Live data from Hacker News

Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

ramatak.com

431–440 of 733 posts

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#431

I think we are starting to see the cracks in the utopic vision of open source. I know it sounds very harsh, but I feel the vast majority of people complaining about these kind of situations are people who want the benefit of the tremendous engineering accomplishment of a game engine like Unity without contributing or paying in any way. Somehow people have convinced themselves that just using a technology is equivalen…

> I feel the vast majority of people complaining about these kind of situations are people who want the benefit of the tremendous engineering accomplishment of a game engine like Unity without contributing or paying in any way.

I just want to point out that the biggest non-contributors to open-source are the enterprise companies you either never or barely heard about, whose entire stacks run on tons of open source and yet it's those end user enterprise shops that are making millions.

In many ways, this probably includes Unity themselves.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#432
post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you can always modify source code and use it privately - you hardly need a license for that. The additional sections that allow distribution are the important bits and I guess the devil is in the details.

> Well, you can always modify source code and use it privately - you hardly need a license for that. You do need a license to modify the source, use it internally, and then sell a binary you've produced with the modified source.

It's the "sell a binary" bit that introduces the need for a license.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#433

I think we are starting to see the cracks in the utopic vision of open source. I know it sounds very harsh, but I feel the vast majority of people complaining about these kind of situations are people who want the benefit of the tremendous engineering accomplishment of a game engine like Unity without contributing or paying in any way. Somehow people have convinced themselves that just using a technology is equivalen…

It helps to think of FLOSS as an ecosystem, not individual components. Also those large companies use many parts of the ecosystem and chances are some of your code, just not necessarily the component you are using (most). Even only using the ecosystem reinforces it for others and in turn the chances support existing or publish new tools in it.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly because people like you respond with no actual information in your post that people could learn from?

I am less impressed with the defensiveness you're responding with when ignorance is pointed out than I am with the people pointing out the ignorance.

I'm not intending to be defensive (I'm sure there's loads of people on here with more knowledge about licensing terms), but usually a corrective post is something that we can learn from. Just saying something is wrong with no more info seems against the spirit of HN.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a simplistic view. “Beholden to shareholders” does not mean prioritising short-term gain at all costs. That’s not just my ideology, it is how publicly traded companies work a lot of the time, including the one that I work for. To imply that there’s such a stark binary difference between a privately held and publicly held company misses a lot of nuance. Investors can want a quick out or be in for the long game…

In theory, that's true. But what I see every day is the opposite. It's essentially what people are calling "enshitification". Mostly short term decisions that screw customers up for a quick buck. I do agree that private does not mean good. It all falls under the CEO/Founders in my view. But there seems to be way more greedy short term thinking leaders out there. I can probably count in my hands the amount of companie…

Public companies see their stock rise when they fire thousands of people even though they are profitable. The entire system is perverse.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#436

The logic that Epic and Unreal Engine will do something similar as Unity doesn't track for me. The argument hinges on the premise that Epic, who operates their own game store and is courting developers aggressively with generous revenue split, is willing to burn their bridge with developers for questionable increase in profit; in addition it presumes that the plain old revenue share model that Unreal Engine utiltizes…

> I think the only reason Unity went this route is because they don't want to be seen to publicly break the promise of no revenue ... Not quite. Unity merged with a company that sells mobile ads: ironSource. They are direct competitors of AppLovin, the dominant player in that market. The terms and backroom deals that Unity is offering devs will waive these fees if they use Unity's ad products instead of AppLovin. Thi…

Kind of feels like this is the Boeing--McDonnell Douglas of game engine acquisitions.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#437
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you can always modify source code and use it privately - you hardly need a license for that. The additional sections that allow distribution are the important bits and I guess the devil is in the details.

No you cant.

Who could stop you and how would they know about it?

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#438

I think we are starting to see the cracks in the utopic vision of open source. I know it sounds very harsh, but I feel the vast majority of people complaining about these kind of situations are people who want the benefit of the tremendous engineering accomplishment of a game engine like Unity without contributing or paying in any way. Somehow people have convinced themselves that just using a technology is equivalen…

> I think we are starting to see the cracks in the utopic vision of open source.

we definitely are, and it's the inherent contradiction of "one entity pays to maintain it, another entity makes all the money from exploiting it". this is why there's such a commotion around BSL and dual-licensing schemes.

GPL/AGPL itself is a coherent mechanism for sustaining development. BSD/MIT tends to lead to an embrace-extend-extinguish model where one company pays to write the software, and then Amazon makes it an S3 service, extends and extinguishes the original core by adding proprietary features they keep to themselves, and public development ceases or languishes.

we are lining up for a similar showdown in the CPU space with ARM vs RISC-V. When Amazon and Google say they want an open ISA, they certainly don't mean they're going to open up their stuff. They want it to be open to them, they have proprietary extensions they bolt on (to all those instruction fields left as "vendor-determined") and proprietary accelerators they interface, and they will keep all that proprietary and never sell it outside the company. And that's the return of this same "proprietary vs GPL/AGPL vs MIT" battle. The ability for large commercial entities to extract all the value from open-source work and pay nothing and contribute nothing.

ARM already very much is a "lowest-common-denominator" company, they thrive on designing architectures that are "good enough" and then the actual secret sauce goes in the way you customize it and what you bolt on alongside. And that's exactly what RISC-V will cement, because google and amazon and facebook don't compete on how fast they can make the CPU core, they compete on how cheap they can make it. Which is why vCPU units are still specified in sandybridge-equivalent-cores, and why we're getting zen4c cores instead of faster ones, etc - they don't care how fast it is, they care about selling you more units, and that means being able to provide more units.

audiovisual (and I am including video games here) is a somewhat unique space though because you will not win this battle, the effort involved in building unity or unreal from scratch is herculean, and all of the parties involved are used to exorbitant spends to make the product happen (which I suppose is also true of silicon!)

Sometimes this comes into conflict with the GPL community - like NVIDIA's inability to open their legacy driver core, or AMD's inability to get HDMI 2.1 working on their open driver core (which seems to have stalled out again, the dev who said "august or september" has gone radio-silent). Because if you ask HDMI Forum or Dolby or Fraunhofer or Motion Pictures Experts Group to license as GPL they're going to have a sensible chuckle while clicking the delete email button. That's not how this space works.

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/amd/-/issues/1417#note_19...

I am actually not opposed to proprietary in general, and especially in this space it almost is a necessity given the amount of work involved. Someone has to be paid to sit down and write engine code all day, and they have to be very skilled and specialized. And this applies whether it's Unreal or Unity or your own in-house engine.

Companies obviously don't like to write a check, which is why they keep doing in-house engines even though it literally keeps killing games, like the way frostbite killed ME:A and Anthem. They would rather a game tank then to pay 2% of gross to buy an off-the-shelf engine (and you best believe if you're EA negotiating a license for all your games you're not paying list price).

What unity is doing here is insane from a business perspective, but they're not wrong either that it's a situation where they're doing an equal share of the total work (there are a lot of man-hours in an engine) and get paid jack shit. Just like open-source software. And when you increase licensing fees (like ARM, or like software going BSL/AGPL) then companies start looking for the exits. Because they're used to extracting all the profit, and at a certain scale it does become viable to just do the work yourself anyway, rather than paying someone else. And that's why you get ME:A and Anthem and BF2042.

edit: And I wrote all that without knowing that unity is currently losing a billion dollars a year, so... yeah.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#439
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A CEO under who EA introduced lootboxes. A person that proposed that when player runs out of ammo could make an easy instant payment for a quick reload. Unity engine seems to flounder under him, despite rather insane headcount (7,703), acquisition spree laden Unity Technologies with significant debt... I am not impressed, not with his ideas and even less with his results. For comparison, Larry Elisson (Oracle) has di…

Running out of ammo and instant payment sounds a lot like an arcade, which is how video games became commercially successful in the first place.

But imagine having to do that if you owned the arcade game.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still sad there hasn't been a new Unreal Tournament since 2007. It's all only Fortnite now.

At least we'll always have the first, best UT.

UT 99 and Quake 3 Arena came out at the same time. But UT with its modes and different game types was just amazing.
Post reply on HN