752
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BaskinRobbins@sh.itjust.works 195 points 10 months ago

Charging per install has to be the most out of touch insane choices they could have made.

[-] kaitco@lemmy.world 114 points 10 months ago

There is zero rationality behind the decision, especially given that it’s retroactive and there’s no language in their decision that handles unique user versus multiple users versus multiple accounts.

I’ve had two gaming PCs over the last ten years. On my last one, I replaced the hard drive twice, and I’m on my second hard drive on the newest one. With each hard drive replacement, I’ve had to reinstall all my games. I’m not paying for all of them again with each install but just getting the same files off Steam and installing again. According to this decision, the devs of these games would have had to pay Unity four extra times just due to my hardware upgrades. How is that on the developer at all, and Lord help us if Unity tries to run some BS where players have to pay for each new installation.

The entire gaming industry, even from the “disc era”, doesn’t work with a cost per install model.

[-] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 80 points 10 months ago

Someone claims here that if you use Unity's internal Ad API then you will make that money back, giving people who put ads in their games a free pass.

If true, Unity is trying to force indie devs to enshittify their products.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 31 points 10 months ago

That's exactly what they're trying to do because their CEO is a nut job crazy man who's grasp of business economics is embarrassing even when compared to my cats.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kaitco@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

Just when you thought it couldn’t get worse…

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 34 points 10 months ago

How can be retroactive?

I mean legally. The devs agreed to a contract, it can't be changed with different economic terms later

If someone published an Unity game 4 years ago, has now abandoned the project, doesn't release any update, why needs to pay a per install fee "for supporting the runtime"? The version is now ancient. I could understand if it was "from version xx.yy"

[-] AeroLemming@lemm.ee 21 points 10 months ago

I've been asking this and never got an answer. I think the answer is that it isn't.

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

I also asked the question, and got an answer. The hypothesis is that they'll release new versions under a different license, also meaning that if the devs never agree to the new license, they'd avoid the fee. Of course, that would mean that any engine level bugs in their game would become unfixable. This also means that large developers would be exempt, as they likely have contracts in place that supersede the license agreement.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 10 months ago

They actually explicitly stated as such:

Q: If a user reinstalls/redownloads a game / changes their hardware, will that count as multiple installs?

A: Yes. The creator will need to pay for all future installs. The reason is that Unity doesn’t receive end-player information, just aggregate data.

[-] Grass@geddit.social 16 points 10 months ago

Doesn't steam let you download games you purchased that have since been removed? Will they try to bill developers still in this case?

[-] mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah. You theoretically can financially DDOS a developer.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Chailles@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago

Not to mention that it's such a sudden announcement. I mean, sure, they gave people 3 months notice in advance, but when you consider the scale of many games probably take longer than 3 months to make the decision AND actually make the switch (or make up for the switch), it's cause for quite a bit of harm.

Granted, the majority of people may not be affected by it due to needing to meet a requirement of like earning $200,000 and 200,000 installs at a minimum, but I feel like the once you reach that, it's just downhill from there.

In addition to your example of costing the devs for reinstalling the game, you now have to consider the possibility of a user (or group of users) maliciously reinstalling their games to financially damage the developer. Sure, Unity says they'll have fraud detection for stuff like that, but then it's literally up to the people you owe money to decide whether you should pay more or less money to them.

[-] JokeDeity@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago

This feels so wrong to me that I feel like they must be going against some law, or they need to be sued to set precedent. I'm not a lawyer, I just think this smells completely like a giant corporation scamming people.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.ml 173 points 10 months ago

I can't believe Godot surpassed Unreal in interest. Astonishing moment.

I really hope Godot becomes the Blender of game engines.

[-] danwardvs@sh.itjust.works 92 points 10 months ago

This is a funny analogy because Blender was a game engine at one point and failed.

[-] AdmiralShat@programming.dev 47 points 10 months ago

It was decided that game engine development was over complicating the goal of Blender. It detracted from actual 3D software development resources and trying to make all blender features seamless with it was nearly doubling potential work.

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.ml 20 points 10 months ago

I believe in the open-source world, this is called "mission creep". It means when a project gradually expands its scope and mission until it becomes unmaintainably broad.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] metaStatic@kbin.social 32 points 10 months ago

I really want a game staring the default cube now.

The final boss would of course be a doughnut.

[-] danwardvs@sh.itjust.works 26 points 10 months ago

Default Cube is a playable character in Super Tux Kart, although unofficially through a user created addon which can be downloaded through the game’s addon feature.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Justas@sh.itjust.works 107 points 10 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 103 points 10 months ago

Actual awnser?

Well Unity Made a announcement to make Devs pay per Download and many devs straight up said their games will be deleted the day these changes are made.

[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 61 points 10 months ago

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! Unless you have anything to do with Unity, because there are no winners in this shitshow.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago

Oh, Unity will lose too.

Somehow, I keep remembering Reddit.

[-] nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

Reddit didn't retroactively try to steal money from developers. Also a game engine doesn't need a community to exist, it just needs to be good, a community is helpful but not required.

[-] Risk@feddit.uk 11 points 10 months ago

I mean, reddit retroactively stole money from redditors. Any gold/coins you paid for? Gone. Why? Because.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 13 points 10 months ago

This is reddit api Desaster but worse.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 10 months ago

And they tried to pivot by saying it would be by device forcing devs to collect and share their users' data.

[-] CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago

Wich is a violation of EUs GDPR...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 54 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

People switching to Unreal are like the ex-Twitter users who went to Tumblr and Threads.

[-] nothingcorporate@lemmy.today 63 points 10 months ago

Certainly Godot is the safer bet (probably why they are surging so much more right now), but Unreal is nowhere near as bad as Threads. Unreal is open source, and the license specifically forbids Epic from making retroactive changes like Unity just did:

  1. The Agreement Between You and Epic

a. Amendments

If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 64 points 10 months ago

Unreal is not open source, it's source-available. Open source generally gives freedoms like redistribution, yet that is explicitly not allowed by Unreal. To get access to the source, you need to agree to a licensing agreement with them.

That said, source-available is a lot better than most proprietary software licenses.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NRay7882@sh.itjust.works 39 points 10 months ago

I could see this encouraging a whole new form of brigading. Imagine if a developer pissed off the community, thousands of people could go about uninstalling and reinstalling the game over and over, driving up the engine monthly bill for the company.

Did they put anything in place with their new rules to prevent this from being abused?

[-] wahming@monyet.cc 28 points 10 months ago

They claim to. Do you trust their software reporting system?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Muffi@programming.dev 27 points 10 months ago

I spent the last 10 hours trying to learning Godot, and I love it! Seems like a mix of the best things from Unity and Blender.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Getallen@feddit.nl 25 points 10 months ago

Well thats another company imploding on itself, really colors you surprised, sinks you, causes your submarine to turn into a crushed soda can.

[-] nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works 12 points 10 months ago

It's what happens when you make a company public and all they want is return on their investment yesterday.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kyoyeou@slrpnk.net 22 points 10 months ago

Feels like I'm living the Pathfinder 2e boom again, I love it. Could they send the Pinkertons to the Cuphead studios next to perfectly do everything wrong

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

The nice thing about a company being run by evil people is that you can rely on them to eventually do something overtly evil, and then everyone will be aware they are evil.

[-] cloud@lazysoci.al 20 points 10 months ago

Because people learn their lessons only when they get punched in the face

[-] NateNate60@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago

2022: OnlyFans wanted to ban porn

2023: Unity wants to kill free-to-play games

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
752 points (98.2% liked)

Games

15867 readers
583 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS