Possible licensing change worries me

Community Community & Industry Discussion
,
1

I just found out about the possible license change in 2024. I’ve been working hard as a solo artist to develop and produce a limited animated film/series, using Unreal Engine because of its features. It has taken me a very long time to get where I am, and it will take a very long time still to get where I want to be, not to mention all the energy, blood, sweat, and tears that have gone and will go into this.

I have no reason to believe I will be able to achieve this other than that it drives me. But I strongly believe what I want to create will be much more feasible as an animated series than a video game, also given modern demands for interactive media.

Unfortunately, with my meager, barely existing budget, I have invested in several critical programs that I know I need, such as Houdini and Marvelous Designer, which are already expensive but affordable subscriptions. The power of Unreal only motivates me to keep going and keep at it, knowing that I will be able to create something great, even if it’s not a full animated series.

But with the potential prospect of having to pay a monthly upfront fee just to use Unreal, not knowing how far I would be able to go, only because I want to create an animated series rather than a video game, is really worrying, and deeply demotivating. I have a lot of trouble with my mental health and I’m struggling with anything creative, so you can understand I’m freaking out right now.

That’s why I want to get ahead of this since I was really hoping I’d be making great strides in the coming year. So the proper question would be, what can I, as a solo artist with a meager budget, expect?

For a big studio, I get it, and don’t get me wrong, I think this is not as bad as what happened with Unity, but it will affect me quite a bit. Because given Tim’s apparent comparison with Autodesk and Adobe, it will not be affordable for me, so I’ll definitely have to start looking for an alternative.

A royalty as with video games would be fine, even if it’s more than 5% and with a lower exclusion limit. I get that Epic isn’t making money off of non-game products, and I was always a little confused at that, but going from no fee to a monthly fee while video games will stick to the 5% royalty license baffles me.

2

You paid for Marvellous and Houdini. I expect Epic will want you to pay the same amount for Unreal Engine, more or less.
After all – which gives more value to you; Marvellous, or Unreal Engine?

That being said, they may end up saying “new versions have a license fee, old versions don’t, but we won’t support the old versions forever.” So, in that case, just don’t upgrade, and you will be fine. (I predict this will be the outcome, but I’m not 100% sure!)

3

With some important features I would need still “experimental”, staying at 5.3 (maybe 5.4) is not an option. And that first statement is ridiculous. “What gives me more value?” Well, all of them, I literally need all of them, otherwise I wouldn’t have subscribed to them. I can’t make anything with just Unreal and Blender. And without Unreal, well, that’s what I’m asking. Do I have to find an alternative? I’d rather learn that sooner than later. Why does it always have to be subscriptions? If royalties work for games, why not for film/TV too? It’s the upfront cost that’s worrying me, and why shouldn’t it?

4

Tim Sweeney on X: “@gamefromscratch Won’t affect. There will be minimum revenue thresholds for commercial projecrs, and student/educator use will remain free.” / X (twitter.com)

5

Yes, a friend pointed it out to me a few hours ago. Looks like crisis averted, thank heavens.

6

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.