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

51–58 of 58 posts

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

#51

Post by Timon3 »

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…

They just changed your initial quote!

"Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs. (Updated, Sep 13)"

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

#52

Post by vanderZwan »

runevault wrote: post #8
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 former EA guy has been there for almost a decade, and ironSource was a merger/Unity acquisition not a purchase of Unity.

Technically correct corrections, which I appreciate! Having said that, this new information does not change the conclusion I drew in the slightest.

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

#53

Post by vanderZwan »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #33
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.

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…

> 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.

Tangent: I feel like you're selling many other professions a little short here. Farmers come to mind, although I admit growing up in the countryside makes me a little biased there.

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

#54

Post by RetroTechie »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #35
fxtentacle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Is that legal? You agree to version X, you didn't agree to version X+1, right?

So at least a license update would require confirmation of your continuing agreement with the new license, right? (whether that be silent, offering opt-out or whatever).

Otherwise "you agree to ANY future version" would equate to "we can 100% rewrite this agreement after you signed it". Doesn't seem like that would hold up in a courtroom.

Game engines ship with products & are covered by licenses. Unlike some service covered by a ToS where company can change or stop offering service at any time.

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

#55

Post by RetroTechie »

rich_sasha wrote: post #21

This 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…

> But eventually you need to produce revenue.

Often it might be a case of:

"We're doing X revenue right now. Let's do whatever it takes to (try and) increase that revenue".

Versus:

"We're doing X revenue right now. Let's use that revenue to do the best we can & improve product. Hopefully bringing in more customers, so we'll have more resources to improve product or develop new ones".

The 1st is profit focussed, leading to enshittification.

The 2nd is customer-focussed, leading to innovation & better products.

Unity clearly chose to chase profits above customer satisfaction.

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

#56

Post by _aavaa_ »

RetroTechie wrote: post #54
_aavaa_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perpetual licenses mean nothing if the vendor changes the TOS on your old version (which is literally what’s happening here).

Is that legal? You agree to version X, you didn't agree to version X+1, right? So at least a license update would require confirmation of your continuing agreement with the new license, right? (whether that be silent, offering opt-out or whatever). Otherwise "you agree to ANY future version" would equate to "we can 100% rewrite this agreement after you signed it". Doesn't seem like that would hold up in a courtroom.…

Who knows.

Unity silently changed the TOS to remove the clause stating you could stay with an older version of the TOS before this whole fiasco. Is that legally binding given that people probably just click “I agree”, if they were even prompted in the first place?

Is it legal that much of the digital goods we “buy” are marketed as purchases but are at best squirrelly licenses to get around letting people actually own the thing they “bought”?

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

#57

Post by rich_sasha »

RetroTechie wrote: post #55
rich_sasha wrote: post #21

This 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…

> But eventually you need to produce revenue. Often it might be a case of: "We're doing X revenue right now. Let's do whatever it takes to (try and) increase that revenue". Versus: "We're doing X revenue right now. Let's use that revenue to do the best we can & improve product. Hopefully bringing in more customers, so we'll have more resources to improve product or develop new ones". The 1st is profit focussed, leadi…

I mean... it is a business. The step they take is shitty and very possibly long term damaging to their business, but I can't blame them for prioritizing profit.

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

#58

Post by ffhhttt »

falcolas wrote: post #34
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…

> 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…

I’m not sure shareholders asked them to over hire since 2019 by more than 2x (conservatively) and start spending billions to acquire random companies without having a clear vision what are they planning to so with them.

That mostly came from the board and the executives. It’s not like shareholders really that many ways to influence company policy that much besides selling or buying their stock

Post reply on HN