"He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future." - Orwell.
Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
71–80 of 180 posts
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#72The older versions should be subject to those original ToS, retroactive ToS changes are poor treatment.
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#73What I hate most about this is that it puts unbounded liability onto developers. They can't control how often their game will be installed in the future. The outcome will likely be that the minute a game falls below a certain rate of sales they will be forced to make it unavailable because they can't risk the ongoing cost of the existing userbase continually reinstalling it. Every time a new platform or device is released, there will be a wave of people shifting their installs which will will generate cost for developers for no return, and windfall profits to Unity for doing absolutely nothing. They get the money even if the user never even opens the app, they just click the button saying "install all my apps from my old device on my new one". Which is what a lot of users will do.
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The problem is they now want to license the engine as a separate product which they didn’t do in the past. Previously, you paid your license fee for editor and any game you build off that is deployed and you could stop paying them.
I guess they didn’t like the thought of not being able to perpetually milk their customers and wanted to increase their cut outside of the editor fee.
From what I understand though, Unreal is just licensed based on revenue and all the editing tools are free. Unity had the opposite approach previously. They’ve decided they want a cut of both pies.
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#75This 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 reminds me of the old Simpsons ep where Homer realises their pet elephant costs a lot and decides to retrospectively update pricing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uQNPS9v_VU
“Get out of my house.”
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#76This 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…
I wonder just how much this change is geared at capturing value from what's already out there, i.e. the retroactivity is the point.
> geared at capturing value from what's already out there
This sounds like a plausible motive. There's a handful of huge games using Unity that together generate upwards of 20bln annually, such as Pokemon GO, Honor of Kings, and Genshin Impact. I'm guessing their soundbite of "developers being excited" over the change is with those behemoths in mind, and not the other games that are barely making ends meet.
These particular successful games are still going to save millions compared to Unreal, while the change means that everyone else would now be more profitable with Unreal. Pokemon GO alone would have made Unreal $100mln+ a year with the 5% royalty, while paying considerably less with Unity's new scheme. Even at a billion downloads it's only $10mln in comparison.
It sounds like Unity is shifting their focus from the long tail where they were successful charging annual subscription fees (and ads), to the head that's generating orders of magnitude more revenue.
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But even then they’re not going to proactively stop it, it’s up to devs to monitor their bill and go “wait we’re getting bombed”. Their whole approach is terribly sloppy and unprofessional.
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#78Earlier 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…
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…
A public company with veteran leadership does not upend their revenue model without first playing out, in great detail, how it will impact all of their largest users. The segment you mention may not have popped into your mind, but it's certainly been on theirs. This was intentional.
What category of game has "a huge user base and a very low price per purchase?" Mobile free-to-play, that's what. How are those games monetized? Frequently with ads. And it's been noted elsewhere that if you use Unity's ad network, you will get a 100% discount on your per-install fees.
They knew exactly what they were doing. They merged with an ad company -- they are now an ad company. Their strategy is to make F2P games untenable on Unity if you're not getting advertisements from them.
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#79I struggle to think of a more well defined "burn the ships" moment in my lifetime. This company has lost all self respect.
Re: Unity has seemingly silently removed its GitHub repo that tracks ToS changes
#80Earlier 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. 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…
You can say whatever you want in a contract. If the other party thinks it is illegal they take you to court and the judge decides.