• Murais@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh hey, look.

    The former CEO of EA made a greedy, short-sighted decision to fuck over his entire customer base.

    I am shocked, friends.

    SHOCKED.

  • Alpharius@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unity’s CEO was EA’s CEO too. He is the guy who shaped EA into the greedy company that it is today. I’m literally not surprised

  • mintiefresh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man I was just getting into game development and learning Unity.

    I guess it’s time to pivot into Unreal or Godot or something.

    Anybody have recommendations?

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    For Unity Personal and Unity Plus users, the thresholds are $200,000 in revenue a year and 200,000 lifetime installs.

    The fees also vary, with Unity Personal developers having to pay the most for every install above the threshold ($0.20)

    So, if you get 200k lifetime installs but don’t get the 200k revenue a year, you don’t have to pay it?

    Existing games built on Unity will also be hit with Runtime Fees if they meet the thresholds starting January 1.

    OOOHOOOOO BOY, now, that’s going to hurt a fair amount of people!

    Also, what about web play? I guess that’ll only count towards revenue, but not towards downloads?

    • wax@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If their licencing agreement permits retroactive changes like this, that is reason enough to gtfo

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Our terms of service provide that Unity may add or change fees at any time. We are providing more than three months advance notice of the Unity Runtime Fee before it goes into effect. Consent is not required for additional fees to take effect, and the only version of our terms is the most current version; you simply cannot choose to comply with a prior version. Further, our terms are governed by California law, notwithstanding the country of the customer.

        Yup lol.

        What’s funny and sad is that about 3 years ago on r/godot, I had an argument with a Unity fanboy over this exact thing. He was demanding someone give him a reason that Godot should exist, when, in his humble opinion, Unity did everything and did it better.

        My take was that you don’t actually own your Unity-made game. You might own the assets and trademark, but as long as you’re licensing the engine, you are subject to the whims of Unity.

        Of course that was theoretical, until today.

  • Walop@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    So… If the Unity’s secret spyware and algorithm suddenly decides to count an update as a new installation, you suddenly get slapped with a huge bill. Especially if you release multiple small patches and your whole player base is counted multiple times.

    • Zacryon@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      According to the article only installs on new devices are counted.

      Furthermore this only takes efrect after a certain threshold of revenue and installs.

      • deadcade@lemmy.deadca.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah yes, because it’s that difficult to spoof a new PC. You can run a tool similar to a kernel level anti cheat “ban bypass”, run the game, and cost the developer up to 20 cents. With a relatively simple script, this can be done many times per hour on a single PC, easily racking up cost for the developers.

        This is a bad idea, no matter how you implement it. If it goes through, it will be abused.

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This makes sense to me, it looks like it’s $0.20 for each install, only if

    • you have passed a threshold of installs
    • you yourself are charging for your game

    Which, I know Lemmy has issues with proprietary software, but if you are charging for your software and it’s built off this, I don’t think $0.20 is too much to pay them. Unreal takes a percentage I believe, sounds like this is a “keep the lights on” charge.

    • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Charging “per install” as opposed to “per sale” will be goddamn awful. At best it might lead to DRM where you’ll have a limited number of installs before you lose the game you bought.