211–220 of 733 posts
>> While Unreal engine currently does not have terms like Unity’s, there’s nothing stopping them from doing something similar. In fact if Unity manages to get away with this it seems likely they will follow suit. Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So maybe it’ll force companies to stop making freemium trash that only targets the 2% whales and actually make good games?
No, it will make companies switch to Godot (where they have to pay nothing, ever) or Unreal (where they pay 5% for payments above a $1M threshold). For many developers it is now cheaper to switch the engine than to pay for Unity.
Only for a (possibly very) small minority.
I find the the fact that they had no qualms about retroactively applying this to already released game much more infuriating (if they did this, what can they do next?). The pricing itself seems fairly reasonable if make more $1.5-2 or so per user (compared to Unreal anyway).
I kinda feel bad for Unity. The company is in a bad place finacially. They're burning almost $1 billion a year and they have no good solutions to this. Either they try to increase pricing and piss off their customers, or they cut costs (which they've been doing with mass layoffs) and risk losing ground to other game engineers like Unreal. For years the only thing really holding the company a float was their valuation…
Why feel bad? They're a victim of deliberate bad choices. The buck stops at the top. Nobody told Riccitiello to hit the gas pedal, nor to enrich himself by selling shares prior to a disastrous announcement, he did that all on his own. I feel much worse for the thousands of developers he's holding a metaphorical gun to with this awful policy, who now have to stress about swapping engines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation part owned by a massive conglomerate. More then 50% of the shares/votes is owned by a single person. The founder and CEO Tim Sweeney.
Yes, that's why I said "part owned". 40% of Epic is owned by Tencent.
Which doesn't really matter unless you'll lose control. If 1 entity has >50% it's pretty safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If unreal decides to abandon all older versions support and development, to just focus on something new that requires payment, I don't think you can keep fixing or updating the old unsupported code, even if you have the source
Yes you can. You just can't redistribute the source to anyone else but using it internally for your own projects to build executable that you share (and sell as long as you pay the royalties to Epic) is fine. The last UE3 game released in 2021. UE4 came out in 2014 and UE5 in 2020. Unreal Engine license are per engine version and perpetual. This is something Sweeney has been pointing out for years. And again a few da…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing. Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental c…
"Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders." This stupid meme needs to die already. There is no such obligation, he only has a fiduciary duty to not trash the company and spend the earnings on cocaine. "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true and this piece of misinformation has been going around for ages now.
As long as the executives are behaving generally how the shareholders want, it's not a problem.
I'd love academics working on 3D to submit things that can roll into godot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing. Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental c…
"Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders." This stupid meme needs to die already. There is no such obligation, he only has a fiduciary duty to not trash the company and spend the earnings on cocaine. "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true and this piece of misinformation has been going around for ages now.
My (IANAL) reading of it is that maximising shareholder value is probably the law, but it's practically unenforcible. Being practically unenforcible doesn't stop CEOs and boards from using it as a guiding principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, if they just added revenue share like Unreal does and tweaked their subscriptions a little, the backlash wouldn't have been nearly as bad. The uproar is a combination of a really badly announced system and details that don't seem to be ironed out properly leaving devs ripe for abuse. Plus you have one of the most tight knit communities of artists who all reacted almost as one to this announcement and have e…
> Do they seriously think a fee applied on retroactive sales and revenue numbers would be accepted without issue from them? Unity have not proposed a fee on retroactive sales. They have proposed a from-this-point-forward fee that applies to new sales/installs of any game made with Unity, including new sales/installs of back catalog games.
In other words: This is absolutely a retroactive rug-pull on new installs of old sales.
Update: Because of the way they're rolling this out, the only way to avoid the retroactive license change is to immediately stop using Unity's development tools. If I were running a game studio, that's what I would do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing. Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental c…
"Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders." This stupid meme needs to die already. There is no such obligation, he only has a fiduciary duty to not trash the company and spend the earnings on cocaine. "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true and this piece of misinformation has been going around for ages now.
And that's just civil influence, there are legal mechanisms indeed in place if a CEO "trashes a company" and what that means is different depending on the company.