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

31–40 of 180 posts

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

#31

Post by thaliaarchi »

rolph wrote: post #2

this is something they want to hide. https://web.archive.org/web/20220716084623/https://github.co...

For source code, I prefer the Software Heritage archive over the Internet Archive, because it archives the git history, instead of the HTML UI. This particular repo was saved there[0] and was most recently visited 24 Oct 2022, which has two more terms updates.

I have created a mirror of this more up-to-date version at https://github.com/thaliaarchi/unity-termsofservice.

Here's how to “cook”[1] an archive from the vault, if you want to do it yourself:

    curl -X POST https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/vault/git-bare/swh:1:rev:28fdae008c61d98d0d9ec55b8cc016ce61809f58/
    wget https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/vault/git-bare/swh:1:rev:28fdae008c61d98d0d9ec55b8cc016ce61809f58/raw/ --content-disposition
    tar xf swh_1_rev_28fdae008c61d98d0d9ec55b8cc016ce61809f58.git.tar 
    git clone swh:1:rev:28fdae008c61d98d0d9ec55b8cc016ce61809f58.git TermsOfService
[0]: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory...

[1]: https://archive.softwareheritage.org/api/1/vault/git-bare/do...

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

#32

Post by gmjosack »

Clubber wrote: post #21
bhouston wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ou…

>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. If I understand you correctly (I haven't really been following this), they changed the contract and are trying to retroactively collect license fees for installs done prior to the change in contract? I don't think this is legal. When you change a contract, it's on a go forward bases. It w…

The terms have been changed so that all future installs can incur a fee even on older games that used unity even if the haven't been updated recently.

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

#33

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

paxys wrote: post #24

I hate the word "silently" in headlines like these. How else are the supposed to do it? By throwing a press event?

> I hate the word "silently" in headlines like these.

Why hate reporting that fairly represents what they did?

> How else are the supposed to do it? By throwing a press event?

Sure. That's one way to uphold the standards of full transparency about what changes are happening and when - that Unity promised.

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

#35

Post by rapind »

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…

This whole debacle is unreal (pun intended?). I don’t think they’ll be able to enforce this the way they hope to. For example they want to be paid for unity games in subscription services, like xbox gamepass. Meanwhile M$ lawyers are rubbing their hands together in anticipation.

They’re going to (already have) damaged their reputation beyond repair. This isn’t typical consumer strong arm tactics. Their clients are businesses who already have alternatives. If one of my vendors abruptly changed our agreement like this, there’s no question I’d quietly phase them out ASAP.

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

#36

Post by gnopgnip »

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…

If you pay $2k for unit pro it’s a max of 15 cents an install, actually less. And you pay nothing for installs until $1m in revenue and 1m installs in the previous 12 months

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

#37

Post by judge2020 »

awesomeMilou wrote: post #28
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 How can they make this apply retroactively though? For already shipped titles, if I'm no longer providing updates anymore, how can they force me to pay money? I'm aware that games no longer have a final shipping date, with early access and all, and as a dev I'd likely would want to offer continued support in such a scenario. But the way I understand it from the over…

Are there perpetual unity licenses? If not, then surely the retroactivity comes as soon as you renew your license.

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

#38

Post by jskherman »

awesomeMilou wrote: post #30
Clubber wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. If I understand you correctly (I haven't really been following this), they changed the contract and are trying to retroactively collect license fees for installs done prior to the change in contract? I don't think this is legal. When you change a contract, it's on a go forward bases. It w…

> Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management? EA's former CEO, John Riccitiello took over last year. He inaugurated himself with quite a few statements, one of which was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752

When it comes to games it's always EA, isn't it? Isn't this CEO the one also responsible for some of EA's notoriety?

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

#40

Post by hedora »

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…

> 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.

When you put it that way, Unity could have come out of this price change looking like heroes with better messaging.

Serious games pay the $0.27 fee moving forward, and (hopefully) that comes with some new value add for end users (such as contractually enforced no advertising, cross-platform something something).

Ad-supported games use a different engine with different rules, and end users get the “free to play” benefit.

(The retroactive thing is obviously bullshit; I wonder how many studios will simply refuse to pay and jump ship for future titles.)

Post reply on HN