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

321–330 of 465 posts

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#321

Post by salawat »

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.

Stop using Hanlon's Razor. The only thing it cuts is the people using it over and over again. Say it with me: stupidity is weaponized so as to be indistinguishable from malice.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#322

Post by LoganDark »

MattRix wrote: post #295
Willish42 wrote: post #45

I wish I had a large enough Twitter following to make a public claim about this before Unity "went back" on the first version of the recently-announced pricing changes, but I was nearly certain this was an intentional move to make the "Update on our update" second version more palatable. There's probably a wiki link somewhere to the Proper Noun PR phenomenon in business school for this strategy, but the "terrible pla…

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…

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.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#323

Post by WillPostForFood »

CountVonGuetzli wrote: post #318
WillPostForFood wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unity is running as fast as possible in the opposite direction of Friedman's advice. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends; that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollutio…

Interesting that this is enough evidence to the contrary for you. To me that looks more like what they say, not what they do, and is a well crafted smoke screen. They still seem to be acting as if they’re purely interested in extracting maximum shareholder value, at the expense of the public.

Interesting that this is enough evidence to the contrary for you.

It is just a few easy examples. I've used Unity for a decade, visited the offices, worked with ex-Unity employees. They aren't maximizing shareholder value, they are very bloated, and they are trying to survive and avoid bankruptcy.

at the expense of the public.

What does that even mean? There is no expense to the public. They give their product to 90% of developers for free. Unity used to charge every seat.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#324

Post by inemesitaffia »

plagiarist wrote: post #302
Karellen wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And tumblr, when they announced they would no longer support creators of "adult" content. And (nearly) OnlyFans, when they announced they would no longer support creators of "adult" content (aka, "did a tumblr"). They just about backpedalled quickly enough, and had enough stickyness (no pun intended) from followers, to contain most of the damage.

I don't understand how it is possible to advance to a decision-making role if someone is stupid enough to attempt to remove porn from OnlyFans, the household name for amateur porn.

Payment industry issues

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#325

Post by [deleted] »

starkparker wrote: post #125
karaterobot wrote: post #54

I grant the premise that Unity sucks and has made changes that make it much harder to be an indie developer using its runtime. That said, I don't understand the decision to shut the group and encourage members to move to a more general game dev group instead. If the reason is "everyone stopped using Unity, we don't have any members" then I understand, but the press release didn't say that. In fact it implied there mi…

If the volunteer organizers of a group don't want to organize the group anymore, the group ceases to exist. If BUG members want BUG to continue to exist, they can volunteer to organize it. Nobody has any obligations past that.

[deleted]

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#326

Post by nurettin »

wredue wrote: post #55
Willish42 wrote: post #45

I wish I had a large enough Twitter following to make a public claim about this before Unity "went back" on the first version of the recently-announced pricing changes, but I was nearly certain this was an intentional move to make the "Update on our update" second version more palatable. There's probably a wiki link somewhere to the Proper Noun PR phenomenon in business school for this strategy, but the "terrible pla…

I was also considering this, but while this strategy works wonders on the consumer, I don’t know how well it works in more B2B offerings. Video games specifically get away with this because, as we saw with Diablo 4, people are going to give game companies money regardless how bad and unpalatable the game is. Man. My Reddit account became limited in the Diablo subreddit for saying that I cancelled my preorder after th…

Strange, I heard from fans of 1&2 (and disliked 3) that Diablo 4 is excellent. How did you conclude that it is so bad and everyone who plays it is just a slave to blizzard?

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#327

Post by rendall »

LoganDark wrote: post #322
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…

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.

They had already promised to abide by the terms of the license in force at the moment it was agreed to, so the fact that they promised not to do something does not stop them, apparently.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#328

Post by Daegalus »

berkut wrote: post #316
Daegalus wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the Lion King movie was made in Unity

No it wasn't... Unity used some of their tech in 2022 to create a demo with some lions in it.

Incorrect: https://www.engadget.com/2019-07-29-lion-king-remake-vfx-mpc...

The film was shot almost entirely in Unity, then the final render used some extra stuff and other tools. But the scenes, shots, etc were done in Unity. A quick google shows you this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WupuXjvO9uA Making of videos on Youtube, you see the Unity editor in many places while they film in VR

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#329

Post by xarope »

mtreis86 wrote: post #264
nitwit005 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, I just assume that no company can be trusted these days. It wasn't too long ago that the leadership of companies was often fairly stable. Now you see people rotating through every couple of years, rarely having to face the fallout of their bad decisions.

Darn Tough has made some fairly consistently awesome socks up in VT for a couple decades now.

I used to get some great stuff from icebreaker too, but after they were acquired by VF (also owners of Vans and North face), surprise, surprise, pretty much zero purchases since.

Re: Unity's oldest community announces dissolution

#330

Post by follower »

jameshart wrote: post #174
follower wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be an issue with e.g. GPL-licensed game engine but not an Open Source licensed one (e.g. MIT). Obligatory relevant Godot-related links: * https://docs.godotengine.org/en/4.1/tutorials/platform/conso... * https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-... * https://w4games.com/2023/08/06/w4-games-unveils-w4-consoles-... Couple of Godot-based games available on console: * https://en.wikipedia.or…

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 willing to share whatever proprietary engine-to-console-SDK-interface code they wrote.

The third party porting companies are willing to "share" that code--for a fee. They could also do the same for free as long as they respect the terms of their contract with the console platform (which probably is along the lines of "don't disclose anything to people who don't also have a contact with the console platform").

A group of companies could even cooperate on this but we'd presumably not know the details.

> Unity and Unreal, in contrast, will happily license equivalent code to you.

Sure, but it's also neither free[0] nor Open Source, e.g.:

"Build and deploy to closed platforms such as Nintendo Switch™, PlayStation®, and Xbox®. An active Unity Pro subscription is required to access these build modules via developer platform forums."

The nuance of "it is not possible for Godot to support consoles as an open source project" is that "it is not possible for [the] Godot [Project] to support consoles as an open source project [but the Godot Engine can be used on consoles if you write the support code yourself or license it from someone]".

Despite detailed explanations (from the devs) of the nuances, too many people interpret the situation as "you can't deploy Godot-based games on consoles" rather than "you can deploy Godot-based games on consoles but you can't get the code to do so from the Godot Project itself because vendors won't let it".

But perhaps for some people this isn't a significant distinction.

[0] https://unity.com/products/unity-pro

Post reply on HN