighteen years of existing.
Now... I'm going to guess you Googled "Unity profit" and a headline from that one quarter... but I mean, did the price action not prompt you to at least spot check?
"Unreal Engine has been cheaper"
And it's been more expensive. My comment covers why it got cheaper and why Unity can't rely on the same playbook.
"This statement is verifiably untrue. Also personally untrue"
That's... a combination of words!
_
Overall I think you need to put down the pitchfork and try reading what I wrote slowly.
It's not "all over the place" but it might be a little too methodical for some readers...
Unity provides a valuable service very cheaply, and the ship is going down for it. They should raise prices, but they should have done it in a way that doesn't turn them into a future case study in poor messaging.