4 ms·

> Under the revised terms, there is no runtime fee whatever for any game developed with a current version of Unity, only for those developers who adopt the late

by bccdee 3y ago

> Under the revised terms, there is no runtime fee whatever for any game developed with a current version of Unity, only for those developers who adopt the latest version in 2024. So they haven't done a 180. They're no longer going to try and retroactively inflict the runtime fee on existing projects, but it is still going to be a thing going forward.

WA 3y ago
Furthermore, a 180 implies that you go the other way onwards. As in: they pay you to use Unity. Which of course is ridiculous, just like the headline.
karmakaze 3y ago
I haven't been following closely and find the rest of the paragraph good to know, if not entirely reassuring. > The free Unity Personal will stay free, and the revenue ceiling above which users must upgrade to the next tier has been raised to $200,000. And above $1 million, users will be able to choose between a per-user fee or a 2.5% revenue share, whichever is lesser. If this was the first and only news delivered with the users' concerns in mind, none of this would be such a big deal--that whole retroactive version value extraction play was going too far. The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version.
- incrudible 3y ago
  > entirely reassuring It's reassuring in the sense that some theoretical problem (costly installs) can be avoided. Otherwise, not really. The big selling point with Unity was that you pay per seat, and that's that. You don't owe them anything beyond that particular fee, no money, no confidential information, nothing. The change of terms is a not-so-tacit admission that their business model does not work and that the whims of the MBA-types are going to dictate the future of the platform. Unreal Engine has basically the same revenue share type of deal (but no per-seat cost), but then its leadership has a proven track record in developing actual games. > The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version. Of course, in the short term nobody is going to switch engines mid-flight. However, in a few years time, when we ask ourselves "How did Unity die?" this change of terms is likely to be identified as the point of no return.
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    I know several teams who have already begun switching engines in games which are near completion. The threat of future licensing changes is very real. There will be no asking ourselves in a few years time. Unity is a dead man walking.
HellDunkel 3y ago
How could they possibly have done that? Dont they have a EULA that users have to consent to? At least the PR disaster raise a big red flag.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>Dont they have a EULA Most EULA's say "we can change this when ever we want... " so likely they were banking on that. Most EULA's in a sane legal system would be considered unconscionable contracts and thus unenforceable, unfortunately the US Legal system is far from sane, That said, I am sure they heard from lawyers at major studios who said "yea try to retro active bill us and we will bankrupt you in legal fees" so they changed their tune.
  - mcv 3y ago
    From what I understand, their original terms said explicitly that they wouldn't retroactively change those terms. And then they did. It's not something that's likely to hold up in court, but it's not like small developers can afford to defend themselves in court. Small developers depend on trust, and Unity destroyed that trust. Even if current projects can now continue under the original terms, no sane small developer will ever trust them again.
    - HellDunkel 3y ago
      It is so annoying- imagine we had no serious competitor. now we are left with just a single serious alternative. Hundreds of man years wasted for what exactly?
ethbr1 3y ago
Exactly. How is "We've decided not to open ourselves up to legal liability by retroactively modifying TOS conditions, and instead only make the same changes in the future" a 180°? Fuck Unity's corporate ownership. And so fuck Unity.

by bccdee 3y ago

WA 3y ago

Furthermore, a 180 implies that you go the other way onwards. As in: they pay you to use Unity. Which of course is ridiculous, just like the headline.

karmakaze 3y ago

I haven't been following closely and find the rest of the paragraph good to know, if not entirely reassuring. > The free Unity Personal will stay free, and the revenue ceiling above which users must upgrade to the next tier has been raised to $200,000. And above $1 million, users will be able to choose between a per-user fee or a 2.5% revenue share, whichever is lesser. If this was the first and only news delivered with the users' concerns in mind, none of this would be such a big deal--that whole retroactive version value extraction play was going too far. The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version.

incrudible 3y ago
> entirely reassuring It's reassuring in the sense that some theoretical problem (costly installs) can be avoided. Otherwise, not really. The big selling point with Unity was that you pay per seat, and that's that. You don't owe them anything beyond that particular fee, no money, no confidential information, nothing. The change of terms is a not-so-tacit admission that their business model does not work and that the whims of the MBA-types are going to dictate the future of the platform. Unreal Engine has basically the same revenue share type of deal (but no per-seat cost), but then its leadership has a proven track record in developing actual games. > The net effect is that the current crop of near-completion Unity-based games may be completed and supported with the now current version. Of course, in the short term nobody is going to switch engines mid-flight. However, in a few years time, when we ask ourselves "How did Unity die?" this change of terms is likely to be identified as the point of no return.
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  I know several teams who have already begun switching engines in games which are near completion. The threat of future licensing changes is very real. There will be no asking ourselves in a few years time. Unity is a dead man walking.

HellDunkel 3y ago

How could they possibly have done that? Dont they have a EULA that users have to consent to? At least the PR disaster raise a big red flag.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>Dont they have a EULA Most EULA's say "we can change this when ever we want... " so likely they were banking on that. Most EULA's in a sane legal system would be considered unconscionable contracts and thus unenforceable, unfortunately the US Legal system is far from sane, That said, I am sure they heard from lawyers at major studios who said "yea try to retro active bill us and we will bankrupt you in legal fees" so they changed their tune.
- mcv 3y ago
  From what I understand, their original terms said explicitly that they wouldn't retroactively change those terms. And then they did. It's not something that's likely to hold up in court, but it's not like small developers can afford to defend themselves in court. Small developers depend on trust, and Unity destroyed that trust. Even if current projects can now continue under the original terms, no sane small developer will ever trust them again.
  - HellDunkel 3y ago
    It is so annoying- imagine we had no serious competitor. now we are left with just a single serious alternative. Hundreds of man years wasted for what exactly?

ethbr1 3y ago

Exactly. How is "We've decided not to open ourselves up to legal liability by retroactively modifying TOS conditions, and instead only make the same changes in the future" a 180°? Fuck Unity's corporate ownership. And so fuck Unity.