Adobe to charge license fees for some games using Flash

Adobe is looking to generate some more revenues under a new plan that it announced today. Starting later this year, the company will begin to charge a license fee for game applications that use the "premium features" of its Flash Player software. Adobe says that the so-called premium parts of Flash Player's development tools include using the Stage3D features for hardware accelerated graphics along with domain memory, which converts games that were written originally in C/C++.

Adobe says that starting August 1, game developers and programmers that use both of these premium features in their games under Flash Player will have to pay a nine percent license fee if the net revenues of their games exceed $50,000. Games that are developed and released with these features with Flash Player before that date will not have to pay the fee. In addition, games that are developed on Adobe AIR that use these premium features will also not have to pay any fees to Adobe.

The company has been under increased pressure to generate more revenues, especially since Adobe decided to abandon developing future versions of Flash for mobile devices. In November, the company announced it was laying off 750 of its team members.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Another Kelihos-based botnet shut down

Next Story

Rumor: Yahoo to dump Microsoft as its search partner?


Commenting is disabled on this article.

I was a HUGE defender of flash, simply because no other program compared to it's animation features and Action Script. (Not to mention the ease of use, I mean you simply just go frame by frame with a simple simple interface).

This has all changed now. Silverlight Animation Maker is making lots of progress. It actually looks and feels like flash, (although I'm not familiar with silverlight coding) I'm definitely going to try this. I'm still no fan of HTML5 though... It's definitely not for animation.. only to be used as a "player" (a shell for handling video files).

Izlude said,
(a shell for handling video files).

HTML5 is the newest version of the language that most of the internet runs on. How can it only be good for handling video files?

WHAT?? Has Adobe gone nuts? Charge for using certain runtime features???????? How does Adobe think they can enforce this?? So this is how Flash dies. That's like for example MS charging all WPF app makers for using WPF!! (Of course MS wouldn't do something so outrageous). EPIC FAIL Adobe. Wow things must really be bad at Adobe to force developers to pay some stupid premium for using platform runtime features. Today isn't April 1st either.

While the folks above may be correct that HTML5 is not as good for advanced 3D games, HTML5, or something else, will catch up, as I don't really think that game developers are going to be happy with paying 9% of their takings to a company that just provides the runtime. Imagine if Microsoft or Apple started charging for being able to run your applications on their desktop OSes. Even on the mobile side of things, the levies charged are not for running the App on the device, but for the App Store distribution model.

This really is a bad business decision for Adobe, given that they have made clear their future strategy for Flash on Android...

ahhell said,
Can someone remind me why Adobe still exists?

Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator... hate flash all you like but they do some pretty good stuff.

MS Lose32 said,
Hey look! Even Adobe is helping to kill Flash!

well, they have already killed flash for mobile devices in favor of emphasis on HTML5....

Lazybones said,
In other news Mozilla releases HTML 5 MMO BrowserQuest...

Adobe, really? You officially dropped mobile support now you want to charge money to the one strong flash community of Facebook style gaming?

I only see this accelerating the migration away from Flash for everything.

Flash gaming isn't, "Facebook-STYLE gaming." Flash gaming & Facebook gaming are the same thing, cuz, well, Facebook games are Flash games...

Really ?!?!?!?!?! Do these people spend their days smoking crack

How are they ever going to enforce this. And unless they are talking about the new version of Flash due out how can they enforce this.

Depicus said,
How are they ever going to enforce this. And unless they are talking about the new version of Flash due out how can they enforce this.

juanmix said,
Goodbye Flash Hello HTML5

I am very sure, companies like Zynga, can not or want not switch to HTML5. Not yet and not within the next x years.

BannedForTruth said,

1990 called and it wants its demos back.
Wait, no, it changed its mind.It says they are too outdated and we can keep that trash.

You have a seriously twisted sense of time if you think these demos came from 1990. In one of those demos you have video being played without Flash. If it were the 90's, you'd be loading it in a 3rd party plugin. Learn some history before making ignorant remarks.

Edited by ILikeTobacco, Mar 28 2012, 8:10pm :

~Johnny said,

Well I did mention "advanced 3D games", of which those 2D effect demos really don't fall under.

Fair enough but what advanced 3D graphics are you talking about in flash? If its on a PC, if you want advanced 3D graphics, you don't go to Flash, you go to DX, GL, etc. If you are on a mobile device like a tablet or phone, you go with Apps and their respective technologies. Never played a Flash game on Android because there has never been a need to. You are complaining about a non profitable market continuing not to be profitable. All the profitable games on the internet that are based in browsers can be recreated in HTML5/Ajax. No need for Flash anymore. Most people wouldn't even notice the difference when playing Farmville.

~Johnny said,
Though webGL is neither HTML 5 nor a standard, or even complete or accepted.

WebGL isn't HTML5 the same way CSS isn't HTML5

It is a standard though (managed by Khronos), and 1.0 was completed a while back.

The_Decryptor said,

WebGL isn't HTML5 the same way CSS isn't HTML5

It is a standard though (managed by Khronos), and 1.0 was completed a while back.

But not an accepted standard, or a standard everyone views as "complete" enough to use, and I'm not sure they've actually submitted it too any standards bodies for reviews. Outside of writing their own standard for it, it's not really considered a web standard

Khronos is the standards organisation, Opera/Apple/Google/Mozilla consider it stable, the only holdout is Microsoft (and their issue is that it's based on OpenGL, they have their own Direct3D competitor that has all the same issues they claimed WebGL has)

I don't see it as any different to PNG, SPDY or HTTP. Not everything has to go through the W3C.