On September 12, Unity, the company behind the game engine of the same name, announced a shift in its business model. The leadership chose to take a commission based on installations rather than a sales percentage. Unity developers reacted with alarm, rushing to consider alternatives or raising urgent questions to the broader gaming community. This piece explains what the proposed changes could mean and how Unity responded to the ensuing controversy.
Panic about initial conditions
In the world of finance, large companies typically move with caution, weighing every detail and forecasting potential repercussions behind closed doors. Unity, it seems, opted for a different approach. The initial message announcing the new terms was delivered in a dramatic tone, implying that the rules had changed from the very start.
The size of the order depends on the terms of cooperation and the number of installations
Starting January 1, 2024, Unity will impose a runtime commission. This means developers will be charged based on the number of installations, not the total purchase price of a project. The criteria that trigger the commission are described as follows:
- Projects on the Unity Personal and Unity Plus plans must have earned at least $200,000 in the last year and accumulated at least 200,000 installs over the product’s lifetime;
- Projects on the Unity Pro and Unity Enterprise plans that earned $1 million in the last twelve months and also achieved at least one million installs in total.
Beyond the commission, Unity touted new tools, such as a free AI training module and expanded cloud storage for assets. Yet for many developers, these perks did not offset the sharp fee increase, leaving some to question whether the added features were worth the cost.
The core issue is that the commission applies to each download, not the project’s sale. Initially, the policy charged a fee for every download, so a user who installed, removed, and reinstalled a game could incur multiple charges from Unity.
Developer panic and weaknesses in the new rules
Almost immediately after the announcement, many developers criticized the policy, arguing it did not reflect current market realities.
Many indie studios, including teams behind Cult of The Lamb, voiced concerns right after the post appeared
Gaming on Game Pass raised particular concerns: titles on that service can reach tens of millions of players who can download the game repeatedly. Developers typically receive a fixed fee for a game on Microsoft’s service, so each download reduces revenue. Studios like Aggro Krab Studio warned they might need to abandon Unity if terms did not change.
Cult of the Lamb makers joined the chorus, noting a potential engine switch if the conditions persisted, which would affect future projects. Likewise, the team behind Slay the Spire reported long-term work on a Unity-based project might have to move if the situation did not improve. The broader indie sector viewed the decision as a blow to trust between developers and Unity.
Mega Crit, the authors of Slay The Spire, have been working on a new project in Unity for two years
A small indie project, The Last Hero of Nostalgia, illustrated the model’s potential strain: if changes took effect, the developer could owe more to Unity than they had earned in their entire career, prompting consideration of Unreal Engine. Creators behind Among Us, The Last Night, and DUSK also voiced opposition and discussions of a collective legal action began to surface.
The makers of Slay The Spire have been planning a new project in Unity for two years
The mounting pressure spurred callouts that a wave of studios might disengage from Unity’s ecosystem, underscoring fears about the engine’s ongoing role in widespread development and update cycles.
As the policy circulated, some developers questioned how to define a valid install, including questions about web games, streaming titles, trial versions, or subscriptions. The lack of immediate clarity fueled growing unease among many creators.
Do you play indie projects?
Beyond the installation issue, ambiguity remained on how the rules would apply to streaming or web-based games, and whether every launch could be treated as an installation. The absence of quick, concrete explanations—especially around trial periods, early access, and charity-driven projects—left developers frustrated as they waited for guidance.
Reaction from the public and company employees
Twitter and other channels offered little solace. Unity eventually closed two offices and canceled a scheduled developer meeting after threats and heated exchanges emerged. The leadership planned to address the crisis directly with the staff, but the situation quickly escalated.
Employees expressed disappointment and pressure on management to rethink the policy. A former employee who spent seven years at the company described widespread concern among colleagues and indicated that leadership promised answers that never came in time. The prospect of layoffs loomed as the company faced ongoing debate about the policy’s future direction.
Preconditions for drastic changes
Unity’s difficulties did not begin with the new fee. The leadership team has faced scrutiny over years of stock activity and staffing changes. The CEO sold a significant portion of shares shortly before the announcement, following a period of substantial stock declines. Other senior leaders also reduced stakes or liquidated holdings in the months preceding the policy shift.
From November 2021 to May 2022, the value of Unity shares fell almost five times
By 2023, the company had laid off hundreds of staff and condensed its global office footprint. In 2022, a merger with ironSource, a company known for various software installations, added another layer of strategic motivation behind Unity’s push to integrate services and gain better installation-tracking capabilities.
Unity and ironSource announced their merger in July 2022
The merger was pitched as a way to connect the Unity engine with an advertising and distribution platform, potentially smoothing the path to a tighter installation-tracking mechanism.
It seems all is not lost yet
There’s a cautious recovery in view. Unity announced a clarifying update that would limit the impact to about 90% of customers, with the first year of installations after January 1, 2024, being the main focus. The reinvestment in policy details included waivers for reinstallation counts and explicit exclusions for trial, demo, and developer versions, while web and streaming games were not to be counted as installs. Earlier terms for subscription games were also addressed, though concerns persisted.
Probably 90% of the customers who won’t be affected by the changes are web game developers and aspiring indie developers
Officials stressed that some issues would be handled privately, including attempts to curb fraudulent installations. The company’s stance on fraud and piracy, paired with a lack of broader policy clarity, left many studios uneasy as they weighed their next steps.
Those who follow the industry wonder how much the engine’s core quality and future tool development could be affected by this dispute, especially given that tens of thousands of developers rely on Unity for their projects. The central question remains: will these changes shape the future of indie game development or simply trigger a shift toward alternative engines?
What is your take on the present situation? Will the new model place a heavier burden on developers, or is the running fear of a broader panic overstated?
Do you think it matters which engine a game is built on?
Times