Live data from Hacker News

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

ramatak.com

691–700 of 733 posts

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

#691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If people want to spend their breath agitating for something, it's to get Unity to share the source code for a lower price. while I hate it being gated, it's not that expensive for a medium sized company to get source code access. $3000 + probably some per seat licenses that are orders cheaper than what you pay employees (even significantly underpaid game devs). if you get more than 250k installs you're already payi…

Completely agree. If I had to make a destructible game from scratch I would implement that tech in unreal rather than starting from scratch 10 times over.

Do you mean "disagree"?

And I'm not saying "from scratch". I'm more saying that I can't rely on Epic's actor/component framework to provide what I need. You can find other Middleware to help with mesh destruction and work around that as a base.

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

#692
post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Epic will never have a monopoly as long as Steam exists. They aren't complete fools here, they realize this but are aware that even having a slice of that massive pie is enough to fuel numerous positions in the future.

When I was talking about monopoly, I was talking about 3rd party engines, not storefronts.

They still wouldn't be a monopoly engine-wise, even excluding Unity you have Godot and O3DE as popular open source options. Ignoring that a lot of studios are now sharing internal custom engines, like Sony's studios with the Decima engine.

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

#694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

to be more charitable to the above, we're not talking about consumer software. if you're starting a company selling something there is a fair bit more reasonableness in asking you to read a contract

What you are proposing is literally impossible. If I were to comb through every ToS and EULA and every other legal text related to tools I use as a developer, I would not have any hours left in the day for, you know, actual development. Even then, I wouldn't have time to read and comprehend all of the legal contracts. Hell, if I stopped sleeping entirely and spent 24 hours a day combing through legal contracts, I sti…

what use are contracts if buisnesses refuse to read them. Sure you as an employee might not but if you're running a company you really ought to read it on your key software. We're not talking about an email provider, its the key engine you're using. It's like if you didn't read the contract with the manfuacturer you hired to make your product...

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

#695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Epic is privately held, Valve is too, Unity is not and we ended up here. I think that says a lot. I've been thinking a lot about private versus public companies. Most of my favorite products come out of privately held companies. There is something about the incentives for publicly traded companies that encourages them to make poor choices. I think it is because there are effectively two forms of revenue: selling pr…

>My current theory is to focus more on revenue sharing instead of stock price. For example, dividend stocks. I don't think it completely solves the problem, but it at least moves things in the right direction. This can't be directly enforced. You can't make laws for what people to "focus" on. Though there is a way to indirectly push this notion: Restrict all stock ownership to be a minimum of 10 years. This indirectl…

> If all stocks had a minimum 10 year ownership requirement

Then nobody would ever buy that stock, because they have no exit if things go south.

And then that's combined with

> If a company dumps illegal nuclear waste in some river, directly ask for minimum fines from all shared holders. First divide the fine by the shareholder amount, charge each shareholder. Then if it's below a 500 dollar minimum add the remaining amount to get it up to 500.

Again, who would buy that stock? What reward is worth that risk, especially when you've banned them from selling stock even if they see the company is doing shady stuff?

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

#696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

UT99 and all the Unreal games have been delisted from stores and they're shutting down the game's master server. You can still play solo or in LAN but online multiplayer is gone and there's no (legal) way to get new copies.

Man, I knew Epic delisted it from Steam out of spite but I didn't know they took it down from GOG too.

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

#697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot fork it and change its licence unless orig unreal license permits you to do it. Does it? edit: it doesn't unless Epic Games grants you a specific license to do that. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/eula/unreal source: > 4. How You Can Share the Licensed Technology When It Isn’t Part of a Product > You may only Distribute Licensed Technology (including as modified by you) outside of a Product as expressl…

>You cannot fork it and change its licence You can't do that for Godot either.

Yes you can but still need to mention the original licence and copyright notice. But your end product can be proprietary, or released under other license such as the GPLv3.

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

#698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My current theory is to focus more on revenue sharing instead of stock price. For example, dividend stocks. I don't think it completely solves the problem, but it at least moves things in the right direction. This can't be directly enforced. You can't make laws for what people to "focus" on. Though there is a way to indirectly push this notion: Restrict all stock ownership to be a minimum of 10 years. This indirectl…

> If all stocks had a minimum 10 year ownership requirement Then nobody would ever buy that stock, because they have no exit if things go south. And then that's combined with > If a company dumps illegal nuclear waste in some river, directly ask for minimum fines from all shared holders. First divide the fine by the shareholder amount, charge each shareholder. Then if it's below a 500 dollar minimum add the remaining…

You wouldn't buy that stock because you represent people with short term interests. And that's the point.

You're a gambler, you dive in and immediately exit. Nobody buys assets this way in reality... when you buy a car or toothbrush you don't dip in and dip out like a mad man. Paper stocks removes reality away from assets and lets you buy 0.000001% of a shoe and immediately sell it in 1 second. The economy isn't improved, and instead you create a market of buying and selling paper. It's too abstracted. We need to lower the abstraction.

People buy assets for utility and long term investments. When people do HFS it's basically a gambling ring, you're making money off one idiot trying to sell paper to the next idiot. This influences the board which influences corporate behavior to cater to your gambling tendencies.

10 year terms makes it so you make money by putting your money in an ACTUAL investment to create something better. The company caters to your long term interests. You invest in Tesla because you expect the company to change the entire automobile industry and you expect that business endeavor to succeed in 10 years. Hype, bullshit and just trying shit out because gamestop seems fun will no longer be part of the equation.

Maybe 10 years is too long. Make it 5 years.

>Again, who would buy that stock? What reward is worth that risk, especially when you've banned them from selling stock even if they see the company is doing shady stuff?

Right so if the company knows this, then they wouldn't do shady stuff because they need to establish a reputation such that a person is willing to entrust a 5-10 year investment with them. The point of this restriction is to create incentive for companies to be good.

Corporate psychology is psychopathic due to the disconnect between action and responsibility. Criminal action is abstracted, long term gain is abstracted, the point is to remove these abstractions.

Who would buy the stock you ask? People who think the company is good. People who believe in the company. Not people who want to gamble on the company.

Thus if those are the ONLY people buying stocks. Then you tell me. What does a company HAVE to DO to cater to those PEOPLE? They have to be better. Truly better.

If you remove all abstraction away from the financial system you get rid of the dollar and suddenly you have the bartering system which is way to inefficient. But you make the abstraction to high and suddenly you have bitcoin and a bunch of other cryptos representing worthless shit. And you get corporations who have the mass psychology equivalent to a psychopath. It's a gradient of abstraction and I think we're too far on the abstraction side of things. We need to lower it a bit and that's what my proposal is doing. Unlikely to ever happen though.

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

#699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they have no good solutions to this Bought by Apple or Microsoft maybe?

My money is on Meta. Unity powers the vast majority of VR games and is (was) the favored API for Meta's dev tools, and even Apple chose it as their only officially supported 3rd party toolkit for the Vision Pro. Meta seems to enjoy throwing money into the VR space to subsidize it at the low-cost end, I could easily see them doing a hostile takeover of Unity "for the good of the VR space"

Apple “chose” it might be a bit misleading. While I’m sure they could’ve gone with Unreal, the outstanding lawsuits alongside the very loud negative press from Epic made it a non starter. Outside of Unreal and Unity, there aren’t a lot of options.

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

#700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But history has shown them get cheaper and more capable over time for nearly every example you gave.

Survivorship bias. These are the ones that haven't _yet_ gotten worse and are still currently popular. I'm listing them so people won't get blindsided when they do eventually bite their users. There isn't enough space to list the closed source software tools that didn't make it. Off the top of my head: Adobe Flash, MS Basic, SourceSafe, ActiveDesktop, FoxPro, J#, Oslo, IronRuby, and Silverlight.

That’s not what survivor bias is. You listed a set of services saying that open source is better. But the entire history of everything you said shows they are superior to the open source solutions and have gotten cheaper and more capable.

Flash had a 10 year transition and was open sourced along the way, but was no longer supported by any of the open or closed source browsers… how does that help your point? No one. Listing a bunch of crap closed source projects doesn’t strengthen your point as there are equally a bunch of crap open source solutions.

What’s the open source solution to S3 or DynamoDB anyway? These are software solutions that require a certain kind of infrastructure, you are saying all companies should also specialise in that infrastructure?

Where do you stop? Self host in a data centre? Well now you rely on the data centre… self host in premise, now you are beholden to your ISP. Be your own ISP? Now you are beholden to government regulation? Be your own government… it gets absurd, but I’m just following your line of logic down the line.

Post reply on HN