5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - tomnipotent 3y ago
      > Am I wrong? I mean, feel free to prove me wrong Can you prove you're right? > I mean, apparently this is a thing they should have considered, right? I'm unaware of any business that doesn't consider pricing changes to strategic costs as future liabilities, especially when you don't have a contract with fixed terms. I don't see any evidence that Unity made guarantees that it's historical prices would remain consistent into the future. They're a public for-profit company, not a charity. > Nothing physically has changed to force Unity to change prices So not only can you predict what I would say, you have some sort of insights into Unity's cost structures and what it requires for them to keep Unity updated and competitive? > but it would be ridiculous to claim that it's the buyer's fault that the prices changed. It's not ridiculous to blame the seller that doesn't increase their pricing to keep a tenable margin. If my costs of goods increase but I keep my prices the same, it's my fault.
3seashells 3y ago
If you buy a Honda civic that gets upgraded to a Porsche deliverator mid delivery..

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.
  - tomnipotent 3y ago
    > Am I wrong? I mean, feel free to prove me wrong Can you prove you're right? > I mean, apparently this is a thing they should have considered, right? I'm unaware of any business that doesn't consider pricing changes to strategic costs as future liabilities, especially when you don't have a contract with fixed terms. I don't see any evidence that Unity made guarantees that it's historical prices would remain consistent into the future. They're a public for-profit company, not a charity. > Nothing physically has changed to force Unity to change prices So not only can you predict what I would say, you have some sort of insights into Unity's cost structures and what it requires for them to keep Unity updated and competitive? > but it would be ridiculous to claim that it's the buyer's fault that the prices changed. It's not ridiculous to blame the seller that doesn't increase their pricing to keep a tenable margin. If my costs of goods increase but I keep my prices the same, it's my fault.

3seashells 3y ago

If you buy a Honda civic that gets upgraded to a Porsche deliverator mid delivery..