3 ms·

Not sure you read the article. Unity explicitly states they are NOT applying this retroactively.

by pech0rin 3y ago

dgb23 3y ago
Retroactively in terms of previous installs or in terms of already published games?
- oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
  It applies to new installs (from 01/24) of all games, regardless of when they were published.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    Well if that is the case it is either a) illegal. b) the developper/studios already agreed on a license that would allow unity to change term and licensing fee on stuff made long ago and screw them whenever they want. If the answer is b, then I guess those involved should just slap themselves and swallow it instead of complaining.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    EDIT: It seems that while some article say they retroactively apply this other state they expliticly do not do so. Through they seem to have removed previous clauses which would allow developers to stay on the version they started developing with which hadn't had that terms jet. Which is scummy (because it relies on "tricking" companies into those terms) but might be legal. put new installs are not newly published products, i.e. they don't involve the publisher bundling in a new version of unity they got from the vendor so while the installs are new the contract between the producer <-> publisher <-> distributor <-> unity is not which means it's uniliteraly retroactively changing a contract which sounds like very much not very legal if you consider that the other contract partner is somewhat dependent on unity (switching is expensive) it might also involve other laws not necessary racketeering but something in that direction and while unity might be able to terminate the contract with the publisher (by their lawyers sending them a letter, not automatic) this is between the publisher and them i.e. it shouldn't affect already sold products but they explicitly want additional fees from distributor or publishers for _already sold products they have no control over_ which is just tbh. ridiculous and even if it only affects newly sold products it's still affecting already produced product retroactively which still is highly questionable
pjc50 3y ago
Games which are already in development will be affected. That feels retroactive, since the purchase decision to use Unity was made potentially years ago, even if it technically isn't. It also apparently applies to already shipping games?
smeagull 3y ago
Not sure you read the article. They apply it to games already shipped, just new installs. This is a retroactive change to already developed games.
philistine 3y ago
The article has information from the later clarification Unity did. Initially it was crystal clear it applied to every download ever made with Unity.

Not sure you read the article. Unity explicitly states they are NOT applying this retroactively.

dgb23 3y ago

Retroactively in terms of previous installs or in terms of already published games?

oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
It applies to new installs (from 01/24) of all games, regardless of when they were published.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Well if that is the case it is either a) illegal. b) the developper/studios already agreed on a license that would allow unity to change term and licensing fee on stuff made long ago and screw them whenever they want. If the answer is b, then I guess those involved should just slap themselves and swallow it instead of complaining.
- dathinab 3y ago
  EDIT: It seems that while some article say they retroactively apply this other state they expliticly do not do so. Through they seem to have removed previous clauses which would allow developers to stay on the version they started developing with which hadn't had that terms jet. Which is scummy (because it relies on "tricking" companies into those terms) but might be legal. put new installs are not newly published products, i.e. they don't involve the publisher bundling in a new version of unity they got from the vendor so while the installs are new the contract between the producer <-> publisher <-> distributor <-> unity is not which means it's uniliteraly retroactively changing a contract which sounds like very much not very legal if you consider that the other contract partner is somewhat dependent on unity (switching is expensive) it might also involve other laws not necessary racketeering but something in that direction and while unity might be able to terminate the contract with the publisher (by their lawyers sending them a letter, not automatic) this is between the publisher and them i.e. it shouldn't affect already sold products but they explicitly want additional fees from distributor or publishers for _already sold products they have no control over_ which is just tbh. ridiculous and even if it only affects newly sold products it's still affecting already produced product retroactively which still is highly questionable

pjc50 3y ago

Games which are already in development will be affected. That feels retroactive, since the purchase decision to use Unity was made potentially years ago, even if it technically isn't. It also apparently applies to already shipping games?

smeagull 3y ago

Not sure you read the article. They apply it to games already shipped, just new installs. This is a retroactive change to already developed games.

philistine 3y ago

The article has information from the later clarification Unity did. Initially it was crystal clear it applied to every download ever made with Unity.