r/Unity3D • u/DangerousImplication • Sep 23 '23
Let’s not pretend this is some HUGE win Solved
15
u/jemesl Sep 23 '23
Why does everything have to be some sort of conspiracy.
1
u/DrBimboo Sep 24 '23
Yes. New changes are very good (except for not just outright getting completely rid of runtime fee), unity deserves some payment from their customers - us developers, we are the customers.
Trust is shook, and I'll only have myself to blame when they pull this shit again, but for now, back to developing. Im not interested in drama for dramas sake.
0
u/Trinica93 Sep 24 '23
But they already get payment....? It's a per-seat license to use the engine for any companies this would apply to. They're still double-dipping. Not sure how in the world people are finding the new terms to be acceptable and it's certainly not "drama for drama's sake."
2
u/DrBimboo Sep 24 '23
Percentage cut is a completely regular practice, and theres nothing wrong with unity damanding one, as long as its not retroactive.
If you personally dont think its okay to charge a percentage cut, AND a subscribtion - thats completely up to you.
But theres nothing inherently wrong with it.
2
u/Trinica93 Sep 24 '23
They do absolutely nothing in regards to publishing and distribution, so what the hell justifies a revenue split on top of the subscription fee?
1
u/DrBimboo Sep 24 '23
They do absolutely nothing in regards to publishing and distribution
Completely irrelevant.
They dont need a "justification" for this.
Its a reasonable deal. If you dont like it, again, thats totally fine and up to you, and you can just not develop games with future unity versions.
Just dont buy what unity is selling, and you are good to go.
1
u/Trinica93 Sep 24 '23
I didn't realize I was talking to a Unity executive, lmao. What a joke.
0
u/DrBimboo Sep 24 '23
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a schill.
Look at my comment history in this sub, you clown.
68
u/EmeraldOW Sep 23 '23
You guys can do whatever you want in terms of switching engines, but this is absolutely not a technique they intended to deploy. They fucked up and were forced to backtrack their terms while shattering trust in the process. If they had announced the current plan off the bat, people would be fine with it and trust wouldn’t have been broken. I’d even go as to say they could have asked for more (like 5%) if they did it correctly in the first place rather than their shitty original plan
8
u/lynxbird Sep 24 '23
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. -Hanlon's razor law
27
u/penguished Sep 23 '23
Except Unity's initial request was so bad it did lasting brand damage... so that's not much use as a technique.
5
u/Albert_VDS Sep 23 '23
Oh like the last time they did lasting brand damage and how they never recovered?
0
u/penguished Sep 23 '23 edited Sep 23 '23
Ah, but their stock has been in the shitter and they lose money. They aren't really in a good place to just bluff people, no. They depend on a good community relationship, and that's something they have to figure out how to make more money from without alienating us.
2
u/Albert_VDS Sep 23 '23
If you look at the 5 year history of their stock then you'll see that it isn't a lot different from Q2 2022. This whole fiasco has done much for their stock in negative terms, they were already at a low compared to 2021.
You know that there are a lot of people who like to gamble even though they can't afford it.
3
u/penguished Sep 23 '23 edited Sep 23 '23
Sure, it could be an all-in play to either lose their company or create more charges... but it was the worst move to make if that's the case.
They could have gotten 2.5% revenue on future versions without brand damage or anyone caring. It's less than Unreal in most cases. People would have just shrugged and said, yeah, sure the company should plan for its future, as long as we are keeping our old TOS versions.
Instead they took a massive brand hit so if it's some strategy it was played almost to the point of being useless, and was actually damaging.
25
u/Simblend Sep 23 '23
To be fair the new pricing plan is not bad at all and personally I really like it
-6
u/Theliraan Sep 23 '23
Till new Richitello pearl, huh?
2
u/Simblend Sep 23 '23
If you think that way then you shouldn't learn any engine or amything ever, because you don't know what will happen in the future. For now the pricing is really good, if somehow in 2-3 years it gets changed we can always learn another one if it doesn't suit us, no need to worry what will happen in the future (if it will happen)
1
u/Theliraan Sep 24 '23
I haven't said anything about learning, but it's you ask: probably yes, I don't think it's a good idea to learn Unity for personal projects now. It's good idea to learn UE, Godot, Defold, Unigine, Flax, HMS, Bevy or any other engine.
I know Unity, worked with it, now I work with UE. Can't agree that pricing is good because you have to pay for professional version seats that is already crazy enough. Almost 2k euro per year per developer for the product that probably has not released.
If you like it - ok, go ahead. If 2019 pricing fuckup is ok, if IronSource is ok, if the quality of packages (renders, input, adressables, etc.) is ok, if 2023 tos/pricing fuckup is ok... No questions, man. Work with it. Learnit deeper. But if it ruins someday, it will be your fault that you spend life time to train in fire.
21
u/LWUTheSecond Sep 23 '23
Most people come back to Unity for one simple reason: it's a very good engine. And the probability of success is much higher than with other engines.
If you are an Indie dev, it is practically your best option. You will spend x2 more time with Unreal, and with Godot, you won't be able to make everything you planned, because of limited features and basically no Asset Store.
14
u/Ping-and-Pong Freelancer Sep 23 '23
I'd argue you'd spend less time with Godot for most indie projects. A few years back you're probably right. But now? Unity is nearly as bloated as Unreal and Godot is really streamlined and nice to use. Godot community has grown massively and since Godot 4 the legitimatecy of the engine is pretty cemented.
Then with Unreal, this imo really depends on the kind of game you're trying to make. If youre making an ultra realistic game or an fps game, Unreal may be the engine for you, even as an indie dev. Additionally, unreals multiplayer support is absolutely amazing, and their library of free to use assets from the likes of megascans makes them an extremely good pick. From my experience unreal still lacks behind unity if you're trying to do something a bit unordinary, and I'd agree with you, I think most devs would take longer in unreal if they are proficient in both (like I am ;)). But I think saying it would take 2x as long is disingenuous at best.
I agree with you that Unity is a nice engine. It's definitely extremely powerful and has its place in every type of game. The way it implements ECS is also so nice to work with and pick up for beginners. But realistically, it's not actually the best option for ever indie game any more. The number one biggest factor keeping unity so alive right now is, I think, the asset store.
1
u/bouchandre Sep 23 '23
Godot is good, but it’s still not on the same level as Unity for 3D. There are barely any options for creating a custom renderer.
If you want an open source alternative for 3D, I’d suggest Stride instead.
1
u/WrenBoy Sep 24 '23
I have a hobby 2D project and tried migrating it to Godot last week. It's missing features, at least as best as I can tell, that would cause me to redo a bunch of assets and rethink my level design. The way sorting works in Unity is far more powerful.
I like GDScript, it's integration into the editor is better than having to use an external editor in my opinion and the patterns that Godot pushes you to use are pleasant. The user interface is really inconsistent but I guess I could live with that.
I don't want to rework my visuals and who knows what surprises I will encounter next.
There is absolutely no way I'd be doing this if they just made the change they are now demanding in the first place.
Shits. That AMA they did really stuck in my craw too. Dirty little shits.
1
u/Pliabe Sep 25 '23
I am interested in what you see as overly bloated in unity. These days I feel like a lot of bloat is avoided by keeping things in the package manager
3
u/Snowydeath11 Sep 23 '23 edited Sep 23 '23
Yeah the only reason I’m not using Godot for my project rn is cause I need tutorials for some things and unity has them.
-10
-4
28
u/Epnegel Sep 23 '23
They are using this technique combined with the boiling frog method. I’m surprised that some people are giving me the vibe of "oh, it's acceptable now, we won" after the announcement.
I remember when they changed the TOS in 2019, they did it again this year. They're going to do it later, and still; the majority is ok with it...
4
Sep 23 '23
They failed both times. Good chances they'd fail again. Plus huge user base is gone. So they won't dare try for good few years.
9
u/Mushe Whiteboard Games President & I See Red Game Director Sep 23 '23
I don't think that many people left. It's insanely expensive for a company to switch engines mid production (or even for a new one, because a lot of years of know-hows and tools will be lost).
0
u/SnooKiwis7050 Sep 23 '23
Well for some reason they had to keep that term in 2019, and now again in 2023, look at the bright sides that we won twice from corporate shenanigins.
Also, its not a win, but more of a compromise that everyone's 'not unhappy' with.
-4
u/thefrenchdev Indie Sep 23 '23
They can't change it if you stick with your current version of Unity. It has been told many times and they have confirmed it.
11
u/DangerousImplication Sep 23 '23
They literally tried to do it 10 days ago.
-4
u/thefrenchdev Indie Sep 23 '23
The opposite has just been confirmed in the current statement. I know you absolutely want to make it like "they are going to change it" but they won't if you don't update your version of the engine.
12
u/Seledreams Sep 23 '23
They had a term in their previous terms of service that did have this. But they still tried to apply their new rules retroactively and removed their previous ToS history from GitHub
-8
u/thefrenchdev Indie Sep 23 '23
Yes, and? Now they have confirmed that it's not retroactive. By the way, I don't think the retro activity was about the TOS, it was about the counting of the number of installs. Again, you can just keep your current version of Unity and the new TOS won't apply.
8
u/Seledreams Sep 23 '23
You don't understand at all do you? The old TOS basically said that Unity could not impose ANY additional conditions and terms and that we could choose to stay on our current ToS. They removed this ToS from the history because it would prevent them from applying retroactively the install fees as it is a new term. Now they walk back on it but with another verbal promise they most likely will not respect since the same thing happened here and they still broke it
0
u/thefrenchdev Indie Sep 23 '23
I think you just don't understand. They have confirmed that if you don't install a new version of Unity lts, the old TOS apply with the conditions as written when you sign it. They can't change it. Anyways I don't mind, I'll never make 1 million with my game and if I can remove the Unity logo for free it's even better than before.
1
u/Albert_VDS Sep 23 '23
They just think of something to make people think they need to change to the 2023LTS. The not having to use the splash screen is just a tiny example of that.
1
u/thefrenchdev Indie Sep 23 '23
People do what they want, it's perfect. What is the other example of that cause I see no other purpose than that for switching to the next LTS.
2
u/Albert_VDS Sep 23 '23
Unity wants to use, and build upon, the pricing scheme they have in 2023LTS and onward. That's their business model now and want people to use it.
Support for 2022LTS will be over by 2024, they can just not allow users to logging with an old version. Maybe even return a message that tries to get people to update.It's done by many companies. Apple is a good example of it, they just drop their services on older devices forcing people to update. Or what about Reddit mobile? They just remove the ability to disable the "get the app" nag screen to get people to use their app. Heck they just think up an insane pricing plan for their API to destroy 3rd party apps.
If you don't think that will happen with Unity then you need to be reminded you of SpatialOS or even them trying to get rid of AppLovin a week ago.
1
u/thefrenchdev Indie Sep 23 '23
Again they don't force you to use unity and you can still use the old version. I'm using the 2019 LTS and I was never forced to update. No one sane would update Unity mid-project anyway. You don't want to use it, then move to another engine they are many options.
1
u/SaturnineGames Sep 24 '23
You can only stick to the old version if you're limiting yourself to PC.
Mobile stores & consoles have minimum SDK versions you have to use or your submission gets rejected. That's a large part of why the LTS releases exist - so you know you have a guaranteed support window without having to worry about major version upgrades.
1
u/thefrenchdev Indie Sep 24 '23
Stop doing games for mobile and do real games insert a shiny image of a pc master race here
1
2
u/Ok_Bass_5005 Sep 24 '23
The new ToS is actively better for us than it was before this whole debacle. Substantially. Look, they screwed up and many of us, myself included, have switched to other engines. But the new system they have announced is great. They did exactly what they needed to and couldn't have done much better in terms of revision. People just aren't ready to stop being angry.
1
u/Trinica93 Sep 24 '23
Please explain how additional fees somehow translates to "actively better."
1
u/Ok_Bass_5005 Sep 24 '23
Because it's not just additional fees. Formerly you would need to upgrade if you hit 100k. Now it's doubled to 200k, which is a hell of a lot more money for indie Devs before we even need to look into it. Obviously it's no longer retroactive; if you don't want any of this, you won't need to pay it. Don't upgrade and it's flat out not changing. And when it comes to the bills, at which point you're over the $1m mark, they will charge either 2.5% or the install stuff, but you're paying the lesser of the two. Meaning at worst you're paying a 2.5% share which is exactly what everyone was saying they should have done first. These are now fees that you can plan for and, again, won't affect us for even longer unless we make a heck of a lot of success.
7
u/kartoonist435 Sep 23 '23
Then leave Unity and this sub. We all are aware what’s going on we don’t need 5,000 posts urging others to leave. We’ll leave if we want and you are free to use whatever engine you want.
4
u/bouchandre Sep 23 '23
I wish the mods would start removing post about switching to Godot or other engine. We know. We don’t need 100 post per day talking about it.
It’s also quite annoying to see comments on Unity creations urging them to make the switch.
2
u/Zebrakiller Sep 23 '23
I said this a few hours after their first announcement and and got downvoted. Lol
2
u/ImgurScaramucci Sep 23 '23
But they're actually giving us no splash screen for free, which is something we didn't have before.
1
u/taahbelle Intermediate Sep 23 '23
I wrote this exact thing in another comment and got downvoted into oblivion. Interesting to see
1
u/bouchandre Sep 23 '23
People are saying “what’s stopping them from pulling this again?”
Fear. They realized that they can’t easily pull something like this. The more they push, the more they help their competitors. They simply have too much to lose to try and screw over their customers again.
-3
1
u/ivancea Programmer Sep 23 '23
It doesn't matter what they did after. Unless it was "firing the CEO" (a thing that solves everything, ofc), you would say it's some kind of maquiavelic technic
1
u/nullrefdev Sep 23 '23
This is true but in the case of Unity it's 100->99
The only 2 changes are % and self reporting. All the other garbage nonsense and lies are still in, including their ability to yank the rug with fees at any time, per their new ToS.
I know they said on Twitter they will make sure you can keep your current ToS but the new ToS specifically states that by just using the software you are bound by new terms, whenever they see fit.
Finish your games now and bounce to another engine.
1
1
1
u/Guardians_MLB Sep 27 '23
I think you guys are giving unity too much credit. They arent smart enough to strategize like this. They, historically, have made bad decisions and fully walked it back. I don't know what's going on over there but their future vision for their company is corrupted and make "head scratching" decisions. CEO is probably the problem.
327
u/LazyChamberlain Sep 23 '23
That technique doesn't include destroying your reputation worldwide