One year later, it happened! https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-cancels-controversial-fees-to-use-its-game-engine-tools-a-year-after-introduction

@JacksonWagner wow I thought it had already died forever ago. but hey, too little too late!

Unity announced some major changes today.

https://blog.unity.com/news/open-letter-on-runtime-fee

They removed it from the personal license entirely and have made some major changes to the professional licenses. It's now optional whether the license holder wants a revenue share or the install fee. It's now up to whether OP considers this a "total walkback" or not.

@JohnKossa This is a modification of the policy but not a complete reversal. There is still a fee.

Fair. They walked it back quite a bit, but the runtime fee still exists. I'm not expecting any more changes in the next 8 days, so if it's still a NO, it's basically a guaranteed NO at this point.

@JohnKossa Agreed it seems very unlikely.

@JohnKossa The per-install fee has been removed though: "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."

I guess I got newbie baited by the inconsistent/changing details, but it's play money so I'm not too upset. Could the OP give an example of Unity having a new revenue-boosting policy that resolves to Yes? Like, no install fee but some other new charge?

@DavePanfilo A rev share model like Unreal is not a runtime fee. I also object that the details meaningfully changed. Literally the description said "reverse this decision" and that has not happened.

@DavePanfilo Ask before you bet.

Sold all, since the title and description just seeem inconsistent. 'walk back' and the description are very open to interpretation.

@ThomasS What would be a non inconsistent title in your eyes? I think the spirit of this market has always been upfront from day 1.

@SneakySly "Will Unity fully reverse their new "Runtime Fee" policy by the end of September" sounds more like the description.

The description doesn't describe walking back. It describes a full reversal.

@ThomasS I was thinking those are the same, and reversal was in the original description. I'll edit the title for further clarity though thanks.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-18/unity-overhauls-controversial-price-hike-after-game-developers-revolt

This says self reported install numbers and a cap of 4% of revenue above $1 mil

Only a total reversal counts, or if they make changes most people including the Mega Crit studio are happy about would count to?

@roma Total reversal.

lol
https://twitter.com/unity/status/1703547752205218265

@SneakySly would be good to clarify in the description as you did in the comments that a simple change to the terms of the install fees is not enough to resolve this market to yes. It would have to completely get rid of install fees. But let's say they changed it to rev share, does that still count?

@HenryE Good point I will update the description!

I think the key thing is that whatever they do it has to feel like a total walkback and not just a slight downgrade / sidegrade into something PR viable. At a minimum no installation/runtime fees before we even need to think about it.

I tried my best to influence this outcome lol

@nottelling2ccc The backlash to this has gotten so extreme that I think Unity might seriously consider walking this back. Though I don’t think it would repair much trust at this point…

@nottelling2ccc yep, fuck em. I've cancelled my current project of two years

They're gonna change it to a fee per hour played in the first 2 weeks and I'm gonna bankrupt your company.

Another relevant statement (censorship mine):

@nottelling2ccc Check the market creator's profile 😛

@AngolaMaldives Yeah, I could have mentioned that the market creator is part of MegaCrit.

Where was this posted btw

@jskf Twitter: https://twitter.com/MegaCrit/status/1702077576209207611?s=20