I never thought I'd see Musks destruction of Twitter be beaten, this is unreal.
No pun intended?
No, this is a Cry (for the) Engine.
Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
31–40 of 58 posts
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#32Why did this post disappear from the front page? I understand that this is now a heated topic, but I think it is good for people to know about things like this.
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#33Every 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.
Programmers are peak "fine I'll do it myself" with a culture of freely sharing knowledge, so I both get it as a point to criticize and an honorable mindset.
With that in mind, I a fine paying for tools I need if I understand the service behind it is massive and hard to replicate. A less controversial example is IDE's. Visual Studio has a great free Suite and a justifiable pro edition to pay for (and enterprise, but I'll leave the costs of million dollar corporations out of this). Jetbrains is pay up front (unless you use Android Studio) but their model lets you keep the version you paid a year for. These are good balances between subscription and ownership.
Of course, these game engines are doing very heavy lifting, but it's never okay to retroactively change you you monetize product you already launched. On top of all that, this plan simply doesn't sound well thought out (or actively malicious if you want to go that direction).
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#34Every 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 pr…
> 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.
That's a risk you run when the company you're buying your tools from is beholden to shareholders. Which a vast majority of the companies we can even buy tools from are/will be.
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#35Every 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.
I think the solution is a model like JetBrains. You pay a subscription to get upgrades, but in effect you're just automatically buying perpetual licenses.
Perpetual licenses mean nothing if the vendor changes the TOS on your old version (which is literally what’s happening here).
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#36It seems no company is shy of the inevitable enshitification when they get to a certain size
And it's exactly why I'm so adamant about some proper security (mental security) with whatever I develop, as well as the environment. Ownership is ideal but I'm not necessarily saying "Open source or GTFO". Just some reassurance that stuff I use or stuff I make can't suddenly be hoisted up by some middleware company and taxed out the wazoo.
I already don't like how I have to keep coming back to Windows for various tooling in my work.
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#37Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#38This 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
Yeah, I miswrote. I meant permissive and (formerly) "friendly" pricing.
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#39This 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
I guess it's a freemium sdk.
Re: Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with
#40Would it make sense for some large studio to sue for specific performance of the contract they agreed to? I’d be surprised if unagreed TOS language were enforceable like this
Are large studios beholden to the same contract though? I assume at a certain point a studio is large enough to negotiate their own contract with unity.