Comment by jayd16
3 years ago
They don't get a cut. It's a per seat model. Everyone seems to think Unity has some incentive to push IAP and they don't.
3 years ago
They don't get a cut. It's a per seat model. Everyone seems to think Unity has some incentive to push IAP and they don't.
Reading the full quote, I would not bet on Unity even having an option of a per-seat subscription in five years. They're moving to capture a cut of every microtransaction, looking at how they speak and the acquisitions they're making.
Nah, it's just that ads are a much better growth business, and gaming ads are super profitable.
Growth is generally king for tech companies.
Huh? I'm pretty sure that unity act as an ad server, and take some money from it. As do iron source, for that matter.
Honestly, this was always gonna happen post iOS tracking changes. Less data means worse ads and no measurement without substantial first party scale, which will tend to lead towards consolidation.
Edit: in fact, if you look at their S1, you can see that they make money from subscriptions to their game creation tools and also from operate services, to help customers monetize and increase LTV. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1810806/000119312520...
What is your point? My point is that they're not incentivized to push games towards abusive MTX like the parent hypothesized.
And you based that point on unity's licence being per seat, implying that they don't have a profit incentive to push for IAP/ads.
Their point was that this implication isn't correct, because unity does indeed have a profit incentive for ads and IAP, as they're providing a platform for such. It's one of the features unity mentions on the pricing page.
2 replies →
If your game doesn't make money, your studio collapses and Unity loses a customer. They do have an incentive but it's indirect.