Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

gamerbraves.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 180 posts

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#11

Post by janalsncm »

sn41 wrote: post #8

Just a side thought related to this: can there be a community supported initiative to parse what TOS documents of different companies mean, and specifically, what to watch out for in each company's TOS vis-a-vis what is the norm in a certain industry? Right now, the "gotcha" power is entirely one-sided. A wiki-like approach towards documenting TOS might make the user better aware of what to really watch out for when…

Typically that’s what a newspaper is supposed to do. With userbases larger than some countries, it could make sense.

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#12

Post by tagawa »

sn41 wrote: post #8

Just a side thought related to this: can there be a community supported initiative to parse what TOS documents of different companies mean, and specifically, what to watch out for in each company's TOS vis-a-vis what is the norm in a certain industry? Right now, the "gotcha" power is entirely one-sided. A wiki-like approach towards documenting TOS might make the user better aware of what to really watch out for when…

I think what you're looking for is TOSDR (Terms of Service, Didn't Read): https://tosdr.org

It's been going for several years and has very thorough analyses of various ToS, done by volunteers who are often legal professionals.

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#13

Post by umpalumpaaa »

bhouston wrote: post #6

This could have been done in a much better fashion to achieve the long term desired outcome (more income) while also ensuring continued trust and transparency with their community. Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a per-installation fee. And they would slowly discontinue support fo…

The problem is that they did it retroactively and they also added a per install/download fee. So if your game has 1mio installs you pad the install fee x 1 Million. Unreal has no install fee like this.

“A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game). Provided that you notify us on time using the Release Form, you will only owe royalties once the lifetime gross revenue from that product exceeds $1 million USD; in other words, the first $1 million will be royalty-exempt.”

Some mobile games have a ton of installs and a very small amount of revenue per user. Those 27cents per install are a lot of money for those type of games and will even make some business models no longer feasible.

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#14

Post by gmerc »

bhouston wrote: post #6

This could have been done in a much better fashion to achieve the long term desired outcome (more income) while also ensuring continued trust and transparency with their community. Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a per-installation fee. And they would slowly discontinue support fo…

> Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a run-time fee, similar to Unreal Engine.

No no, you don’t understand, that’s exactly what they want

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#15

Post by bhouston »

umpalumpaaa wrote: post #13
bhouston wrote: post #6

This could have been done in a much better fashion to achieve the long term desired outcome (more income) while also ensuring continued trust and transparency with their community. Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a per-installation fee. And they would slowly discontinue support fo…

The problem is that they did it retroactively and they also added a per install/download fee. So if your game has 1mio installs you pad the install fee x 1 Million. Unreal has no install fee like this. “A 5% royalty is due only if you are distributing an off-the-shelf product that incorporates Unreal Engine code (such as a game). Provided that you notify us on time using the Release Form, you will only owe royalties…

> Those 27cents per install are a lot of money for those type of games and will even make some business models no longer feasible.

Exactly. So if they did this in an upfront way, they would have said that starting with Unity 2024 there is this new cost structure. Then game devs can make informed choices if they want to build those types of games on the platform.

This retroactive stuff is insane and I cannot figure out how a company can make that type of move if they care about their users. Although I think I sort of answered my own question...

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#16

Post by bhouston »

gmerc wrote: post #14
bhouston wrote: post #6

This could have been done in a much better fashion to achieve the long term desired outcome (more income) while also ensuring continued trust and transparency with their community. Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a per-installation fee. And they would slowly discontinue support fo…

> Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a run-time fee, similar to Unreal Engine. No no, you don’t understand, that’s exactly what they want

It does appear to be what they want, but it is also very likely unenforcible retroactively. So it is likely that they are currently paying the steep repetitional costs of this move without making anywhere close to the additional income that they wanted from this move.

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#17

Post by coder543 »

bhouston wrote: post #6

This could have been done in a much better fashion to achieve the long term desired outcome (more income) while also ensuring continued trust and transparency with their community. Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a per-installation fee. And they would slowly discontinue support fo…

> have a run-time fee, similar to Unreal Engine

Another comment already said this, but I feel it's worth emphasizing: Unreal Engine does not have a runtime fee. You don't pay per install.

Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes

#20

Post by bhouston »

coder543 wrote: post #17
bhouston wrote: post #6

This could have been done in a much better fashion to achieve the long term desired outcome (more income) while also ensuring continued trust and transparency with their community. Simply, they could have not made this retroactive on existing released games. Rather just be clear that going forward, games build using the new Unity versions would have a per-installation fee. And they would slowly discontinue support fo…

> have a run-time fee, similar to Unreal Engine Another comment already said this, but I feel it's worth emphasizing: Unreal Engine does not have a runtime fee. You don't pay per install.

I edited the comment to fix that. :)
Post reply on HN