81–90 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Sequoia, the same geniuses that backed SBF: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33571734
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.
From an outsider it seems horribly mismanaged.
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?
I love watching capitalists crash and burn their companies.
According to Freya Holmer (who I trust since she has some insight into what's going on within Unity), their own employees were actively trying to warn them about the public response to the proposed change, long before and leading up to the release. Trust takes a lifetime to earn and a moment to destroy. I think this could actually kill Unity. It's easy to opine from the armchair, but what I think they should have don…
I see no way how it wouldn't. Which developer wouldn't be looking for alternatives now? Perhaps they have luck and their former good reputation especially with smaller studios will hold for a while.
Part of me believes this was just a bad faith bargaining tactic. The execs knew this would never fly as-is and would generate a huge outrage, so that they can then say "We heard you" and look charitable in walking back to the actual fees they planned to introduce. It's either that, or sheer stupidity and incompetence.
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
Also, a good CEO knows how to manage the board and provide sensible strategic alternatives; even if the board liked this dumb move, it's the CEO's fault for not having leveraged the company's resources (business directors, other C-level executives, etc) to produce a better strategy. The board was certainly pushing for more profits, but the CEO is the one to say how the company will get these increased profits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Getting people to use their ads was imo the main plan for them.
But they completely botched it by using a stupid fee structure and disregarding all the non-ad supported game developers who obviously won't get the waiver.
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…
> 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 an abundance of power-drunkenness. Part of me really wanted this to happen just to put it to the legal test. So many modern sales, especially digital, are actually an indefinite licens…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of when Wizards of the Coast destroyed their D&D business by announcing they were cancelling the OGL. Many people had built a cottage industry around the OGL which helped to grow the player base, which in turn helped Wizards of the Coast make 5.0 the most popular D&D yet. Now everyone despises and mistrusts them, it doesn't matter that they backtracked.
By what measure did WotC or D&D get destroyed? The vast, vast majority of public figures in that space seem to have moved on from any opposition, including those who were most vocal about the OGL. WotC completely got away with it. People will queue up for their new VTT and then be shocked, SHOCKED when Wizards leverages that to achieve the lock-in that they've so desperately pursued for years.