4 ms·
There is no way this was intentional. First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this, because a bunch of Unity employees quit due to this.
by MattRix 3y ago
There is no way this was intentional. First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this, because a bunch of Unity employees quit due to this. Secondly, if it was a form of anchoring, they did it in the worst possible way. The problem wasn’t really the numbers, it was the base idea of using installs and having it apply retroactively. If they had just wanted to anchor they could have come out with a plan at 5% revshare or something.
- theptip 3y agoAgreed; Hanlon’s Razor applies here.
- salawat 3y agoStop using Hanlon's Razor. The only thing it cuts is the people using it over and over again. Say it with me: stupidity is weaponized so as to be indistinguishable from malice.
- hoseja 3y agoI am willing to extend the Razor to clueless individuals at most. It does NOT apply to corporations.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoThis is a corporation. They know exactly what they are doing.
- jameshart 3y agoHave you ever worked in a corporation?
- matheusmoreira 3y agoYes. I actually have my own company. Always assume they have an army of lawyers backing their every move. I know I do.
- jameshart 3y agoAh. And you think lawyers know what they’re doing.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoThey know just enough to enable the corporation's strategic incompetence whenever the situation calls for it.
- LoganDark 3y agoThey can't ever introduce any revenue sharing because they promised not to do that and would be immensely vulnerable to lawsuits if they ever went back on that promise. This was their attempt to do something that doesn't technically count as revenue sharing.
- rendall 3y agoThey had already promised to abide by the terms of the license in force at the moment it was agreed to, so the fact that they promised not to do something does not stop them, apparently.
- LoganDark 3y agoSomeone who agreed to a prior version of the license will always be able to abide by that version of the license. The fact that they removed the provision going forward is just them trying to lock-in future customers.
- ilyt 3y agoNo, it was a plan to lock in current customers that didn't look into license every time they updated engine. That's why they removed the repo too, too easy to see the changes.
- olodus 3y ago
- szundi 3y agoIf they are stupid, it is even worse. Search for stupidity theories, kind of fun.
- Qwertious 3y ago>First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this, because a bunch of Unity employees quit due to this. This doesn't follow - it's entirely possible that the execs planned to do this, a bunch of dev's said "that's insane and we'll quit if you do this", the execs followed through, and the devs followed through on their threats to quit.
- brendoelfrendo 3y agoOr someone may have postulated that people would quit over this change, and that wasn't considered a deal breaker at the time. Depending on how cynical we feel, they may have viewed people quitting as a positive; people who won't play ball with the new vision leave the company.
- Cpoll 3y ago> First you’d have to argue that only the top execs were aware of this. They would have to be, because deniability is important for a gambit like this. I'm not sure how you would announce "we're going to psychologically manipulate our customers" to the team anyway.