Unity went crazy, what will happen to KSP2 (and KSP1)?

[marce]

Given that Unity decided they want to retroactively change TOS and charge the developer for every install, does that mean KSP2 will switch engine?
And how will you deal with KSP1, ask players nicely to stop installing it?

I'm not mocking the devs here, it hurts me myself. Really curious what the team currently thinks about this development.

[The Aziz]

They're backed by a huge company, so nothing will happen. T2 will just eat the cost. Also, given the general backlash, there's a non zero chance that Unity won't actually make it real, at least in current form.

[asmi]

51 minutes ago, marce said:

Given that Unity decided they want to retroactively change TOS and charge the developer for every install, does that mean KSP2 will switch engine?

I don't think it's legal to change conditions of a contract retroactively.

[Superfluous J]

I'm curious about the tracking stuff Unity will have to add to know you're installing and uninstalling games on which devices...

[Alexoff]

If they decide to change the engine then we'll end up with a game by 2033 at best...

[Royalswissarmyknife]

2 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

If they decide to change the engine then we'll end up with a game by 2033 at best...

2036 if we are being realistic.

Edited September 13 by Royalswissarmyknife

[GGG-GoodGuyGreg]

1 hour ago, Alexoff said:

If they decide to change the engine then we'll end up with a game by 2033 at best...

It's gonna be Duke Nukem Forever all over again.

 

On the flipside, at least it's not a lot of game content and features to carry over to a new engine...

Edited September 13 by GGG-GoodGuyGreg

[gluckez]

2 minutes ago, GGG-GoodGuyGreg said:

On the flipside, at least it's not a lot of game content and features to carry over to a new engine...

there's a lot more than you think. most features have at least a basic implementation already in the current version. and mechanics that are available in the EA are not exactly that easy to port. Coding would have to start from scratch basically.

[Periple]

It’s not realistic to switch engines this later into the project.

Also Unity is being completely unreasonable and most likely in breach of a bunch of laws. They even want Microsoft to pick up the tab for Game Pass installs, we’ll see how that goes

[DeadJohn]

2 hours ago, asmi said:

I don't think it's legal to change conditions of a contract retroactively.

Many terms of service include things like "We have the right to change terms at any time, and you agree to accept the new terms or stop using the software." I don't know enough about Unity to know whether that's applicable to what's currently happening.

[RocketRockington]

Switching engines to avoid a $.20 for KSP2 now would be like a patient in cardiac arrest try switch ambulances because they're charging a $1 gurney fee.   They've got bigger things to worry about.

KSP2 is one of the products that this Unity fee would impact least, especially with the addenda that it now only applies to one install per device. 

 First because unlike most unity games, it's got a high price, it's not f2p.  Second because it's unlikely to get to one million installs per year at its current rate.  Finally because how many people have multiple PCs with the horsepower to run it?  So the # of devices per user should be close to 1.  

 

[Alexoff]

On the other hand, changes in Unity policy are an excellent reason to announce another delay

[TROPtastic]

1 hour ago, DeadJohn said:

Many terms of service include things like "We have the right to change terms at any time, and you agree to accept the new terms or stop using the software." I don't know enough about Unity to know whether that's applicable to what's currently happening.

That's different from creating an obligation to purchase a service when none previously existed, which usually doesn't fly if it wasn't specifically outlined in the prior ToS. Ars Technica has a few legal analysis comments in their thread, like this one and this one.

I think the TL;DR is that even if Unity can make this retroactive change without being sued and defeated (unlikely), the costs won't be enough to force a project as big as KSP2 (or Cities Skylines 2 for that matter) to change engines mid-project. That is so expensive and complicated it is rarely done successfully. Both games are backed by large publishers who would rather eat the cost and then never develop a Unity game again.

Edited September 13 by TROPtastic

[The Aziz]

Yeah, the parties suffering the most from this move are small indie studios that make successful games. If this happened back in 2017 when KSP was directly under Squad, and them being an independent studio, things could get rough. Now, with T2.. eh, nothing too crazy.

[Kerbart]

6 hours ago, marce said:

Given that Unity decided they want to retroactively change TOS and charge the developer for every install, does that mean KSP2 will switch engine?
And how will you deal with KSP1, ask players nicely to stop installing it?

I'm not mocking the devs here, it hurts me myself. Really curious what the team currently thinks about this development.

So what do they want per install? $20? I mean if it's like 2 dimes it doesn't really have that much of an impact but I assume they charge a substantial amount to cause such an outrage?

 

[Spicat]

More clarification

[NoMrBond]

It seems likely this first 'spill' of the change of conditions from Unity is just a Door in the face maneuver

With eventual scaling back to changes to what tiers of Unity (standard/pro/enterprise) devs need to use by install base, and then a top max 5% level just like Unreal uses

Seems to have been very poorly handled by Unity though

[MechBFP]

This doesn’t really matter for KSP1 since it doesn’t really have much of a market left. 
 

Any charges will just be passed onto the consumer (you are kidding yourself if you think anyone is going to just eat that cost themselves). 

[The Aziz]

I can't imagine... *Checks notes* $0,20 price increase... Maybe 0,40 since stores take up to half of the revenue usually. Snd that's only for the most expensive variant. For a very successful games, 1 million sales means $200000 has to be paid for Unity, but for the player it's hardly noticeable. From $(x)9.99 to $(x+1).49.

[Periple]

One problem is that under this model games will continue to cost the studio money after they’ve been sold. It’s also super unclear how they track installs and whether they’re even able to distinguish between a first install and later ones, let alone installs from paid copies, pirated copies, or charity copies, and their response is “trust us bro.” 

On top of that, there are things like the absurdly short interval between the announcement and it coming into force, the likely illegality of waiving the fee if developers use their advertising platform, and the questionable legality of introducing a retroactively effective running cost where before there was none. Or the little matter that it will make the business models of many of their most important clients unviable (casual mobile games can get millions of installs with revenue per install in the few cents, for them Unity’s cut of the revenue could easily be 90% or more).

They will have to roll this back, if only because Microsoft will sue them to hell and back again if they don’t.

We won’t be using Unity for future projects for sure, but moving our in production ones to Godot or UE isn’t realistic.

[Vl3d]

So Unity was free to use up to this point?

[MarcAbaddon]

I do have concerns about the change, especially the practicality, but it still seems to be cheaper than using UE, so I am not sure why people want to move to that? Until now Unity had no pricing that scaled in any way with game success unlike Unreal which takes a flat 5%. For the maximum charge of 0.2$ being equal to 5% you would need to sell a lot of copies at 4$ each. 

Only real issue really is using installs instead of sales. Tracking installs seems like a way to get around certain platforms potentially underreporting sales? But there seems to be a really tight rope to walk between collecting excessive information and run afoul of GDPR or having insufficient data to be able to really confirm that the installs are valid new installations.

[Periple]

5 hours ago, Vl3d said:

So Unity was free to use up to this point?

You paid up front under one of several plans. There was no revenue-sharing model or any other costs related to the performance of the game. You could stop using it any time, keep selling the games you had made with it, and never pay them another dime.

[RayneCloud]

So, here's some additional information,

https://unity.com/runtime-fee - This is the actual policy on the Unity Website.

Here's the "Per Install" rate, you'll notice that unity personal and unity plus plans pay MORE per install but it's a flat rate that never changes, than Pro and Enterprise.  Also, as a note, this only "Kicks In" Jan 1st, and they start charging for all installs after that date.

Epic, as a note, charges a 5% Royalty Fee for everything over 1 million in revenue, per title, and sales on the epic store are excluded from this. 

Also, another note, the CEO of Unity and a few other "C Suite Execs" sold shares before this announcement, and then Unty's stock took a nose dive.

[Superluminal Gremlin]

4 minutes ago, RayneCloud said:

Also, another note, the CEO of Unity and a few other "C Suite Execs" sold shares before this announcement, and then Unty's stock took a nose dive.

That sounds like insider knowledge...

I know nothing about stocks, don't quote me on that