Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“This Is a Disaster:” Game Developers Scramble to Deal with Unity’s New Fees

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 170 posts

Re: “This Is a Disaster:” Game Developers Scramble to Deal with Unity’s New Fees

#61

Post by fefe23 »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #45
fefe23 wrote: post #28

I don't get it. If someone gives you something that is vital for your product for free, and the license does not guarantee your free usage in perpetuity, and you can't take the source code and maintain things yourself if the vendor changes their mind, ... surely that's on you then? Did you think they didn't need to buy food and pay rent? To me as a complete outsider this move reeks of desperation on their part, not m…

Even if you agree with the overall move, surely you recognise that some of the details — charging developers for users installing the same product multiple times, or even pirating it — are flat-out wrong? Not even just wrong from a moral point of view, but from a "this can't possibly work" one too.

Oh don't get me wrong! I don't agree with the overall move.

I just think their customers should have seen it coming from a mile away.

Capitalists are going to capitalist.

Just like I thought the cloud customers should have anticipated that the cheap introductory lure offers would eventually run out and then they'll have to pay real money for the services. I'm a bit daft like that.

Re: “This Is a Disaster:” Game Developers Scramble to Deal with Unity’s New Fees

#62

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

TekMol wrote: post #5

Does this mean the engine will phone home every time a software which contains it is installed? How is that compatible with the GDPR which has been interpreted by courts in a way that it forbids sending any network packets to the USA, no matter if the user consented to it or not? For reference, see the rulings which deemed Google analytics illegal independent of consent.

Does it also mean that an internet connection is a requirement to play any Unity game? Including, for example, physical Switch cartridges?

Re: “This Is a Disaster:” Game Developers Scramble to Deal with Unity’s New Fees

#63

Post by worble »

fzeroracer wrote: post #15
keikobadthebad wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no fault of my own You locked yourself into proprietary-licensed solution and invited this upon yourself.

We do that all the time. Modern day smart tech with microwaves, tv, phones etc. And I'd consider it equally bullshit if the brand behind my microwave decided to start charging me for each meal I heated. Or like what's going on with printers. Companies going back and trying to alter the deal is a complete no go.

Play stupid games, win stupid prices; companies are not your friend and you need to invest at least the minimal amount of time in protecting yourself. The only things that are guaranteed to work in the future are:

- Software that is open source that you can keep around, tweak and modify forever

- If the above isn't possible, then software that does not require internet connectivity or updating and can be run in perpetuity in an offline sandbox

- Hardware that is not internet connected and will run so long as the hardware is still able

- Bonus points for the above if there are openly available schematics

Re: “This Is a Disaster:” Game Developers Scramble to Deal with Unity’s New Fees

#64

Post by isilofi »

dathinab wrote: post #17

> but the fact they are applying this retroactively to every game every made in Unity that also seems like it should not be legal no matter what you put in your TOS, at least in some jurisdictions it probably isn't (in the same way that e.g. conditional auto-termination contracts are no actually auto-terminating in many jurisdictions even if it's written in the contract)

I'm not so sure about that. You are totally right that e.g. here in the EU contracts and terms of service with ordinary consumers ("B2C") are restricted as you say, limiting what can possibly be agreed on in that contract. Generally this consumer protection only applies to individuals for their private use. E.g. later changes to the terms of a contract are a big no-no.

Contracts between businesses ("B2B") are far less restricted, there is no such thing as consumer protection for businesses. Whereas for consumers, terms of service are heavily restricted by a special law ("AGBG", basically translates as "terms-of-service-law") It is generally thought that business people are savvy enough to know what they can and cannot agree on. Therefore legislation and courts lean strongly towards providing greater freedom of business and contract in anything B2B.

And I think in most circumstances, a game developer who distributes its game to a wider audience is a business in the scope of the aforementioned discussion. It would only maybe not be a business if there were no monetary benefit of any kind, so no selling games, no advertisements, no publicity that could lead to monetary benefit in the future...

Re: “This Is a Disaster:” Game Developers Scramble to Deal with Unity’s New Fees

#68

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

fefe23 wrote: post #61
oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you agree with the overall move, surely you recognise that some of the details — charging developers for users installing the same product multiple times, or even pirating it — are flat-out wrong? Not even just wrong from a moral point of view, but from a "this can't possibly work" one too.

Oh don't get me wrong! I don't agree with the overall move. I just think their customers should have seen it coming from a mile away. Capitalists are going to capitalist. Just like I thought the cloud customers should have anticipated that the cheap introductory lure offers would eventually run out and then they'll have to pay real money for the services. I'm a bit daft like that.

Some will simply never have considered it — these risks are well-known in tech communities, but less-so in the general public, even including some game developers.

Others will have considered it and weighed it up like any other risk. It's possible that a terrorist will destroy your warehouse, but the chances are so low that it's not worth shutting down your business over. You're still entitled to be angry at the terrorist for doing it, though.

This isn't even a normal 'capitalists being capitalists' move, this is a 'capitalists going insane and dousing everyone in petrol' one.

Re: “This Is a Disaster:” Game Developers Scramble to Deal with Unity’s New Fees

#69

Post by tick_tock_tick »

datavirtue wrote: post #10
LarsDu88 wrote: post #3

Switching to Godot, even though I'm a hobbyist who will never hit those thresholds

Let us know how you deal with the threading model in Godot.

It's identical to Unity's why would they do anything different?
Post reply on HN