Has Unity Recovered from the Damage of Its Runtime Fee Plans?

Last week, Unity unveiled its revised plans for the contentious Runtime Fee, which initially aimed to charge developers for each game installation beyond certain thresholds. The updated plan eliminates the fee for Unity Personal users, while Unity Pro and Enterprise developers can opt out of the charge by sharing 2.5% of their self-reported revenue. Unity also modified its Personal plan, removing the requirement for the Made With Unity splash screen and increasing the revenue cap from $100,000 to $200,000 per year. Although this seems to address some concerns, Will Lewis of Rose City Games believes the updated plans only offer short-term relief. The revised plans indirectly address developers' primary concerns surrounding trust, which is crucial for the sustainability and viability of game studios using the tool. Lewis notes that Unity's initial plan demonstrated a lack of understanding of the games industry, and the company's decision to backtrack without making a real commitment to change makes it challenging for developers to trust Unity as a business partner. Many studios, including Rose City Games, spoke out against the decision, with some considering a move to another engine. Despite the changes, Unity's current plan still creates additional work for developers, such as self-reporting figures and integration work. Programmer Zoë Hamilton observes that the revised plan allows for a revenue share option, which eliminates the potential for a game to become financially ruinous for developers. However, she notes that the Runtime Fee was not the only issue with Unity's original announcement, and the revised plans are still more complicated than necessary. Hamilton wonders how many developers will report game revenue numbers instead of engagement numbers or both. Martijn van der Meulen of Snap Finger Click describes the situation as an example of "anchoring bias," where Unity offers an unrealistic deal and then responds to customer outrage with a similarly controversial but more tolerable deal. The ethics of such sales techniques are debatable, and van der Meulen believes Unity has not done enough to reassure developers that they will not change the rules again in the future. Rob Hewson of Huey Games notes that most concerns for PC and console-focused developers have been addressed, but it is unclear how mobile developers will fare. He also points out that the changes may push the industry towards microtransactions within games. Before the dust has settled, Unity has become embroiled in another controversy over the removal of its Terms of Service from the engine's GitHub repository. Hamilton notes that this is reminiscent of a 2018 incident where Unity changed its terms of service, suggesting that developers using Improbable's SpatialOS were violating the engine's license terms. Unity later committed to tying TOS changes to specific versions of the editor runtime, but the Runtime Fee controversy has highlighted that these terms were removed in April 2023. Developers are skeptical of Unity's claim that the terms were removed due to low views. Lewis adds that removing the Terms of Service is unacceptable and that the trust between Unity and its community is gone forever. Hewson cites the phrase "trust takes years to build, seconds to break, and forever to repair," and suggests that Unity needs to invest in tools, services, and initiatives that show developers they are valued and appreciated. Van der Meulen notes that the chain of trust between Unity and its community has been broken, and no plans have been announced to restore it. Developers have lingering concerns about the future, including whether Unity might change the conditions of using its engine again and the potential impact on funding. Hamilton asks whether publishers, crowdfunding, and other funding sources will see games made with Unity as too much of a risk in the long term. The studios express sympathy for Unity's staff, who do not deserve harassment or anger. Van der Meulen notes that six Unity employees have approached his studio about career opportunities, despite the developer not having any job openings. Hamilton decries the senior management's handling of the announcement and backlash, as well as the "PR disaster" of calling Unity developers "confused" about the Runtime Fee. Lewis adds that Unity needs to reconnect with its community and make core changes, including a change in leadership and real commitments to change with advanced notice. The incident may have a long-term impact on the engine providers, and developers are still unsure about what the future holds. Hamilton suggests that Unity has bought itself some time, but changing engines is never easy and takes significant time. The updated plan may prevent many developers from switching engines mid-development, but the aftermath will only become visible over the next one to two years. Hewson agrees that the jury is still out on whether developers will shift to other engines, and notes that Unity's troubles and ongoing struggle for profitability have not been resolved. Unity needs to move towards a profitable and sustainable future, and perhaps can do so while giving up some of its market share. The industry needs Unity to get its act together, and a healthy debate about monopolies and competition in the engines market is necessary. For now, developers need Unity, and Unity needs developers.