Live data from Hacker News

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

gamerbraves.com

81–90 of 180 posts

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

#81

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.

Have they announced anywhere that this is being deleted?

As you noted, deleting something doesn’t make a sound. So if they don’t voluntarily make a sound, then they have silently deleted it.

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

#82
post #73

What 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 rel…

> What I hate most about this is that it puts unbounded liability onto developers.

And Unity can continue to raise the per-installation price as well. If they lose a bunch of customers but want to maintain their current income, why not raise it to $1 instead of just $0.27?

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

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most games on the Switch and Quest devices for sure. A lot of mobile games as well. Over 1B games sold on the switch: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/1-billion-switch-games-hav... We can assume at least one game per Quest was sold: https://www.roadtovr.com/quest-sales-20-million-retention-st... Hard to figure out the mobile numbers.

That list (which is at least half of switch game sales) are nintendo games that don't use Unity. I'd be shocked if half of the remaining 500mn games sold used unity. But if they did, at .20c, that's like 50mn dollars.

As for the quest sales, that's another 4mn.

It seems extremely foolhardy to cause this much damage to their reputation and potential growth as a multi-billion dollar company (market cap of 13bn) for 50-100mn a year of additional revenue.

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

#85

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…

IANAL but isn't this what we have an FTC for? It feels like pretty blatantly unfair business dealings, particularly the fact that it's retroactive

Literally "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further"

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

#86

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. 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…

Maybe their argument was going to be the malicious interpretation that continued use of the engine represents consent to the updated terms. Thus maliciously expecting that anyone who doesn't agree should cease distribution and support of their game.

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

#87

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. 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.

But it means that their legal teams say that it's legit already, so that's why most people assume that this is legal.

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

#89

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…

IANAL but isn't this what we have an FTC for? It feels like pretty blatantly unfair business dealings, particularly the fact that it's retroactive Literally "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further"

I hope so, but if it’s likely to get smacked down by the FTC, it’s unlikely Unity would try this path. I’m sure this has been in the works for a long time and all the backlash was anticipated - they just expect huge profits on the other side.

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

#90
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…

(TL;DR: this describes an old project of mine which tried to do something similar, which may be useful as inspiration for such a project. More testing is needed to say whether simple string replacements work sufficiently well, but initial results were promising. These days, LLMs are probably even more promising.)

I tried making this once for employment contracts, which would string-replace difficult phrases with a version that uncle Jack on his horse would understand. This was back when a computer's understanding capabilities barely amounted to decompose a sentence into what the subject is you're talking about in the first place. However, the simple string replacements worked so well that I figured we should just crowdsource a dozen contracts and that should be able to kill 90% of the difficult language in any employment contract.

Example replacements: "to come to a transfer of the concerning intellectual property rights" with "to transfer copyright", or "Employee shall henceforth" with "you will" (I have trouble identifying "employee" versus "employer" in texts, so replacing it with 'you' and 'we' is a lot easier for me to read). It also just killed lesser-known words, like replacing "forthwith" with "immediately".

Example paragraph: If and insofar as Employee as part of the execution of their work activities on behalf of Employer whether or not together with others produces a work or other type of something on which intellectual property rights rest or can rest, Employee transfers these intellectual property rights already now just in case, or alternatively Employee grants an unlimited and irrevocable license and Employee lends at the first request of Employer forthwith all required cooperation to achieve a transfer of the concerning intellectual property rights. (Translated from a Dutch work contract I once received.)

Its replacement: If you make something during your work for us which can be copyrighted, you always transfer the copyright and grant a license and on request you immediately help transfer the copyright.

The project never went anywhere because I didn't pursue getting other contracts and seeing how well it works before marketing it as a useful tool for others. The main unknown is whether it would scale, or if the string replacements that work well in one contract start messing things up in others. Nowadays, though, I'd probably start by telling an LLM what kind of transformation it should make and then inputting the contract; that's probably 99% of the result in 0.1% of the time spent.

Post reply on HN