With Unity’s recent announcement of runtime fees for developers using their engine, the gaming industry has been buzzing with concerns and questions. The controversy surrounding these fees primarily revolves around how they might impact game developers, particularly smaller indie studios. Unity’s attempt to clarify their pricing changes through an FAQ has introduced more ambiguity, particularly regarding who will bear the cost of the runtime fee. In response to mounting uncertainty and backlash, Unity published an FAQ on its official website to provide insights into the proposed pricing adjustments. While the FAQ covers various aspects, one critical question remains shrouded in vagueness. When asked, “Who is charged the Unity Runtime Fee?” Unity’s response is somewhat cryptic, stating, “The Unity Runtime Fee will be charged to the entity that distributes the runtime.” This wording raises eyebrows and suggests that digital storefront owners, including major players like Xbox, PlayStation, and Nintendo, might be responsible for covering the runtime fees associated with Unity games downloaded from their platforms.
This potential scenario poses intriguing questions about the willingness of these platform holders to absorb such costs. None of these companies have offered any official statements yet regarding whether they would agree to pay Unity’s fees on behalf of developers. Furthermore, Unity’s FAQ addresses several other concerns raised by indie developers, including the worry that the fee could apply to reinstallations, giveaways, and pirated downloads. Unity has clarified that downloads from subscription-based platforms such as Xbox Game Pass won’t count toward the runtime fee. Additionally, they won’t charge the fee for reinstalls or pirated downloads. However, in the case of piracy, the FAQ indicates that Unity would be “happy to work with any developer who has been the victim of piracy.” This suggests that developers might need to provide evidence that certain downloads were indeed pirated, potentially adding another layer of complexity and responsibility for developers.
Even on PC, there’s little ambiguity that platforms like Steam “distribute the runtime” for most if not all the Unity games they have for sale. If Unity insists on this deranged course of action — which in the long run will dramatically weaken its own footing in the industry while strengthening free and open source alternatives like Godot — it remains to be seen if platform holders in either the PC or console ecosystems would be willing to take their own measures to insulate indie devs from these fees.
Oh look, more clt of the lamb news. What are the odds? I don’t even know what this this topic has to do with it. I’m convinced mywhatevernews has to bring up that pseudo-game every once in a while, or else they will drown in their own saliva. And don’t lie to me that clt of the lamb is somehow a “”‘good””” “””game”””. It’s not a game, it’s a literal idol.
You need to go outside, my friend.
Goddamn…you really just went off on a whole rant just because an image was in the headline. So, yeah, it’s a game, and it’s a good game. I enjoyed it and would sell my soul to it again to receive the secret occult ending at the end. I didn’t even know my controller had a needle in it that would prick my thumb to sign the ancient and possessed looking paper to my door.
I was warned there might be some demons, but mostly they just drink my milk and use my internet connection to harass Christians on Twitter.
Seriously, though… You Ok man? You seem triggered.
They will probably pay but will definitely deduce from the revenue they pass to devs/publishers. We can also start seeing an increased percentage take from platform holders if your game uses Unity.
Either way in the long term most devs will move away from Unity for their new projects just because of trust issues. Game development is already risky enough without engine makers changing contracts terms mid-development or post release, no one wants that when there is better alternatives unlike in the 2000s.