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

Unity: We Have Heard You

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 105 posts

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#71

Post by 40yearoldman »

ClimaxGravely wrote: post #69
indymike wrote: post #19

There are a few things Unity needs to address (I'm about to go write a couple of games because I've spent a career writing boring business software) before I will consider using Unity: * One of Unity's spokespersons actually said that Unity could add fees at any time, and customers could not do anything about it. Aside probably being illegal in most jurisdictions, this mentality shows a complete lack of integrity and…

If you haven't already started a project then just don't use unity. There's a lot of really good stuff out there already that don't have such nebulous terms. Feel free to send me a message and I can send you a list of alternatives. I don't consider myself much of an expert but for what it's worth I've been making games for almost 25 years.

Roblox?

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#73

Post by bensecure »

indymike wrote: post #19

There are a few things Unity needs to address (I'm about to go write a couple of games because I've spent a career writing boring business software) before I will consider using Unity: * One of Unity's spokespersons actually said that Unity could add fees at any time, and customers could not do anything about it. Aside probably being illegal in most jurisdictions, this mentality shows a complete lack of integrity and…

Apparently they previously had a clause in their terms allowing you to keep using any previous version of the terms subject to certain restrictions, and also maintained a github repo tracking all changes to their terms. The clause was removed and the repo taken down some months/years prior to this change. Supposedly they were added in the first place after some similar drama whose details I missed. The issue at this point isn't "what are they going to do to address this", it's "what are they going to do to make sure that whatever they do to address this doesn't get undone the next time they're feeling greedy". I really don't see them having a good answer to that, and I don't think anybody should accept whatever feeble answer they do come up with.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#74

Post by pschuegr »

VHRanger wrote: post #70
glimshe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The problem is the CEO. The buck stops with him. When you are at the top making millions, a major strategic failure is always your responsibility.

The CEO does what the board tells him to do or gets fired ultimately

or if they have any integrity they raise a stink and quit. but that's maybe a 1/100 CEO if you're lucky.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#75

Post by barkingcat »

rmbyrro wrote: post #24
dylan604 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even Apple did similar with their proposed CSAM scanning, and after the uproar, walked that decision back. So at least Unity is at least giving a head nod towards decency. It could definitely be worse. Imagine if Musk was in charge.

If Musk was in charge of Unity, he'd cut 90% of the staff and just charge $8/mo for a blue sign on your game. PS: for those without a sense of humor, this is a joke.

No it’s not a joke but what will really happen.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#76

Post by em-bee »

ClimaxGravely wrote: post #69
indymike wrote: post #19

There are a few things Unity needs to address (I'm about to go write a couple of games because I've spent a career writing boring business software) before I will consider using Unity: * One of Unity's spokespersons actually said that Unity could add fees at any time, and customers could not do anything about it. Aside probably being illegal in most jurisdictions, this mentality shows a complete lack of integrity and…

If you haven't already started a project then just don't use unity. There's a lot of really good stuff out there already that don't have such nebulous terms. Feel free to send me a message and I can send you a list of alternatives. I don't consider myself much of an expert but for what it's worth I've been making games for almost 25 years.

could you share that list right here please?

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#77

Post by ClimaxGravely »

em-bee wrote: post #76
ClimaxGravely wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't already started a project then just don't use unity. There's a lot of really good stuff out there already that don't have such nebulous terms. Feel free to send me a message and I can send you a list of alternatives. I don't consider myself much of an expert but for what it's worth I've been making games for almost 25 years.

could you share that list right here please?

Sorry I should have done that from the first place.

Here's a quick one as I'm on a movie break. I'll make a note to update this in the morning.

Haxe + Haxeflixel : pixel art games

Haxe + Heaps : More general 2d/3d framework with webgl target

Godot : I havent used it personally but I've had a myriad of co-workers tell me how good it is

Monogame/FNA : Open source multi-target C# framework that more or less fits the XNA api. I love this one. Might be really good for C# programmers.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#78

Post by ncr100 »

VHRanger wrote: post #14
liquidpele wrote: post #4

How about you fire the CEO that allowed such a boneheaded decision? With them in charge, how could one ever trust your company to not make such moves again?

The problem is not really the CEO, though he's the one getting the attention here. It's the new board that got 3 new heads from IronSource and Sequoia VC (who pushed for the IronSource merger).

In a public company like Unity we still don't know the truth of who said what, in the board room, to decide this horrific path.

I agree the board is responsible, it's too dramatic an f-up for just one.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#79

Post by ncr100 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #57

This is a water sandwich. As far as I'm concerned, Unity is pivoting to a door-in-the-face[0] strategy. Since it works on anchoring, the only counter to door-in-the-face is to treat the substitute offer more harshly than you would have otherwise. In other words, punish companies for being untrustworthy business partners. I really hope game developers start demanding the following: - Unity abandons all attempts to ado…

Why John? He works for the board, since like '13.

I presume you don't know what the board discussed to come to this plan It's a public company but those discussions are private.

Re: Unity: We Have Heard You

#80

Post by Auracle »

philipov wrote: post #50
indymike wrote: post #19

There are a few things Unity needs to address (I'm about to go write a couple of games because I've spent a career writing boring business software) before I will consider using Unity: * One of Unity's spokespersons actually said that Unity could add fees at any time, and customers could not do anything about it. Aside probably being illegal in most jurisdictions, this mentality shows a complete lack of integrity and…

They haven't heard anyone. They are just playing the "Overshoot then Back Off" negotiation playbook.

I don’t think that’s true in this case. Usually that’s a “the structure is fine but the price increase is way too much” move.

This completely wrecked faith in Unity. They also took too long for this response. If it was their plan, it was an absolutely terrible one.

Post reply on HN