/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

Unity apologizes and says games made with Unity Personal will be exempt from its Runtime Fee, which will only apply to games made with Unity versions from 2024

Unity's updated Runtime Fee will no longer apply to games made on Unity Personal, and will only apply beginning with the next LTS version of Unity.

Game Developer Bryant Francis

Context & Ripple Effects

Unity's installation-based charge, announced to begin in 2024, tied costs to both installs and plan tier, prompting a rapid backlash and internal discussion of a possible revenue cap. This revision narrows the policy by excluding the free Personal tier and tying it to a future LTS release rather than existing projects.

The change also follows reports that Unity offered selective Runtime Fee waivers linked to LevelPlay and considered a 4% revenue cap. Those steps show the company moving from a broadly applied pricing change toward constraints intended to reduce exposure for developers.

First-order effects

  • Developers using Unity Personal, and teams shipping on pre-2024 Unity versions, avoid the proposed Runtime Fee under the revised policy.
  • Unity preserves a path to introduce the fee with new LTS versions, while limiting the immediate disruption to existing games and smaller developers.

Second-order effects

  • Studios evaluating engine upgrades gain a stronger reason to treat a move to a new Unity version as a commercial decision, not only a technical one.
  • The revision reduces the urgency created by the original install-and-tier fee plan, but it leaves larger developers to assess the cost and predictability of the future-version terms.

Third-order effects

  • If engine vendors attach monetization changes only to new releases, version choice and long-term support policy can become key tools for containing developer backlash.
  • The later return to seat-based subscriptions indicates that recurring, legible licensing may prove more durable than charges linked to downstream game distribution.

The trend: Game-engine pricing is shifting toward models that must balance vendor revenue goals with developers' need for predictable, controllable costs.

Discussion

  • @clayzulah@mastodon.gamedev.place @clayzulah@mastodon.gamedev.place on mastodon
    This is such a relief.  Still unacceptable that Unity ever tried to pull this off but I'm so glad I & other devs can get back to making our games without the specter of insane retroactive install fees hanging over our heads ☺️  —  (Still keeping a big folder of Godot tutorials ha…
  • @runevision@mastodon … Rune Skovbo Johansen on mastodon
    Unity's adjusted changes addresses all the things they *could* address:  — Now only applies to future Unity versions.  — Revenue > $1m now has at most 2.5% royalties.  — Unity Personal now has the rev cap Plus used to + does not require the Unity logo.  —  https://blog.unity.com/…
  • @mcc@mastodon.social @mcc@mastodon.social on mastodon
    So here's what Unity says the new pricing policy is, today (assuming it doesn't change again next week, like it did last week, and the week before).  —  https://blog.unity.com/...  Critical thoughts:  —  1. The fact that the new fees *only apply to future versions* is the critica…
  • @HeroOfDermwood@mastodon.social @HeroOfDermwood@mastodon.social on mastodon
    So, these changes sound reasonable, but the fact of the matter is that they have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.  They have changed things at the drop of a hat.  There is nothing stopping them from doing that again.  —  If you have already made the choice to leave Unity fo…
  • @danilo.redeem-tomorrow.com @danilo.redeem-tomorrow.com on bluesky
    Unity is 53% below its IPO.  I don't think torching the network of developers that gives its platform value is going to reverse that trend.  Wild to see all of these mature companies sign up for the same category of self-destructive mistake.  [embedded post]
  • @smi.bsky.social Stacy-Marie Ishmael on bluesky
    today's corporate apology, Unity Edition https://blog.unity.com/...
  • @unity @unity on x
    Here is an open letter to our community: https://blog.unity.com/...
  • @georgebsocial George Broussard on x
    Unity did well here. Sort of nailed it. This is more of a walk back than anyone could have expected. - removed the retroactive nature - not install based - kicks in on v2023LTS+ that ships in 2024 - requires $1m in yearly revenue, then 2.5% and you self report - This will only...
  • @tha_rami Rami Ismail on x
    You know what, on first glance, I think this works? It's effectively a 2.5% revenue share for $1M+p/y earners? No retroactivity left, LTS stability, no black-box data, yeah? I think that works for every use-case. https://blog.unity.com/...
  • @reisartjunk @reisartjunk on x
    1) The stupid-ass install fee is still there, making this a completely useless statement. 2) The person apologizing has NOTHING to do with this decision and shouldn't be the one who should be saying sorry. 3) It's pointless, trust has completely been broken. No walking back.
  • @reduzio Juan Linietsky on x
    So, basically now running a business or offering products and services over Unity is a massive risk because they offer you better terms if their use their services. Is this not abuse of dominant position? Great way to kill off the competition, hope they don't get away with it. [i…
  • @tylerglaiel Tyler Glaiel on x
    @tha_rami well there's still the issue that they may increase that revshare over time for new versions of unity so that has to be taken into account still. I view it as just a basic reassurance that you can finish your current projects without much concern
  • @mdsveritas Sam Handrick on x
    Yeah this policy is a lot better. As someone who works on a Unity personal project it's been a weird bummer of a week but I'm glad that people responded as loudly as they did and that Unity finally moved to a fairly good policy here.
  • @freyaholmer @freyaholmer on x
    • only applies to 2023.x LTS or later • TOS will be per-unity version, no more retroactive changes • 2.5% rev share OR based on “number of unique users” as self-reported. sales is an acceptable metric for this • no more splash screen on unity personal https://blog.unity.com/...
  • @hakitadev @hakitadev on x
    There, you can stop asking me how this will affect ULTRAKILL's development now, ULTRAKILL uses version 2019.4.40. Still a really stupid system and they clearly burned some bridges and lost all trust, though.
  • @grahamoflegend @grahamoflegend on x
    @tha_rami If they had dropped this as the initial thing, they would have been in a much better place. But the trust I have for the company was already dwindling and it's all but vanished now. It's sad to see things happen this way.
  • @structed @structed on x
    @reduzio IMO, the new change is just a little bit better. They didn't address the trust issue, and and this “only new LTS will have the new mode” is no so much better than starting with the first 2024 version, as everyone who is going to consoles will need to take the update.
  • @thafnine @thafnine on x
    this is a better deal than unreal, ironically enough, but the trust has already been broken. the fact that unity almost went through with an asinine update to their policy without warning kind of tells developers that they can do it again
  • @reduzio Juan Linietsky on x
    Very happy that Unity removed the retroactivity of their new fees. I happy for anyone moving to Godot but, as I said before, at their own pace and will. Doing it forced by a stressful situation can never be a good experience.
  • @qntm @qntm on x
    Screwdriver manufacturer announces that it will now charge $0.015 for every screw driven, in addition to the annual leasing fee When asked, they said “We just know somehow”
  • @wario64 @wario64 on x
    Unity updated runtime fee: -Unity Personal plan remains free with no runtime fee. Cap increases from $100k to $200k -No game with less than $1 million in trailing 12-month revenue will be subject to the fee. More info: https://blog.unity.com/... [image]
  • @mikeisaac @mikeisaac on x
    Unity makes some changes to its controversial pricing plan, though will still push ahead with the new pricing model — also apologizes bigly https://blog.unity.com/...
  • r/gamedev r on reddit
    Unity finally breaks silence.  Changes only apply to LTS 2024, increases threshold for personal plan, removes requirement for splash screen and reduces fees to 2.5% rev share.
  • r/TwoBestFriendsPlay r on reddit
    Unity backdown with new terms
  • r/gamedev r on reddit
    Unity Pricing Update
  • r/gaming r on reddit
    An open letter to our community |  Unity Blog
  • r/XboxSeriesX r on reddit
    An open letter to our community |  Unity Blog
  • r/Unity3D r on reddit
    Unity: An open letter to our community
  • r/Games r on reddit
    Unity: An open letter to our community