We have heard you. We apologize for the confusion and angst the runtime fee policy we announced on Tuesday caused. We are listening, talking to our team members, community, customers, and partners, and will be making changes to the policy. We will share an update in a couple of days. Thank you for your honest and critical feedback.

Direct Twitter link

    • Hector_McG@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      124
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unity have already established market dominance, if not effective monopoly, as the mobile gaming development platform. They are in a position of power, they have invested large sums of money to get there, and there is really very little game developers with a product 1 or 2 years in development can do about it.

      While this is going to be difficult for Indy developers, they really only have themselves to blame. Part of the task when you are making a major software platform decision as a company is to research your vendor’s financial strategy - that’s basic due diligence. Unity has been loss making for years, which either means they are not financially viable (and not a safe bet), or they are engaging in a strategy of establishing an effective monopoly position to later squeeze dependant customers until the pips squeak.

      This is likely just the start, whether it’s through runtime charges, Unity control of in-game advertising, or huge hikes in seat license fees. Possibly all three.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        124
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        While this is going to be difficult for Indy developers, they really only have themselves to blame

        In the same way that underpaid workers are to blame for not “just” finding and getting a better job or “learning skills”. Fuck off with that pro-corporate victim blaming.

        • Hector_McG@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          85
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not pro-corporate in any way, I don’t see how you could possibly read that into what I posted. But if you choose to sup with the devil, best use a long spoon.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            74
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In the case of most of the companies affected by the changes, they literally signed up under a different agreement and then Unity changed the terms once they were pretty much locked in and couldn’t change to another engine without serious costs and/or difficulty.

            There’s literally no way indie devs are at fault here and yes, blaming them for being victims of corporate fuckery IS taking the side of the corporation fucking them.

            • Hector_McG@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              68
              ·
              1 year ago

              Unity have lost huge amounts of money, in fact never made a profit for a single quarter, while establishing more and more market share, and their customers never asked themselves how or why?

              • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                26
                ·
                1 year ago

                They’re game devs, not an acquisition and mergers team. “We signed contract to do business with xyz terms” should be plenty reliable enough for conducting business. Not “Lol, whut? You didn’t read the fine print? Psyche! We’re changing everything.”

                Unity deserve to get sued into oblivion for this

              • uranibaba@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                If I buy a service, I care about the service, not how the company is doing financially. In fact, I don’t even take the time to look at their finances because who the fuck does that? Are you looking into Netflix each month?

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        79
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re actually making some valid points here, in regard to the trend of companies losing money as a strategy to obtain market dominance and then turning to monetization after. It’s exactly how Uber and AirBNB got where they are, and it’s a strategy that people need to get more wise to. You’re right, and you should say it.

        But for the love of God, say it better than this. The “users only have themselves to blame because they got hoodwinked by a pack of liars and thieves who are very good at being liars and thieves” angle kills any chance of anyone listening to the actual point you’re making because you went and wrapped it up in a giant dose of victim blaming.

        If you cook an absolutely perfect hamburger and then spit in it right before serving, you can’t act surprised when no one wants to even try a bite.

        • JokeDeity@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Security company Guarda permanently operates in the red in the US but keeps itself alive by constantly buying up all the small security companies it can in the US. It’s essentially a MASSIVE ponzi scheme in a sense that it would die if it couldn’t continue to add to it’s ranks.

      • Kichae@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        67
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        “They should have researched that thing the company hadn’t done and given no signals that they would do.”

        Dear God, do you listen to yourself talk? I hope no one else fucking has to.

        • Hector_McG@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          54
          ·
          1 year ago

          If your vendor is constantly making huge losses while establishing more and more market share, your guy in charge of the financial decisions should be asking themselves what the investors long term plans are. That’s not rocket science.

          • Quokka@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            No one ever expected them to go this far.

            This retroactively fucks up devs who could never have seen such a move coming.

      • amio@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        they really only have themselves to blame […] research your vendor’s financial strategy - that’s basic due diligence

        Really? They really only have themselves to blame for Unity suddenly making a drastic and poorly thought out change to their pricing policies? Researching with what, a crystal ball?

        • Hector_McG@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          41
          ·
          1 year ago

          What did they think Unity’s investors plans were, to endlessly subsidise a constantly loss-making platform just for the fun of it?

          • Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            1 year ago

            Changing the pricing structure would be a perfectly understandable and predictable outcome. Unity choosing to adopt a wildly unfair and entirely unprecedented pricing model is definitely not something their customers could have expected.

            • jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why not? And how is it even “unfair”? They want to charge for every copy sold, that was made using, and is still using, their software.

              People who compare this to Visual Studio vs. the MSVC DLLs, are forgetting all the privative libraries which charge for every copy they get released with.

              Unity is pulling one of those; only because they didn’t before, doesn’t make it “unfair”, just a dick move.

        • amio@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stallman has always had a bunch of good points. It’s just that he’s rigid and uncompromising enough about them, and a weird enough dude in general, to turn a lot of people off. “Weird dude” shouldn’t matter, but basic human psychology says it does - every time.