A fresh report into Unity’s hugely-controversial decision to start charging developers when their games are downloaded has thrown fresh light on the situation.
MobileGamer sources say Unity has already offered some studios a 100% fee waiver - if they switch over to Unity’s own LevelPlay ad platform.
The report quotes industry consultants that say this move is an “attempt to destroy” Unity’s main competitior in this field: AppLovin.
Why’s it always end up being fucking ads?
I hate late stage capitalism. I want off Mr. Bones’ Wild Ride.
Shareholders prefer constant steady income over one time purchases. Hence why they prefer subscriptions and ads.
Well… Peasants need this hot thing called voting with your feet and money…
Amazing things can be done esp in 100% discretionary sectors.
But nahh…
Nothing will ever change.
You know it, I know it, we all know it.
There is only one thing to be done.
Sure, bud. You do that.
Hard to disagree but I don’t like your attitude dawg
That’s why I’m gonna buy Procreate Dreams even if I’m not an animator.
Well yeah. Subscriptions make a shitload of money compared to a one-time payment.
Don’t you just love when a company creates a problem just to go and try to sell the solution?
Game design 101 since the first smart phone.
Screw this. Boycott unity.
Game devs: “No thanks, we’re waiving the fees by using a different engine.”
I’d imagine that game devs, just like Unity’s shareholders, like predictability in profits. Even if it’s more expensive overall for them to move to Unreal for their next game, it could be worth it to avoid future calamity.
The problem is because you pay per install you could end up owing Unity more money than you actually make. Especially if people uninstall and reinstall your game a bunch of times for whatever reason.
sounds like a good way to protest
Protest by bankrupting studios and creating profit for thr people youre protesting against?
There should be a law against offering something for free for a long time, until many other businesses rely on it then make it pay to a point of breaking all those businesses. It’s one thing changing the price of a product that’s customer facing but if you market to other businesses that’s not okay. I guess it’s up to businesses to look in the contract for a clause that states that the product will be free forever or that they need X time warning before making it pay.
Tech companies wouldn’t exist. It’s literally most of their business plans.
Good.
I actually disagree with this… without support programs in place. And I really don’t think governments should be funding game engines.
The vast majority of “new” tech companies operate at a loss. It is the only way to make inroads in a market dominated by the Google and Microsoft and Apples of the world. They pull this off via crowd funding or (less so these days) venture capital.
If they actually get the market share they then need to actually monetize. Different companies have done this to different degrees and I am inclined to put Unity in the same category as Reddit in terms of “did you really think that would at all help?”
Because if the company can’t actually try to make a profit? They will go out of business, at best.
And while I think there are definitely problem spots, this… doesn’t actually bother me all that much. It fucking sucks for the developers and I do think there need to be “grandfather” clauses for those who already have products (curious how many people are trying to pull out of Fanatical or Humble bundles right now). But this is fundamentally no different than if unity went out of business today. Any developer worth their salt would need to sunset their games or start a port. Because the unity engine is a massive attack vector and vulnerabilities will be found. And it is better to be most of the way to a godot/unreal port when the CVE is published.
The vast majority of “new” tech companies operate at a loss.
This is a bullshit hypothetical that has no relevance for Unity. Unity is a well established company, that has been very successful after they revised their model to be more Indie friendly. This is a money grab attempt pure and simple. And it’s a money grab that is so bad it might actually kill Unity.
My problem with it is not monetizing; it is the changing of your monetization to affect games that were sold under a different model. If this was just the new TOS, ok fine. It would suck, but it’s their right to make whatever shitty monetization they want. But retroactively inflicting this on games? Shocking the development world with only a few months warning when game development takes years? No, that is not ok.
deleted by creator
Just to add to my last point a bit:
This is actually very common in software development. Nobody is dumb enough to write ALL of their own software (okay… there are a few orgs…). So you are going to be dependent on third party libraries. Some are free and open source with licenses that aren’t GPL. Others are licensed for a small fee from other companies. And many are in the middle somewhere where you pay for support, but can use the software regardless.
And… companies change licenses over time. Open source projects change licenses over time. And sometimes, that means you can’t use it anymore. Or you don’t want to use it because the team really dropped the ball and it is a piece of shit. And that is when you get an all hands on deck to replace it.
One of our major partners recently dicked us over REAL hard by changing the terms of a license we were discussing with them to a MUCH worse one. And we are being pretty public about how unprofessional that was and “accidentally” talking about it when other partners ask us what tech we are using to do X. Mostly in the context of “Well, we were previously dependent on using Y but they actively misled us before changing their license. So we are in the process of migrating everything to Z”.
But… regardless of how salty we are and how much we and others are doing to poison the reputation of that company to those who hadn’t interacted with them before: We need to finish the port to use Z.
I disagree. If you state that it’s free until X bench make and you make the change after that benchmark it’s fine. If you don’t, then users should be able to seek compensation
Elon Musk: speedruns enshittification on Xitter
Unity: “Hold my beer”
It’s enshittification all the way down
And so continues the downward spiral of the enshitification of video games.
That’s worse, you fucking assholes.
The first one was assholish, but this one is outright insulting.
How many times are developers going to put up with being used as sticks for one group of rich assholes to whack a different group of rich assholes with before we start supporting open platforms?
Fuck unity. Use anything but unity.
say this move is an “attempt to destroy” Unity’s main competitior in this field: AppLovin.
This is the best advertisment ever. I’ve messed around in Unity a few times and would’ve recommended to people interested in a framework. But I guess I got a new platform to talk about.
The conspiracy theorist in me says Unity planned this whole thing out to get less resistance on this thing they actually wanted to roll out; announce a super shit change that will intentionally outrage everybody, then say “ok, we won’t do it if you agree to use this other shitty model instead”.
Anyways, big shoutout to Godot for existing as an open-source alternative.
Dirtbags. Compared to Godot, what incentive do people have to stay with this trash?
Being already well into development of a game in it.
Fuck you, Unity.
Hey remember that time Unity bought IronSource so they could integrate ads more aggressively? Unity stopped being a game engine at some point they’re just an ads company now
