4 ms·

I used a hyperbole to get my point across. I'm not equating the two. I mean, even not using them as a development platform is something. But I don't get the lo

I used a hyperbole to get my point across. I'm not equating the two. I mean, even not using them as a development platform is something. But I don't get the logic behind supporting them as a purchaser of games? Is it just FOMO?

slowmovintarget 3y ago
No. It's because I don't believe it strikes at the right targets, for lack of a better metaphor. You get collateral damage that I don't think is worthwhile. If the desired goal is to have developers move away from Unity, Unity themselves have given enough incentive. You suggested boycotting the developers that use Unity. I don't get your scorched earth logic. It seems unreasonable to me.
- syncbehind 3y ago
  It isn't "Scorched earth". It's boycotting by proxy. >Unity themselves have given enough incentive. Sure, if they change on their own volition, then I have no need to boycott those developers. This adds to that incentive should they not do so. (copied from my other comment) I.e. I have no real way to boycott Nestle, but if enough people stop buying their products, the stores will carry fewer of them. Yea, the stores (or devs, or cafes) will get hurt in the short term, but only if they're insistent on not listening to their users/the market.
  - apetresc 3y ago
    There's no equivalent to the "child labor" in your analogy - and I don't mean that because upcharging for video games isn't morally equivalent to abusing children, I mean that because in this instance the potentially "exploited party" is the developers you are proposing a boycott of. There isn't some third party that Unity and the game devs are colluding (directly or indirectly) to exploit, where a "boycott by proxy" might have made sense. If the dev studios feel like they're being mistreated by Unity, they are already incentivized to abandon it. If they don't abandon it, they either _don't_ actually feel mistreated, or they are just not in a financial position to switch over just now. Boycotting them in either scenario is not helping anyone.
    - syncbehind 3y ago
      The company Unity is exploiting Unity the development platform. Developers have a choice to use it. But at the end of the day, it's an analogy. It won't be perfect. My point remains that this is perhaps the only way an end user can boycott Unity. By not using products that use it. If you have a better way of doing so, I'm all ears.
      - slowmovintarget 3y ago
        I understand your point, but disagree. 1. Assertion: End-users of Unity are developers, not gamers. 2. Opinion: Gamers should not boycott developers in this situation.

slowmovintarget 3y ago

No. It's because I don't believe it strikes at the right targets, for lack of a better metaphor. You get collateral damage that I don't think is worthwhile. If the desired goal is to have developers move away from Unity, Unity themselves have given enough incentive. You suggested boycotting the developers that use Unity. I don't get your scorched earth logic. It seems unreasonable to me.

syncbehind 3y ago
It isn't "Scorched earth". It's boycotting by proxy. >Unity themselves have given enough incentive. Sure, if they change on their own volition, then I have no need to boycott those developers. This adds to that incentive should they not do so. (copied from my other comment) I.e. I have no real way to boycott Nestle, but if enough people stop buying their products, the stores will carry fewer of them. Yea, the stores (or devs, or cafes) will get hurt in the short term, but only if they're insistent on not listening to their users/the market.
- apetresc 3y ago
  There's no equivalent to the "child labor" in your analogy - and I don't mean that because upcharging for video games isn't morally equivalent to abusing children, I mean that because in this instance the potentially "exploited party" is the developers you are proposing a boycott of. There isn't some third party that Unity and the game devs are colluding (directly or indirectly) to exploit, where a "boycott by proxy" might have made sense. If the dev studios feel like they're being mistreated by Unity, they are already incentivized to abandon it. If they don't abandon it, they either _don't_ actually feel mistreated, or they are just not in a financial position to switch over just now. Boycotting them in either scenario is not helping anyone.
  - syncbehind 3y ago
    The company Unity is exploiting Unity the development platform. Developers have a choice to use it. But at the end of the day, it's an analogy. It won't be perfect. My point remains that this is perhaps the only way an end user can boycott Unity. By not using products that use it. If you have a better way of doing so, I'm all ears.
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      I understand your point, but disagree. 1. Assertion: End-users of Unity are developers, not gamers. 2. Opinion: Gamers should not boycott developers in this situation.