this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
58 points (92.6% liked)

Programming

17028 readers
112 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Thann@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its not really an apology and they are still doing the runtime fee, just with minor tweaks

[–] mrsgreenpotato@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I want to start with this: I am sorry.

If that's not an apology, then I don't know what is. I'm not defending them by any means, I've moved my projects away from Unity over to Godot already and am not planning to go back. But you can't argue they haven't apologized. If they proposed their fees in this form right from the beginning, there would probably be no drama at all.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not an apology. It’s corporate doublespeak.

The exec team, who caused this whole thing, isn’t changing. They will try something similar at some point in the future.

Also, this “apology” entirely omits the scummy and anticompetitive (and potentially illegal in some jurisdictions) fee vouchers they were using to try to steal AppLovin’s customers, as well as the silent and sneaky update they made to their license in the interest of enabling this whole thing.

This is ass-covering and damage control. It is not an apology, regardless of whether or not apologetic words and phrases were used.

[–] Thann@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Exactly, they're not apologizing for the things people are pissed off at them for. Just trying to downplay their scummy behavior.

[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

As someone wise and balding said "The trust is gone and there's no getting that back. Even if they retract everything and apologize it's gone."

[–] Hazzard@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Seems like a sensible overhaul, hitting the major issues with the fee, but still going ahead with a version of it. Big points for me:

  • Not retroactive. Only affecting the next version of Unity, and you can even opt out of updating to skip the fee.
  • Data is now reported by the customers. Still not sure how that plan to enforce this, but it's a hell of a lot better than some arbitrary data collection scheme being baked into the game.
  • Free version is excluded. No charging tiny side projects, or students or something, it only affects already paying customers.

Still not sure I love charging per install as a concept, and they've already overplayed their hand and burnt many bridges, but at least this implementation isn't insanely hostile. Guess we'll see how this plays out from here.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 29 points 1 year ago

The trust is already gone. I would never use unity after all this

That’s great but they didn’t say a single word about:

  • the silent license update they made to enable this whole shitshow, which people discovered after they changed the license and had to find archived copies of the previous license to compare against
  • the scummy and anticompetitive (and, in some jurisdictions, possibly illegal) fee vouchers they were handing out to try to nuke AppLovin’s customer base

The retroactive fee stuff was pure idiocy, but the above points are also deeply concerning and problematic, and indicate a leadership culture that appears entirely unconcerned with business ethics. And the exec team is not changing. They will try something similar in the future.

[–] Ferk@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Free version is excluded. No charging tiny side projects, or students or something, it only affects already paying customers.

Wasn't the free version already excluded from the changes before?

What they have done for the Free version is set the limit to 200k (it was 100k before) and they'll no longer be requiring the Unity logo to be shown, even on the free version.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And you can even opt out of updating to skip the fee.

Yeah but how long is this solution really viable? It's not "skipping" the fee. It's just putting it off. Eventually your version won't be supported/will lack too many critical new features. No serious studio is going to work around you if they decided to just pony up.

[–] nous@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Long enough to learn and switch to a new engine, possibly on your next game.

[–] Sigmatics@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago

No game with less than $1 million in trailing 12-month revenue will be subject to the fee.

[–] Bruisedback@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

Even after this walk back, the whole situation still sucks for everybody but Unity. Even the part about removing the "requirement to use the Made with Unity splash screen" bit seems like blatant self-preservation more than capitulation. They've got to be aware that there are probably consumers out there willing to boycott any game with that splash screen, leading to lower install numbers. I'm not in game dev, so I'm just talking out of my ass, but it doesn't seem like studios are really bothered by including those pre-roll splash screens all that much.

[–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago

Fuck Unity. Yet another 2023 company shitting on its users.