Unity, a popular game development platform, found itself in hot water this week after introducing a new Runtime Fee policy. This move has sent shockwaves through the game development community, raising concerns about transparency, trust, and the company’s commitment to its users.
The Runtime Fee, set to take effect on January 1, 2024, will require Unity developers to pay a fee every time their game is installed on a new device. While this may seem like a minor cost, the controversy arises from the lack of clarity in Unity’s communication and the broad definition of “install.”
The fee structure varies, with small developers (Unity Personal subscribers) paying $0.20 per install if their games earned $200,000 in the past year and have 200,000 lifetime installs. Large developers (Unity Enterprise clients) are charged $0.01 per install if their games earned $1 million in the past year and have one million or more lifetime sales.
The ambiguity lies in how Unity defines an “install.” Initially, it included the installation and initialization of a project on an end user’s device. This raised concerns about demos and trials counting as installs. Unity later clarified that demos, trials, game bundles, and giveaways wouldn’t be counted, but early access, betas, or demos leading to full games would. Streaming services like Game Pass were also confirmed to count as installs, though the fees would be charged to distributors.
Unity claims to use proprietary data models to track installs accurately but hasn’t disclosed specifics, raising questions about how they will determine fees accurately.
The introduction of this fee has sparked a backlash, with some developers pulling Unity and IronSource ads from their titles as a form of protest. Prominent game developers, including those behind games like Among Us, Going Under, and Slay the Spire, have expressed concerns and hinted at switching to other game engines if the changes proceed.
Trust is at the core of this controversy. Game development is a long-term commitment, and developers rely on the stability and support of their chosen engine. Unity’s sudden policy change without consultation or recourse has eroded trust. Developers fear that if they accept this change, Unity may impose further unfavorable alterations in the future.
Unity’s decision appears to be driven by financial concerns, as the company has never reported a profitable quarter in its history. While Unity emphasizes the need to grow market share, this move seems to prioritize profits over its users’ trust and stability.
Additionally, Unity’s approach to AI and the possibility of cutting headcount in the future adds to developers’ uncertainty. The lack of consultation and the unilateral nature of the decision reinforce concerns about Unity’s commitment to its users.
Ultimately, Unity’s new Runtime Fee policy may make sense from a business perspective, but it has raised significant questions about trust and transparency within the game development community. Unity will need to address these concerns and rebuild trust to maintain its position as a leading game development platform.