Game development engine Unity has U-turned on some parts of its hugely controversial plan to enforce fees on game creat…

  • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unity had made their plans clear. Whether they backtrack a bit now or not doesn’t matter. We know what direction they are heading: squeeze more money out of indie devs

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      The controlling shares of Unity are held by a trifecta of private equity and venture capital organizations. That’s why this is happening. It’s a classical presentation of the (short-term) profit über alles enshitification cycle.

          • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            The insider transaction history for Unity Software Inc shows a clear trend: over the past year, there have been 49 insider sells and no insider buys. This could be a red flag for potential investors, as it suggests that those with the most intimate knowledge of the company’s operations and prospects are choosing to sell their shares

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Or it just means they see it as compensation and are selling for taxes and expenses, not because they are worried about the long term direction of the company.

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

              Ehh, the top folks at Google were all selling their maximum-permitted amount every window they got for a decade and the stock held up.

              You typically don’t need to buy shares as an insider, the company just prints more gambling slips – er, I’m sorry, non-transferrable stock options – and hands them out.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, but it doesn’t rise to the level of “insider trading,” which means using internal-only information to make trading decisions. If they sell these stocks regularly, on a schedule, in the same quantity, it’s not insider trading.

                  And that’s exactly what they’re doing, you can see their trades, and they’re consistent for about the same amount. So they’re not trading because of changes going on internally, they’re trading based on a schedule, probably because they need cash flow for some reason. My guess is taxes for their stock compensation.

    • sickday@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s correct. Even with this backtrack, it’s a safe bet that they’ll likely re-introduce this same policy with different wording once they believe their consumers have calmed down.

    • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah it’s like knowing the foundation is structurally unsound and still deciding to build a house on it hoping it won’t get worse. It will.

  • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not nearly enough though.

    They’re still exploiting their customers who’ve been developing products based on a completely different fiscal agreement; you can’t just change engines after years of work.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      The worst isn’t even people currently developing things - it’s developers who already have released products. Imagine if you released something like, over the summer, for example. You’ve been paying the current revenue share, and will continue to do so until Jan. 1, then you’ll start paying the per-install fee. So you’re paying twice for the same customers’ purchases.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really feel like they’re going to lose a lawsuit on that.

        Unilateral contracts don’t have unlimited power and “we can blanket change what we want to charge you on games already made” doesn’t seem like it’s going to be enforceable.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly - as others have pointed out, if they can do this, what’s stopping them from raising it to $1 per install, or $100?

  • Koen967@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    From games as a service we went to game engine as a service. What is the next step? C++ as a service?

  • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s no way they can stop install bombings. There’s gonna be something that they rely on that can be changed somehow, and even if they find a way to perfect it, how could any developer trust that it’s flawless?

    This is bad even if everything did work and everything was flawless. They’ve wrecked their trust here.