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

OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 215 posts

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#81

Post by breezeTrowel »

master-lincoln wrote: post #67
Drakim wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to have a clause that you could use the old terms of service from when you published your game. But it was removed in favor of even games developed under those terms of services needing to pay. That is very much a retroactive change.

I still don't see how that is retroactive. The TOS changed, but I only accepted the TOS how they were when I paid my license. So the new TOS do not apply until my contract ends. That is the law (at least here in Europe)

Yes, it's illegal. They are still doing it. Make sure they don't have your payment information when they start the first wave of billing in February.

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#82

Post by chess_horse_L »

catapart wrote: post #75
chess_horse_L wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Most of Unity games are mobile games, or indie games that don't require the GPU usage bloat Unreal has in order to achieve better graphics. If Unreal was ever an option, developers would've been using it instead of Unity in the first place.

In case anyone cares, this commenter is absolutely incorrect; Unreal does support mobile development, and it obviously uses a more lithe package than its full GPU stack. Using only the UI objects, 2D is pretty simple and I haven't had any major package size issues. Using a 3D context to render 2D as planes in the scene, I can still get a package down around 70MB with optimizations left on the table. It's harder to wo…

[flagged]

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#83

Post by RHSeeger »

master-lincoln wrote: post #67
Drakim wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They used to have a clause that you could use the old terms of service from when you published your game. But it was removed in favor of even games developed under those terms of services needing to pay. That is very much a retroactive change.

I still don't see how that is retroactive. The TOS changed, but I only accepted the TOS how they were when I paid my license. So the new TOS do not apply until my contract ends. That is the law (at least here in Europe)

Because it's not software you can (reasonably) swap out later. Once you've developed your product, it's part of your deliverable. It's like a company changing terms on their engine once you've already built a car around it, and sold them to someone.

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#84

Post by andybak »

Winsaucerer wrote: post #51
andybak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rather dampened by enthusiasm for Godot: https://sampruden.github.io/posts/godot-is-not-the-new-unity... It's carrying a lot of performance baggage and there seems to be no sense of urgency in fixing it.

It's something that is known and a work in progress: https://www.reddit.com/r/godot/comments/16lti15/comment/k169...

This subthread is new since I read through and it is much more encouraging. Shame it got lost among all the people claiming there wasn't a problem.

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#86

Post by andybak »

badsectoracula wrote: post #58
andybak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rather dampened by enthusiasm for Godot: https://sampruden.github.io/posts/godot-is-not-the-new-unity... It's carrying a lot of performance baggage and there seems to be no sense of urgency in fixing it.

FWIW from the comments i've seen on Reddit it seems that some of the reasons he brought up for wanting to do so many raycasts are already covered by Godot's functionality (in C++). Also IMO unless you want to share C++ plugins with others (via GDExtension), if you are making a game with it you'd want to modify the engine itself for any non-trivial functionality anyway. Again, the situation he describes sounds like it…

I read that thread too and he just seems like a bunch of people denying there's a problem. The sibling reply here rather contradicts your point as do several others replies in the Reddit thread.

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#87

Post by angry_octet »

justinclift wrote: post #78
master-lincoln wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think what you describe is the case. My company works with Unity and is not worried about any change until the license runs out. Only then will we form a new contract and accept the new terms and conditions. Changing a contract one-sided is not really legal in the EU https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers...

Unfortunately, the Unity contract most developers signed ("Terms of Service" I think they call it) allow for them to change things when they feel like it. This retroactive change is one of the things which people are very unhappy about. Some more info here, under the "ToS Update" heading: https://www.gamerbraves.com/unity-silently-deletes-github-re... That being said, multiple people seem to have different interpreta…

It isn't retroactive -- that would mean that they could charge you more for games you sold previously. I'm not sure I would call it retrospective either, as it doesn't change the conditions for existing licences, because you already agreed to their ability to change the price when you first agreed to the licence. Many people were unwise in agreeing to this contract.

You would be able to argue that their various statements over the years have applied constraints on what those changes could be, but I think it is clear they could increase the price. Changing the transition from $0 to non-$0 probably wouldn't stand in many jurisdictions, and they seem to already been walking that back.

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#88

Post by teamonkey »

raincole wrote: post #64
xbmcuser wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are making a billion dollars loss a year. So with no vc cash available they need to get profitable if they want to survive. You can argue this is wrong way to go about it but they do need to get profitable.

Unity had 7000+ employees before layoff. Valve maintains one of the biggest platforms, and their own game engine. Valve also developed CSGO, TF2, and Dota, all popular online games that need constant maintenance (and even big content updates sometimes). Valve also invested in VR and sells hardware. Valve has 1200 employees. To me it's easy to see why Unity lose money.

Unity are currently asking for 4% of revenue over $1M for developing the engine and toolchain that game developers will use all day every day. Valve skim 30% of the retail price of the game for the priveledge of hosting a game on their storefront. This is why Valve makes money.

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#89

Post by breezeTrowel »

angry_octet wrote: post #87
justinclift wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the Unity contract most developers signed ("Terms of Service" I think they call it) allow for them to change things when they feel like it. This retroactive change is one of the things which people are very unhappy about. Some more info here, under the "ToS Update" heading: https://www.gamerbraves.com/unity-silently-deletes-github-re... That being said, multiple people seem to have different interpreta…

It isn't retroactive -- that would mean that they could charge you more for games you sold previously. I'm not sure I would call it retrospective either, as it doesn't change the conditions for existing licences, because you already agreed to their ability to change the price when you first agreed to the licence. Many people were unwise in agreeing to this contract. You would be able to argue that their various state…

It's retroactive.

https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packa...

Q: Are these fees going to apply to games that have been out for years already? If you met the threshold 2 years ago, you'll start owing for any installs monthly from January, no? (in theory). It says they'll use previous installs to determine threshold eligibility & then you'll start owing them for the new ones.

A: Yes, assuming the game is eligible and distributing the Unity Runtime then runtime fees will apply. We look at a game's lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.

Re: OSS Game Engines are increasing their stars on GitHub due to Unity's missteps

#90

Post by angry_octet »

RHSeeger wrote: post #83
master-lincoln wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't see how that is retroactive. The TOS changed, but I only accepted the TOS how they were when I paid my license. So the new TOS do not apply until my contract ends. That is the law (at least here in Europe)

Because it's not software you can (reasonably) swap out later. Once you've developed your product, it's part of your deliverable. It's like a company changing terms on their engine once you've already built a car around it, and sold them to someone.

Unless your licence says otherwise, each sale is newly licencing the Unity runtime.

The plus side from this will hopefully be people reading contracts more closely before basing their income stream on it.

Post reply on HN