4 ms·

I don't think either of the claims in the headline of the article are supported by the content of the article. They didn't u-turn, they modified their terms but

I don't think either of the claims in the headline of the article are supported by the content of the article. They didn't u-turn, they modified their terms but are making the same set of changes with new parameters. They did not beg forgiveness, they said they were sorry for how they handled it, but did not say they were sorry for their new policy, or that they were asking anyone to forgive them for it. They basically did the standard thing of "we're sorry for how we communicated this the first time around, but we're still doing it, and we've scheduled a Q&A so we can give you more information". Should I think of articles like this as news or opinion? It's packaged as news, with the reporting standards of a tweet.

bangonkeyboard 3y ago
> Should I think of articles like this as news or opinion? As PR.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  As attracting your click with bait.
  - joshspankit 3y ago
    Indeed. I feel like the HN title should be changed to reflect the facts instead of the bait.
dartos 3y ago
checks url Pretty sure TechCrunch is mostly PR for tech companies.
- DonHopkins 3y ago
  You don't say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-GVd_HLlps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-GVd_HLlps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1JuIN0eaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1JuIN0eaA
dwallin 3y ago
The devil is in the details (which was the problem with the original terms). The original plan seemed reasonable at face value but when you dived into the details it was really problematic. The revised terms are transformatively better, but might seem similar just looking at them shallowly. The key bits are 1) It is no longer retroactive. Existing games on the market using unity can continue distributing without their business getting immediately impacted. 2) It's no longer per install, it's now "new people engaging with your game each month" and the numbers are now all self-reported. Originally Unity was going to calculate installs on their end in an opaque way. 3) You can choose to just use a revenue share arrangement instead of per install. Since it's the lower of the two you can effectively ignore whichever one isn't favorable to your business.
- usefulcat 3y ago
  Isn't the elephant in the room the fact that they can still unilaterally change the terms at any time in the future?
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Presumably not retroactively though? The pricing model seems to only be applicable starting 2024 LTS version. Which seems pretty reasonable? I mean you can't really expect them to never change TOS for future versions.
    - themoonisachees 3y ago
      If i was starting a multi-year, potentially billion-dollar project right now, what has unity done to guarantee my project won't be axed because of their greed? Personally, i'd expect them to actually not change TOS for a given version ever, enabling me to at least have the safety net of never updating the engine, but they removed that guarantee from the TOS. This isn't a SaaS app used to sync your photos we're talking about, this is the underlying tech for massive swathes of some people's entire lives. This is like saying "you can't really expect linux TOS to never change for future versions" (pretend that makes sense). Like yeah they might be subject to change, but as someone basing my entire work on it, i am making the bet that i will continue to be able to do that, and unity has just showed that not only they can change it, but that they will, without hesitation and possibly retroactively.
thiht 3y ago
> they said they were sorry for how they handled it More like sorry the peasants didn’t understand their master plan. It gives more money to Unity! What’s not to like?
devn0ll 3y ago
> They basically did the standard thing of "we're sorry for how we communicated this the first time around, but we're still doing it, and we've scheduled a Q&A so we can give you more information". Even worse, it was typical corporate laywer speak for "saying sorry without admitting to anything" The text they said: "We are sorry for how this has been received." That does not mean anything. You're saying that Unity is sorry for how we logically felt? That means you are putting the blame for the reactions back onto the customers! That we "somehow" did not understand "well-enough" Besides, even if they did nullify this change (which they did not) it is now a "partner" you cannot trust again. Ever. A dutch proverb: "Trust comes on foot, but leaves on the back of a horse." It's hard to earn it, and extremely easy to lose. It's also a warning to not be overly reliant on 1 "partner" So going to unreal is not really an option either. They are now also tainted by this insane thing Unity did.
- ana_winters 3y ago
  [dead]

bangonkeyboard 3y ago

> Should I think of articles like this as news or opinion? As PR.

fnordpiglet 3y ago
As attracting your click with bait.
- joshspankit 3y ago
  Indeed. I feel like the HN title should be changed to reflect the facts instead of the bait.

dartos 3y ago

checks url Pretty sure TechCrunch is mostly PR for tech companies.

DonHopkins 3y ago
You don't say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-GVd_HLlps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-GVd_HLlps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1JuIN0eaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1JuIN0eaA

dwallin 3y ago

The devil is in the details (which was the problem with the original terms). The original plan seemed reasonable at face value but when you dived into the details it was really problematic. The revised terms are transformatively better, but might seem similar just looking at them shallowly. The key bits are 1) It is no longer retroactive. Existing games on the market using unity can continue distributing without their business getting immediately impacted. 2) It's no longer per install, it's now "new people engaging with your game each month" and the numbers are now all self-reported. Originally Unity was going to calculate installs on their end in an opaque way. 3) You can choose to just use a revenue share arrangement instead of per install. Since it's the lower of the two you can effectively ignore whichever one isn't favorable to your business.

usefulcat 3y ago
Isn't the elephant in the room the fact that they can still unilaterally change the terms at any time in the future?
- qwytw 3y ago
  Presumably not retroactively though? The pricing model seems to only be applicable starting 2024 LTS version. Which seems pretty reasonable? I mean you can't really expect them to never change TOS for future versions.
  - themoonisachees 3y ago
    If i was starting a multi-year, potentially billion-dollar project right now, what has unity done to guarantee my project won't be axed because of their greed? Personally, i'd expect them to actually not change TOS for a given version ever, enabling me to at least have the safety net of never updating the engine, but they removed that guarantee from the TOS. This isn't a SaaS app used to sync your photos we're talking about, this is the underlying tech for massive swathes of some people's entire lives. This is like saying "you can't really expect linux TOS to never change for future versions" (pretend that makes sense). Like yeah they might be subject to change, but as someone basing my entire work on it, i am making the bet that i will continue to be able to do that, and unity has just showed that not only they can change it, but that they will, without hesitation and possibly retroactively.

thiht 3y ago

> they said they were sorry for how they handled it More like sorry the peasants didn’t understand their master plan. It gives more money to Unity! What’s not to like?

devn0ll 3y ago

> They basically did the standard thing of "we're sorry for how we communicated this the first time around, but we're still doing it, and we've scheduled a Q&A so we can give you more information". Even worse, it was typical corporate laywer speak for "saying sorry without admitting to anything" The text they said: "We are sorry for how this has been received." That does not mean anything. You're saying that Unity is sorry for how we logically felt? That means you are putting the blame for the reactions back onto the customers! That we "somehow" did not understand "well-enough" Besides, even if they did nullify this change (which they did not) it is now a "partner" you cannot trust again. Ever. A dutch proverb: "Trust comes on foot, but leaves on the back of a horse." It's hard to earn it, and extremely easy to lose. It's also a warning to not be overly reliant on 1 "partner" So going to unreal is not really an option either. They are now also tainted by this insane thing Unity did.

ana_winters 3y ago
[dead]