[teamonkey]

I'm not defending Unity, I'm just not defending Valve/Steam (also App Store, Play), which is a much, much bigger drain on revenue.

The Unity pricing structure is complicated and badly managed. The fees were previously uncapped, and it allows for edge cases where the fees look like they could exceed revenue. It causes problems for givaways, bundles and Gamepass deals.

Still, for many situations the math works out so Unity is cheaper than Unreal, even before this 4% rumour. You wouldn't want to accidentally hit one of those edge cases though.

[OkayPhysicist]

The baffling thing is that the new monetization scheme seems especially designed to destroy the freemium/mobile market, which is exactly the market they've been so actively courting the last few years.

If you told me that Unity was going to try and monetize through some strange approach, I would have guessed that the scheme would have favored the freemium approach, not turned it into an extremely risky gamble.

[purpleflame1257]

They were going to waive the fee for anyone switching to Ironsource from applovin. They just got too much backlash.

[daemin]

I think it's easier for people to rationalise a simple cut of each sale rather than a fee for each "unique" installation. In the first case you can calculate that percentage easily in a spreadsheet and account for it in your business. In the second case it's totally unknown how to budget for. Should you assume 1, 2, 5 installs per purchase? How much of your revenue does that account for?

People would rather have a higher fee that is certain than a lower but uncertain fee (of course no fee would be best).

[teamonkey]

It's difficult but you can certainly budget for some truly ridiculous scenarios.

e.g. what happens if you get 20 MILLION installs in a single month?

Answer: You pay $400k with a Pro licence, $200k for Enterprise. Which sucks if you are only bringing in 400k/yr revenue, but with 20M installs this is what you call 'a good problem to have.'