A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
He cash out his stock, tried this clown moved as he was instructed by the BoD, it didn't work.
He gets more money and he gets to exit...
Nothing to celebrate. They will try something similar soon enough and by then public will be beaten up enough to accept it as it happen with everything else.
Enshitification appears to be unstoppable.
Vote with your money and feet folks
Yes, this is totally a symbolic move and nothing has meaningfully changed at Unity. Riccitiello is probably walking away with many millions of dollars and the rest of the leadership team who were fully onboard with the new licensing plan are still there. Once the negative press dies down, Unity will try something equally shitty again.
Developers would be foolish to trust this company ever again.
Thankfully, this has been an eye opener for many to the risks of building a business that's dependent on a closed platform. We'll see how it shakes out, but there's a lot more buzz about Godot than there ever had been in the past.
About that, he did sell a portion of his Unity stock a week before the happening, but wasn't it something like only 5% of his portfolio?
Enough for living expenses ;)
Why would he liquidate entire position which would draw extra attention
Nice postering, but CEOs are not ideas guys, this likely wasn't even his brain child. The people responsible are still likely there and will continue to push the company in the wrong direction.
Whether or not it was his idea is irrelevant, he's the one who approved it.
I mean, realistically these days nothing gets done without the investment boards decision. Investors control fucking everything, and IMO are directly the root cause of the enshitification of everything.
Sure. And whether he was a sacrificial goat here is not for us to know. But let's not pretend that the CEO had no responsibility.
As a consumer I will not buy newly made Unity games anymore. Whatever they might do now does not matter, because with the new TOS they can walk back on this at any time. Asking fees for installs on games that were made with a recent enough version of Unity that will prompt the developers to remove them from the stores.
If they wanted to regain trust, they would rectify the TOS that allows for garbage like this, but I don't see that happening..
The problem is that this hurts developers more than it hurts Unity. And many developers just can't afford switching engines mid-development.
While unfortunate, as a consumer it's the only recourse we have. We don't buy unity, we buy games. I won't buy a game that might just suddenly disappear from a store where I bought it, cause the developer can't or won't carry install fees that may or may not come at any point.
Yes, it hurts developers. Yes, he shouldn't have to suddenly have to pay that fee, but that is out of my control. But I'm still not taking the risk with my money. Unity clearly wants to do this, eventually they probably will.
Let's stop buying games with unity so they have no customers left that can slam with install fees after-the-fact. All we can do.
This right here.
The only way to hurt Untiy is for devs to stop using it. And the only way to force devs to stop using it is to stop buying the games they make with it. I'm sorry it hurts the devs, but there's no way around it. And if you keep giving money to it, then you're supporting what Unity is doing.
So all the effort and money they spent in developing their games, before knowing about this movement from Unity, should be punished?
I understand your intentions, but indie devs don't have the capacity to switch engines, let alone redevelop everything when it's already or almost finished. I'd understand if you do it at the start of 2024.
Also, this is speculation, but I've seen devs provide alternatives to get their games. A lot of developers have already declared their intentions to switch engines from now on and they can't do that if they don't have a budget.
If we buy games from devs so they can afford to switch engines, won't that mean we'll end up with games that won't get updated because the Unity codebase will become obsolete when they switch?
Or is the thinking that devs need to swear that existing licences will work with the game once it's ported to some new engine?
I'd support existing Unity-based games if the devs declared they will port, and that my license will still work once ported. If the particular devs aren't going to leave Unity, I'm not sure I'd be happy to keep supporting them, because that will keep Unity in business, and I think an example needs to be made.
Also, I understand switching platforms will be horribly work intensive, but it's not like it's starting from scratch. If the code can't be ported directly, the logic still can (providing the new platform supports the necessary functionality), and the assets also exist.
Imagine writting a pitch to your publisher trying to explain that you need more money (you know, to survive because we live in a society) because players feel entitled enough to demand you port your game to another engine. That's pretty much how horrible it is. The hard truth is game development is an awful industry for workers which are often expected to work for free. It is really depressing.
They can finish up those projects and then move on to another engine. We shouldn't encourage a hostage situation where we have to stay with an untrustworthy platform just because they have a metaphorical gun to some developers' heads.
They can finish up those projects and then move on to another engine.
So you're saying for them to finish their current unity projects, then for nobody to buy those games so they go out of business before they can start using a different engine for their next game?
Don't do this, it absolutely hurts Devs more than big bad Unity. Devs should make the choice to move away from Unity if they can, but as a consumer it's not your call.
It will be easier for devs to justify moving away from Unity if there's more consumer demand for non-unity games.
And presumably @Sina isn't going to stop buying games entirely - they can still buy the same number of games and continue to support indie developers as much as they otherwise would.
Proprietary game engines like Unity are a dead end. The company behind them is always going to extract as much revenue as they possibly can from the industry and that hurts indie developers. A lot. The sooner devs rip off the bandaid and switch to Godot/etc the better.
If Godot is missing a feature you need... it's open source and you're a developer. Simply add that feature to the engine.
If Godot is missing a feature you need... it's open source and you're a developer. Simply add that feature to the engine.
That's... that's not as easy as you make it sound, lol.
You're hurting indie devs more than Unity.
Lots of indie devs have been working on their games for years and have no choice but to release on their current version of Unity. If everybody did what you're doing, they would all fail and go out of business.
But they reinstated it
So long, ya greedy dumb bastard.
If they wrote his exit arc into a movie I’d be like “Hollywood rolls eyes”, but here it is IRL
So the Unity stakeholders were less willing to let John do the "if you want something no one's gonna accept, announce something even more horrible and then release a 'we heard you' statement where you announce the thing you wanted in the first place as comprise " bullcrap?
If they had initially introduced a normal revenue share system like they're offering now, very few people would have complained. I find the notion that this was all a deliberate move from Unity rather silly. The only thing it achieved was serious damage to their reputation (which wasn't great in the first place).
Oh, it is silly and it is stupid. Yet, it's how EA acted under Johnny here. That's the time they were regularly voted as the worst US company. They pulled this with so many things ("Fun surprise mechanics")
It can be both. It can be a deliberate, albiet stupid move. I think that they always intended to walk back the initial offer, they just bit off more than they could chew.
I can't beleive they got Jim Whitehurst as the next ceo
Excellent, this makes me happy as a Unity dev.
This wasn't just one man's incentive. Plenty of people behind the last move, still a part of the management/directorial team
It's an indication that they realized that the direction they were attempting to take wasn't working. It's a step in the right direction.
Or he's just a scapegoat to recover some reputation and try again later.
Eh, if you want a scapegoat you generally wouldn't use the CEO for that. Plus, he is known for pushing shady practices at EA as well, so I have no doubt he was a major driving force behind their original monetisation scheme. I don't think they will try the same thing again, as it was just a really dumb idea that wouldn't have made sense for anyone, including Unity themselves who don't even have a reliable method of tracking installs.
No need to try again. They already are implementing additional costs. 2 steps forward, 1 step back.
More like two back and one forward
I've worked in software development for over 20 years, and I stand by what I said. If you're that tied to a specific implementation, you've fucked yourself and you deserve to fail. You can copy most of your resources over, the rest is just a matter of porting your logic.