Unity backtracks slightly on plans to charge developers for game installs
Unity backtracks slightly on plans to charge developers for game installs
Game development engine Unity has U-turned on some parts of its hugely controversial plan to enforce fees on game creat…
Game development engine Unity has U-turned on some parts of its hugely controversial plan to enforce fees on game creat…
Reminder that Godot exists for anyone who needs to hear it.
Yeah, in light of the existence and steady improvement of the Godot engine, feels like not a great time to be pissing off a lot of your customers.
Definitely going Godot for the future. Just the knowledge that I don't have to worry about licensing is priceless.
A bit harder to ship on console, though.
At least Unreal is source-available and you only need to use the license for the version of Unreal you use. If Epic changes their license, you don't need to agree to it and can still ship under the older license.
Godot is a great engine but it isn't a silver bullet. It can get there, though.
Still an enormous nope. Both for the developers and the users. How do you check if a game has already been installed once? What data are you gonna steal to check if it has been installed already?
They'd have to get steam to tell them each time a game was downloaded to a different device so they could invoice. And apple.. and google... and random websites..
Or they make the client phone home each time it's run, which is going to cause its own mess of issues (firewalls, that kind of thing.. some of the corporate firewalls we run our app behind would raise lots of alarm bells at something like that).
They would have to have a home grown solution since Valve is unlikely to help them and other platforms like gamepass exist.
I can’t wait to write a script to install Windows and install shitty publisher’s Unity game repeatedly in VMs, old hardware, etc.
Lol get this, I don't know if I heard right, but the install count was based on their own telemetry added to the game. SO if someone pirated your game, it could still count as an install.
Unity is an application to spy on users and show them ads. Often there is some sort of game involved, but I think that is just coincidence.
I don't think people realize how horrifying these addendums are.
Not only do they not really fix the issue, but they prove that no, yeah, they hadn't thought about the possibility of "install bombing" at all until just now and it would totally have triggered massive fees.
I mean, the announcement was terribly worded, and some of the stuff (like wha't a "monthly fee" or a "retroactive fee") were very unclear, so you could hold out hope that they knew what they wanted to do and were just bad at explaining it.
But nope, that ship has sailed. They clearly didn't give this any amount of thought.
So yeah, I'm more worried about it now than I was yesterday, believe it or not. Like, a LOT more.
Yeah this feels like Wizard of the Coast's first response to the OGL drama. Make some changes that are technically better than the first terrible system, but is ultimately still completely unacceptable. WotC eventually had to walk back everything, we'll see if Unity does the same.
I mean, they have to.
But honestly at this point that's not even enough. You know they tried, you know whatever need for cash they were trying to fulfill remains. It's one thing to let that go when buying a piece of software that you just... have, but building an entire business on top of this middleware and knowing you have a business relationship with them indefinitely as a result?
At this point it's a dealbreaker. You can't trust them again. If I start a new dev studio tomorrow Unity would not even be in the running to start choosing an engine. They made themselves into a liability overnight. It's stunning. I don't know what the hell they're putting in the filtered, flavored water they sell to executives, but this year has been an endless chain of self-immolation I had never witnessed before.
I'm sure the CEO put plenty of thought in how much they could cash out before destroying the company and moving on to the next company to destroy
He comes from EA, I'm not surprised
Ngl I was expecting them to walk it back a bit. It's a tactic to announce something so absolutely absurd that it makes what you actually want to do look more reasonable. I'm still not gonna touch unity again
its a toss up that theyll even do that these days though.
companies are so bold now knowing theres a strong chance theyll get away with whatever bullshit while losing minimal consumers.
Yeah, it's not a great tactic because even if you walk it back and always intended to. People who take what you say at face value are left thinking that's what you wanted to do and might still want to do it if you can manage the PR better in the future. And the people who figure out what you were really doing see that you will lie to manipulate the reaction to what you really want to do.
Targeting installs (which based on another article with their wording they still intend to do, just with an asterisk now) was a bad approach. They should set up different payment options for the new subscription service model rather than try to fit one solution to two wildly different customer models.
This is absolutely true. I was left with a disgusted feeling towards Unity that translates to disgust and disappointment. I don't think I can trust them again after this.
That is used in politics all the time, want to rise the retirement age to 65? Just propose it to raise it to 70 and the compromise in 65.
It doesn't matter, they've shown their hand.
If not now, then when?
What an interesting year. This has to be the 4th or 5th large tech-centric company that's
- introduced some really shitty policy
- pissed off it's consumers
- then backtracks to some degree after backlash
Just like every other company that's done this, the backtrack is likely meant to appease the consumers before the policy gets re-introduced later. Perhaps with slightly different wording.
This is what libertarians call innovation.
I'm so, so tired of them, tbh.
The back tracking isn't even a reversal. They just said they were going to keep the charges but try to reduce the impact of "install bombing".
For the studios releasing a game in a few months, it's probably too late to ditch unity, but would make sense to start looking at alternatives for their next projects.
Wouldn't be surprised if Godot explodes in popularity in the next 5 years.
I’m just about to launch my f2p Unity game after about 2 years of development and I’m going to be forced to simply shut down the project… There’s no way we don’t go negative with these install fees.
Hard to tell your development team all their work will be wasted.
Damn... that's rough.
Hopefully they'll backpedal on this decision for now (they are already getting a lot of flack). But I guess the message has been sent. Wouldn't be surprised if Unity starts bleeding users after this.
Best of luck!
Same here. My little side project has the potential to put me into debt if I choose to monetize. I guess it'll be a free release as a labor of love. After this, goodbye Unity, hello Godot.
It's too late. Cat's out of the bag. It's crystal clear to everyone now what kind of people run the company, and they're not content to fish for whales anymore.
My first thought was:
This can only apply to games that begin development after this announcement...right? Otherwise it fells like a massive bait and switch.
It even applies to new installs of existing games.
The original announcement stated it was retroactive
If that isn't a massive red flag, nothing else is.
Proprietary software always leads to this. Open source is the future
The only problem with open source is you can't really make a profit from it. If someone wants it, they can just spin up their own local copy of the original, and you can't do shit about it.
That's true if the entire project is open source, but if just the engine is, you can still charge for the game. And Godot has a special closed license that you can get, so that you can sell your game on consoles.
Yup, as a software dev, I would love to be able to devote all my time to writing open source, but I gotta make money to live as well. Switching to working on OSS would be a huge leap of faith that there is someone out there willing pay/donate for my work. As it is, I think it will be my way of giving back once I have saved up enough money from my proprietary work, and hopefully I will be able to switch over sooner rather than later.
Maybe I'll go take a look at what the process is for getting grants from the government or non-profit orgs like Apache foundation...
i see this as an absolute win.
Not in the same way but earning money at the point of distribution is not the only way, there's various patronage methods.
Installed Godot yesterday and it's starting to grow on me, I like it. Looking forward to a huge movement of studios over to Godot, which will hopefully speed up the development of Godot through further support. Is there any reliable source of data about which game engines are popular at the moment? I want to see that sweet sweet decline in Unity user base over to Godot.
I wonder if this coincides with the Apple thing on Tuesday where they highlighted gaming. Obviously, Apple isn't using the unreal engine after the Epic debacle (pun intended). So they will have to appeal to Unity devs.
Maybe Unity is trying to cut into some of, what they think, will be a boom in sales because of the new Apple lineup.
That's just the first thing I thought.
after the Epic debacle
*Tongue pop* Noice
This issue exists with all proprietary software; if they make changes you dislike then either you put up with it or stop using it. They have unjust power of their users and even the most moral devs cannot forever resist temptation to use that power to earn money at the user's expense.
If we could only use some sort of... identifier to know when a game has been installed... like some kind of... serial number or key that is unique per copy...
That's not always the case. GOG games have no serial, the installer is the same for everybody. Charging "by install" is quite impossible of they really mean that a single user would not create two charges.
Also, games will need to ping unity servers? Are they already doing that...? This all gets weirder the more you think about it
No no, they have proprietary methods of aggregating install data so they will know.
Anyone that uses unity is as foolish as any that use java. Just begging for meritless lawsuits to extract rent.
You know how OpenJDK works right? Not every runtime requires payment to Oracle.
You know how Oracle works right? Not every license is adhered to by Oracle.
They sued over copyright of the function names my dude. The fact that that was insane did not stop them and did not stop google from paying massive amounts of money to Lawyers to get the License terms enforced.
https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-googleNever have anything to do with Oracle. Not even tangentially.