71–80 of 154 posts
> We are the collective voice of the game development industry—developers, game designers, artists, and business minds. Passionate about our craft, we've invested years in shaping an industry that touches the lives of millions worldwide. Clearly the "our craft" is "business minds" and the problem with increased Unity fees is that their add business is at risk despite all these "business minds" invested years to shape…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only recognize one of the company listed, for exactly the same reason you described. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_(company)#Criticism
Funny, because Google denied my Hole genre game that was real multiplayer. Their reason was that it was too similar to Hole.io, which was single player.
If you need a Web page, to protest being at the mercy some company because of dependencies out of your control... why would you gratuitously put that Web page at a Google Docs URL (which, again, you don't control)? Even three decades ago, you could pretty easily self-host this Web page and the Web form, in a way that you controlled it. Which prompts a thought... I'm sure there are much better reasons for dependency o…
> put that Web page at a Google Docs URL (which, again, you don't control)
What is the alternative? Bring up an AS, hook it up to a couple of dark fibers, and host it off your battery and solar panel? Because you do not control your ISP, hosting provider or power provider either. You barely control the hardware you bought.
You independence depends on benevolence of other players, and Google is most likely to remain benevolent in this case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only Among Us in this list uses Unity.
I updated the list. I’m sorry - Stardew Valley is not unity, and “Nintendo” wasn’t specific enough to referring to some of their Pokémon projects. (I also added everything after “Pokémon” in the list after this comment and they all use Unity.)
Nintendo does not develop the Pokemon games - Game Freak does.
Nintendo, however, does publish some of the Pokemon games and does partially own the Pokemon IP through The Pokemon Company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the US, the only way you find out is by spending millions in a legal battle, during which they might very well disable your game remotely (and get fined for that too after, if you still exist then).
Well, they cannot really disabled it remotely (it's not like that functionality exists in the current code base atm, maybe in future Unity version). But they could kill your license so you won't be able to build your game using their tool anymore (however you could also just grab a new license under a different name). What I wonder tho is if they are going to go to the length of asking platform holder like Apple / Go…
I'm pretty sure there's a term for that: fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In EU it's indeed illegal and in 90% of EU countries it won't even go to court. But they can probably force you to not upgrade anything cause of licensing of the new software or if you upgrade they'll make you pay fees from that moment onwards. But in US im pretty sure it is open for the legal battle that will cost tons of cash for both sides.
Not to be that guy, but do you have a source for this? As scummy as what they're doing is, it's also completely typical for damned near 100% of companies to reserve the right to be scummy. They all have a clause in their terms that states, 'We can do whatever we want, whenever we want, for any reason we want. If you don't like it, your only recourse is to stop using the software.' I'd love for this to be true, but I'…
TLDR: Don't bet on Unity's success. Bet on their collapse. The place has zero integrity in management. I've never worked at a worse managed place, and I hope I never do again. (Disclaimer: two of my three engineering managers were actually very good skilled engineers and managers (the one bad one was the "people manager", who "always knew he wanted to be a manager" and was put in charge of an engineering team... he h…
I quit that job the second week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to unilaterally and retroactively change the pricing model? I very much doubt it
For a licensing agreement to change the model and price going forward with 90 day notice, why would t it be?
Went to the website of one of the signers, clicked "reject" on their cookie popup, which just navigated me into this paragraph: > What can you do if you do not want storing cookies to be set or want them to be removed? > You are able to withdraw the consent to store cookies by changing the settings of your web browser. I'm warming up to the idea of there being some kind of barrier to entry to this industry. One that…
The other way to look at it is that browser settings are the perfect way to express lack of consent for non-allow listed entities and get rid of the ridiculous piecemeal approach we have now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know nearly nothing about law. But I would guess that most courts in world would find this type of change unconscionable. Thus unenforceable. Now not yet released games get much harder. And projects started after the date it was released are likely different.
> But I would guess that most courts in world would find this type of change unconscionable. Thus unenforceable. Courts aren't moral entities, they decide if things are legal. Your relevant legislature is the source of morality (or lack thereof) in the law.
Then, after he said his piece and made it clear there better they needed to be quite persuasive, they did indeed lose. They tried to win on a little technicality in the law but as the judge said "that is there for X reason, this is Y. It doesn't even apply, especially with ample evidence that the defendant was attempting to work with them to resolve the issue."
Point is, civil court is usually quite different than criminal court; basically preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt and a judge can say that the evidence is not preponderance enough.