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

41–50 of 58 posts

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

#41

Post by omnimus »

lawlessone wrote: post #20
iliketrains wrote: post #2

The first comment of this FAQ thread is also talking about this. https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packa... The FAQ is worth reading on its own (and very hard to believe as a Unity game dev, honestly, WTF).

"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." Bonkers edit?: Am i reading it right that they want to retroactively charge developers extra fees for previous installs? I think this text i am quoting below is wh…

Seems more like charging for new instalts. But how can you charge for install instead of sale? One user could easily cost more than what the game cost.

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

#42

Post by daft_pink »

Reality is that Unity loses vast sums of money year after year. Know that if you develop with them, you are tying your company to a company that is vaporizing money by developing their platform year after year.

If you are going to develop with them, then you should want them to earn a stable profit, so their platform is around for you. You may not agree with this pricing structure, but you should hopefully want them to make money and raise their prices somehow.

However, I think it's perfectly rational to conclude that they are an unstable partner that isn't earning a profit, and it's too risky to tie your development to them as this article sort of suggests.

I just strongly suggest you either are in favor of them raising their prices somehow or switch providers, because losing over hundreds of millions of dollars every year is completely unsustainable.

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

#43

Post by lawlessone »

MikusR wrote: post #14
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 ea guy has been CEO of Unity for 10 years. And Unity is the one that bought/merged with that malware company

He only recently had to apologize for calling devs that refuse to that software idiots.

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

#44

Post by dmix »

daft_pink wrote: post #42

Reality is that Unity loses vast sums of money year after year. Know that if you develop with them, you are tying your company to a company that is vaporizing money by developing their platform year after year. If you are going to develop with them, then you should want them to earn a stable profit, so their platform is around for you. You may not agree with this pricing structure, but you should hopefully want them…

> Reality is that Unity loses vast sums of money year after year

Can you expand on why they lost money? Was it a market seeding thing?

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

#45

Post by duped »

iliketrains wrote: post #27
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 pr…

Many years ago I worked at a startup that tried to do this. To make a long story short the goal was to make money off content that was made with the tool instead of selling the tool directly to people making the content.

Zero sales later, we all lost our jobs because if you show up with a new pricing model that completely upends how businesses even account for their spending and pricing, it better be the greatest fucking piece of software ever made that has zero competition or an industry standard because no one is going to use it.

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

#46

Post by senectus1 »

iliketrains wrote: post #27
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 pr…

lol, in the last week I have:

Setup dualboot linux/windows, installed my 6 fav games on the linux side

Decided I didnt like that distro, wiped it and reinstalled with a new distro. then installed my 6 fav games

messed something up and decided it would be faster to reinstall again, did that and re-installed my 6 fav games.

got issues with my steam deployment, mucked about and fixed it but in the process deleted my previous install. realized i could just copy the data from the windows partition across and did that.

With this scenario I could be up for 24 install charges, despite never playing the games.

My 15 yr old son is teaching himself programing for the purpose of being a games developer and this news horrifies him. I really dont see this is going to last.

*Edit, 30 installs. forgot to count the windows installs.

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

#47

Post by pixl97 »

plagiarist wrote: post #22
pixl97 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

We are going to hell in a handbasket.

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

#48

Post by kyleee »

senectus1 wrote: post #46
iliketrains wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

lol, in the last week I have: Setup dualboot linux/windows, installed my 6 fav games on the linux side Decided I didnt like that distro, wiped it and reinstalled with a new distro. then installed my 6 fav games messed something up and decided it would be faster to reinstall again, did that and re-installed my 6 fav games. got issues with my steam deployment, mucked about and fixed it but in the process deleted my pre…

Unity sends their thanks

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

#49

Post by Incipient »

fidotron wrote: post #15
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.

TBH it is kind of amazing we don’t regulate these change of terms more strongly. As you rightly point out it is causing a justifiable lack of trust in things you actually pay for which is going to be very counter productive.

Regulation is hard. Especially for contracts. You can couldn't add "it's illegal to retroactively change the terms of a contract" because there are often terms in a contract relating to just that. It's often required in certain circumstances.

In an instance like this, I'd say "market forces" isn't entirely the wrong approach. Everyone migrates away from them and destroys their business.

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

#50

Post by makeitdouble »

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.

The "unwilling to pay for quality tools" is too shallow to be honest.

One one hand we all pay a lot for quality hardware for instance, those machines aren't free. Or we see people spend ungodly amounts on keyboards.

On the other hand, I don't see carpenters paying an arm and a leg for high quality tables. Nor home architects paying millions to other architects to build their homes. So why are people expecting programmers to be forthcoming about paying other programmers to build their tools ? Sure one can't build everything by themselves, but at its core people will try to only pay for what is absolutely good value (or they have no choice than to pay), and not just throwing money at "quality tools".

Post reply on HN