4 ms·

> Unity isn't responsible for a bad business model. If you can't turn a profit after the fee structure, then don't choose Unity. What? Unity is in fact respons

> Unity isn't responsible for a bad business model. If you can't turn a profit after the fee structure, then don't choose Unity. What? Unity is in fact responsible for the fee structure, they made it. It's not a force of nature, you don't get to change the business model under people's feet and then say, "huh, real irresponsible of you to choose a business model that doesn't work because we broke it; not our fault, you should have planned for us changing your revenue structure." Especially since as far as I can tell, Unity is retroactively applying this change onto existing games already on the marketplace. God didn't make the business model bad, Unity did. And when those games launched, they launched under a different business model than what Unity is proposing. It is in fact not their fault that they didn't have the psychic ability to consider, "what if Unity randomly decides in the future to charge us every time a user installs one of our free games even if they only play it for 30 seconds?"

tomnipotent 3y ago
> God didn't make the business model bad, Unity did No, the developer that chose Unity made the bad business model. If I buy a Porsche in order to do Uber, it's not Uber's fault that I'm going to lose money.
- danShumway 3y ago
  It's the developer's fault that they didn't magically guess what Unity's terms were going to be in the future? Be serious. This is absolutely Unity's fault. If you buy a car to use Uber, and then half a year later Uber decides that your brand of car is no longer eligible to drive or that it needs to use a different fee structure, then it is Uber's fault that you are losing money. If you launch an ad-supported game in 2020 under a revenue share and in 2023 Unity decides that it's bored of revenue shares and it wants you to start paying per install, it is Unity's fault that you are losing money. There just is no way to spin it otherwise. Are you seriously trying to blame developers right now for not being psychic? I guarantee 100% that if we were having a conversation about Unity a year ago and someone said "I don't know if I should use Unity because what if they charge for installs in the future" you would have been making fun of that developer for having that concern. I promise you that a year ago you would not have predicted this change and you would have dismissed concerns about a theoretical structural change away from revenue shares as fearmongering. > If I buy a Porsche in order to do Uber, it's not Uber's fault that I'm going to lose money. Also once again, Unity's pricing model is not a natural consequence of the laws of physics. It's made up, Unity made it. The reason you'll lose money driving a porche for Uber is because the car will physically degrade, not because a bunch of board members at Uber got together and thought, "how can we extract more revenue from porsche owners?" Unity's revenue model is not the natural result of entropy, they decided to make it what it is.
  - tomnipotent 3y ago
    If a company makes a product, say physical goods, and the price of manufacturing goes up but the company doesn't increase consumer prices in response, is it the manufacturers fault? > you would have been making fun of that developer for having that concern What a ridiculous statement, thinking you can somehow figure out how I'd reply "100%" just from reading this thread. You haven't provided anything so far in this conversation that has pushed the conversation forward, other than some ad-hominems. Great job. > It's made up All pricing models are made up.
    - danShumway 3y ago
      > What a ridiculous statement, thinking you can somehow figure out how I'd reply "100%" just from reading this thread. Am I wrong? :) I mean, feel free to prove me wrong, were you a year ago thinking about the possibility of Unity dropping a revenue share model completely? Was that a conversation anyone was having anywhere at all? Forget about your personal response, you might not have been thinking about Unity at all a year ago. Fine. Can you find a thread, anywhere at all, advising mobile developers not to use Unity because they might abandon revenue sharing? I mean, apparently this is a thing they should have considered, right? So do you have an example of anyone, anywhere, considering it? The closest I can think of is the general advice to game developers not to use proprietary tools period, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting given you're not on here now saying that nobody should use Unity because of the power imbalance. > If a company makes a product, say physical goods, and the price of manufacturing goes up but the company doesn't increase consumer prices in response, is it the manufacturers fault? Nothing physically has changed to force Unity to change prices, nor is Unity claiming that's the case. Also yes, in a scenario where you have an agreement with a company and the company changes the underlying prices of that agreement without warning, you would be correct in saying that it is certainly more the supplier's "fault" that a company goes out of business than the company owner. You might claim that the supplier didn't have a choice, but it would be ridiculous to claim that it's the buyer's fault that the prices changed. And again, I have to keep saying this: there is nothing physical going on here and Unity the company itself is not claiming that they're changing their pricing model in order to cover new costs. Analogies to material costs don't really apply here. > All pricing models are made up. Yep. That's... that's what I said. And if you're asking "who's fault is it that the pricing model is what it is" it's probably the fault of the person who created the pricing model. "Who's fault is it that this book has these words in it? The author's?" "No, it's the readers' fault!" Come on.
- 3seashells 3y ago
  If you buy a Honda civic that gets upgraded to a Porsche deliverator mid delivery..

tomnipotent 3y ago

> God didn't make the business model bad, Unity did No, the developer that chose Unity made the bad business model. If I buy a Porsche in order to do Uber, it's not Uber's fault that I'm going to lose money.

danShumway 3y ago
It's the developer's fault that they didn't magically guess what Unity's terms were going to be in the future? Be serious. This is absolutely Unity's fault. If you buy a car to use Uber, and then half a year later Uber decides that your brand of car is no longer eligible to drive or that it needs to use a different fee structure, then it is Uber's fault that you are losing money. If you launch an ad-supported game in 2020 under a revenue share and in 2023 Unity decides that it's bored of revenue shares and it wants you to start paying per install, it is Unity's fault that you are losing money. There just is no way to spin it otherwise. Are you seriously trying to blame developers right now for not being psychic? I guarantee 100% that if we were having a conversation about Unity a year ago and someone said "I don't know if I should use Unity because what if they charge for installs in the future" you would have been making fun of that developer for having that concern. I promise you that a year ago you would not have predicted this change and you would have dismissed concerns about a theoretical structural change away from revenue shares as fearmongering. > If I buy a Porsche in order to do Uber, it's not Uber's fault that I'm going to lose money. Also once again, Unity's pricing model is not a natural consequence of the laws of physics. It's made up, Unity made it. The reason you'll lose money driving a porche for Uber is because the car will physically degrade, not because a bunch of board members at Uber got together and thought, "how can we extract more revenue from porsche owners?" Unity's revenue model is not the natural result of entropy, they decided to make it what it is.
- tomnipotent 3y ago
  If a company makes a product, say physical goods, and the price of manufacturing goes up but the company doesn't increase consumer prices in response, is it the manufacturers fault? > you would have been making fun of that developer for having that concern What a ridiculous statement, thinking you can somehow figure out how I'd reply "100%" just from reading this thread. You haven't provided anything so far in this conversation that has pushed the conversation forward, other than some ad-hominems. Great job. > It's made up All pricing models are made up.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > What a ridiculous statement, thinking you can somehow figure out how I'd reply "100%" just from reading this thread. Am I wrong? :) I mean, feel free to prove me wrong, were you a year ago thinking about the possibility of Unity dropping a revenue share model completely? Was that a conversation anyone was having anywhere at all? Forget about your personal response, you might not have been thinking about Unity at all a year ago. Fine. Can you find a thread, anywhere at all, advising mobile developers not to use Unity because they might abandon revenue sharing? I mean, apparently this is a thing they should have considered, right? So do you have an example of anyone, anywhere, considering it? The closest I can think of is the general advice to game developers not to use proprietary tools period, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting given you're not on here now saying that nobody should use Unity because of the power imbalance. > If a company makes a product, say physical goods, and the price of manufacturing goes up but the company doesn't increase consumer prices in response, is it the manufacturers fault? Nothing physically has changed to force Unity to change prices, nor is Unity claiming that's the case. Also yes, in a scenario where you have an agreement with a company and the company changes the underlying prices of that agreement without warning, you would be correct in saying that it is certainly more the supplier's "fault" that a company goes out of business than the company owner. You might claim that the supplier didn't have a choice, but it would be ridiculous to claim that it's the buyer's fault that the prices changed. And again, I have to keep saying this: there is nothing physical going on here and Unity the company itself is not claiming that they're changing their pricing model in order to cover new costs. Analogies to material costs don't really apply here. > All pricing models are made up. Yep. That's... that's what I said. And if you're asking "who's fault is it that the pricing model is what it is" it's probably the fault of the person who created the pricing model. "Who's fault is it that this book has these words in it? The author's?" "No, it's the readers' fault!" Come on.
3seashells 3y ago
If you buy a Honda civic that gets upgraded to a Porsche deliverator mid delivery..