3 ms·
IANAL but it doesn't pass the sniff test. You can't provide a module to a software, change terms retroactively and request to be paid $10b per install for old v
by bgirard 3y ago
IANAL but it doesn't pass the sniff test. You can't provide a module to a software, change terms retroactively and request to be paid $10b per install for old versions of the software and bankrupting all your customers. That's preposterous.
- Danieru 3y agoYours is a common reaction. Even many indiedevs (in the gamedev discords I am in) could not believe the implications. Unity's policy is so silly it is hard to believe. Unfortunately, the leadership at Unity does not agree with you. Unity's core selling point was a pay-per-seat fee with no royalty. Hence a decent number of big productions went with Unity over Unreal. Now Unity wants more money, and thinks said big productions are "free loading". It is as if an all you can eat buffet decided they should charge for entry plus per plate. "But a lot of customers come in, pay one fixed fee, then eat a lot of food" said the employees of the all you can eat buffet. "Other restaurants charge 20$ a plate. We are simply asking for the same.", said the employees of the all you can eat buffet.
- bgirard 3y ago> the leadership at Unity does not agree with you. I'm interested in how the courts would rule on it. I can't imagine courts siding with an agreement change, without consideration for the other party, and applying to games developed in the past retroactively.