4 ms·

> Stable profits are worthless Unity never had those though or any profits for that matter (they have been burning cash for almost two decades..) > All that m

by qwytw 3y ago

> Stable profits are worthless Unity never had those though or any profits for that matter (they have been burning cash for almost two decades..) > All that matters is growth Yeah, but in this case they have been more focused on growing their costs rather than revenue (which is not exactly ideal even from the "Wall Street" perspective).

danaris 3y ago
Now, that's a different matter—the post I was replying to posited that they were stably profitable (and I have no outside information either way). If what you say is the case, then this is still a dumb move, because it's still acting as if the choices existing Unity developers have are "pay Unity whatever they want, or get out of the business", but it's at least not quite as directly related to Wall Street brainrot.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > pay Unity whatever they want, or get out of the business I guess it's down to how the video game/engine market works. A tiny proportion of their users make massive amounts of money while essentially paying peanuts to Unity (well.. I guess at least in relation to what value it provides compared to storefronts/ad companies/platform owners etc.), while the bulk makes barely anything. They don't want to go with a rev. share model due to various (pretty valid reasons) and therefore they seem to be really struggling with monetization. So they came up with this Frankensteinian compromise/abomination which hardly solves anything: - most of their biggest customer will continue paying pennies (as % of revenue). - most users are under the 200k/1000k limit so these changed don't even affect them in short term (of course it might make them reconsider whether they really want to continue using Unity) - the not that large but very vocal (their corporate won't go around complaining on twitter/reddit/etc.) group of mainly indie developers in between is kind of screwed (at least if they make F2P or cheap mobile games). However it's not like they pay Unity that much money currently, so their executives who obsessed with maximizing short-term revenue growth don't have any reason to care about what happens to them.
- numpad0 3y ago
  In finding the middle ground between these sentiments -- you'd admit it won't pass a criteria for proper arguments, right -- it feels IT has been playing a lot of bait-and-switch and sucking a lot from VC without returning much. Which might be weird thing to say here, though...

by qwytw 3y ago

danaris 3y ago

Now, that's a different matter—the post I was replying to posited that they were stably profitable (and I have no outside information either way). If what you say is the case, then this is still a dumb move, because it's still acting as if the choices existing Unity developers have are "pay Unity whatever they want, or get out of the business", but it's at least not quite as directly related to Wall Street brainrot.

qwytw 3y ago
> pay Unity whatever they want, or get out of the business I guess it's down to how the video game/engine market works. A tiny proportion of their users make massive amounts of money while essentially paying peanuts to Unity (well.. I guess at least in relation to what value it provides compared to storefronts/ad companies/platform owners etc.), while the bulk makes barely anything. They don't want to go with a rev. share model due to various (pretty valid reasons) and therefore they seem to be really struggling with monetization. So they came up with this Frankensteinian compromise/abomination which hardly solves anything: - most of their biggest customer will continue paying pennies (as % of revenue). - most users are under the 200k/1000k limit so these changed don't even affect them in short term (of course it might make them reconsider whether they really want to continue using Unity) - the not that large but very vocal (their corporate won't go around complaining on twitter/reddit/etc.) group of mainly indie developers in between is kind of screwed (at least if they make F2P or cheap mobile games). However it's not like they pay Unity that much money currently, so their executives who obsessed with maximizing short-term revenue growth don't have any reason to care about what happens to them.
numpad0 3y ago
In finding the middle ground between these sentiments -- you'd admit it won't pass a criteria for proper arguments, right -- it feels IT has been playing a lot of bait-and-switch and sucking a lot from VC without returning much. Which might be weird thing to say here, though...