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

Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 58 posts

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#21

Post by rich_sasha »

This kind of thing keeps happening with [semi] open, [semi] free products backed by a commercial company. That doesn't make it good, but I wonder if the business model just doesn't quite work.

It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue.

Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many people into the "free" platform before pulling the rug. Even if that's not your initial plan.

I sincerely feel for all the indie gamedevs, this must be terrifying, I'm only commenting on the broader problem.

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#22

Post by plagiarist »

pixl97 wrote: post #13
mjw1007 wrote: post #10

Every now and again I see someone on this site saying things along the lines of "it's a shame that programmers in general are so unwilling to pay for quality tools", and I feel myself tempted to agree. Then something like this comes along and it becomes clear why it's so important that everything we rely on is, at the least, free from "I changed the deal" events.

This is the problem of "electrionicification" of everything. Oh, sorry, you need to sign a new EULA to use your cyber-hammer is the first thing every company would try if they could get away with it.

https://hackaday.com/2021/08/02/home-depot-is-selling-power-...

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#23

Post by _aavaa_ »

bloopernova wrote: post #12

All this BS just reinforces the feeling I have that corporate executives have zero knowledge of the company they run. How did unity leadership misjudge their market by so much?

> How did unity leadership misjudge their market by so much?

That remains to be seen. There's lots of noise about it right now, but if number goes up it will be hard to argue (even if it's true) that this was a bad decision.

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#24

Post by _aavaa_ »

rich_sasha wrote: post #21

This kind of thing keeps happening with [semi] open, [semi] free products backed by a commercial company. That doesn't make it good, but I wonder if the business model just doesn't quite work. It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue. Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many peop…

Unity may be free, but it is by not "open" by any stretch of the imagination

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#25

Post by gcr »

rich_sasha wrote: post #21

This kind of thing keeps happening with [semi] open, [semi] free products backed by a commercial company. That doesn't make it good, but I wonder if the business model just doesn't quite work. It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue. Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many peop…

what do you mean by calling unity semi-open?

Nothing about Unity has been “open” since its founding

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#27

Post by iliketrains »

mjw1007 wrote: post #10

Every now and again I see someone on this site saying things along the lines of "it's a shame that programmers in general are so unwilling to pay for quality tools", and I feel myself tempted to agree. Then something like this comes along and it becomes clear why it's so important that everything we rely on is, at the least, free from "I changed the deal" events.

This is not about "unwilling to pay for quality tools", but completely changing the way they charge for the tools, which gets applied to all legacy software that ever used their tools, despite their previous (now deleted) clauses that new TOS won't apply unless you use the new version, is just ridiculous to me.

Even if one stopped using Unity to develop new things before this change, they are still on the hook for product installs (even if they are free games), which are by the way tracked by Unity "proprietary data model".

Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Unity3D/comments/16hgmqm/unity_want...

A few quotes from the FAQ:

Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs?

A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data.

Q: Are these fees going to apply to games which have been out for years already? If you met the threshold 2 years ago, you'll start owing for any installs monthly from January, no? (in theory). It says they'll use previous installs to determine threshold eligibility & then you'll start owing them for the new ones.

A: Yes, assuming the game is eligible and distributing the Unity Runtime then runtime fees will apply. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#29

Post by whstl »

gcr wrote: post #25
rich_sasha wrote: post #21

This kind of thing keeps happening with [semi] open, [semi] free products backed by a commercial company. That doesn't make it good, but I wonder if the business model just doesn't quite work. It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue. Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many peop…

what do you mean by calling unity semi-open? Nothing about Unity has been “open” since its founding

I know it still doesn't mean it is "open", but I wonder if GP means that it "has a rich ecosystem anyone can participate", aka "lock-in".

Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

#30

Post by lawlessone »

runevault wrote: post #8
vanderZwan wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, Unity got bought out by a company that makes malware, and these decisions have been made by a former EA guy. Truly a match made in hell.

The former EA guy has been there for almost a decade, and ironSource was a merger/Unity acquisition not a purchase of Unity.

"Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. "

Either way they appear to be trying corral devs into using their advertising software. LevelPlay is IronSouce.

Combine this with their Gaming services. And they would control your backend. They would get a share of ad revenue directly, because it's their ad network.

At that point (this is just my opinion) you're just sort of their employee but without the benefits.

Post reply on HN