Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

ramatak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 733 posts

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

#551

Post by kowbell »

nottorp wrote: post #197
ThatPlayer wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Releasing on a store is not immoral. Is not releasing on GoG what you believe to be immoral? Even GoG has paid for exclusives, they charge store fees like everyone else. They're a business too at the end of the day. That sounds like an unfinished feature to me then. Why are you playing games forever that aren't entertaining?

> Why are you playing games forever that aren't entertaining? Did I say I play endless games? I said free to play games have to be endless to get you to pay.

Do you have a moral issue with games that are free and also “endless”?

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

#552

Post by georgeecollins »

miragecraft wrote: post #340

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…

Nothing against Epic, but they have a strategic incentive to encourage people to use their store. Getting a discount to use the engine in exchange for a store “exclusive” is a cost that I see developers not really appreciating. There is no free lunch.

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

#553

Post by vinceguidry »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #434
vinceguidry wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Misinformation is more against the spirit.

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

#554

Post by janosdebugs »

das_keyboard wrote: post #538
somenameforme wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another strong argument in favor of this point. This [1] is from Unreal's license: --- "7. The Agreement Between You and Epic a. Amendments If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to. However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to…

If you go to this Unity blogpost from 2019 [1] it states: > When you obtain a version of Unity, and don’t upgrade your project, we think you should be able to stick to that version of the TOS. > Moving forward, we will host TOS changes on Github to give developers full transparency about what changes are happening, and when. The link to the mentioned GitHub repo just recently became dead :/ [1]: https://blog.unity.co…

Mentioning it in a blog post is not the same as putting it in the TOS themselves and you can keep using the old version with the old agreement.

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

#555

Post by pelasaco »

pelasaco wrote: post #26

As Game developer myself, and unity user, I was concerned about the new pricing model, however, actually reading the actual changes[1], you see that 99% of the developers are not affected, and in some cases, for those affected, still cheaper to go with Unity than with Unreal: There is a video explaining it well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENoVL68z9PU For sure an open source solution would be more than welcome, bu…

To downvote and not discuss, it typical from the new generation...

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

#556

Post by adultSwim »

numlock86 wrote: post #503
adultSwim wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unreal Engine is open source It doesn't look like it to me. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal

> The Licensed Technology licensed to you under this Agreement includes all Unreal Engine code and related content that is copied to your computer when you install Unreal Engine. Have you read it? You literally get read access to their entire GitHub repo.

Yes. Having access to the source is not the same as open source. I encourage you to re-read it. They also have an FAQ clearly outlining the restrictions. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/faq

"Can I copy and paste Unreal engine code into my own project or engine?

If you use any Unreal Engine code in your product (even just a little), then your entire product is governed by the Unreal Engine EULA, and is subject to 5% royalties when your gross lifetime revenues from that product exceed $1 million USD."

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

#558

Post by ubertaco »

miragecraft wrote: post #340

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…

The question is not "do we _suppose_ that it's _likely_ that they _would_ do something similar?", but rather "is it _possible_ that they _can_ do something similar?"

If you're using a proprietary engine made by a for-profit company, the answer to that second question is always "yes", and the answer to that first question is always subject to change.

If you're using an open-source engine, the answer to the second question is "no" (because in the worst-case you can fork it to buy yourself time), and the answer to the first question is totally moot, because the first question is no longer a thing.

It's about risk management: optimism is not a strategy. Mitigation by removing the attack vector _is_ a strategy.

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

#559

Post by somenameforme »

das_keyboard wrote: post #538
somenameforme wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's another strong argument in favor of this point. This [1] is from Unreal's license: --- "7. The Agreement Between You and Epic a. Amendments If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to. However, if we make changes to this Agreement, you will not be allowed to…

If you go to this Unity blogpost from 2019 [1] it states: > When you obtain a version of Unity, and don’t upgrade your project, we think you should be able to stick to that version of the TOS. > Moving forward, we will host TOS changes on Github to give developers full transparency about what changes are happening, and when. The link to the mentioned GitHub repo just recently became dead :/ [1]: https://blog.unity.co…

Nothing's ever dead. [1]

---

"8. Modifications.

Unity may update these Unity Software Additional Terms at any time for any reason and without notice (the “Updated Terms”) and those Updated Terms will apply to the most recent current-year version of the Unity Software, provided that, if the Updated Terms adversely impact your rights, you may elect to continue to use any current-year versions of the Unity Software (e.g., 2018.x and 2018.y and any Long Term Supported (LTS) versions for that current-year release) according to the terms that applied just prior to the Updated Terms (the “Prior Terms”). The Updated Terms will then not apply to your use of those current-year versions unless and until you update to a subsequent year version of the Unity Software (e.g. from 2019.4 to 2020.1). If material modifications are made to these Terms, Unity will endeavor to notify you of the modification. If a modification is required to comply with applicable law, the modification will apply notwithstanding this section. Except as explicitly set forth in this paragraph, your use of any new version or release of the Unity Software will be subject to the Updated Terms applicable to that release or version. You understand that it is your responsibility to maintain complete records establishing your entitlement to Prior Terms."

---

EDIT: Oh wow. How sketchy. That page on Github is only their "additional terms". When you go to their terms page itself you find [2]

---

"1.4 Modification

Unity reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to modify, discontinue or terminate the Services. Unity may also modify the Agreement at any time and without prior notice. If we modify the Agreement, we will post the modification on the Site or otherwise provide you with notice of the modification. We will also update the “Last updated” date at the top of these Terms. By continuing to access or use the Services after we have provided you with notice of a modification, you indicate that you agree to be bound by the modified Terms. If the modified Terms are not acceptable to you, your only recourse is to cease using the Services.

Notwithstanding this Section 1.4, any modification of the Unity Software Additional Terms is subject to Section 8 of the Unity Software Additional Terms."

---

There is some serious lawyerizing going on there that makes this largely incomprehensible to me at least, probably by design.

[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201111183311/https://github.co...

[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200814002539/https://unity3d.c...

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

#560

Post by johnnyanmac »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #484
miragecraft wrote: post #340

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…

> and the reason they grew too big is because they took the company public and in that sphere success is measured in growth Why is "growth" always interpreted as "higher headcount" and not "higher profits"? Certainly a company that has continually growing profits without increasing costs would be seen as more valuable than a company that constantly increases their costs with revenue? Does Unity hiring more Engineers…

very generalized answer here but it comes down to:

1. you want to make sure product A is profitable

2. at some point Product A will reach a steady state (in some utopic future, but let's pretend). i.e. Product A will hit a point where its excitement will taper off.

3. How do you get that explosive growth back? New product. But you want to maintain old product.

4. hire more people to work on Product B. Have it launch, big growth!

5. then recession hits and it turns out you need stability. Product A is fine, everyone on Product B is fired

profits are important, but it's not the end all be all for how the stock market works. It may not even be the most important factor. You want to build excitement and become the thing big thing, even if it turns out to be a check you can't cash. So in that lens, Unity hires (or hired) more engineers or acquires companies to increase excitement, not necessarily to increase profits. "Product A" is ads, and right now even that isn't very stable for them, so I guess they are trying to find a new Product A.

Back in the old days, Game studios used to simply make games to build this excitement. It has a set track, a big time to announce and release for spikes, and your existing teams works on the next game. But more studios want to get that "Product A", so even games are investing more in GaaS for that steady income. It's what ended up happening to Epic with Fortnite, where their "Product B" is actually announcing exciting engine features.

Post reply on HN