6 ms·

Unity silently removed clause that let you use TOS from version you shipped with

154 points by iliketrains 3y ago

iliketrains 3y ago
The first comment of this FAQ thread is also talking about this. https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates.1482750/#post-9288985 https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packa... The FAQ is worth reading on its own (and very hard to believe as a Unity game dev, honestly, WTF).
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  As a former Unity game dev it seems extremely easy to believe
- lawlessone 3y ago
  "Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data." Bonkers edit?: Am i reading it right that they want to retroactively charge developers extra fees for previous installs? I think this text i am quoting below is what they're really trying to do. They know the their new system is unreasonable. They want to force devs to use their advertising service. "Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. "
  - omnimus 3y ago
    Seems more like charging for new instalts. But how can you charge for install instead of sale? One user could easily cost more than what the game cost.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    They just changed your initial quote! "Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs. (Updated, Sep 13)"
NelsonMinar 3y ago
Wow that's ugly, particularly the part about hiding the change in the repo history.
Devasta 3y ago
I never thought I'd see Musks destruction of Twitter be beaten, this is unreal.
- vxNsr 3y ago
  No pun intended?
  - feelandcoffee 3y ago
    No, this is a Cry (for the) Engine.
- interestica 3y ago
  > this is unreal. No no, this is Unity
  - hartator 3y ago
    Crying out loud.
darreninthenet 3y ago
It seems no company is shy of the inevitable enshitification when they get to a certain size
- vanderZwan 3y ago
  If I understand correctly, Unity got bought out by a company that makes malware, and these decisions have been made by a former EA guy. Truly a match made in hell.
  - runevault 3y ago
    The former EA guy has been there for almost a decade, and ironSource was a merger/Unity acquisition not a purchase of Unity.
    - lawlessone 3y ago
      "Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. " Either way they appear to be trying corral devs into using their advertising software. LevelPlay is IronSouce. Combine this with their Gaming services. And they would control your backend. They would get a share of ad revenue directly, because it's their ad network. At that point (this is just my opinion) you're just sort of their employee but without the benefits.
    - vanderZwan 3y ago
      Technically correct corrections, which I appreciate! Having said that, this new information does not change the conclusion I drew in the slightest.
  - MikusR 3y ago
    The ea guy has been CEO of Unity for 10 years. And Unity is the one that bought/merged with that malware company
mjw1007 3y ago
Every now and again I see someone on this site saying things along the lines of "it's a shame that programmers in general are so unwilling to pay for quality tools", and I feel myself tempted to agree. Then something like this comes along and it becomes clear why it's so important that everything we rely on is, at the least, free from "I changed the deal" events.
- pixl97 3y ago
  This is the problem of "electrionicification" of everything. Oh, sorry, you need to sign a new EULA to use your cyber-hammer is the first thing every company would try if they could get away with it.
  - plagiarist 3y ago
    https://hackaday.com/2021/08/02/home-depot-is-selling-power-tools-that-require-activation-in-store/ https://hackaday.com/2021/08/02/home-depot-is-selling-power-...
    - pixl97 3y ago
      We are going to hell in a handbasket.
- fidotron 3y ago
  TBH it is kind of amazing we don’t regulate these change of terms more strongly. As you rightly point out it is causing a justifiable lack of trust in things you actually pay for which is going to be very counter productive.
  - Incipient 3y ago
    Regulation is hard. Especially for contracts. You can couldn't add "it's illegal to retroactively change the terms of a contract" because there are often terms in a contract relating to just that. It's often required in certain circumstances. In an instance like this, I'd say "market forces" isn't entirely the wrong approach. Everyone migrates away from them and destroys their business.
bakugo 3y ago
I really hope one of the companies relying on Unity to make their billions sues them for this. They really need a reality check.
bloopernova 3y ago
All this BS just reinforces the feeling I have that corporate executives have zero knowledge of the company they run. How did unity leadership misjudge their market by so much?
- sbarre 3y ago
  At, and beyond, a certain size, a lot of companies (but not all of course) end up full of self-serving "yes people".. Business- and money-focused people who joined the company after it took off with success, intent on "hitching a ride" for their own career growth.. (Inherently there's nothing wrong with this motivation, but I've found the kinds of people who seek out these opportunities tend to be of a certain type as described here) Those people eventually drive out the passionate and user-focused creators who were initially responsible for the innovation and success, as they focus solely on value extraction and pleasing/supporting the executive leadership. What happens next is.. this kind of enshittification.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  > How did unity leadership misjudge their market by so much? That remains to be seen. There's lots of noise about it right now, but if number goes up it will be hard to argue (even if it's true) that this was a bad decision.
glimshe 3y ago
Unity used to be the symbol of indie developers rising against stifling Big Game. Now Unity is the incarnation of everything that made Big Game bad. Shame on you, Unity.
dathinab 3y ago
so basically using unity has become a legal/risk liability especially for smaller studios .... they are probably spending a non small amount of money on legal, marketing and other consulting ... how can you still f*-up that bad like has there been a single company in history which charged per install (!= per license) and had long term success (and wasn't a monopoly)
rich_sasha 3y ago
This kind of thing keeps happening with [semi] open, [semi] free products backed by a commercial company. That doesn't make it good, but I wonder if the business model just doesn't quite work. It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue. Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many people into the "free" platform before pulling the rug. Even if that's not your initial plan. I sincerely feel for all the indie gamedevs, this must be terrifying, I'm only commenting on the broader problem.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Unity may be free, but it is by not "open" by any stretch of the imagination
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    I guess it's a freemium sdk.
  - rich_sasha 3y ago
    Yeah, I miswrote. I meant permissive and (formerly) "friendly" pricing.
- gcr 3y ago
  what do you mean by calling unity semi-open? Nothing about Unity has been “open” since its founding
  - whstl 3y ago
    I know it still doesn't mean it is "open", but I wonder if GP means that it "has a rich ecosystem anyone can participate", aka "lock-in".
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  > But eventually you need to produce revenue. Often it might be a case of: "We're doing X revenue right now. Let's do whatever it takes to (try and) increase that revenue". Versus: "We're doing X revenue right now. Let's use that revenue to do the best we can & improve product. Hopefully bringing in more customers, so we'll have more resources to improve product or develop new ones". The 1st is profit focussed, leading to enshittification. The 2nd is customer-focussed, leading to innovation & better products. Unity clearly chose to chase profits above customer satisfaction.
gcr 3y ago
Would it make sense for some large studio to sue for specific performance of the contract they agreed to? I’d be surprised if unagreed TOS language were enforceable like this
- lawlessone 3y ago
  Are large studios beholden to the same contract though? I assume at a certain point a studio is large enough to negotiate their own contract with unity.
iliketrains 3y ago
Why did this post disappear from the front page? I understand that this is now a heated topic, but I think it is good for people to know about things like this.
daft_pink 3y ago
Reality is that Unity loses vast sums of money year after year. Know that if you develop with them, you are tying your company to a company that is vaporizing money by developing their platform year after year. If you are going to develop with them, then you should want them to earn a stable profit, so their platform is around for you. You may not agree with this pricing structure, but you should hopefully want them to make money and raise their prices somehow. However, I think it's perfectly rational to conclude that they are an unstable partner that isn't earning a profit, and it's too risky to tie your development to them as this article sort of suggests. I just strongly suggest you either are in favor of them raising their prices somehow or switch providers, because losing over hundreds of millions of dollars every year is completely unsustainable.
- dmix 3y ago
  > Reality is that Unity loses vast sums of money year after year Can you expand on why they lost money? Was it a market seeding thing?

154 points by iliketrains 3y ago

The first comment of this FAQ thread is also talking about this. https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packaging-updates.1482750/#post-9288985 https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-plan-pricing-and-packa... The FAQ is worth reading on its own (and very hard to believe as a Unity game dev, honestly, WTF).

jncfhnb 3y ago
As a former Unity game dev it seems extremely easy to believe
lawlessone 3y ago
"Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data." Bonkers edit?: Am i reading it right that they want to retroactively charge developers extra fees for previous installs? I think this text i am quoting below is what they're really trying to do. They know the their new system is unreasonable. They want to force devs to use their advertising service. "Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. "
- omnimus 3y ago
  Seems more like charging for new instalts. But how can you charge for install instead of sale? One user could easily cost more than what the game cost.
- Timon3 3y ago
  They just changed your initial quote! "Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs? A: We are not going to charge a fee for reinstalls. The spirit of this program is and has always been to charge for the first install and we have no desire to charge for the same person doing ongoing installs. (Updated, Sep 13)"

NelsonMinar 3y ago

Wow that's ugly, particularly the part about hiding the change in the repo history.

Devasta 3y ago

I never thought I'd see Musks destruction of Twitter be beaten, this is unreal.

vxNsr 3y ago
No pun intended?
- feelandcoffee 3y ago
  No, this is a Cry (for the) Engine.
interestica 3y ago
> this is unreal. No no, this is Unity
- hartator 3y ago
  Crying out loud.

darreninthenet 3y ago

It seems no company is shy of the inevitable enshitification when they get to a certain size

vanderZwan 3y ago
If I understand correctly, Unity got bought out by a company that makes malware, and these decisions have been made by a former EA guy. Truly a match made in hell.
- runevault 3y ago
  The former EA guy has been there for almost a decade, and ironSource was a merger/Unity acquisition not a purchase of Unity.
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    "Qualifying customers may be eligible for credits toward the Unity Runtime Fee based on the adoption of Unity services beyond the Editor, such as Unity Gaming Services or Unity LevelPlay mediation for mobile ad-supported games. " Either way they appear to be trying corral devs into using their advertising software. LevelPlay is IronSouce. Combine this with their Gaming services. And they would control your backend. They would get a share of ad revenue directly, because it's their ad network. At that point (this is just my opinion) you're just sort of their employee but without the benefits.
  - vanderZwan 3y ago
    Technically correct corrections, which I appreciate! Having said that, this new information does not change the conclusion I drew in the slightest.
- MikusR 3y ago
  The ea guy has been CEO of Unity for 10 years. And Unity is the one that bought/merged with that malware company

mjw1007 3y ago

Every now and again I see someone on this site saying things along the lines of "it's a shame that programmers in general are so unwilling to pay for quality tools", and I feel myself tempted to agree. Then something like this comes along and it becomes clear why it's so important that everything we rely on is, at the least, free from "I changed the deal" events.

pixl97 3y ago
This is the problem of "electrionicification" of everything. Oh, sorry, you need to sign a new EULA to use your cyber-hammer is the first thing every company would try if they could get away with it.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  https://hackaday.com/2021/08/02/home-depot-is-selling-power-tools-that-require-activation-in-store/ https://hackaday.com/2021/08/02/home-depot-is-selling-power-...
  - pixl97 3y ago
    We are going to hell in a handbasket.
fidotron 3y ago
TBH it is kind of amazing we don’t regulate these change of terms more strongly. As you rightly point out it is causing a justifiable lack of trust in things you actually pay for which is going to be very counter productive.
- Incipient 3y ago
  Regulation is hard. Especially for contracts. You can couldn't add "it's illegal to retroactively change the terms of a contract" because there are often terms in a contract relating to just that. It's often required in certain circumstances. In an instance like this, I'd say "market forces" isn't entirely the wrong approach. Everyone migrates away from them and destroys their business.

bakugo 3y ago

I really hope one of the companies relying on Unity to make their billions sues them for this. They really need a reality check.

bloopernova 3y ago

All this BS just reinforces the feeling I have that corporate executives have zero knowledge of the company they run. How did unity leadership misjudge their market by so much?

sbarre 3y ago
At, and beyond, a certain size, a lot of companies (but not all of course) end up full of self-serving "yes people".. Business- and money-focused people who joined the company after it took off with success, intent on "hitching a ride" for their own career growth.. (Inherently there's nothing wrong with this motivation, but I've found the kinds of people who seek out these opportunities tend to be of a certain type as described here) Those people eventually drive out the passionate and user-focused creators who were initially responsible for the innovation and success, as they focus solely on value extraction and pleasing/supporting the executive leadership. What happens next is.. this kind of enshittification.
_aavaa_ 3y ago
> How did unity leadership misjudge their market by so much? That remains to be seen. There's lots of noise about it right now, but if number goes up it will be hard to argue (even if it's true) that this was a bad decision.

glimshe 3y ago

Unity used to be the symbol of indie developers rising against stifling Big Game. Now Unity is the incarnation of everything that made Big Game bad. Shame on you, Unity.

dathinab 3y ago

so basically using unity has become a legal/risk liability especially for smaller studios .... they are probably spending a non small amount of money on legal, marketing and other consulting ... how can you still f*-up that bad like has there been a single company in history which charged per install (!= per license) and had long term success (and wasn't a monopoly)

rich_sasha 3y ago

This kind of thing keeps happening with [semi] open, [semi] free products backed by a commercial company. That doesn't make it good, but I wonder if the business model just doesn't quite work. It's fine early on, especially if you have a funding backer (large company, generous VC etc). But eventually you need to produce revenue. Worse still, once you realize this, you are perversely encouraged to lock in as many people into the "free" platform before pulling the rug. Even if that's not your initial plan. I sincerely feel for all the indie gamedevs, this must be terrifying, I'm only commenting on the broader problem.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
Unity may be free, but it is by not "open" by any stretch of the imagination
- lawlessone 3y ago
  I guess it's a freemium sdk.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  Yeah, I miswrote. I meant permissive and (formerly) "friendly" pricing.
gcr 3y ago
what do you mean by calling unity semi-open? Nothing about Unity has been “open” since its founding
- whstl 3y ago
  I know it still doesn't mean it is "open", but I wonder if GP means that it "has a rich ecosystem anyone can participate", aka "lock-in".
RetroTechie 3y ago
> But eventually you need to produce revenue. Often it might be a case of: "We're doing X revenue right now. Let's do whatever it takes to (try and) increase that revenue". Versus: "We're doing X revenue right now. Let's use that revenue to do the best we can & improve product. Hopefully bringing in more customers, so we'll have more resources to improve product or develop new ones". The 1st is profit focussed, leading to enshittification. The 2nd is customer-focussed, leading to innovation & better products. Unity clearly chose to chase profits above customer satisfaction.

gcr 3y ago

Would it make sense for some large studio to sue for specific performance of the contract they agreed to? I’d be surprised if unagreed TOS language were enforceable like this

lawlessone 3y ago
Are large studios beholden to the same contract though? I assume at a certain point a studio is large enough to negotiate their own contract with unity.

iliketrains 3y ago

Why did this post disappear from the front page? I understand that this is now a heated topic, but I think it is good for people to know about things like this.

daft_pink 3y ago

Reality is that Unity loses vast sums of money year after year. Know that if you develop with them, you are tying your company to a company that is vaporizing money by developing their platform year after year. If you are going to develop with them, then you should want them to earn a stable profit, so their platform is around for you. You may not agree with this pricing structure, but you should hopefully want them to make money and raise their prices somehow. However, I think it's perfectly rational to conclude that they are an unstable partner that isn't earning a profit, and it's too risky to tie your development to them as this article sort of suggests. I just strongly suggest you either are in favor of them raising their prices somehow or switch providers, because losing over hundreds of millions of dollars every year is completely unsustainable.

dmix 3y ago
> Reality is that Unity loses vast sums of money year after year Can you expand on why they lost money? Was it a market seeding thing?