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

Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

farewell.bostonunitygroup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 465 posts

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#391

Post by matheusmoreira »

theptip wrote: post #312
MattRix wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way this was intentional. First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this, because a bunch of Unity employees quit due to this. Secondly, if it was a form of anchoring, they did it in the worst possible way. The problem wasn’t really the numbers, it was the base idea of using installs and having it apply retroactively. If they had just wanted to anchor they could have come out with a…

Agreed; Hanlon’s Razor applies here.

This is a corporation. They know exactly what they are doing.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#392

Post by bitcharmer »

HeavyStorm wrote: post #389

I keep saying it: the only way Unity will possibly convince the community that this was a mistake that won't happen again is by firing the CEO and whichever other C-levels involved in the affair. This signals that they understand this to be a fatal mistake, removes the people who has this distorted agenda, and makes it clear to future C-levels that other mistakes like this won't be tolerated.

Something tells me this would only happen if Unity were a Korean or Japanese company. No way in the world the CEO will resign or be let go after this.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#394

Post by matheusmoreira »

linkdd wrote: post #268
OkayPhysicist wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to innovate on the foundation of your product. It's a game engine: If it fulfilled your needs when you started, it's fulfilling your needs now. With open-source solutions A) you can't have the rug pulled from under you, as you have a perpetual license, and B) you can fix/modify/add things yourself if the business needs arise. With a proprietary solution, you might get A, but you have zero hope of B. It…

If my business is making games, I don't want to fix/modify/add things to a game engine. You do need to innovate on the foundation if you plan to maintain your game long term: new consoles support, new hardware support, obsolescence of old platforms, etc... You do not need to innovate if you plan to let your game rot and become unplayable 10-20 years later. Yes having a FOSS solution for the foundation would be ideal.…

> let your game rot and become unplayable 10-20 years later

Don't worry about it. Other people will literally solve that problem for you if they like your game enough no matter what you do. They won't even bother asking for permission.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#395

Post by ludocode »

MrRadar wrote: post #38
Buttons840 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have mixed feelings about the word "enshitification". Like a politician shutting down thought and debate by simply labeling something "socialism", half the people using the word don't really know what it means, or at least, they don't know the original meaning. The word comes to be fake form of intellectual sophistication. A politician says the word and people think "oh, he knows the fancy word, he must be right",…

"Enshittification" is not a hard word. It's describes itself: "En-" to make, "shit" bad, "-ification" the process of; in sum the process of making something bad. I think everyone understands that the products and services they use daily are getting worse and now they have a word to describe that experience. I think that by basing itself on the mild swear "shit" it actually distances itself from academic jargon or oth…

Enshittification not just making a product bad, and it's not just rent seeking. It's more than any of those things.

It's about making a product worse than it needs to be, by terrible pricing and ad infestation, in order to recoup the investment of years of underpricing to capture the market and kill competitors.

This is exactly what Unity has done.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#396

Post by jameshart »

follower wrote: post #330
jameshart wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing these links without context, after claiming that MIT licensed engines won’t have any issues, sort of implies that open source engines can be used fine to target consoles. The fact developers have been able to ship Godot games on console doesn’t help much unless those developers are willing to share whatever proprietary engine-to-console-SDK-interface code they wrote. Unity and Unreal, in contrast, will happ…

> [...] sort of implies that open source engines can be used fine to target consoles. That was my intention. > The fact developers have been able to ship Godot games on console doesn’t help much [...] Well, it demonstrates that it's entirely possible, either via DIY, hiring an in-house specialist or contracting to one of the companies who has already implemented the functionality. > [...] unless those developers are…

In practice there is a significant difference between ‘included in Unity Pro’ and ‘we know a guy’.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#398

Post by insanitybit »

Zuiii wrote: post #299
insanitybit wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stupid people are lawyers and they definitely seem to think they have a good reason.

All stupid people think they are right. Give me one concrete AGPL case that justifies their aversion. Anyway, it's their loss.

Is there an AGPL case that can be used to say "there's no risk" ?

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#399

Post by jprete »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #360
LoganDark wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't ever introduce any revenue sharing because they promised not to do that and would be immensely vulnerable to lawsuits if they ever went back on that promise. This was their attempt to do something that doesn't technically count as revenue sharing.

Now they kind of did though. Since you can pick between 2.5% and paying the install fee. Also I’m not sure how are “promises” legally binding unless they are part of a contract?

It’s known as promissory estoppel. The main reason promises are often not binding is that you can’t prove the other party said it. If you can prove the other party said it, and you “reasonably” relied on their statements, and suffered damages because their statements were false, you can recover those damages from them.

(IANAL)

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#400

Post by matheusmoreira »

jameshart wrote: post #397
matheusmoreira wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a corporation. They know exactly what they are doing.

Have you ever worked in a corporation?

Yes. I actually have my own company. Always assume they have an army of lawyers backing their every move. I know I do.
Post reply on HN