A year after the introduction of a controversial Cost of execution that has sparked outrage among game developers and sparked growing interest in alternative game engines, Unity is scaling back its policies. The change isn’t happening in a vacuum. Unity is also raising prices for its Unity Pro and Unity Enterprise subscriptions, which CEO Matthew Bromberg says is part of a plan to “become a fundamentally different company.”
It's a bold statement for the CEO of a publicly traded company. But given what the organization has been through, it might be justified. Unity has spent the last two years fire employees, price increaseand implementing policies like the Runtime Fee, all to the great disappointment of the developers, some of whom claimed that they failed to maintain the quality of the engine.
In an interview with Game Developer, Bromberg laid out a vision for the company that doesn’t rely on moves like these to increase profitability, saying that Unity’s future goal is to “get its head straight” and be a better partner in helping developers make great games.
Unity promises once again to be better at listening
The last two years of slowdowns for Unity (which includes that period when former CEO John Riccitiello said some developers were “fucking idiots') were often followed by company executives telling customers that the company was not I listen enough for game developers. Bromberg deployed a version of that phrase in that conversation, saying the company needs to “be better at listening” going forward.
The reversal of the Runtime Fee is a result of that process, he said. He apparently spent his first 100 days at the company talking to Unity's customers, which include the popular Unity game engine and its affiliate marketing and monetization platforms.
When pressed for employee feedback, many of whom had reportedly raised concerns internally about the impact of the Runtime Fee and how it could harm Unity users, Bromberg said the same listening process was done internally at the company. He said the decision was made after a cross-functional group of employees evaluated where the company should go.
He also acknowledged ongoing concerns about Unity's stability and technology debt, a growing concern among developers frustrated with Unity's soaring prices, while they continue to experience quality-of-life issues with the engine. He said a key goal for Unity is to create a “stable and performant” product that will make the company a better “partner” for the developers who use it.
Some, like Godot co-founder Juan Linietsky, pointed out to Game Developer that the acquisition frenzy driven by Unity's IPO burdened the company with new tools that it would be responsible for maintaining for high-value customers. Bromberg said Unity had also looked at that challenge and pointed to its decision to ends its partnership with Weta FX as an example of how it can lighten the technical load it has taken on (in this case, at the cost of 265 jobs).
“There are some steps we can take to integrate some of the capabilities that those acquisitions have provided into our core game creation pipeline,” Bromberg said. For now, there will be a renewed focus on improving and maintaining Unity 6 as a trusted tool for game development.
Unity's change is also about “going back to square one”
Bromberg's description of Unity's future seemed far removed from Riccitiello's promise to build the best “Real-time 3D” (often abbreviated to RT3D) engine for companies around the world, which implied a future in which Unity would be widely used outside of the game development world. He repeatedly referenced his past experience as a game developer and painted a picture of the company working closely with developers to provide them with the tools they needed.
Unity will do so with stronger competition. Tools like the open source game engine Godot have become more popular among developers over the past year, with Godot in particular biting Unity's heels as a leading engine used in game jams.
It’s unclear what, if anything, Unity will adapt directly from developers’ growing enthusiasm for Godot. Bromberg said he doesn’t take developers’ trust for granted and that the company “wants to get better” at maintaining that trust.
“We want everyone to want to use Unity,” he said, also acknowledging that the company operates in a competitive market and will face pressure from competitors.
Addressing concerns investors may have that the company will not generate future revenue from Runtime Fee, Bromberg said the company's “simple, predictable pricing” will provide “more than enough growth” for the company under its pricing model.
Unity's previous far-reaching promises about game engine growth had extended as far as the US government, with the company signing contracts with technology companies and companies like Lockheed Martin, BAH to provide support for U.S. defense projects. Developers concerned that their use of the engine could somehow support weapons production or wartime software development continued to criticize Unity for entering into these agreements, largely to little effect.
Bromberg stood firm on the aforementioned contracts. “In general, my view is that it is not inappropriate for American companies to do business with the American government,” he said. Developers may frown at how this comment extends beyond the Department of Defense.
Aside from the U.S. government, Bromberg's speech seemed aimed squarely at Unity's original customers: the game development community. He and his colleagues will have the chance to give that speech next week at Unite 2024 in Barcelonawhere he said he saw an opportunity to “take a breath, get clarity and reconnect” with customers.
After two years of conversations with Unity executives, there was another interesting shift in Bromberg's rhetoric worth noting. Previously, Unity executives Marc Whitten and Jim Rearden referred to Unity users as “creators,” alluding to a broad range of customers beyond game developers. The phrase seemed to align with Riccitiello's long-held view of Unity as an “RT3D” tool versus its role as a game development tool.
Bromberg didn't use that phrase, instead reverting to “developers” and “customers,” more generic terms describing those who use Unity. He doesn't even appear in Unity's blog announcing the Runtime Fee reversal.
The absence of the term may not mean anything, but it could be a sign that Unity is narrowing its vision to focus primarily on a company focused on creating games, not generalized 3D software.
If developers report a better relationship with Unity in the months and years to come, it will certainly be a sign that Bromberg's strategy is working. The challenge will be, as it has long been, to ensure that the strategy is profitable and sustainable for the company, so that sustainability can be a solid foundation for the game development community.
Update: This story has been updated to clarify Unity's contractual relationship with the U.S. government.