3 ms·
It’s a funny one. Major corporations are more likely to feel the hit to their bottom line, and generally are able to take a short term painful decision to make
by physicsguy 3y ago
It’s a funny one. Major corporations are more likely to feel the hit to their bottom line, and generally are able to take a short term painful decision to make a long term profitable one, like switching or investing in their own engine.
On the flip side, small companies are more likely to be discouraged from ever using Unity because of this.
So who remains using it? Mid-tier companies who can’t afford to switch?
- qwytw 3y ago> feel the hit to their bottom line Which will likely be very insignificant if they are actually making any money on their games. Nobody besides those making about $1.2-2 million and who have very low revenue per user will be really affected financial that much. The fact that Unity randomly imposed fees their clients hadn't agreed on for install of games which are already released and the whole install tracking issue itself seems like a much bigger issue than the actual cost.
- BlueTemplar 3y agoYeah, I'm particularly thinking of Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard being able to jump ship with a Hearthstone 2, while Hasbro-Wizards of the Coast is probably now stuck paying Unity the money for Magic the Gathering Arena for at least a decade. (And even there, they are lucky, they were just mentioning that they were now thinking about going beyond the 1vs1, PvP focus of Arena just this summer !)