If I get payed 40 cents every time it is opened this isn’t a problem. He can open it as many times as he wants. I’ll happily pay the 20c and keep the rest as profits. If my income is proportional to usage and my costs are proportional to usage there is no problem. I don’t see why this could not hold for games or for PDFs?
The bottom line: if somehow you’ve made a game and it is installed a lot, but you don’t make enough money off of that such that you can’t pay your suppliers then you’ve just failed at commerce.
A friend of mine failed at commerce once. She had a clothing store. In the clothing business you’ve got seasons. So typically shop owners buy a whole lot of clothes in bulk for the entire season. Her shop didn’t survive the economic down turn of 2008/2009. So she was left with huge amounts of clothes and an enormous bill to pay, which she had to default on. Unity’s business model is extremely mild compared to that industry. I also still fail to see how it is not fair.
Proportional does not mean one equates the other. It means that while one goes up, the other goes up as well. It’s not going to be some constant factor and it’ll depend on the game, but you should expect that for every license you may have a handful of installs. You simply need to account for that. If you would have to come up with a mathematical function that estimates the number of installs your game is going to have and you know the amount of users, would you use the amount of users as a coefficient in your function? If so, then that means it is proportional. If not, then please enlighten me how you would guess the number of installs without the number of users.
Now the next question is, is it fair? Why not? One business model will be the license model, but another business model could be based on usage. Perhaps long time users are buying in-game items, doing upgrades, looking at ads, are willing to shell out extra money for different devices, etc. Unity’s business model should work for all business models in such a way that they can be paid their dues. Also, the more a game is used the more demand this puts on the developer for upgrades, bug/security fixes, supporting other devices, etc. This demand will translate into demand on Unity, which makes it only fair that Unity gets payed some amount based on installs.
Ok, whatever dude. I made a whole bunch of quality arguments, refuted all of yours thus far and you’re now only just repeating that it is stupid. I am truly and honestly willing to change my mind if you can come up with a good point that I’ve not thought of, but I’m not going to spend anymore time on you make until you make an argument.
And it’s not only you. I’ve debated the lot of you. Not a single good argument thus far. Just a bunch of haters who like to name call and tell me that it is stupid or that I am stupid without actually being able to properly provide reasoning for that claim. So at the risk of being the emperor without clothes, it just seems to me that a whole bunch of gamers love hating on Unity without actually understanding why this business model is actually not unreasonable because it threatens the status quo.
If you don’t see the problem of arbitrarily having to pay more than you earn using a shady number from their ass I won’t be able to convince you.
Maybe ask yourself why you are alone thinking this is a good system and why so much people are ready to yeet their projects or businesses and take the risk of switching to a more honest engine.
It’s not just “fail at commerce”. What about those who spent the last 10 years developing their projects and fine-tuning their business model, only to get thrown on the toilet like that ?
This is not failing at commerce. Unity failed at commerce, in fact unity failed almost everything, and now it’s also a big fucking lack of respect.
And then he open it 10 times and you are fucked, and your competitor open it thousands of times and you are vastly fucked
If I get payed 40 cents every time it is opened this isn’t a problem. He can open it as many times as he wants. I’ll happily pay the 20c and keep the rest as profits. If my income is proportional to usage and my costs are proportional to usage there is no problem. I don’t see why this could not hold for games or for PDFs?
The bottom line: if somehow you’ve made a game and it is installed a lot, but you don’t make enough money off of that such that you can’t pay your suppliers then you’ve just failed at commerce.
A friend of mine failed at commerce once. She had a clothing store. In the clothing business you’ve got seasons. So typically shop owners buy a whole lot of clothes in bulk for the entire season. Her shop didn’t survive the economic down turn of 2008/2009. So she was left with huge amounts of clothes and an enormous bill to pay, which she had to default on. Unity’s business model is extremely mild compared to that industry. I also still fail to see how it is not fair.
That’s the problem : it is NOT proportional.
You are not paid everytime a user install your game. Just when he buy it.
Yes obviously
Proportional does not mean one equates the other. It means that while one goes up, the other goes up as well. It’s not going to be some constant factor and it’ll depend on the game, but you should expect that for every license you may have a handful of installs. You simply need to account for that. If you would have to come up with a mathematical function that estimates the number of installs your game is going to have and you know the amount of users, would you use the amount of users as a coefficient in your function? If so, then that means it is proportional. If not, then please enlighten me how you would guess the number of installs without the number of users.
Now the next question is, is it fair? Why not? One business model will be the license model, but another business model could be based on usage. Perhaps long time users are buying in-game items, doing upgrades, looking at ads, are willing to shell out extra money for different devices, etc. Unity’s business model should work for all business models in such a way that they can be paid their dues. Also, the more a game is used the more demand this puts on the developer for upgrades, bug/security fixes, supporting other devices, etc. This demand will translate into demand on Unity, which makes it only fair that Unity gets payed some amount based on installs.
No, sorry but it still don’t make any sense.
That’s why absolutely nobody thought about such a stupid system since the beginning of software.
It’s not like your users where using unity’s servers. They just want free money for nothing.
Ok, whatever dude. I made a whole bunch of quality arguments, refuted all of yours thus far and you’re now only just repeating that it is stupid. I am truly and honestly willing to change my mind if you can come up with a good point that I’ve not thought of, but I’m not going to spend anymore time on you make until you make an argument.
And it’s not only you. I’ve debated the lot of you. Not a single good argument thus far. Just a bunch of haters who like to name call and tell me that it is stupid or that I am stupid without actually being able to properly provide reasoning for that claim. So at the risk of being the emperor without clothes, it just seems to me that a whole bunch of gamers love hating on Unity without actually understanding why this business model is actually not unreasonable because it threatens the status quo.
If you don’t see the problem of arbitrarily having to pay more than you earn using a shady number from their ass I won’t be able to convince you.
Maybe ask yourself why you are alone thinking this is a good system and why so much people are ready to yeet their projects or businesses and take the risk of switching to a more honest engine.
It’s not just “fail at commerce”. What about those who spent the last 10 years developing their projects and fine-tuning their business model, only to get thrown on the toilet like that ?
This is not failing at commerce. Unity failed at commerce, in fact unity failed almost everything, and now it’s also a big fucking lack of respect.
Again no argument.