• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Oct 26, 2017
3,975
There's probably tons of games that have a variety of inefficient code just due to lack of developer experience. It's not necessarily visible to the user in anything but "this game eats more CPU" and we tend to have ample amounts of that.

Also worth remembering that Unity was "guilty" of this too in the past. The garbage collection would cause huge frame spikes. This wasn't something they were up-front about and programmers had to work around it. If they weren't aware, it would cause huge issues later on down the line when trying to run the games on anything less powerful than a PC.

You're right though, once things get a spotlight shone on them they often get fixed.
 

03-AALIYAH

Member
Jul 21, 2023
576
Interesting to learn that Unity devs use raycast function to detect collision. I imagine it would be much less of a problem with proper spatial partitioning ? But it would mean more work for the devs.
 

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,823
Interesting to learn that Unity devs use raycast function to detect collision. I imagine it would be much less of a problem with proper spatial partitioning ? But it would mean more work for the devs.

I'm not sure how Godot is handling raycasts under the hood vs Unity and if this is relevant to the performance difference, but I'd guess both would or should use spatial partitioning, and most would expect the engine to handle that. The dev could do it themselves if that was the bottleneck but yeah, more work. It may be though that it already is using decent spatial partitioning and the bottleneck is somewhere else.

Anyway on the general point about Godot's 'maturity' that's been talked about, Unity has had a ton invested into it, of course there'll be areas where Godot needs to improve or 'catch up'. But there's a better-than-ever chance now that Godot will be able to scale up development and optimization, via donations and more community feedback and involvement, patch submissions etc.

Of course Unreal is always a great option too, but for me at the moment, I think I'd like a lighter weight editor... I'm still plodding along on an old laptop, I can't do anything in Unreal unless I spin up and work off a cloud server. I think I am, sadly, done with Unity, even as a tinkerer.
 

Hrist

Member
Jun 30, 2023
275
Interesting to learn that Unity devs use raycast function to detect collision. I imagine it would be much less of a problem with proper spatial partitioning ? But it would mean more work for the devs.

It's been the norm in pretty much any unity tutorial. The best character controllers typically use them too, and when Unity started its ECS approach, they used raycasts in all their physics/character controller demos too. I'd imagine that a spatial partitioning approach works if your game elements are very uniform, but if you have a lot of jagged surfaces or objects rotated in angles other than 90 degrees it's probably less complex to start with raycasts.
 
Oct 29, 2017
2,617
blog.unity.com

An open letter to our community | Unity Blog

An open letter from Marc Whitten to the Unity community in September 2023.

LTS 2024 onwards - the important bit
In short:
Does not apply to Unity Personal (the free tier)
Increasing revenue cap to $200k instead of $100k for need to switch to Unity Pro
Unity Personal will be able to turn off the splash screen
Only applies to Unity Pro, on $1M trailing 12-month revenue
Installation fee still a factor, but can be changed to a 2.5% revenue share, and is self reported
Fee only applies to the upcoming LTS 2024 version, does not retroactively apply.
 

Elementje

Member
Dec 26, 2017
180
The Runtime Fee policy will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity shipping in 2024 and beyond. Your games that are currently shipped and the projects you are currently working on will not be included – unless you choose to upgrade them to this new version of Unity.
Such a nice way to bring back trust in your product...
 

Polynaut

Member
Oct 27, 2017
697
They made the right move with this update but dang, did they erode a lot of trust in their product in this process. What a blunder.
 

Fudgepuppy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,272
"For games that are subject to the runtime fee, we are giving you a choice of either a 2.5% revenue share or the calculated amount based on the number of new people engaging with your game each month. Both of these numbers are self-reported from data you already have available. You will always be billed the lesser amount.

Them asking developers to report the numbers themselves feels fishy. If I were a developer and I saw that, I would just be thinking "this just means they can claim we're not reporting the right numbers and demand random amounts of money based on their made-up estimates"
 

klauskorp

Member
Oct 27, 2017
603
Minnesota
I mean, this is a better version of what they were trying to do before, but good grief, why did they put so little thought into their first version of it? That TOS stuff they tried to pull is some of scummiest nonsense I've seen, and if I was a game developer, I don't know that I'd ever trust them to not pull something like that again. I really would like to hear their honest explanation for that.
 

Dineren

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
3,494
That all seems reasonable, it's too bad they've already broken the trust of their community with their earlier madness.

I guess time will tell how much their earlier actions end up costing them.
 

HelloMeow

Member
Oct 25, 2017
467
For games that are subject to the runtime fee, we are giving you a choice of either a 2.5% revenue share or the calculated amount based on the number of new people engaging with your game each month.

Why make it needlessly complicated? Just do the rev share and be done with it. It just smells like they want the option to easily switch to installs again in the future.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,282
Them asking developers to report the numbers themselves feels fishy. If I were a developer and I saw that, I would just be thinking "this just means they can claim we're not reporting the right numbers and demand random amounts of money based on their made-up estimates"

Unless the revenue share is less than the reported number amount. The FAQ even says the units sold is acceptable to use.
 

DNAbro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,033
In short:
Does not apply to Unity Personal (the free tier)
Increasing revenue cap to $200k instead of $100k for need to switch to Unity Pro
Unity Personal will be able to turn off the splash screen
Only applies to Unity Pro, on $1M trailing 12-month revenue
Installation fee still a factor, but can be changed to a 2.5% revenue share, and is self reported
Fee only applies to the upcoming LTS 2024 version, does not retroactively apply.
It's better but man, it still feels like "why should I trust you". The Personal changes are purely there as a sorry to the community. I wonder how the big companies are going to respond or if they are just going g to eat it until they can switch off.
 
Oct 29, 2017
2,617
It's better but man, it still feels like "why should I trust you". The Personal changes are purely there as a sorry to the community. I wonder how the big companies are going to respond or if they are just going g to eat it until they can switch off.
Yep. Consistently putting out contradictory info, and referring to outcry as "confusion", sitting on it for 10 days, rolling 2/3rds of it back after outcry…
The trust is gone. Unless they clear house on the executive level I think the damage is done.
 

Bladelaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,754
No word on why they killed the TOS github and no real olive branch to attempt rebuilding trust (self-report is something but not much).
 

SpaceKangaroo

Member
Oct 28, 2017
331
Shocking how different it is.

This has all set a lot of things in motion in a positive way I guess (open source efforts) and no existing projects getting screwed. Gives all devs time to think now during project development of where to end up and start efforts to inspect other options without a rush.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,282
Yep. Consistently putting out contradictory info, and referring to outcry as "confusion", sitting on it for 10 days, rolling 2/3rds of it back after outcry…
The trust is gone. Unless they clear house on the executive level I think the damage is done.

While the trust is gone, I wonder if this will still make devs switch en masse. They'll likely finish any games in development but switching to a completely different engine, especially if they have been working in it for a while, means they will lose tons of documentation and knowledge. I don't know if devs will want to lose all of that.
 

vixolus

Prophet of Truth
Member
Sep 22, 2020
55,992
All of those seem like positive improvements. An absolute shame they had to burn so many bridges to get there. It should have been this way from the start, even if it's not perfect. And it isn't just a situation of announcing something terrible and walking it back partially, there are good changes like to Unity Personal and the 2.5% revenue share alternative that weren't in the initial plan at all.
 

RedHeat

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,727
The bones of the old deal are still there and indie devs still should look to other engines, especially if you make one of those supe-successful games
 

Android Sophia

The Absolute Sword
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
6,154
The one-two combo of it only applying to the LTS 2024 version onward, and offering the choice (for now) of revenue share or the self-reported engagement sounds like a glorified trojan horse. A way for them to save face now... so they can apply their original idea or some variation of it down the line.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,651
All of those seem like positive improvements. An absolute shame they had to burn so many bridges to get there. It should have been this way from the start, even if it's not perfect. And it isn't just a situation of announcing something terrible and walking it back partially, there are good changes like to Unity Personal and the 2.5% revenue share alternative that weren't in the initial plan at all.
Now just imagine if it was announced this way from the start
 

Roubjon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,307
I'm still switching to Unreal and leaving Unity behind. It sucks but the trust is gone and I'd like to be able to update the software some time down the line. And not be trapped forever on an old build.
 

Doskoi Panda

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,094
Runtime fees remaining in at all is still incredibly fucked. These concessions are designed specifically to help keep current Unity devs from being too vocal about what remains a deeply asinine concept.

Unity is still fucked.
 
Sep 22, 2019
335
seems fine, philosophically godot should be the future but practically I'm sure a lot will remain on unity because of time invested

i like how they threw in the splash screen removal as a apology
 

Bryant21

Member
Dec 3, 2018
41
Them asking developers to report the numbers themselves feels fishy. If I were a developer and I saw that, I would just be thinking "this just means they can claim we're not reporting the right numbers and demand random amounts of money based on their made-up estimates"

This is standard practice. They have the legal right to audit your books. So they use your own books to show you didnt give 2.5% in court. Its not made up numbers.

2.5% Revenue share should have been the annoucement from the start. Devs would grumble but it wouldn't have sparked the outrage.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,621
yeah I'd rather just the 2.5% share, which compared to Unreal even is pretty good

Remember that Unreal Engine has no up-front costs, while Unity still requires monthly €170 per-seat licenses for most professional studios. And I don't think it gets mentioned enough how onerous these perpetual up-front costs can be in terms of cashflow for indie studios. If it was more of a shift to post-release revenue, I think people would be more understanding, but Unity (obviously) still want what they're currently getting as well as a cut of the revenue too.
 

Shadout

Shinra Employee
Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,829
I know nothing about this topic... but it seems like pure stubbornness, and a bad PR decision, to keep in the installation fee, instead of just switching entirely to the 2.5% fee?
 
Aug 31, 2019
2,687
On first read this policy seems very good, and I'm not using unity and so cannot speak for those that do, especially considering moving engines is a mammoth task, but... I mean I still don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
 

The_R3medy

Member
Jan 22, 2018
2,869
Wisconsin
So Unity has still shot themselves in the foot long term despite these changes. No dev can trust them beyond current projects that are too far into development to change.
 

wwm0nkey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,651
Remember that Unreal Engine has no up-front costs, while Unity still requires monthly €170 per-seat licenses for most professional studios. And I don't think it gets mentioned enough how onerous these perpetual up-front costs can be in terms of cashflow for indie studios. If it was more of a shift to post-release revenue, I think people would be more understanding, but Unity (obviously) still want what they're currently getting as well as a cut of the revenue too.
This is very true
 

Lowblood

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,277
The one-two combo of it only applying to the LTS 2024 version onward, and offering the choice (for now) of revenue share or the self-reported engagement sounds like a glorified trojan horse. A way for them to save face now... so they can apply their original idea or some variation of it down the line.

That's 100% what it is, but at least nobody's trapped by their current projects. They can release them and decide afterwards what to do.

I suspect we'll see people embrace new engines moving forward, or try and stick to the pre-2024 Unity as long as it's viable. There's clearly someone at Unity so in love with the runtime fee that they wouldn't drop it.

This is a decent response, but not one that will stop the inevitable.
 

LiK

Member
Oct 25, 2017
32,175
I'm still switching to Unreal and leaving Unity behind. It sucks but the trust is gone and I'd like to be able to update the software some time down the line. And not be trapped forever on an old build.

Yep, a few indie devs I know said once they're done with current projects, they're swapping to a different engine. Not worth.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,282
Remember that Unreal Engine has no up-front costs, while Unity still requires monthly €170 per-seat licenses for most professional studios. And I don't think it gets mentioned enough how onerous these perpetual up-front costs can be in terms of cashflow for indie studios. If it was more of a shift to post-release revenue, I think people would be more understanding, but Unity (obviously) still want what they're currently getting as well as a cut of the revenue too.

I don't see how Unity, as a company, can do that as they are losing tons of cash.
 

akaxiri

Member
Oct 31, 2017
132
well this at least makes some sense, but i don't know why they still insist on the installs like that feels just a personal reason
 

Frobert

Member
Oct 28, 2017
193
Being able to remove the splash screen on Unity personal is cool but having to upgrade to 2024 (and consequently accept the new terms) is not so cool.

Regardless, the trust is gone. My current Unity project will be my last.