Unity announces new pricing structure: 0.2€ fee and the potential impact on Steam games

Place for essential videos.

Moving Unity game assets to Unreal engine


They are trying to walk it back and adjust it, but the trust has been broken. I really hope no one trusts them again after this.


Well they’ve said they’re going to walk some of this back today, or at least that they’re rethinking. Of course even if they decided to fully abolish the idea the trust is still destroyed and Unity is just about a dead engine now. No one in their right mind ought to start a new project in unity at this point.

But we’ll see what they decide to do over the next week or so. Only thing I could see that might stand half a chance at saving the company as a whole is that they walk back everything completely, issue a TOS warranty that states that they will never and can never change terms retroactively and that the entire leadership is replaced. Then they’ll have to spend a few years being VERY easy to work with and maybe if they haven’t gone bankrupt in the process they might earn back a modicum of trust.


They put this guy as CEO (former EA CEO…)

He and some other employees also sold shares prior to this announcement, not shady at all.


I was learning C# for Unity (well, and modding for Vintage Story! lol). I’m glad I didn’t start anything on the engine. I’d rather use Godot or something, than put trust in Unity after this.


Here’s my repost from the Crazy News thread:

There’s some clarification below I found on Reddit:

So this is not the full story. If you read the actual article from unity the reality is quite different.

Let’s run thru stuff:

Unity will charge IF you have over 200k installs AND 200k revenue WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.

This means if you as a developer are not making 200k over 12 months you don’t need to pay.

You would also only cross the threshold if you were selling your games for $1

  1. If you’re an indie dev selling your game for 20 bucks on steam. You would need to sell 10,000 units over 12 months to meet the financial threshold, and over 4million USD

  2. By this point you have the option to upgrade to unity pro which is a 2000 usd/yr license/company.

Under unity pro the dev is paying 15 cents per install for the first 100k installs. .075c for installs from 100k-500k and 3 cents from 500k - 1m and 2c per install for 1m+ installs.

Also the threshold for install fees only kicks in after 1million lifetime installs AND 1 million usd in the last 12 months.

Enterprise gets even cheaper.

Honestly if you look at the full plan and crunch some numbers I don’t think it’s anything to worry about. And older games that don’t break the 200k / year threshold don’t have to worry, and any devs that are ok unity pro, have to worry even less

Source: Unity plan pricing and packaging updates | Unity Blog

Edit - additional context:

Just to give some context. A developer that sold 200k usd of a 20 usd game. The number of customers would be 10k users. Each user would need to install the game 20 times before the developer gets charged.

At which point, I don’t see how as a developer yoy wouldn’t just pay the 2k unity pro license fee, rather than get stuck paying 40k for the 200k installs.

If anything this seems like a ploy to get devs to sign up to unity pro, rather than getting them to pay per downloads at the unity personal rate.

Kind of like those situations where a seller gives you crap at the basic level to get you to pay a bit more for the real product in the mid tier.

From: I am concerned that Steam (and other platforms) is about to lose a lot of games


Good guy Re-Logic


Wow, it’s one thing to put out a strongly worded letter. But actually putting a hefty bit of money where your mouth is is a whole other thing. I’m pretty sure Godot and FNA can do a lot of good things with 100k.

Very interested to see what grows out of the ashes of this forest fire.


Obviously some big brain at Unity asked an office full of people, “How do we make more money?” They couldn’t think of anything new, so they talked through the process of selling games.

“So after they buy the game, they install the game.”


Developers didn’t feel too bad at first because the TOS only applies if you update the game. So if you don’t update the game, the previous TOS is still in effect. Except that Unity changed their terms of service a long while back in preparation for the install fee.


THEN the developers got mad because they got blindsided by the obvious crooked methods.

And the push for the Unity pro license to cover the install fees is not good either. Unity created a problem and sells the solution. All those fees will be pushed onto consumers. If that’s the case, I want to charge the game a rental fee for taking up space on my hard drive so I can be as ridiculous as them.

I glad that there are competitors to Unity so that developers can quit and go to the competition.

Godot is getting big now because of the MIT license. So I hope that keeps up.


MIT? Wait, did MIT adopt them into training or something?


The MIT licence is a well-known FOSS licence that asserts copyright but imposes basically no restrictions on what you do with the code. It’s named after the place of its creation, the software using it usually has no association with MIT.


And the videos are in:



Godot 4.1.1 is available to instal through Steam platform.


Looks like they’ve now backtracked to a certain degree.

The most important part here I believe is the one where they wont force the fee on old versions of unity. So everyone’s current games are safe. Still doubt there’s going to be a lot of future games though.


Not making the fees retroactive is great news for indie devs, and also means we won’t see this going to court. I assume godot is still going to get a lot of new users.


Having pondered it for a hot minute now, I don’t really think this is particularly good news. I think this whole thing smells a lot like the “big ask” tactic, they went out with a first salvo of something absolutely outrageous and sat quietly for a week while everyone raged impotently before “generously” going back while still keeping their runtime charge structure largely intact.

Lest not lose sight that the whole idea of charging per install is still very much a part of what they’re implementing. This it is still a really abusive measure to pressure developers into using their add-delivery/monetization platform and to force them into far more costly license tiers.