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

61–70 of 180 posts

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

#61

Post by readyplayernull »

gmjosack wrote: post #48

This video[1] talks a bit about this from a lawyer's point of view and is a really good overview. For people who are not paying as much attention to this I'd like to summarize the main points of frustration. 1. Unity has just shown they believe they are able, and they are willing, to change the terms on what you have to pay them. What are the bounds to terms like this? What if Unity is tight on money and decide to sq…

They might have well devised the first of its kind "ransom by installations" in the history of software, by making it possible for attackers to fake mass installations and get gamedevs into fatal debts. And they are taking the executioner role.

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

#62

Post by akkartik »

zeroimpl wrote: post #56
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Deleting things never makes a sound. The word silently is added entirely for the connotation that it was meant to be secret. Since such an action would never go unnoticed, it's obvious that it wasn't meant to be secret, so that word is clearly misplaced. If the author wanted to imply it was bad, they should just come out and say it, with a word like despicably.

Here's the blog post where they announced they were creating a github repo: https://blog.unity.com/community/updated-terms-of-service-an...

It's the easiest thing in the world to write another blog post announcing they're deleting the github repo.

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

#63

Post by barkingcat »

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…

Unity IPO'ed in 2020, which isn't super recent, but is probably the reason behind these changes. IPO'ed means they gotta report some quarterly improvements, every quarter forever under the totally unsustainable growth model.

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

#64

Post by bigstrat2003 »

bhouston wrote: post #15
umpalumpaaa wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

I can't even understand how it can possibly be legal. How on earth is it even possible to say "your game which was released before we updated this license is subject to the updated version"? IANAL but that sure seems like something which would require both parties to agree to the updated terms for them to be binding.

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

#65

Post by gmjosack »

readyplayernull wrote: post #61
gmjosack wrote: post #48

This video[1] talks a bit about this from a lawyer's point of view and is a really good overview. For people who are not paying as much attention to this I'd like to summarize the main points of frustration. 1. Unity has just shown they believe they are able, and they are willing, to change the terms on what you have to pay them. What are the bounds to terms like this? What if Unity is tight on money and decide to sq…

They might have well devised the first of its kind "ransom by installations" in the history of software, by making it possible for attackers to fake mass installations and get gamedevs into fatal debts. And they are taking the executioner role.

We've been calling it "Install Bombing" after the common abusive practice of review bombing. Unity claims they have anti-fraud systems in place and you can always appeal with their fraud team but I don't have an reason to blindly trust a black box that when fails makes Unity more money and puts the burden on me to prove otherwise.

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

#66

Post by lucb1e »

readyplayernull wrote: post #61
gmjosack wrote: post #48

This video[1] talks a bit about this from a lawyer's point of view and is a really good overview. For people who are not paying as much attention to this I'd like to summarize the main points of frustration. 1. Unity has just shown they believe they are able, and they are willing, to change the terms on what you have to pay them. What are the bounds to terms like this? What if Unity is tight on money and decide to sq…

They might have well devised the first of its kind "ransom by installations" in the history of software, by making it possible for attackers to fake mass installations and get gamedevs into fatal debts. And they are taking the executioner role.

This applies to any paid API and is something we check for when we do security audits, definitely not a "first of its kind". It's just not common that APIs that cost 20 cents per invocation are exposed directly to the general public.

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

#67

Post by brazzledazzle »

gmjosack wrote: post #48

This video[1] talks a bit about this from a lawyer's point of view and is a really good overview. For people who are not paying as much attention to this I'd like to summarize the main points of frustration. 1. Unity has just shown they believe they are able, and they are willing, to change the terms on what you have to pay them. What are the bounds to terms like this? What if Unity is tight on money and decide to sq…

>Unity has been extremely wishy-washy on how they even plan to track this mentioning proprietary systems they can't elaborate on and your only recourse is to appeal if you think they got the numbers wrong.

They must know that their methods will ultimately be revealed during discovery during the inevitable lawsuits. So I’m wondering if they haven’t actually figured out how they’re doing it yet.

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

#68

Post by whiddershins »

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…

I have only been generally following this but I don’t think this is quite accurate.

It seems more like, starting in 2024 when you get more downloads the fee would be applied.

I see people talking here about apps that have a huge user base and a very low price per purchase. I admit that segment didn’t pop into my mind initially. And I see the problem there. I also imagine the Unity execs may have missed that scenario too.

From reading all of their public communication, and with just a hint of principle of charity, I suspect they are trying to do this in the most fair minded and developer friendly manner possible.

You have to meet both volume and revenue minimums to even be subject to this. All free apps are safe. All non-profits are safe.

I think it is good Unity is receiving public feedback.

I am sad so many people are jumping to the conclusion this is a corrupt money grab.

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

#69

Post by numpad0 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #25
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…

They don't want developers choosing to target older Unity versions for their games, they want to milk cent they can out of their users.

That and/or they wanted to set up existing games. Something like 1 in 5 of top 50 iOS games, free-to-play and majority Asian(Chinese or Japanese), are making banks and on Unity.

Personally I’m wondering if Chinese gamedev industry would “buy Godot” or do something to that effect. Japanese publishers won’t be able to do that nor would be willing to pay, so I’m guessing they’ll migrate existing to UE or wind down Unity titles, just my speculations though.

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

#70

Post by StopHammoTime »

hedora wrote: post #40
umpalumpaaa wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ne…

They have actually released something like this in the last day that says if you use their ad market there is no per device fee.

It was on HN this morning.

Post reply on HN