5 ms·

They also donate 1000 USD each month to each project moving forward. I still wonder how the discussions at Unity went, thinking that a per-install fee for alre

They also donate 1000 USD each month to each project moving forward. I still wonder how the discussions at Unity went, thinking that a per-install fee for already released games would be a great idea. Sounds like the result of a compromise.

rychco 3y ago
These are the kind of decisions that I (almost) can’t imagine happening at a private company. When the developer of a product you use goes public, you can expect with absolute certainty that it will become measurably worse over time. It might not happen quickly, but it will happen.
- cinntaile 3y ago
  You changed from private to public, I assume you mean public in both cases or this doesn't make sense.
  - lubutu 3y ago
    No, they're saying they can't imagine it happening at a private company, but can once the company has gone public.
- ozim 3y ago
  MBAs rolling in to milk the cow dry, run it to the ground and sell scraps for profit can happen in private company as well.
  - sparrowInHand 3y ago
    The sea-people of our times are the CEO people..
    - martijnvds 3y ago
      Bronze age civilizations were wiped out by the sea-suite.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    It's rarer though. These MBA beancounter types get attracted to public companies like flies to a pile of bull dung because it's far easier to get compensation tied to stock prices/valuation there, and it's easy to direct a stock's price upward (headcount reduction is the most common thing that will send it upwards).
  - drumhead 3y ago
    They do it because it succeeds. How many shitty things have we seen normalised and spread because consumers just accepted it and paid up?
    - huijzer 3y ago
      Exactly. I agree. I also find it surprising when people talk negatively about certain companies or capitalism in general, but then continue to spend a lot on various products including the companies they criticize. Companies are not making money up (apart from some fraud cases like Enron).
drra 3y ago
In the '90s, a friend of mine was in the pharma industry. During a training session, the question came up: "Is it possible to market a useless drug as a panacea?" The straightforward answer, according to the trainer, was "Yes—if the projected profits surpass the potential liability costs." All of the outcry was likely anticipated when they made that decision.
- dharmab 3y ago
  Inversely, heard at a very large AdTech company when a room full of engineers was told about then-upcoming GDPR requirements: "Can't we just pay the fines?" "No. The fines scale as a percent of revenues."
  - adastra22 3y ago
    If the percent is less than the profit margin…
    - fendy3002 3y ago
      Depends on if the opposite (following GDPR) give more profit margin then this one.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - dharmab 3y ago
      n% of a multibillion dollar company? The shareholders would be out for blood!
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    The "percentage of global revenue for the whole parent corporation" was the genius bit in GDPR. Otherwise Facebook could've just founded Privacy Violation Inc and done all the bad shit there. There's just one employee, Frank, and he's paid minimum wage. Now if, for example, Youtube fucks up the GDPR fines are calculated on the global annual revenue of all of Alphabet Inc.
hackerlight 3y ago
I can't fathom the logic. Why not do a slice of revenue like Unreal does, and calibrate the percentage so you make the same amount of money as you would have otherwise made had you done it per-install? Happier customers and identical revenue.
- alphager 3y ago
  Their USP was that they had no revenue share. Somehow they thought that the current retroactive per-install model would go over better than reneging on that promise.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    But how little can you know about your own product and your customers, by suddenly treating an AAA game that is sold for a fixed big price, where a fee per install might make sense or is affordable, the same as all those little games, where many are free to play (add financed, or as a free demo with full version unlockable)? I mean, how can you not see that? Or was the thinking, screw that market, we are only catering for AAA games now? Even then it makes little sense as the revenue share like Unreal does, would make more money. It likeley was something along the lines of: "they need us, they will have to find a way to pay us, if they want to continue existing."
    - deafpolygon 3y ago
      It was more a heavy-handed tactic to get small ad-supported game developers to switch to using Unity's ad network rather than their competitors.
    - noirscape 3y ago
      Not AAA games - the real target here is mobile games. Those far exceed any profits the AAA industry generates. Indies are a necessary casualty in the eyes of Unity (or more accurately: they're just not considered). Unity is the engine behind some of the most popular mobile gacha games. MiHoYo (Genshin/Honkai Impact) uses it for everything, so does Type/Moon (Fate Grand Order). They want a slice of that pie. That's where the real money is. Those games rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every month. Hence also why the charge is by install and can be waived if you use Unity's adtech offerings.
herbst 3y ago
There is one 'good' aspect I can see. Nearly all worthless trash games on steam, those that need more resources than anything else, those where you easily get stuck, those with generally no gameplay. Shine a very bad light at unity. A unity splash screen is and always was a sign that the game might won't work on my setup. Maybe this will drive away all these shitty games. That's definitely mostly just good for the brand, but IMO kinda necessary as the brand stands for shitty games for some.
- hnben 3y ago
  > Maybe this will drive away all these shitty games but why? when the cost scales per install, it shouldn't hit small trashy games harder, should it? (or am i missing something like large one-time payment?)
- Auracle 3y ago
  It was only after you hit $200,000 in sales for a year.
  - herbst 3y ago
    If it doesn't even help against that issue then I have no theorie either
- coolelectronics 3y ago
  the ability to make "worthless trash games" is the only reason that the indie industry can exist at all. there are huge communities around sharing small lower-effort projects (which countless well-received games started out as) and gatekeeping an engine to enterprise customers only would be a far far worse decision than what they've already done besides, the rates only kick in after your profit reaches 200k so it wouldn't do anything
  - herbst 3y ago
    To be fair I am not talking about small indie games with creative gaming aspect. Go to steam, sort any 3d category by price and be amazing by the amount of reskinned unity shooters, RPGs, whatever.

rychco 3y ago

These are the kind of decisions that I (almost) can’t imagine happening at a private company. When the developer of a product you use goes public, you can expect with absolute certainty that it will become measurably worse over time. It might not happen quickly, but it will happen.

cinntaile 3y ago
You changed from private to public, I assume you mean public in both cases or this doesn't make sense.
- lubutu 3y ago
  No, they're saying they can't imagine it happening at a private company, but can once the company has gone public.
ozim 3y ago
MBAs rolling in to milk the cow dry, run it to the ground and sell scraps for profit can happen in private company as well.
- sparrowInHand 3y ago
  The sea-people of our times are the CEO people..
  - martijnvds 3y ago
    Bronze age civilizations were wiped out by the sea-suite.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  It's rarer though. These MBA beancounter types get attracted to public companies like flies to a pile of bull dung because it's far easier to get compensation tied to stock prices/valuation there, and it's easy to direct a stock's price upward (headcount reduction is the most common thing that will send it upwards).
- drumhead 3y ago
  They do it because it succeeds. How many shitty things have we seen normalised and spread because consumers just accepted it and paid up?
  - huijzer 3y ago
    Exactly. I agree. I also find it surprising when people talk negatively about certain companies or capitalism in general, but then continue to spend a lot on various products including the companies they criticize. Companies are not making money up (apart from some fraud cases like Enron).

drra 3y ago

In the '90s, a friend of mine was in the pharma industry. During a training session, the question came up: "Is it possible to market a useless drug as a panacea?" The straightforward answer, according to the trainer, was "Yes—if the projected profits surpass the potential liability costs." All of the outcry was likely anticipated when they made that decision.

dharmab 3y ago
Inversely, heard at a very large AdTech company when a room full of engineers was told about then-upcoming GDPR requirements: "Can't we just pay the fines?" "No. The fines scale as a percent of revenues."
- adastra22 3y ago
  If the percent is less than the profit margin…
  - fendy3002 3y ago
    Depends on if the opposite (following GDPR) give more profit margin then this one.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dharmab 3y ago
    n% of a multibillion dollar company? The shareholders would be out for blood!
- theshrike79 3y ago
  The "percentage of global revenue for the whole parent corporation" was the genius bit in GDPR. Otherwise Facebook could've just founded Privacy Violation Inc and done all the bad shit there. There's just one employee, Frank, and he's paid minimum wage. Now if, for example, Youtube fucks up the GDPR fines are calculated on the global annual revenue of all of Alphabet Inc.

hackerlight 3y ago

I can't fathom the logic. Why not do a slice of revenue like Unreal does, and calibrate the percentage so you make the same amount of money as you would have otherwise made had you done it per-install? Happier customers and identical revenue.

alphager 3y ago
Their USP was that they had no revenue share. Somehow they thought that the current retroactive per-install model would go over better than reneging on that promise.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  But how little can you know about your own product and your customers, by suddenly treating an AAA game that is sold for a fixed big price, where a fee per install might make sense or is affordable, the same as all those little games, where many are free to play (add financed, or as a free demo with full version unlockable)? I mean, how can you not see that? Or was the thinking, screw that market, we are only catering for AAA games now? Even then it makes little sense as the revenue share like Unreal does, would make more money. It likeley was something along the lines of: "they need us, they will have to find a way to pay us, if they want to continue existing."
  - deafpolygon 3y ago
    It was more a heavy-handed tactic to get small ad-supported game developers to switch to using Unity's ad network rather than their competitors.
  - noirscape 3y ago
    Not AAA games - the real target here is mobile games. Those far exceed any profits the AAA industry generates. Indies are a necessary casualty in the eyes of Unity (or more accurately: they're just not considered). Unity is the engine behind some of the most popular mobile gacha games. MiHoYo (Genshin/Honkai Impact) uses it for everything, so does Type/Moon (Fate Grand Order). They want a slice of that pie. That's where the real money is. Those games rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every month. Hence also why the charge is by install and can be waived if you use Unity's adtech offerings.

herbst 3y ago

There is one 'good' aspect I can see. Nearly all worthless trash games on steam, those that need more resources than anything else, those where you easily get stuck, those with generally no gameplay. Shine a very bad light at unity. A unity splash screen is and always was a sign that the game might won't work on my setup. Maybe this will drive away all these shitty games. That's definitely mostly just good for the brand, but IMO kinda necessary as the brand stands for shitty games for some.

hnben 3y ago
> Maybe this will drive away all these shitty games but why? when the cost scales per install, it shouldn't hit small trashy games harder, should it? (or am i missing something like large one-time payment?)
Auracle 3y ago
It was only after you hit $200,000 in sales for a year.
- herbst 3y ago
  If it doesn't even help against that issue then I have no theorie either
coolelectronics 3y ago
the ability to make "worthless trash games" is the only reason that the indie industry can exist at all. there are huge communities around sharing small lower-effort projects (which countless well-received games started out as) and gatekeeping an engine to enterprise customers only would be a far far worse decision than what they've already done besides, the rates only kick in after your profit reaches 200k so it wouldn't do anything
- herbst 3y ago
  To be fair I am not talking about small indie games with creative gaming aspect. Go to steam, sort any 3d category by price and be amazing by the amount of reskinned unity shooters, RPGs, whatever.