Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram Live Sex ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

Imagine not being able to figure out how to make money with the most popular game engine ever made. (Patreon)

Published:
2023-09-14 07:22:05
Imported:
2023-09

Content

I hope Unity walks back their new terrible, anti-developer pricing structure, but even if they do, poor Unity devs will still be enslaved to their capricious, incompetent corporate overlords. Pour one out for the Unity devs. Godspeed.

All my games are made with free and open source software (the parts I didn't code myself). I didn't use AI either, not even something lightweight like GitHub copilot, for fear this could complicate my ownership over my codebase, since AI generated content can't be copyrighted right now. Point is, we'll be good, I don't have a rapacious corporate middleman sucking up money and getting between me and my codebase, so this can never happen to SS or Hex.

I have seen some takes that this Unity change isn't that bad, but I just want to say, it is as bad as people are making it seem. I think a lot of Internet outrage just winds up getting tuned out by people because it's often dumb or performative or just totally disproportionate, but this is one where I think the angry mob is like 100% right.

Comments

Johnny Mind

I hope developers who have already made games in Unity will be able to stop it because I'm pretty sure it's illegal in several countries to make changes retroactively and unilaterally. New ones... should move to other software and let Unity die, such a greedy and ridiculous change should not be supported. Glad to hear that you aren't affected by it!

outsiderartisan
>>117500992

It's probably legal in the US, though, where all corporate malfeasance is basically legal. But yeah, hopefully parts of this at least are blocked by some countries. But really, what's stopping another company from doing the same thing. Hopefully this spurs interest and development in both new and existing open source game engines. Truth is though, a lot of devs won't have the luxury to change game engines even if their games aren't out yet. Imagine being a small studio who spent a lot of money making a game for the last few years. Unity knows it has people by the balls. That's part of why this is so evil imo.

Jen-Hsun Huang

No, pretty sure most people just don’t realize how much money they’re losing in reality, GAAP, that is to say. Real issue is idiotic “not a license fee” they’re twisting to avoid. But a less harmful way to cover a 200-million or so dollar less a quarter the actual idea is fine. Wouldn’t be shocked if they excepted PC outside of storefronts with per new device install. This clearly is aiming at mobile phone money-printers primarily. They just couldn’t resist trying to get bonus PC also.

outsiderartisan
>>117503543

To be clear, I mean Unity is having trouble making money off the Unity engine. If I was as incompetent as the execs over at Unity in my job I'd be fired. I think it's laughable that this massive corporation with a popular product is rarely profitable (I think they've had two years with actual profit in 20 years, they just live on VC investment), and probably will continue to not be profitable even after screwing over their hardworking users. I disagree though, the issue here is deeper than just massaging their ToS about definitions and stuff. I think the core issue is thinking flat fees are a good idea. Any flat rate style fee creates all kinds of bad incentives for creators and players. Charging flat rate on a per install basis literally penalizes frequent updates, doubly punishes devs for piracy (which encourages the proliferation of shitty DRM), penalizes devs for allowing installation across devices with a single purchase, among other things. Not to mention punishing devs who just make free shit, or want to charge smaller amounts of money. And there is no justification for charging per install, it's not like it costs Unity money every time the game is installed. Not to mention this system is rife for abuse. It's just a bad idea all around. Not to mention: I'm worried about where and how Unity is getting their data on user installs. Revenue sharing like this should always be based on how much revenue the game makes. Flat fees always hurt the smallest games most. Even if you set the fees to only kick in after a dev makes a certain amount of money, the flat fee hurts the lowest-earning devs who are in that category the most. Not to mention a flat per-install fee could theoretically be a way larger chunk of money than just a percentage of the revenue. There's just no universe in which a flat fee is a good idea. Also this won't help them get the mobile phone games. Every major corporation that uses Unity definitely has a bespoke contract with Unity, they'd be crazy not to. Mihoyo for example is in a JV with Unity that manages the engine's licensing in China, so believe me that they aren't affected by this. I know they're one of the companies people think is gonna end up paying more, and that's just not true. This flat fee scheme is regressive (I know that's usually about taxes but I think it applies here); it's 100% intended to squeeze some blood from the stone of small teams and indie devs while not rocking the boat with corporate partners at all.