81–90 of 223 posts
While a good portion of developers will still be switching engines and staying there, as an AR developer, there isn't really anywhere else for me to go aside from developing with WebXR. Because of this, I am glad to see these changes.
You're only going to see major(-ly incompetent) studios from now on using it (ie, big enough to pressure Unity into complying to their licensing requirements, ie, Microsoft or Nintnedo kind of big).
This is basically everything policy wise they needed to do to quell the storm. This is honestly what should have just been announced originally. So much reputational damage just to arrive at a reasonable model weeks later. I'm happy for all the Unity developers out there that are breathing a sigh of relief. Hopefully they can ship their ongoing projects but I'd be hesitant about a continued long term relationship wit…
Anyone breathing a sigh of relief on this isn't paying attention
It’s interesting how some complain companies don’t listen to them, and others say that it doesn’t matter if changes are made after (rightful) complaints. I have absolutely no stake in this and I’m sure these aren’t the same people, but it is interesting. From reading the original proposal and this new one, they should’ve gone first with this one. I’m sure unity developers will hesitatingly continue their work.
That got people thinking that it's an unacceptable risk and they are working on mitigations.
These words are an improvement of the situation but nothing here can be considered legally binding. For all intents and purposes, this is meaningless until they update the old ToS to prevent this from happening again.
Unity did just that the last time this happened, in 2019: https://blog.unity.com/community/updated-terms-of-service-an...
They silently deleted the then-added clause allowing you to use the ToS you agreed to before this most recent attempt.
I think it might be too little too late. I do wonder if this was always the plan with classic door-in-the-face technique, but I can't imagine they would have anticipated the absolute magnitude of backlash. Their product certainly isn't as special as they clearly think it is, and the fact that they attempted to unilaterally change the contract in as egregious as way as they did is unacceptable and not behaviour I woul…
Next they are gonna push a narrative of greedy mid level managers over hiring and building fiefdoms like everyone else. The Metagame for the C level is zero risk and zero accountability
They can fuck right off and fire the CEO
Management knew this was going to be controversial including internally so they hid it from employees who could have told them just how bad the idea was and how many edge cases they had to consider.
Management needs to be fired.
If they are willing to retroactively change the TOS once, why wouldn't they do it again once the smoke has settled? I don't make games, I have nothing at stake in this fight, but this just feels like PR damage control and to be completely honest, I don't think most software engineers are so absolutely dependent on (proper noun) Unity to risk this company doing shady stuff again, and I suspect this entire ordeal will…
I haven't seen any evidence they did that, it's mostly been FUD from Godot supporters. The initial communication was messy, but where are actual TOS changes that are being touted so loudly?