101–110 of 180 posts
This seems extremely shady.
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"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
We'll see I guess! But even if it's not illegal the shortsightedness is staggering, which makes me question if leadership would have even foreseen legal problems
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…
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.
The ripples and unintended consequences of this move could really be significant for years.
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 bu…
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…
I would still oppose it because I don't want every installer to spy on me as a user. I'm glad it happened in a way that spurred so much resistance instead of a slow frog-boil.
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