Hacker News Reader

Comment by snek_case | Hacker News Reader

I haven't worked with Unity, but I'm assuming they get a percentage of the money spent through microtransactions and monetized content? They're essentially a platform, kind of like the Apple app store, and taking a cut?

In that case, it's obvious why the Unity CEO would say this. He has a financial incentive to get game developers to try and milk gamers for profit (because Unity gets a cut).

I think that this could ultimately push gamers and developers to use other engines/platforms. If you try to milk gamers for profit, it will eventually lead to unplayable games where the only way to compete online is to buy a ton of virtual power-ups and accessories.

View on HN

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.

What do you think the IAP incentive is for Unity? It's just one of the cross platform features they wrap. It's surfaced on the pricing page because it sells the engine but there's no monetary incentive to Unity if you use it or not.

Unity takes a cut from its ads business but it just does not do that for IAP any more than the animation system.

So fundamentally, ad prices in the mobile game ecosystem are driven by life time value. IAP is the biggest contributer to LTV, this Unity care about this. I'd like to know which portion of their revenue is bigger, but I can guarantee that the ads business is growing faster.

If your game doesn't make money, your studio collapses and Unity loses a customer. They do have an incentive but it's indirect.

It’s obvious why he would think it; it’s less obvious why he would say it.

Everything is obvious when you don't look up the underlying facts that lead to the conclusion, I guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com