6 ms·

> Those 27cents per install are a lot of money for those type of games and will even make some business models no longer feasible. Exactly. So if they did th

> Those 27cents per install are a lot of money for those type of games and will even make some business models no longer feasible. Exactly. So if they did this in an upfront way, they would have said that starting with Unity 2024 there is this new cost structure. Then game devs can make informed choices if they want to build those types of games on the platform. This retroactive stuff is insane and I cannot figure out how a company can make that type of move if they care about their users. Although I think I sort of answered my own question...

Clubber 3y ago
>This retroactive stuff is insane and I cannot figure out how a company can make that type of move if they care about their users. If I understand you correctly (I haven't really been following this), they changed the contract and are trying to retroactively collect license fees for installs done prior to the change in contract? I don't think this is legal. When you change a contract, it's on a go forward bases. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It's definitely a money grab. If it's deemed illegal, i.e. fraud, I hope there is jail time. Gotta send a message. Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management?
- awesomeMilou 3y ago
  > Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management? EA's former CEO, John Riccitiello took over last year. He inaugurated himself with quite a few statements, one of which was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752
  - jskherman 3y ago
    When it comes to games it's always EA, isn't it? Isn't this CEO the one also responsible for some of EA's notoriety?
    - Clubber 3y ago
      EA and Activision/Blizzard doesn't have a great track record either. Megacorps are usually bad for everybody except ownership.
    - internet101010 3y ago
      Yes, he is the brain behind the 2013 SimCity disaster.
      - riffraff 3y ago
        Forgive my ignorance, what disaster are you referring to?
        mikepurvis 3y ago
        It was a very dumbed down attempt to reboot the franchise, when what the fans wanted was what Cities Skylines would later deliver.
        Akronymus 3y ago
        > when what the fans wanted was what Cities Skylines would later deliver. For me personally, C:S goes in too much on building a nice looking city and not enough on the simulation aspect.
        mikepurvis 3y ago
        Fair, but I think SC2013 was all of that and worse (as well as having glitches and being a massively multiplayer always-online affair).
        Akronymus 3y ago
        SC2013 had the horrible "agent" simulation. While I personally wished for more of the sc4 kind of simulation.
    - 3y ago
  - thowfaraway 3y ago
    Riccitiello has been CEO since 2014. There were some good times at the beginning, but things seem to be falling apart.
  - callalex 3y ago
    How do these fuckers keep failing up?
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      Because it's a club and you ain't in it
    - Modified3019 3y ago
      Anyone can be a failure, but it takes a lot of work to be a real piece of shit.
- gmjosack 3y ago
  The terms have been changed so that all future installs can incur a fee even on older games that used unity even if the haven't been updated recently.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    >The terms have been changed so that all future installs can incur a fee even on older games that used unity even if the haven't been updated recently. They'll be able to get away with that then, the weasels. Sounds like they are trying to make a golden goose and kill it in one fell swoop. The latest Unreal demos look mighty fine. Sounds like we will be seeing a bunch of games use it in the near future. I wonder if the older engines used by older games have any way to detect installs. I'd hate to see devs who abandoned their projects years ago but are still downloadable somewhere get caught up in this.
- marcosdumay 3y ago
  It's not fraud. They are not misrepresenting anything, or getting any money that doesn't belong to them. If it's illegal, it will just be invalid. What means that people could just not pay them. There's no jail time coming out of this.
- readyplayernull 3y ago
  > Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management? Nope. They bought Weta tools and the investment haven't paid out and probably won't be soon if ever, now they are desperate for money.
- barkingcat 3y ago
  Unity IPO'ed in 2020, which isn't super recent, but is probably the reason behind these changes. IPO'ed means they gotta report some quarterly improvements, every quarter forever under the totally unsustainable growth model.
  - gabereiser 3y ago
    Unity went public. Bombed, and merged with IronSource, a notorious malware spam mobile ad company. It’s always about milking their install base. https://blog.unity.com/news/welcome-ironsource https://blog.unity.com/news/welcome-ironsource
- whiddershins 3y ago
  I have only been generally following this but I don’t think this is quite accurate. It seems more like, starting in 2024 when you get more downloads the fee would be applied. I see people talking here about apps that have a huge user base and a very low price per purchase. I admit that segment didn’t pop into my mind initially. And I see the problem there. I also imagine the Unity execs may have missed that scenario too. From reading all of their public communication, and with just a hint of principle of charity, I suspect they are trying to do this in the most fair minded and developer friendly manner possible. You have to meet both volume and revenue minimums to even be subject to this. All free apps are safe. All non-profits are safe. I think it is good Unity is receiving public feedback. I am sad so many people are jumping to the conclusion this is a corrupt money grab.
  - Scramblejams 3y ago
    A public company with veteran leadership does not upend their revenue model without first playing out, in great detail, how it will impact all of their largest users. The segment you mention may not have popped into your mind, but it's certainly been on theirs. This was intentional. What category of game has "a huge user base and a very low price per purchase?" Mobile free-to-play, that's what. How are those games monetized? Frequently with ads. And it's been noted elsewhere that if you use Unity's ad network, you will get a 100% discount on your per-install fees. They knew exactly what they were doing. They merged with an ad company -- they are now an ad company. Their strategy is to make F2P games untenable on Unity if you're not getting advertisements from them.
  - larusso 3y ago
    I believe the whole point and plan is that you use the Unity ad network exclusively. My understanding is that you get exempted then. Unity makes the most money with its Ad provider and would love to kill other ad mediation frameworks to get a bigger slice of the pie.
    - rossjudson 3y ago
      I am pretty sure that they can't actually just *say* that. I suspect you are right.
heavyset_go 3y ago
They don't want developers choosing to target older Unity versions for their games, they want to milk cent they can out of their users.
- derefr 3y ago
  Then just specify that new greenfield projects created after [date] won’t be licensed for previous versions of the engine, and that anyone with a project currently in development has until [date] to register their existing use.
- numpad0 3y ago
  That and/or they wanted to set up existing games. Something like 1 in 5 of top 50 iOS games, free-to-play and majority Asian(Chinese or Japanese), are making banks and on Unity. Personally I’m wondering if Chinese gamedev industry would “buy Godot” or do something to that effect. Japanese publishers won’t be able to do that nor would be willing to pay, so I’m guessing they’ll migrate existing to UE or wind down Unity titles, just my speculations though.
  - yAak 3y ago
    Thankfully Godot is safe from acquisition: https://godotengine.org/governance/ https://godotengine.org/governance/ (Or, at least they say they are.)
    - jkaplowitz 3y ago
      I just dug into the details. Yes, it looks pretty legitimate: copyright remains held by the individual contributors without a Contributor License Agreement, they are sponsored by a true non-profit foundation with robust non-profit policies and suitably non-profit legal status in the Netherlands, their money and important assets like the Godot trademark itself are held by a mixture of that non-profit foundation and (possibly as a transitional matter) the longstanding free software non-profit charity in the US which was their primary legal home for 7 years. I was formerly heavily involved in the leadership of the other major US non-profit charity that does this kind of fiscal sponsorship (and which maintained a friendly and collaborative relationship with the charity that Godot previously used). They’re not scamming you in the way of a lot of executives at VC-funded for-profit startups (and their acquirers) when they make entirely legally unenforceable statements about what will or won’t happen in the future which they don’t necessarily even believe themselves.
bigstrat2003 3y ago
> This retroactive stuff is insane and I cannot figure out how a company can make that type of move if they care about their users. I can't even understand how it can possibly be legal. How on earth is it even possible to say "your game which was released before we updated this license is subject to the updated version"? IANAL but that sure seems like something which would require both parties to agree to the updated terms for them to be binding.
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  waves in the general direction of the housing market, politicians being "lobbied" (bought) by companies, rampant destruction of the environment by industry; but paper straws for us, the numerous tax havens and the lack of any reform from Panama papers, government "contractors" padding their purses with tax money (see projects like crossrail), privately owned utilities completely mismanaged and corrupt (see Thameswater) We live in a dystopia lmao. Of course stuff like this is possible. Unity took one leap forward and pissed everyone off, they'll "fix" it by taking one or two steps back and then everyone will forget about it, just like we forget about everything else.
- perryizgr8 3y ago
  You can say whatever you want in a contract. If the other party thinks it is illegal they take you to court and the judge decides.
  - TheRoque 3y ago
    But it means that their legal teams say that it's legit already, so that's why most people assume that this is legal.
    - moron4hire 3y ago
      A lawyer friend of mine once told me that most of his job as a contract lawyer was basically a game to see if the other company's lawyers were paying attention and to take absolutely everything he could if they weren't.

Clubber 3y ago

>This retroactive stuff is insane and I cannot figure out how a company can make that type of move if they care about their users. If I understand you correctly (I haven't really been following this), they changed the contract and are trying to retroactively collect license fees for installs done prior to the change in contract? I don't think this is legal. When you change a contract, it's on a go forward bases. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It's definitely a money grab. If it's deemed illegal, i.e. fraud, I hope there is jail time. Gotta send a message. Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management?

awesomeMilou 3y ago
> Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management? EA's former CEO, John Riccitiello took over last year. He inaugurated himself with quite a few statements, one of which was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097752
- jskherman 3y ago
  When it comes to games it's always EA, isn't it? Isn't this CEO the one also responsible for some of EA's notoriety?
  - Clubber 3y ago
    EA and Activision/Blizzard doesn't have a great track record either. Megacorps are usually bad for everybody except ownership.
  - internet101010 3y ago
    Yes, he is the brain behind the 2013 SimCity disaster.
    - riffraff 3y ago
      Forgive my ignorance, what disaster are you referring to?
      - mikepurvis 3y ago
        It was a very dumbed down attempt to reboot the franchise, when what the fans wanted was what Cities Skylines would later deliver.
        Akronymus 3y ago
        > when what the fans wanted was what Cities Skylines would later deliver. For me personally, C:S goes in too much on building a nice looking city and not enough on the simulation aspect.
        mikepurvis 3y ago
        Fair, but I think SC2013 was all of that and worse (as well as having glitches and being a massively multiplayer always-online affair).
        Akronymus 3y ago
        SC2013 had the horrible "agent" simulation. While I personally wished for more of the sc4 kind of simulation.
  - 3y ago
- thowfaraway 3y ago
  Riccitiello has been CEO since 2014. There were some good times at the beginning, but things seem to be falling apart.
- callalex 3y ago
  How do these fuckers keep failing up?
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Because it's a club and you ain't in it
  - Modified3019 3y ago
    Anyone can be a failure, but it takes a lot of work to be a real piece of shit.
gmjosack 3y ago
The terms have been changed so that all future installs can incur a fee even on older games that used unity even if the haven't been updated recently.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >The terms have been changed so that all future installs can incur a fee even on older games that used unity even if the haven't been updated recently. They'll be able to get away with that then, the weasels. Sounds like they are trying to make a golden goose and kill it in one fell swoop. The latest Unreal demos look mighty fine. Sounds like we will be seeing a bunch of games use it in the near future. I wonder if the older engines used by older games have any way to detect installs. I'd hate to see devs who abandoned their projects years ago but are still downloadable somewhere get caught up in this.
marcosdumay 3y ago
It's not fraud. They are not misrepresenting anything, or getting any money that doesn't belong to them. If it's illegal, it will just be invalid. What means that people could just not pay them. There's no jail time coming out of this.
readyplayernull 3y ago
> Did Unity recently get acquired, new investors or new management? Nope. They bought Weta tools and the investment haven't paid out and probably won't be soon if ever, now they are desperate for money.
barkingcat 3y ago
Unity IPO'ed in 2020, which isn't super recent, but is probably the reason behind these changes. IPO'ed means they gotta report some quarterly improvements, every quarter forever under the totally unsustainable growth model.
- gabereiser 3y ago
  Unity went public. Bombed, and merged with IronSource, a notorious malware spam mobile ad company. It’s always about milking their install base. https://blog.unity.com/news/welcome-ironsource https://blog.unity.com/news/welcome-ironsource
whiddershins 3y ago
I have only been generally following this but I don’t think this is quite accurate. It seems more like, starting in 2024 when you get more downloads the fee would be applied. I see people talking here about apps that have a huge user base and a very low price per purchase. I admit that segment didn’t pop into my mind initially. And I see the problem there. I also imagine the Unity execs may have missed that scenario too. From reading all of their public communication, and with just a hint of principle of charity, I suspect they are trying to do this in the most fair minded and developer friendly manner possible. You have to meet both volume and revenue minimums to even be subject to this. All free apps are safe. All non-profits are safe. I think it is good Unity is receiving public feedback. I am sad so many people are jumping to the conclusion this is a corrupt money grab.
- Scramblejams 3y ago
  A public company with veteran leadership does not upend their revenue model without first playing out, in great detail, how it will impact all of their largest users. The segment you mention may not have popped into your mind, but it's certainly been on theirs. This was intentional. What category of game has "a huge user base and a very low price per purchase?" Mobile free-to-play, that's what. How are those games monetized? Frequently with ads. And it's been noted elsewhere that if you use Unity's ad network, you will get a 100% discount on your per-install fees. They knew exactly what they were doing. They merged with an ad company -- they are now an ad company. Their strategy is to make F2P games untenable on Unity if you're not getting advertisements from them.
- larusso 3y ago
  I believe the whole point and plan is that you use the Unity ad network exclusively. My understanding is that you get exempted then. Unity makes the most money with its Ad provider and would love to kill other ad mediation frameworks to get a bigger slice of the pie.
  - rossjudson 3y ago
    I am pretty sure that they can't actually just *say* that. I suspect you are right.

heavyset_go 3y ago

They don't want developers choosing to target older Unity versions for their games, they want to milk cent they can out of their users.

derefr 3y ago
Then just specify that new greenfield projects created after [date] won’t be licensed for previous versions of the engine, and that anyone with a project currently in development has until [date] to register their existing use.
numpad0 3y ago
That and/or they wanted to set up existing games. Something like 1 in 5 of top 50 iOS games, free-to-play and majority Asian(Chinese or Japanese), are making banks and on Unity. Personally I’m wondering if Chinese gamedev industry would “buy Godot” or do something to that effect. Japanese publishers won’t be able to do that nor would be willing to pay, so I’m guessing they’ll migrate existing to UE or wind down Unity titles, just my speculations though.
- yAak 3y ago
  Thankfully Godot is safe from acquisition: https://godotengine.org/governance/ https://godotengine.org/governance/ (Or, at least they say they are.)
  - jkaplowitz 3y ago
    I just dug into the details. Yes, it looks pretty legitimate: copyright remains held by the individual contributors without a Contributor License Agreement, they are sponsored by a true non-profit foundation with robust non-profit policies and suitably non-profit legal status in the Netherlands, their money and important assets like the Godot trademark itself are held by a mixture of that non-profit foundation and (possibly as a transitional matter) the longstanding free software non-profit charity in the US which was their primary legal home for 7 years. I was formerly heavily involved in the leadership of the other major US non-profit charity that does this kind of fiscal sponsorship (and which maintained a friendly and collaborative relationship with the charity that Godot previously used). They’re not scamming you in the way of a lot of executives at VC-funded for-profit startups (and their acquirers) when they make entirely legally unenforceable statements about what will or won’t happen in the future which they don’t necessarily even believe themselves.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

> This retroactive stuff is insane and I cannot figure out how a company can make that type of move if they care about their users. I can't even understand how it can possibly be legal. How on earth is it even possible to say "your game which was released before we updated this license is subject to the updated version"? IANAL but that sure seems like something which would require both parties to agree to the updated terms for them to be binding.

fennecfoxy 3y ago
waves in the general direction of the housing market, politicians being "lobbied" (bought) by companies, rampant destruction of the environment by industry; but paper straws for us, the numerous tax havens and the lack of any reform from Panama papers, government "contractors" padding their purses with tax money (see projects like crossrail), privately owned utilities completely mismanaged and corrupt (see Thameswater) We live in a dystopia lmao. Of course stuff like this is possible. Unity took one leap forward and pissed everyone off, they'll "fix" it by taking one or two steps back and then everyone will forget about it, just like we forget about everything else.
perryizgr8 3y ago
You can say whatever you want in a contract. If the other party thinks it is illegal they take you to court and the judge decides.
- TheRoque 3y ago
  But it means that their legal teams say that it's legit already, so that's why most people assume that this is legal.
  - moron4hire 3y ago
    A lawyer friend of mine once told me that most of his job as a contract lawyer was basically a game to see if the other company's lawyers were paying attention and to take absolutely everything he could if they weren't.