4 ms·
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 childr
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.