6 ms·

Its not obvious at all how this is enshittification. UE5 was previously provided for free in non-video game contexts, as they clearly were trying to expand the

Its not obvious at all how this is enshittification. UE5 was previously provided for free in non-video game contexts, as they clearly were trying to expand their presence in say film production. Now they've succeeded, they are charging for it, what is so unfair about it? Are they expected to provide the engine for free? UE5 is also constantly trying intensive innovation. So the product quality is going up, not going down. Unity was bombed because it was trying some inane pricing model (imagine UE5 charging moviemakers by number of viewers). And the fact that Unity Engine itself was being heavily neglected. And fundraising is not relevant when their core business, Fortnite, is declining. Sorry fundraising != charity for employees.

sbarre 3y ago
> UE5 was previously provided for free in non-video game contexts, as they clearly were trying to expand their presence in say film production. Now they've succeeded, they are charging for it, what is so unfair about it? The problem here is that "providing for free" to gain adoption and then suddenly charging is a bit of a rug-pull. The same argument was made for Unity, it's not the customer's job to make your business model work. > Are they expected to provide the engine for free? If you choose to grow your market share in an unsustainable way (like giving your product away for free), and then later on go "oh shit we can't keep doing this!" then you should expect that some of the customers who adopted your product based on the previous terms will be unhappy with this switch. Many might be fine with it, but the idea that everyone should just accept this switch is bullshit. Lots of companies are clear up front that their product will be free for some time (like during a beta or early access period) but that customers should expect to be charged at some point in the future. I'm not sure this is what Epic did. But I don't follow this space closely so maybe they did set that expectation? Some other commenters seem to be saying this was "expected"..
- Retric 3y ago
  Providing for free is hardly going to continue forever. This will end should be a basic assumption whenever you start using a free product. Anyway, current versions are unaffected it’s only people who want to keep adopting new versions which will face the changes.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Unity was different because the pricing was insane for F2P titles. Some successful titles only manage $0.50/install, going from 0 to 40% revenue share was insane. Way more importantly making it retroactive was unheard of. Unity even had promised to support "pick your license" for released titles in perpetuity but then during this change said "we never said the runtime was free in perpetuity". Charging more for your product isn't great but it always happens. Also on that topic Unity got started as the "no revenue sharing" option and was paid for by very expensive per seat costs. So there was a bit of "you are double dipping" feeling too. In this case Unreal is charging for a new market is the goal which makes sense. Certainly the bait and switch of free now not is a bit sour but how sour depends on the cost.
londons_explore 3y ago
> imagine UE5 charging moviemakers by number of viewers Actors commonly demand a percentage of revenue. The main software package used for all the special effects demanding the same doesn't seem unreasonable.
- Arelius 3y ago
  Except UE5 is far from the main software package used for all the special effects.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    They'll just have to price appropriately...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

sbarre 3y ago

> UE5 was previously provided for free in non-video game contexts, as they clearly were trying to expand their presence in say film production. Now they've succeeded, they are charging for it, what is so unfair about it? The problem here is that "providing for free" to gain adoption and then suddenly charging is a bit of a rug-pull. The same argument was made for Unity, it's not the customer's job to make your business model work. > Are they expected to provide the engine for free? If you choose to grow your market share in an unsustainable way (like giving your product away for free), and then later on go "oh shit we can't keep doing this!" then you should expect that some of the customers who adopted your product based on the previous terms will be unhappy with this switch. Many might be fine with it, but the idea that everyone should just accept this switch is bullshit. Lots of companies are clear up front that their product will be free for some time (like during a beta or early access period) but that customers should expect to be charged at some point in the future. I'm not sure this is what Epic did. But I don't follow this space closely so maybe they did set that expectation? Some other commenters seem to be saying this was "expected"..

Retric 3y ago
Providing for free is hardly going to continue forever. This will end should be a basic assumption whenever you start using a free product. Anyway, current versions are unaffected it’s only people who want to keep adopting new versions which will face the changes.
Guvante 3y ago
Unity was different because the pricing was insane for F2P titles. Some successful titles only manage $0.50/install, going from 0 to 40% revenue share was insane. Way more importantly making it retroactive was unheard of. Unity even had promised to support "pick your license" for released titles in perpetuity but then during this change said "we never said the runtime was free in perpetuity". Charging more for your product isn't great but it always happens. Also on that topic Unity got started as the "no revenue sharing" option and was paid for by very expensive per seat costs. So there was a bit of "you are double dipping" feeling too. In this case Unreal is charging for a new market is the goal which makes sense. Certainly the bait and switch of free now not is a bit sour but how sour depends on the cost.

londons_explore 3y ago

> imagine UE5 charging moviemakers by number of viewers Actors commonly demand a percentage of revenue. The main software package used for all the special effects demanding the same doesn't seem unreasonable.

Arelius 3y ago
Except UE5 is far from the main software package used for all the special effects.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  They'll just have to price appropriately...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]