Unity, - bad and worse then bad

[matthewfarmery]

I only found out about the news today, for those that don't know, Unity has changed its license fee system. basically, for new and old games, if you now continue to install a unity game, then a dev / publisher will have to pay an install fee. (worse if the game hits a cap of 200k installs. ) Old games will also be effected, so Unity games will have spyware added in, that will send data to the company on everytime you install a game. And worse yet, if you install the game 3 times, or reinstall a game, then the dev / publisher will incur a cost of that install.

More information can be found in this video, it also includes questions and the companies answers to those questions. Many of the answers just boogles the mind. If Unity was a game publisher, I would say its close to EA bad level. But what this company is doing with its new payment system will kill many small indie studios, if you don't like a studio or game, you can not only review bomb it, but install the game countless times and the dev studio will go under. The amount that the studio or publisher will be forced to give to unity might end up been far more then what the publisher / dev studio gets in revenue.

I wish this was a joke, but its not, some really good games have been made using this engine. But I think this will come to an end if this new payment plan goes ahead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPm_4EvdJD0

I would watch the video, especailly if there are any devs who are going to make any games using this engine, you better be aware. One game that I'm looking forward too is cities skylines 2, but after this recent news, I think I might not bother. Its a shame that unity has done this. I really hope they reverse course, and there is a major boycot. If this goes ahead, it will bankrupt so many dev studios, and no one will want to touch the engine ever again.

[chew-ie]

It's a few days "out" already - but yeah, that's basically one of the last nails for that engine. Devs won't touch it as trust is shattered right now and from a consumer pov unity never was a good engine. So adding that escapade to the existing issues with that engine I'm totally on the fence now once a game is build with that engine. And I'm very good at holding on to that principle (haven't e.g. touched a single Ubisoft game since they introduced their launcher).

[fiksal]

I have read the below post, that goes into details of their past and new licensing and them switching the terms of subscription on devs.
https://www.pentadact.com/2023-09-16-unitys-trap/

The thought that occured to me first, is how would you even count the new fees? It seems so hard to track and predict that it's a problematic for any business model. Who would want to do this without knowing what their expenses might be. Some devs counted up 120% fees approximately for some cases. Which is extreme but even if maximum was less, it's still bad idea.

[chew-ie]

Bottom line is you can't retrospectively change something like that. Clear cut, new license model with version xy -> okay. Touching current installation base / contracts without all sides agreeing to it -> no go.

They might be able to do that legally but as I said - nail in the coffin. Actions like this aren't good for your most valuable resource: trust.

[matthewfarmery]

Indeed, forcing this on old games is just so damn silly, I just don't see how unity can enforce this. They will be forced to walk back on this, or face ruin themselves. While unity might not be the best engine, I don't think its the worst. I mean, unreal engine has gone through its fair share of issues, especially Unity 5.

But anyway, no game dev will now touch unity with a ten foot bargepole. They will face financial ruin if they do. Especasilly if you are an indie dev, and for most games, it's usually the first week that has the highest volume of sales. (or make or break it) So, all in all, it will cost the dev far more then they will make back.

So yeah, this could very well be the end of the road for Unity. It will serve them right for being too damn greedy all the sudden.

[mr.WHO]

They might be able to do that legally but as I said - nail in the coffin. Actions like this aren't good for your most valuable resource: trust.

This is basically the same as Wizzards of the Coast ToS update drama from couple months ago.

In short - they can't legally force you to accept ToS to apply retroactive...but they can trick you into accepting the new ToS that work retroactively and it's legal if you agree to new ToS.


The whole Unity situation was ugly, coz shortly before whole change of ToS, Unity silently scraped parts of old ToS where it was clearly stated that the Unity version for which the games were made, that's the version of ToS it pernamently apply to (specifically to avoid such issues).

So yeah - they can't force you to accept new ToS, but they can make them so obnouxously and unclearly written that many people could be easily tricked into accepting them (which is then legally binding).

Edit:
They also can legally do this - They announce and send new ToS with deadline to accept or refuse new ToS with silent approval clause - if you do not reject new ToS till deadline, you're legally binded by the new ToS.

[chew-ie]

But anyway, no game dev will now touch unity with a ten foot bargepole. They will face financial ruin if they do. Especasilly if you are an indie dev, and for most games, it's usually the first week that has the highest volume of sales. (or make or break it) So, all in all, it will cost the dev far more then they will make back.

Jip, indies without a huge legal budget (read: most) already go checking out open source alternatives. It's really just about evaluating risks - having less to no budget and then be faced with serious fees while you aren't sure your idea can bring enough money to cover your expenses? And even if you survive this round - who's to say the unity management isn't pulling another stunt if this one goes well (in terms of $$$). A nightmare...

Edit:
They also can legally do this - They announce and send new ToS with deadline to accept or refuse new ToS with silent approval clause - if you do not reject new ToS till deadline, you're legally binded by the new ToS.

Yeah, I guessed so that they are on "safe ground" in terms of laws. But no one in their right mind would force this. I mean - who could afford to not accept the ToS change? We are talking ongoing business here - there is software written with the licenced code - you can't just pull the plug and move to a different tech within weeks. It's an audacity to even think forcing something like this is "okay" - as it isn't feasible. I know it doesn't always work like that - but legal stuff has to make some sense and needs connection to reality. Otherwise it isn't what it was originally meant to be: a helpful instrument.

[fiksal]

the drawback of the subscription model is exactly that, updated terms of service

(as we are finding out)

which is especially difficult when what you are paying for is your investment

[mr.WHO]

Yeah, I guessed so that they are on "safe ground" in terms of laws. But no one in their right mind would force this. I mean - who could afford to not accept the ToS change? We are talking ongoing business here - there is software written with the licenced code - you can't just pull the plug and move to a different tech within weeks. It's an audacity to even think forcing something like this is "okay" - as it isn't feasible. I know it doesn't always work like that - but legal stuff has to make some sense and needs connection to reality. Otherwise it isn't what it was originally meant to be: a helpful instrument.

As bad as whole situation is - at least Unity annonced new ToS now, but make them active by January 2024, so at least people have time to check new ToS for potential traps.

I recall WoTC tried to pull a d*ck move, by inflating new ToS to like 2'000 pages (where old ToS was 150 pages) and giving people 2 weeks to accept.


Edit:
here is a video about latest state of things:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFuM-EWj9IY

[matthewfarmery]

Some good news, but its more likely the damage has been done, and trust lost with the comapny. Now unity has done a watered down policy change.

As for those policy changes, Unity has announced it will no longer be charging per-install Runtime fees for any developer using Unity Personal or Unity Plus (it's also dropping the requirement that Unity Personal games must include the Unity start-up screen) - meaning changes will now only impact developers using Unity Pro or Enterprise, and only if they cross two key thresholds: making $1m USD in gross revenue "trailing 12 months" and reaching 1m "initial engagements", presumably meaning installs.

https://www.eurogamer.net/unity-announc ... icing-plan

So its seems that older games, devs might no longer need to pay an install fee. I think more information is still coming. But from what I understand, there been a huge backlash over this, (and rightly so) But still, the damage has been done, and trust lost.

But I think the CEO needs to go, as he will be the root cause of this, and trust will be very hard to earn back.

But this might be a step back on the right direction. But this should NEVER have been announced, as it would totally destroy the indie game culture as we know it.

[Observe]

Doesn't look good for Unity. They had over 7,700 employees in 2022, with 1.39 billion revenue. There first profitable quarter was in 2022.
Compare to Epic Games (Unreal) with 3,700 employees and 6 billion revenue. Also, Epic Games has several AAA blockbuster games of their own making to their credit. Unity has none (that I'm aware of).

Unity's main market is in multi-platform mobile and 2D games. They cannot compare to the high-end 3D applications that Unreal represents. Unity should stick with it's market and stop trying to be a jack of all engines in competition with Unreal.

So yea, definitely some bad moves on Unity's part.

[matthewfarmery]

Doesn't look good for Unity. They had over 7,700 employees in 2022, with 1.39 billion revenue. There first profitable quarter was in 2022.
Compare to Epic Games (Unreal) with 3,700 employees and 6 billion revenue. Also, Epic Games has several AAA blockbuster games of their own making to their credit. Unity has none (that I'm aware of).

Unity's main market is in multi-platform mobile and 2D games. They cannot compare to the high-end 3D applications that Unreal represents. Unity should stick with it's market and stop trying to be a jack of all engines in competition with Unreal.

So yea, definitely some bad moves on Unity's part.

It doesn't help when the CEO is an ex EA employee. So you can see where the guy got some ideas from. But the whole mangement team needs to go. And there is no guarantee this won't happy again. What is to stop Unity from pulling the same trick? I think at least old games won't be effected. or those that are still coming. Only those games that uses the newer to be released engine. But still, The thing is,how many devs will choose the newer engine? I think it remains to be seen how this will effect Unity in the long run. But the management are cleary to blame. and they should be falling on their swords as a result.

[chew-ie]

[..] and they should be falling on their swords as a result.

Sadly, these era of honor & duty is over.

[esd]

Ars have had a few things to say on this, from a legal perspective that boiled down to "it's in the fineprint, technically... yeah, they can", and most recently this soft-touch interview where lesser-Big Room guy Marc Whitten tried to claim they didn't realise it would all be quite so bad and honest they've walked it back and you can trust them pinky-swear.

The comments are brilliant.

[Chips]

Guess someone had a contract with big bonuses linked to increased revenue

[clakclak]

[...]Old games will also be effected, so Unity games will have spyware added in, that will send data to the company on everytime you install a game. [...]

I know the EU is a touchy subject, but with how they have been lately when it comes to regulating tech, for example by forcing Apple and others to use usb-c, forcing companies to make pre-installed apps deletable, forcing websites to show cookies and so on, I'd assume EU regulators will have a field day with this one.

[mr.WHO]

forcing companies to make pre-installed apps deletable

A bit of OT, but God I wanted this so badly with all the trash pre-installed and constantly wanting to be updated

[Observe]

Meanwhile, perhaps somewhat related, Epic Games is laying off 16% of its workforce.

[mr.WHO]

Meanwhile, perhaps somewhat related, Epic Games is laying off 16% of its workforce.

Call me cynical, but I expect Unreal Engine licence fees increasing soon as well.

It's like with streaming services - when one increase the price, others soon follows.

[esd]

I wonder how much money they threw at him to step down? Got to have been a big Golden Parachute there, but he's being replaced temporarily with some ex-Red Hat exec. Either way, bye John!