571–580 of 733 posts
Disregard
> A developer who wanted to pursue that kind of claim in court could argue using the concept of promissory estoppel, or the "notion that you can't just change the deal if somebody else relied upon it," as Hoeg put it.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/09/wait-is-unity-allowed...
And of course "is that legal" may or may not quickly play second fiddle to "is anyone going to use them ever again after this stunt".
Godot is completely free but I still suggest trying to write your own small frameworks. A lot of Unity’s code is third party. All their 2d rigid body physics is Erin Catto’s Box2D.
Even as simple as a tile based Ultima-spinoff engine, it's still a lot of work.
I think at this point, the real question is who in their right mind would ever build a game in Unity again? I'm sure this will make their company a short term gain in profits, but in very short order no more Unity games will be made . Even if you accept the terms they're proposing, you know damn well they are willing to change the rules at any time at your expense. Unity just became an extinction-level-event liabilit…
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…
> 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 ... Not quite. Unity merged with a company that sells mobile ads: ironSource. They are direct competitors of AppLovin, the dominant player in that market. The terms and backroom deals that Unity is offering devs will waive these fees if they use Unity's ad products instead of AppLovin. Thi…
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…
> Epic is privately held, Valve is too, Unity is not and we ended up here. I think that says a lot. I've been thinking a lot about private versus public companies. Most of my favorite products come out of privately held companies. There is something about the incentives for publicly traded companies that encourages them to make poor choices. I think it is because there are effectively two forms of revenue: selling pr…
On selling stock: I think this is a bit silly. A company can't just sell its stock as a viable strategy. What happens when it runs out? And who would buy it anyway?
Disregard
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think at this point, the real question is who in their right mind would ever build a game in Unity again? This is pretty unfortunate, because Unity is partly responsible for the surge of Linux gaming over the last 10 years. Supporting Linux comes nearly for free on Unity (compared to many other engines), and fewer Unity games will likely mean fewer Linux games.
Depends what they jump to ; godot, for instance, should be similar AIUI?
+ When you build, Unity secretly adds your Unity account id to the build.
+ When the game is run for the 1st time it secretly calls home to Unity server with your account id
+ The server increments # of installs from your account by one..
But couldnt this be overcome by just creating a new Unity account for every build?
I really want to know btw. I am a unity dev and have just tendered for a contract assuming we'll build it in Unity. Switching to Godot will take us time and reduce quality as we are not experienced in it.
I think at this point, the real question is who in their right mind would ever build a game in Unity again? I'm sure this will make their company a short term gain in profits, but in very short order no more Unity games will be made . Even if you accept the terms they're proposing, you know damn well they are willing to change the rules at any time at your expense. Unity just became an extinction-level-event liabilit…
I imagine >50% of video game development is art. And I imagine some decent percentage of code can be translated without nearly as much effort as the original implementation.
Still, I doubt many developers are going to switch engines mid or late development.
But a lot of times, developers re-use much from their old games in development of their new games.
Is this realistically going to hold developers back from moving future development to a new engine?