Unity can’t stop stepping on rakes. The game engine company quietly introduced a new mandatory fee structure for Enterprise customers on December 17, 2025, requiring minimum annual commitments ranging from $250,000 to $2 million depending on previous year’s gross revenue. This comes barely over a year after Unity canceled its catastrophic Runtime Fee that nearly destroyed developer trust and sparked mass migration to competing engines like Godot and Unreal. The new policy feels like deja vu for developers who thought Unity learned its lesson about surprise pricing changes.
The Fee Structure Breakdown
According to customer emails obtained by Mobilegamer.biz and reported by 80.lv, Unity is implementing what it calls a Minimum Commitment Program for Enterprise license holders. The annual fee tiers break down based on gross revenue from the previous twelve months. Companies earning between $25-50 million must commit $250,000 annually. Those making $50-100 million face $500,000 minimums. Revenue between $100-150 million triggers $750,000 commitments. The scale continues upward, with studios earning over $250 million required to commit at least $2 million per year.
The minimum commitment gets applied toward purchases of Unity subscription licenses and support products throughout the year. So technically it’s not pure additional cost if you’re already spending that much on Unity services. But for studios that don’t need millions of dollars worth of Unity products annually, this functions as a mandatory fee regardless of actual usage. The email states that any unused balance from minimum commitments won’t be refunded, creating a use-it-or-lose-it scenario that heavily favors Unity.
Why This Pisses Off Developers
The core complaint isn’t necessarily the amount for successful studios making tens of millions. If your game generates $50 million annually, a $250,000 Unity commitment represents just 0.5 percent of revenue. That’s far more reasonable than the Runtime Fee that threatened to charge per-install indefinitely. The real anger stems from Unity changing terms retroactively yet again, breaking trust developers thought had been rebuilt after the Runtime Fee disaster.
Many developers chose Unity specifically because of its flat fee structure compared to Unreal Engine’s 5 percent revenue share once games earn over $1 million. Unity promised predictable costs based on seats and services used rather than percentage cuts of success. Now Unity is implementing what amounts to a minimum revenue share disguised as a commitment program. Reddit user Chickern summarized the frustration perfectly, noting Unity is altering policies retroactively once more, exactly the behavior that caused the Runtime Fee meltdown.
The Timing Looks Suspicious
Unity only canceled the Runtime Fee in September 2024, replacing it with 8 percent price increases for Unity Pro and 25 percent increases for Unity Enterprise. That was supposed to represent Unity’s return to sanity after CEO John Riccitiello resigned following the Runtime Fee fiasco. New CEO Matthew Bromberg promised to rebuild trust with the developer community and focus on sustainable business practices. Fourteen months later, Unity introduces another surprise fee structure that feels like Runtime Fee 2.0 with different math.
Who Gets Hit Hardest
Indie developers and small studios making under $25 million won’t face minimum commitments directly, though they’re still dealing with the previous 8 percent price increases on Unity Pro subscriptions. The new fees target successful mid-size and large studios that generate substantial revenue but don’t necessarily need millions in Unity services annually. A studio with one successful Unity game earning $40 million might only need $50,000 in actual Unity licenses and support, yet now faces mandatory $250,000 annual commitments.
There’s also concern about non-gaming customers. Companies like Mercedes use Unity for automotive design visualization and other industrial applications with massive budgets that dwarf typical game studios. If Unity applies this same minimum commitment structure to industrial clients, the fees could become punitive for companies that use Unity as one tool among many rather than their primary development platform. Unity’s enterprise agreement specifics vary by customer, so industrial clients might face different terms, but the precedent is worrying.
The Unreal Comparison
Unity’s new structure ironically makes Unreal Engine’s revenue share model look more appealing in some scenarios. Unreal charges 5 percent of gross revenue after the first $1 million. For a game earning $50 million, that’s $2.45 million owed to Epic Games. Unity’s $250,000 minimum looks like a bargain by comparison. But Unreal’s percentage is transparent, predictable, and scales directly with success. You know exactly what you’ll owe based on how well your game performs.
Unity’s approach combines subscription fees, seat licenses, minimum commitments, and various service charges into a complex structure that’s harder to predict and budget for. Some Reddit commenters noted that for truly successful studios, the minimum commitment approach actually works better than per-install fees because it caps costs at known amounts. A game with $200 million revenue only pays $2 million maximum under this structure, whereas the old Runtime Fee could have theoretically cost far more depending on install counts.
The Trust Problem Unity Can’t Fix
Unity’s fundamental problem isn’t any single pricing policy. It’s the pattern of announcing major pricing changes with minimal warning, implementing them retroactively, and forcing developers already committed to Unity projects to accept terms they never agreed to. The Runtime Fee announced in September 2023 was supposed to take effect January 2024, giving developers just months to react. After massive backlash, Unity walked it back in September 2024. Now they’re introducing minimum commitments in December 2025 for the current year.
This pattern destroys the trust necessary for developers to commit to multi-year projects on Unity. Game development takes years. Studios need confidence that the engine they choose today won’t suddenly become unaffordable halfway through development because Unity decided to change pricing again. Every time Unity introduces surprise fees, more developers start new projects in Unreal, Godot, or other alternatives. The slow bleeding of market share will eventually hurt Unity more than any pricing increase could help.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much is Unity’s new minimum fee?
Between $250,000 and $2 million annually depending on your company’s gross revenue from the previous 12 months. Companies earning $25-50 million pay $250,000, scaling up to $2 million for companies over $250 million in revenue.
Who has to pay Unity’s minimum commitment?
Unity Enterprise customers whose companies exceed $25 million in annual gross revenue and funding. Unity Personal and Unity Pro users under this threshold are not affected by minimum commitments.
Is this the same as the Runtime Fee?
No. Unity canceled the controversial per-install Runtime Fee in September 2024. The minimum commitment is a separate new policy requiring annual spending minimums based on revenue tiers.
Does the minimum commitment get refunded if unused?
No. According to customer emails, unused balance from minimum commitments is not refunded. The commitment amount must be used toward Unity products and services within the subscription year.
Can I use an older Unity version to avoid this?
Possibly, though Unity’s terms of service changes can be complex. Some developers believe sticking with Unity 2022 or earlier without accepting new Unity 6 terms might exempt them, but Unity’s legal language leaves ambiguity.
How does this compare to Unreal Engine pricing?
Unreal charges 5 percent of gross revenue after the first $1 million. For games earning $50 million, Unreal costs $2.45 million while Unity’s minimum is $250,000. But Unreal’s percentage is transparent and predictable.
What happens if I switch engines mid-project?
Switching engines during development is extremely difficult and expensive, often requiring complete rebuilds. This is why surprise pricing changes are so damaging. Most studios are locked into their engine choice once development begins.
Is Unity in financial trouble?
Unity has struggled with profitability despite widespread use of its engine. These pricing changes likely reflect pressure to increase revenue and satisfy investors, though the company hasn’t disclosed specific financial motivations.
The Engine Nobody Trusts
Unity once dominated indie and mid-tier game development with its accessible tools, reasonable pricing, and massive asset store. Now it’s the engine developers actively recommend against for new projects despite its technical capabilities. Every pricing controversy accelerates the migration to alternatives. Godot adoption exploded after the Runtime Fee announcement, with donations jumping 40x and major studios pledging support. Unreal continues gaining ground in the AA and indie space it previously ignored. Even proprietary engines look attractive compared to Unity’s unpredictable business practices. The tragic irony is Unity probably does need to increase revenue to remain viable long-term. Game engine development is expensive, and Unity provides enormous value to developers when it works. But the company keeps shooting itself in the foot with how it implements pricing changes. Transparent communication, reasonable notice periods, and grandfather clauses for existing projects would maintain goodwill while still achieving revenue goals. Instead, Unity keeps announcing surprise fees that feel predatory and break trust. At this rate, Unity won’t fail because of technical problems or competition. It’ll fail because developers simply can’t trust the company not to change the deal after they’ve already committed years of work and millions of dollars to Unity-based projects. That’s a death spiral no minimum commitment can fix.