3 ms·

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

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.

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.