安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
i take an example rimworld cost $30 dollar (ignore taxes..) and they are using unity pro to make games (20 cent per install). in order for them to go negative, you need to install rimworld 150 times on different devices.
...but apparently people are not happy they got their successful $10 game deducted by 20 cents so wcyd ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ these people are just having sky high expectations thoughts with pessimist trait, unable to see good things.
You are part of the problem.
Anyway, why create a data model? Why not just charge per purchase? Most people aren't going to install a game more than once, so either they overcharge for 90% of projects, or they find some fancy way to track users data. Either way, they suck and so do the apologists.
It's fairly easy for an application to detect it's running on a virtual machine, many games with base level DRM will detect that and refuse to work. Unity likely simply wouldn't track any data from installs on VMs.
On top of that, a VM wouldn't hide everything, and the AI detecting patterns would probably pick up on shenanigans like that. Like if they got 1000 installs in a fairly short period of time and they all had one piece of data that was identical that would be fairly obvious.
Lastly, it would take time and resources to setup, and time to run. Lets imagine a game takes 10 minutes to install and then reset the VM to a new random configuration. That's 6 installs per hour, 144 per day, 4320 per month. For a small indie game on Unity Free that would be $864, for a bigger game on pro it could be as low as $86. Who is going to put that much effort into this in an effort to take a small amount of money out of a dev's pocket? It would probably cost more to run the systems 24/7, not to mention the storage wear deleting and rewritting all that data. That's not even factoring in that this data is going into the data model to be averaged and not just being immediately tallied and subtracted from the developer, so that 4320 is just nudging a needle on a nebulous meter only Unity has access to, rather than doing anything direct.
So I don't think it's possible, and if it was possible I think Unity would notice, and I don't think it would be worthwhile for anyone to even attempt to begin with.
Who is defending what? Unity is raising prices, again. It sucks. It's not abnormal. This method means most very small devs aren't going to be affected at all, and only the companies making a decent amount of income will have to pay up. For people complaining about big corporations trying to get more money, you'd think more people would be happy that it's the big corporations taking from other big corporations here rather than preying on the little fish with more core package hikes that mean nothing to larger studios.
Some games are free to play. Some games can be resold or transferred. Some games have different clients with different distribution methods on different platforms. Effectively it is "one charge per purchase" they are just wording it as "one install per device" because that covers all the bases.
Small devs on mobile apps are also affected, like a lot. Mobile apps tend to have high downloads and lower revenue due to being fueled mostly by ads and/or microtransactions. This means that those devs would actually lose money per install instead of gaining it from releasing a game.
I remember seeing a post 2 days ago where someone did the math and out of $1 million of revenue he would only get $100k fro the entire year to pay the bills, the employees, and rent. It's simply impossible.
Furthermore, anticheat systems can't even detect when someone is running a HWID spoofer to avoid a ban, so if that's the case then how would Unity be able to even do it? Pirated installs will count towards the fee, as well as a script designed to reinstall the game and run a free HWID spoofer everytime the reinstall process is complete. This would cost a developer thousands of dollars per day if the script was ran 24/7 on multiple installs.
I see the opposite happening here really. Unity has basically given Unity Plus away for free now, on top of adding a bunch of new features, and on top of adding a buffer between tiers meaning new devs with unexpected success don't need to immediately upgrade to pro. This is going to be very enticing for new developers to pick Unity as their engine of choice.
A dev earning $1 million in annual revenue would pay 0 install fees to Unity. So that math instantly falls apart. To lose $900k while on unity pro after earning more than $1 million per year, would require installs on 45 million new devices in that time. If they aren't generating any income from those 45 million new installs they are doing something wrong. Google play conveniently lists number of downloads, very few hit 1 million. Big ones in the genres I play are like Arknights at 5 million, Azur Lane also at 5 million, Nikke at 5 million, these are some of the top earning RPGs on mobile and Nikke for example is in the ~$200 million revenue ballpark. Obviously google only tracks downloads on google, and the games are also out on like apple, but once a game is hitting millions of downloads it's typically doing very well for itself and the "unity tax" isn't really going to affect it much.
I already covered how they handle the numbers for the fee. It's not tracking individual installs, devs aren't paying for pirates, they are looking at general metrics and coming up with an estimate. Piracy rates would factor into those metrics, they don't even need to detect if they are pirated versions or not. They would just say our metrics show X% of games like this would be pirated so we are removing that % from the estimate.
Metrics aren't accurate. Many people also have a grudge with this, me included, even if I don't use unity on a day-to-day basis.
It would be much better if the fee was added for sales rather than installs. Much more accurate, much less abusable.
Any EU/DE Developer can, if needed, go to court and filling a lawsuit against Unity ... and WILL 100% win :).
PS: BUT as soon as Unity get's in contact with you, you MUST fill an objection to not agree with any change. And best not via e-mail or phone but old school registered mail (Einschreiben).
It's in the top link in this thread and I posted the quote on a previous page, but here it is again:
Number of installs is an estimate, which means they aren't tracking every individual install, which means number of pirated installs is a factor in their model and not an exact count of every pirate installing the game. Widescale piracy on a game could shift their model for that game in a way that might seem unfair to the dev and they state they are willing to work with them to make sure everything is accurate.
Remember a lot of games don't get "installed". Unity also does not have an installer. Nor do they have anything to do with that process at all. I don't know why they chose this term but they did. (Phone bias?) The FAQ edits they did only reinforce the fact they're using their analytics data when it's run to do this. Like the change that they won't track "reinstalls"... because they can't. Unless whatever identifier they use for that particular device changes, suddenly it's a new install again. Note: They do not define what a device is.
Which is also going to make it very easy to abuse. It will also make it very hard for Unity to tell what is and isn't abuse, short of sales data not converging. Guess what doesn't really exist for a F2P game or one that can just be downloaded freely...? Yeah. I'm sure developers will love trying to reconcile these problems with Unity while being at a disadvantage.
These demo, testing, and charity exemptions just sound like headaches waiting to happen for the developer. The Runtime doesn't know what content it's running unless the developer has the ability to say this is a demo. There's no such thing as a charity version of a game. Testing is just a mess to define, how many unique machines will that be?
Every exception they add to this process just adds to the questionable nature of this entire idea. They can have fun trying to bill subscription distributors for this nonsense. Expect every subscription service to go up in cost because they probably won't oppose it.
If it wasn't obvious these kind of systems put a floor on the cost of a game and/or push more undesirable monetization practices. This will influence cost across the entire pipeline down to the customer who will be footing this bill.