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

Unity: We Have Heard You

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 105 posts

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#31

Post by BryanLegend »

drpossum wrote: post #23
marcodiego wrote: post #20

>> We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback. I have no involvement and I'm not a game developer (except for small weekend projec…

The best outcome if you're a Godot supporter and a developer supporter is Unity backs off the installation fees AND then everyone goes to Godot anyways.

Best outcome would be they decide to open source Unity.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#32

Post by Macha »

GreenJon wrote: post #6

Changing the policy is not a complete u-turn on the policy. The trust is gone.

Honestly, a u-turn is not enough because of the broken trust. They'd need to cut off their (perceived or real) ability to "change the deal" like this again. Like make it clear you get a perpetual license to distribute the unity runtime for products produced while using a validly licensed unity editor. Make it so the customer has to take some affirmative action (not just clickthrough a generic new version TOS screen) to upgrade to any new TOS version which removes that license.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#33

Post by BryanLegend »

joe_the_user wrote: post #11

When Hasbro, publisher of D&D, engaged in shady license shenanigans, they were able to - sort of, partially - regain trust of the community by more aggressively open sourcing the D&D license (releasing them as creative commons, I think). But it seems like since Unity probably can't open source their product and stay in business, Unity has put their customers in a position where they can't trust the company but need t…

They could open source it. It's not the majority of their revenue. 100 years from now it will probably be open source.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#34

Post by danielvaughn »

According to Freya Holmer (who I trust since she has some insight into what's going on within Unity), their own employees were actively trying to warn them about the public response to the proposed change, long before and leading up to the release.

Trust takes a lifetime to earn and a moment to destroy. I think this could actually kill Unity.

It's easy to opine from the armchair, but what I think they should have done is gone down Unreal Engine's path - buy up valuable properties like Quixel and give yourselves a unique selling point. Then they could have at least said they're adding new functionality to justify the price hike.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#35

Post by BoorishBears »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #28

"Hear" is a slippery word. Hearing is not listening. First you hear, but you do not listen. Then you want to listen. Then you can listen. Finally, with effort, you listen. In addition to intent there must be theory of mind, and inter-subjectivity, some one to listen to. Then, say back what you really think you heard - acknowledge the reality not your own lens; "We hear that you feel we were greedy, took our users for…

"Listen" is a slippery word.

Listening is not hearing. You can listen to a song and not hear the words it contains. Not hear the intent behind each line.

You hear by...

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#36

Post by jraph »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #28

"Hear" is a slippery word. Hearing is not listening. First you hear, but you do not listen. Then you want to listen. Then you can listen. Finally, with effort, you listen. In addition to intent there must be theory of mind, and inter-subjectivity, some one to listen to. Then, say back what you really think you heard - acknowledge the reality not your own lens; "We hear that you feel we were greedy, took our users for…

"We heard you" sounds like an idiom though, for which the difference between hearing and listening is not really relevant.

(English is not my primary language, but I've seen on Linguee at least one occurrence of "We heard you" translated into the equivalent French phrase, which does use the literal translation of "listen")

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#37

Post by Macha »

jraph wrote: post #36
nonrandomstring wrote: post #28

"Hear" is a slippery word. Hearing is not listening. First you hear, but you do not listen. Then you want to listen. Then you can listen. Finally, with effort, you listen. In addition to intent there must be theory of mind, and inter-subjectivity, some one to listen to. Then, say back what you really think you heard - acknowledge the reality not your own lens; "We hear that you feel we were greedy, took our users for…

"We heard you" sounds like an idiom though, for which the difference between hearing and listening is not really relevant. (English is not my primary language, but I've seen on Linguee at least one occurrence of "We heard you" translated into the equivalent French phrase, which does use the literal translation of "listen")

In common language, I think that's true.

In carefully worded corporate PR speak, it has unfortunately been sullied by those particularly using it to appear to be listening to feedback without making the changes that the feedback wanted.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#38

Post by tourmalinetaco »

BoorishBears wrote: post #35
nonrandomstring wrote: post #28

"Hear" is a slippery word. Hearing is not listening. First you hear, but you do not listen. Then you want to listen. Then you can listen. Finally, with effort, you listen. In addition to intent there must be theory of mind, and inter-subjectivity, some one to listen to. Then, say back what you really think you heard - acknowledge the reality not your own lens; "We hear that you feel we were greedy, took our users for…

"Listen" is a slippery word. Listening is not hearing. You can listen to a song and not hear the words it contains. Not hear the intent behind each line. You hear by...

You heard what OP said, but did not listen to their message.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#39

Post by nonrandomstring »

BoorishBears wrote: post #35
nonrandomstring wrote: post #28

"Hear" is a slippery word. Hearing is not listening. First you hear, but you do not listen. Then you want to listen. Then you can listen. Finally, with effort, you listen. In addition to intent there must be theory of mind, and inter-subjectivity, some one to listen to. Then, say back what you really think you heard - acknowledge the reality not your own lens; "We hear that you feel we were greedy, took our users for…

"Listen" is a slippery word. Listening is not hearing. You can listen to a song and not hear the words it contains. Not hear the intent behind each line. You hear by...

I'll bite :) There's a couple of research texts that I'd suggest make "listening" an attentive activity higher up the cognitive than hearing. Auditory neuroscience: Schnupp, Nelken and King (2011) and Thinking in Sound: Bigand and McAdams both talk about "hearing" mainly at the physioacoustic (signal perceptual) level, whereas "listening experiments" tend to focus on the structural and semantic processing faculties.

Of course that's an over-rigid appeal to scientific words, and I appreciate your saying it can kinda work with the words exchanged. Bit like the tussle we once had here over "ethics" versus "morals" :)

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#40

Post by tourmalinetaco »

BryanLegend wrote: post #33
joe_the_user wrote: post #11

When Hasbro, publisher of D&D, engaged in shady license shenanigans, they were able to - sort of, partially - regain trust of the community by more aggressively open sourcing the D&D license (releasing them as creative commons, I think). But it seems like since Unity probably can't open source their product and stay in business, Unity has put their customers in a position where they can't trust the company but need t…

They could open source it. It's not the majority of their revenue. 100 years from now it will probably be open source.

It’s truly terrifying what copyright has become.
Post reply on HN