Live data from Hacker News

Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

ramatak.com

331–340 of 733 posts

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#331
post #294
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same Tim Cook that tries to make iPhones as unrepairable as possible? :) Don’t fall for feelgood greenwashing.

Still better CO2 footprint than anything else on the market

[dead]

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#332
post #4

>> While Unreal engine currently does not have terms like Unity’s, there’s nothing stopping them from doing something similar. In fact if Unity manages to get away with this it seems likely they will follow suit. Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change…

[deleted]

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh. Part of apples brand is “doing the right thing” and “being the good guy”. I would wager Apple’s brand would be hurt more by not being a green company. ROI is more complicated than simple fist level cost. Going green and doubling down on recycling has generated a much larger ROI than doing nothing. Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders. Simply put, if Tim favored environmental c…

"Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders." This stupid meme needs to die already. There is no such obligation, he only has a fiduciary duty to not trash the company and spend the earnings on cocaine. "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true and this piece of misinformation has been going around for ages now.

They are liable and there is precedent, as I understand it.

eBay v Newmark

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/3472

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/basr.12108

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#335

Everyone told me "use Unity" "the biggest mistake you can make is building your own engine". How well did that advice age? Nobody needs Unity or Unreal. My most recent game (playshadowvane.com) is built on 100% proprietary technology, I built everything in-house down to the physics. Always ignore mainstream game dev advice, they are just trying to sell you products. Build as much as you can in-house, it's not only be…

[deleted]

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#337
post #103
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't feel bad for their executives. They are the ones who chose the 'growth at all costs' path, and this is what you get. They could've probably been sustainable and profitable if they mainly serviced their core audience of indie developers with a smaller amount of employees and a simpler product, but it seems they really wanted to brute force themselves into the AAA market.

I suppose. There's quite a few companies in Unity's position right now for a reason though. For better or worse the "growth at all costs" strategy was the strategy companies like Unity had to employ for the last decade to attract investor capital so I tend to blame the low interest rate "easy money" environment more than companies like Unity being reckless. Although that said, it does seem Unity made some stupid move…

> I tend to blame the low interest rate "easy money" environment more than companies like Unity being reckless.

As if the founders had no other options in life than to start companies relying on business models where you capture the market with investor money and then once you’re customers are locked in, you squeeze them as much as possible. Unreal is in the same market. They also took in investor money. They’re not in the same situation.

The people behind Unity chose to play the game. The c-suite is handsomely rewarded, and we praise their business acumen when things go right, but if things go wrong suddenly they’re victims of circumstance.

They can take ownership of their decisions.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Further more, Tim is bound by law to do what is best for the shareholders." This stupid meme needs to die already. There is no such obligation, he only has a fiduciary duty to not trash the company and spend the earnings on cocaine. "companies are legally forced to maximise profit" has never been true and this piece of misinformation has been going around for ages now.

There's still argument about this. The oft mentioned Dodge v. Ford Motor Company 1919 covers much the argument for and against. But it's clearly not straightforward. My (IANAL) reading of it is that maximising shareholder value is probably the law, but it's practically unenforcible. Being practically unenforcible doesn't stop CEOs and boards from using it as a guiding principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v.…

Dodge v. Ford Motor Company was a Michigan State decision, so even if one thinks it means maximizing shareholder value is the law (it really didn't say that, broadly), it only applies in Michigan.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#339
post #29
post #4

>> While Unreal engine currently does not have terms like Unity’s, there’s nothing stopping them from doing something similar. In fact if Unity manages to get away with this it seems likely they will follow suit. Unreal has licenses which allow you to use one version of their engine FOREVER and they cannot revoke that license. So the author didn't fully research this. It is true that for NEWER version Epic can change…

> the fact that they are trying to break the Gplay/Apply monopoly shows that the Epic games leadership are not corporate piranhas like Unity's. Epic is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, they're doing it because it is beneficial to them. Epic is a multi-billion dollar corporation part owned by a massive conglomerate. > BS: in reality it's usually one or two guys who actually do the actual work. Over t…

> Over the last week, Godot had 32 authors pushing 52 commits. Over the last month it had 135 authors. This is not "one or two guys".

Yeah, right now (and I hope it keeps increasing thanks to the Unity news).

I got burnt once (and almost twice) from this in the past. cocos2d-iPhone used to be huge, and Zynga even contributed to it. I released two games using it, and started another one. And then it stopped getting updated (and Apple keeps breaking things like Apple likes to do), so it died on the vine and I had to port to something else.

Currently making a game in Monogame, and while it did get a significant update a little over a year ago, it's had very little activity on it since then and no other releases besides a hotfix shortly after, and zero communication about what's going on with any of their official channels at least. Not great especially since there seems to be spotty support for .Net 6 outside of Windows still, and I keep running into various issues with its 3D support (which it is mainly supposed to be a 2D game, but it does support 3D to a certain extent).

Also while it claims to support platforms like PS4 and Switch, I see almost no documentation on it, and very little documentation on getting Steamworks working with it (I have some basic things working, but I'm having to figure things for Unity first and then porting that knowledge over). Also most of its multiplayer libraries seem outdated, at least the ones I looked up. And the forums/Discord still have some activity on them, but not a ton. Also I'd love to make a game that supported VR (almost switched to Unity just for that alone).

I actually compared its Github activity to Godot a week ago, and Godot looks SO much better supported than Monogame at this point, that I was already considering either porting or making my next game in Godot before this Unity news was announced. But maybe that's just me hopping onto another platform that will have the same problem in 5 years after I've gotten pretty invested into it.

I also know Unity (worked on a game professionally years back) and considered switching to that for my game too, but that mostly got killed by this announcement.

Personally I prefer code-based development (I don't like using an editor too much), so if Monogame was better supported and had much better 3D support I'd probably just stick with it. I thought I was going to when I first started using it seriously three years ago. But I hesitate to keep dumping time into it if they don't maintain it.

Also I made a small game with Phaser.js and was going to do more with that, but even that creator is pretty much the only one maintaining it and they got sidelined by life for about six months (which is fine, but get someone to help keep it going if you can! I know that's hard though). Phaser at least is already close to what I want from it, and doesn't seem to need much else for the foreseeable future.

Re: Unity’s new pricing: A wake-up call on the importance of open source

#340
The logic that Epic and Unreal Engine will do something similar as Unity doesn't track for me.

The argument hinges on the premise that Epic, who operates their own game store and is courting developers aggressively with generous revenue split, is willing to burn their bridge with developers for questionable increase in profit; in addition it presumes that the plain old revenue share model that Unreal Engine utiltizes makes less money than this so-called runtime fee.

I beg to differ, I think the only reason Unity went this route is because they don't want to be seen to publicly break the promise of no revenue share/royalty pledge they had earlier, and ironically came up with an even worse monetization scheme.

In my opinion, the only reason this whole fiasco happened is because Unity the company has too many headcounts and has too much expense, and the reason for that is they grew too big, and the reason they grew too big is because they took the company public and in that sphere success is measured in growth, even if the company is much healthier if it had stayed smaller.

Epic is privately held, Valve is too, Unity is not and we ended up here. I think that says a lot.

Post reply on HN