1.5 years of learning unity gone down the shitter. here I come, godot
even if they backtrack, trust is ruined at this point. this only makes sense if you’re trying to destroy the company intentionally and short your stock on the way out. what the fuck
1.5 years of learning unity gone down the shitter.
And this is the real damage to their business here. They clearly lost sight of their business model: Create an army of developers who know their product very well, so that it’s on a short list of products studios are all but forced to consider.
A wave of developers who know soemthing other than Unity or Unreal has the potential to turn the games development ecosystem totally on its head. They didn’t shoot themselves on the foot, they possibly shot themselves in the femoral artery.
They didn’t shoot themselves on the foot, they possibly shot themselves in the femoral artery.
I myself have been describing it as them shooting themselves in the chest, and are now bleeding out on the floor asking how it happened.
The CEO did sell a bunch of shares before this was announced, I hear.
That’s clickbait journalism.
He sold 2000 shares for $40/share, which he then immediately bought back for $1.42/share.
https://finance.yahoo.com/screener/insider/RICCITIELLO JOHN S
Which means he sold at the top, then bought more at the bottom so he can ride the train back up to do the same thing again.
This isn’t a good thing.
Pretty much the dream insider trading plan. But $80k doesn’t deem like much for a CEO
It’s definitely not. It’s probably just a free $80k his contract allowed him to get.
It was probably part of his contract. It wasn’t $40 when he sold it. As probably allowed by his contract, he sold it back to the company and bought it back for pennies. It’s just compensation not some conspiracy on his individual part.
When you sell your time and labour for a living, you tend to not have any idea about how people who own property for a living get paid. And the ownership class does a pretty good job at misinforming the working class about those details, since it benefits them to be seen as just doing the same things at a different scale. Insights into the actual process of their compensation will look like some sort of conspiratorial scheme because… Well, because it is. It’s just not the one people will tend to tie it to. And it’s not an illegal one.
They want us to believe they’re playing baseball in the major leagues while we’re on the company softball team, instead of highlighting that they’re actually playing poker with a stacked deck against a casino they own.
What you said doesn’t make any sense. Either it wasn’t $40 a share when he sold it like you said in this comment or it was $40 a share like you said in the previous comment.
I guarantee you his contract looks like something like this, “If you meet X performance metric, the company will buy N amount of shares (maximum 2000) back at the maximum/average stock price within Y days and sell you back the amount of shares sold (maximum 2000) for Z dollars.”
It makes sense if the company had agreed to buy the shares off of him at market rates and then sell him stock back at a significant discount. Doing this would allow him to claim the money gained as capital gains rather than employment income, and it wouldn’t count as insider trading if it was an arrangement made and timelines settled upon before the bullshit was planned.
It could be something like having his contract say that the company will buy back X shares when the share price hits $Y in value, for instance.
You’re describing something worse.
It’s actually neither of those, the biggest impact is free-to-play games. Hearthstone, Legends of Runeterra, virtually every Unity mobile game in the market… Having to pay per install has huge potential for abuse and can cost a fortune for games with millions of downloads.
JFC, I just learned that they are retroactively applying this new rule. This means that games that are out already or have been on sale for multiple years will have to pay the runtime fee too. Insane. They can bankrupt a studio before they even release their next game.
I still can’t believe that retroactive fees like that are legal.
They aren’t and likely won’t hold up in court.
Gotta pay the lawyers to go to court though.
Hope enough teams can band together and file jointly, combined with decent fundraising and fair lawyers.
Fuck these Unity execs and their ilk. I guess they need more motivation to run a business properly, and not be rampaging sociopaths and enshittification experts. Perhaps some lawyers and lawmakers can offer them some humiliation and fear of personally feeling the consequences of their actions.
Because they’re not charging for previous installs, not new ones, and they operate technically on a free “subscription” model it’s going to be hard to challenge legally
I don’t think they can enforce that, right? I assume that would be a change of the contract, which they can’t just do willy nilly.
Yeah, I think that’s straight up illegal and I would simply refuse to pay.
If they can retroactively change terms, why can’t I, as a bonafide counterparty in that agreement? Maybe something like a 100% discount on runtime fees for days that end with ‘y’.
Otherwise I could simply “retroactively apply” a 100% discount on my lease or new car purchase.
The correct answer and what all studios/devs should do: tell them to retroactively pound sand and ditch Unity for all future projects.
I don’t think this is true? Their site https://unity.com/pricing-updates says “The fee applies to new installs beginning January 1, 2024”
New installs not new releases. So if you put out a game a few years back and suddenly a bunch of people start installing it on their new PCs, you’d get hit with this fee… assuming it is legally enforceable.
Hell, even if it isn’t strictly legally enforceable, if you still need to deal with Unity in some way in future you could be forced into dealing with this fee in order to get Unity’s cooperation.
Oh yeah good point. The word “retroactively” just gave me the idea that it would apply to old installs, because this whole thing is about installs.
Still, that is a major dick move.
Pricing should protect indie and small businesses. When it destroys those, we need government to step in because we’re on track to create oligarchs in every industry that are too big to fail.
From their FAQ, looks like Unity doesn’t have any real way of dealing with pirated or fake installs. Their FAQ says you have to work with them when that happens so they can correct your bill. It doesn’t say Unity will automatically filter those installs out.
pirated? they want developers to pay Unity for people pirating their game???
Officially no, but the wording on the FAQ says it’s the developer’s job to take it up with them to resolve it. So it’s clear they don’t have any safeguard and only after you’re affected you can talk to them lmfao.
Does the Unity Runtime Fee apply to pirated copies of games? We are happy to work with any developer who has been the victim of piracy so that they are not unfairly hurt by unwanted installs.
Same thing goes for “install-bombing”:
We are not going to charge a fee for fraudulent installs or “install bombing.” We will work directly with you on cases where fraud or botnets are suspected of malicious intent.
So not only are the fees outrageous, but now devs are responsible for making sure this whole system isn’t being abused. It’s not gonna be long until people figure out how the install count is updated, and will proceed to weaponize it lmfao.
and don’t forget that this is “we’ll work with you” - i.e. you’d better build your own analytics into your game to prove your case otherwise unity can go “well assume 10% are bad installs - now pay for 90%”
Removed by mod
Hahaaa nah, ToS:
The Parties agree that any arbitration will be conducted in their individual capacities only and not as a class action or other representative action, and the Parties expressly waive their right to file a class action or seek relief on a class basis.
Forced arbitration is one of the most villainous legal practices still somehow allowed in the US.
Arbitration is often a good thing, by avoiding clogging up courts and arbitrators can sometimes be better than whatever judge you’d get (since both parties have to agree to the arbitrator). It’s still legally binding and arbitrators have made lots of great rulings.
But not as a replacement for class action. The whole point of class actions is to make it much more viable for many people to be represented because only one affected person has to deal with managing an expensive lawsuit and there’s just one case instead of hundreds of thousands of arbitration cases (which still cost a ton of money for lawyers). So IMO arbitration is great, but shouldn’t be allowed to replace class actions specifically.
With all your puns, I still don’t what is John Cappelletti’s real name.
I think it’s, never working in this industry again.
I don’t want Silksong developed on Unity. Scrap it, start fresh. I’ll wait.
Scrap it. Start fresh.
The number of games that should do this is too damn high
The number of games that can do this is too damn low
The number of gamed that want to do this is pretty much nil
Pain, suffering and debugging
There is no way they can legally enforce retroactively charging. How the fuck is that even possible or legal?
Unity is not a product, it’s an ongoing subscription. You can distribute Unity as part of your game as long as you have a subscription.They changed the terms of the subscription for next year. If you don’t have a subscription then you cannot redistribute Unity. So your choice is to either accept the new terms, or pull your game from the stores.
Why the ever loving fuck would any company willingly use a library or framework in their product that uses a subscription model instead of a licensing model? That’s absolutely mind blowing. Having critical tools with subscriptions is bad enough, but at least those aren’t shipped to customers.
If it’s really true that Unity uses a perpetual subscription rather than a license I’m utterly flabbergasted that it ever got as popular as it was.
I wasn’t aware either, but the devs who use this in their product should have known this could happen. Now the question is: did they just not consider the possibility, or is it a known risk because all the engines require a license? In that case, Unity might just very well be the first one to do this, and others will follow suit in the coming years.
It’s normal for a engine to have licensing requirements, but those are laid out up front and will typically be defined based on income. So like a pretty common thing would be something approximately like free for the first $10K earned, then 10% for up to $100K, and then 30% for everything past $100K. Importantly though, that’s NOT a subscription, it’s the terms of the license you agree to in order to use the software, you aren’t paying a fee based on time, but rather based on money earned. You can choose to back out of the license at any time, you just need to stop selling the software, and as long as you keep paying the engine developer their cut you can keep on selling copies. Further the terms of the license are what they are when you download the library/framework, and they can’t be retroactively changed. If tomorrow they decide to start charging you based on total downloads, you can choose to keep distributing the previous version under the previous license terms based on profits.
Unity on the other hand, has done two things. First they require an ongoing subscription, so if you stop paying for your subscription, technically you’re no long allowed to sell your game. Secondly, and much more controversially, they’re defining the license based on installs rather than based on earnings, which is tying your debt to actions of your customers rather than your own, which is a very precarious position to be in.
This whole thing reminds me of the D&D shenanigans a few months back where Hasbro tried to retroactively re-define the terms of their “open source” license, and the TTRPG community collectively told Hasbro where they could stick their new license. There are a LOT of parallels here.
Thanks, very comprehensive. So unity developers could have expected this to happen sooner or later. Not the retroactively charging for installs, of course, but the continuous subscription should have been a huge red flag.
Unreal licensing is explicitly tied to the version you use. So if you use Unreal 5.3, you are bound to the license attached to the code for Unreal 5.3.
If that license changes in Unreal 5.4 and you disagree with the new license, you don’t need to follow the terms as long as you never move from Unreal 5.3.
Yeah, that sounds much more sane to me. With the Jetbrains IDE (my tools off the trade), you pay an annual subscription and when you stop paying you still get to use the last version you paid for. Apples to oranges, I know, but I sure did check that up front before I bought in to that ecosystem.
We got used to letting one company control everything
Because it is the best choice financially in the short to medium term and it’s pretty much impossible for most businesses to make decisions based on any other factor. Which is why most companies will end up just swallowing this change.
Licencing and subscriptions are generally the same thing.
When you get a subscription, you’re paying a regular payment to have a licence to use the product. Stop paying? Licence revoked.
In a normal setup, you pay once for a licence.
The terms of the licence dictate how you can use the software, and what happens when you break those rules.
wait so if unity goes bankrupt everyone is fucked?
Pretty much, yes
They’d sell off the IP, and somebody else would continue licensing out the engine. Development might be dead, but that doesn’t matter for already released games anyways.
If there’d be truly no successor, people could just continue using their existing Unity engine binary, since there’d be nobody to stop them.
Another reason why everything is subscription based these days, they can change the terms at will
I’m waiting for a Legal Eagle breakdown or something. I’ve been thinking the exact same thing. Sneakily removing stuff from their TOS in GitHub a while back is dodgy.
I read somewhere that they removed their TOS entirely from GitHub but I would love a breakdown of this too. I’m not familiar with how the Unity agreement works.
So there’s a little nuance here. They aren’t going to charge you for the downloads that already happened, it’s on all downloads moving forward, even if the game has already been released. I still think it’s ridiculous, but it is not the same as suddenly hitting you with a bill for all the downloads the game already had. That would not hold up in any court. But the latter case…we’ll see. Depends on the specifics of the initial agreement I suppose. Totally possible they are within their rights even if it’s scummy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, that’s my understanding. I don’t think if you had a million downloads last year, for instance, you’ll be charged for those.
No, you won’t be charged retroactively for previous downloads. But the change does retroactively affect games previously released on Unity.
So last year you made decisions on your game’s price and revenue model that are no longer true. if you made your small game free to play with microtransactions and its had more than 200,000 installs you’re probably shitting yourself. Unity will be charging $0.20 per install even if it’s to the same device multiple times. A million installs of your game is you having to write a check to Unity for $160,000 for installations alone.
So your microtransactions game now must average a spend of at least $0.20 per install, plus per seat licensing of Unity, plus your overhead for it to even begin to make a profit.
And Unity has said that multiple installations on the same device will all be charged. So it’s inevitable that script kiddies with bad attitudes are going to install a game thousands of times. Unity has said you can appeal this type of behavior, but that puts the onus of detecting and reporting this stuff on the devs, further increasing their workload and risk.
deleted by creator
Yes, the fee applies to eligible games currently in market that continue to distribute the runtime. We look at a game’s lifetime installs to determine eligibility for the runtime fee. Then we bill the runtime fee based on all new installs that occur after January 1, 2024.
I read that as it’s billing moving forward but they’ve been very opaque thus far so I’m willing to entertain there’s a contradiction elsewhere lol
As I understand it, they’re billing moving forward but counting past installs for the purpose of figuring out if you have to pay.
yeah i deleted my post because they keep changing their minds.
its retroactive (for now) in the sense that they started counting from before, just only billing for new ones.
Per their lawyers it’s in the TOS. Everyone just hits “I agree” when they get that EULA but there’s always a “we reserve the right to fuck you over” buried in the fine print.
I don’t think I’ve ever read one where the clause “we can change any if this at any point in the future and you automatically accept it” wasn’t there. All the fucking time it’s there. Everyone is always agreeing to this shit all the time. That’s why many services can just change their prices and whatever how they want and only send an email “next month the price is X”.
Everything is rotten.
Depends what is in the contract. If the contract says devs on are the hook for any future fees they deem necessary, then the devs are on the hook. Unless they want to pay a lawyer big bucks to take on the company behind Unity with their billions of dollars of revenue and the lawyers that buys. How many indie devs do you think can afford to do that?
Not just indie devs bro
Pokemon is made in unity
Hearthstone too
I’ve been wondering about this too.
They aren’t retroactively charging. They’re charging a new fee going forward.
They are retroactively applying the new pricing model to games that have been out for years. That’s what I meant. So they’re not back-billing for previous downloads, but already-released games don’t get grandfathered in.
I’m always open to corrections though.
Games that have been out for years arent going to hit the minimum 12 month downloads/revenue figures unless they are still very popular, no?
I dont agree with this downloads based fee to be clear.
Yeah, I’m not 100% sure. There are instances too though where someone gets a new PC and installs their old games. I think it would still count in those cases, which is just silly to me. It all feels like a massive cash grab, or they’re trying to fudge the stock value.
You mean that Silksong could be delayed? pikachu face
It’s going to be the new Duke Nukem Forever…
Except it might be good :p
I encourage people here to check out Stride too, for something open sourced, C# based, and if Godot isn’t your cup of tea for some reason.
Doesn’t Godot have C# extentions available?
It does! But this is for people looking for more alternatives. Different people like different things.
Fair enough.
Also, speaking of alternatives, people should check out O3DE. It’s based on Amazon Lumberyard, which itself it based on CryEngine, but it’s FOSS and managed by the Linux Foundation.
Interestingly enough, Epic Games is a premier member, along with many other companies.
Epic games funds a lot of open source game projects, they’ve funded blender and Godot multiple times.
I wonder what their motive is.
The more game developers there are, the more potential talent they have. The more game developers there are, the more games there are to sell.
They also understand that Unreal isn’t super accessible for beginners.
Could also be to prevent a potential antitrust lawsuit, since they have a de facto monopoly on AAA game engines.
Kind of like Google funding Mozilla.
That’s excellent to know, thank you.
Contributors need to sign the following Contribution License Agreement.
How moral is this license? Im not good with legaleze
Pretty standard really. You don’t want contributions to the codebase come under questionable copyright concerns, or the original creator to revoke the code 4 years later causing huge headaches potentially.
You typically have to sign these types of CLA’s whenever you need to contribute to any serious project. I’ve had to do it for Google and Microsoft recently, and I’ve done it for various other open source projects as well.
Still that shouldn’t concern users/gamedevs as they don’t contribute to the engine code typically. Only if they want to upstream changes back into the engine publicly they would need to sign it ofcourse
Oh thats good.
If Silksong is delayed because of this I’m going to riot!
I understand the controversy, especially in light of the recent Reddit bullshit. But I don’t think I understand the tech.
For the sake of it, let’s focus only on games that are paid for, installed on a system (or downloaded using Game Pass), and do not involve a multiplayer element. (Hollow Knight, Cuphead, etc)
Is there some ongoing resource use (on Unity’s end) when people download or play these games? Like, when I play Hollow Knight, my system isn’t connecting to Unity to use their servers to run the game on my home system, is it? When I download a game to my system, an I downloading the engine separately from the software, thereby using Unity’s servers?
As abhorrent as the Reddit API change was, at least they were charging for the ongoing consumption of some digital resource (Reddit data). Unless I’m misunderstanding something, this just seems more like trying to collect a residual after the fact.
No, there are no costs for Unity in this situation. The way they’ll need to track installs is with the unity runtime, which gets packaged with games made using Unity.
This is what economists call “rent-seeking”, where companies seek to extract more profit by charging subscriptions, rather than introducing desirable products. Adobe, AutoCAD, Microsoft Office, and the Reddit API are all high profile examples of rent-seeking.
Unity Revenue reporting has always been “self-reported” by users. If they think you’re lying and aren’t on the right license they send the complkance team to make sure you’re giving enough. Unity has no way of knowing installs because as you said it doesn’t connect to Unity.
You don’t download anything separately, the runtime is included with the game.
The runtime could be updated with a phone home feature to track the install
No because this goes against GDPR. They aren’t allowed to have anything identifying users “phoning home” without explicit consent/logging into a launcher.
If it included identifiable information then yeah it would be a breach. This is just using a mac address most likely that will also if they do it right will be hashed client side so even if a bad actor could do something with that info they won’t actually get it anything from it anyway.
Then we just fall back to the issue of them not being able to identify installs, reinstalls, bad actors spoofing the source etc…
If they could track installs properly they would have solved piracy already
Well they’ve mainly said (recently) that they’ll count new device installs, but not reinstallations on the same device. Which i believe. It’s the whole, exemptions of charity sales and pirate copies is where they’re spouting bullshit, or is PR/ higher ups making quick premises to placate without the engineers saying that that’s possible, but now they’ve got to find a way. Which I don’t think they will without heavily bloating the runtime into super shitty DRM realms
without explicit consent
Couldn’t they just add another ToS checkbox to click when installing the game?
TOS is given through the publisher who would be bound by GDPR by all sorts of regulations about storing that stuff.
Is there some ongoing resource use (on Unity’s end)
Nope. The engine is part of the game once compiled. So all hosting and bandwidth cost goes to steam/gog/whoever is selling the game.
They are just trying to get more of that sweet viral game money.
Unity hasn’t been very profitable, for most of its users it’s completely free. I don’t blame them for needing money to improve the engine, but not like this
How do they track installs then?
I’d assume they’d amend the contract to require that a tracker be added to the binaries of the game. Or something.
They can’t really… unity itself doesn’t have an installer so not sure how they could track ‘installs’ reliably, the installer is added by the developer. If they add tracking to the library that (a) creates issues for people using app stores as now you have to declare you’re tracking people, and that can be grounds for rejection (you need a watertight privacy policy at the very least, and ‘we send it to a company in the US’ isn’t going to fly), and (b) not all apps are installed over the internet, or given internet access. 3d visualisation is more than games.
This is basically like if John Deere started following everyone around so they could charge a farmer 1 cent every time you bite into a vegetable you bought at Walmart.
Can they go retroactively? Aren’t there contracts?
You click a check box with a really long user agreement that does in fact allow them to make these changes.
Damn, it works with anyone. I should find a way to make one too.
By reading this comment you agree to send me one bitcoin.
God dammit loch Ness monst- oh, wait, you’re not asking for tree fiddy
Apparently they snuck a clause into an update to the ToS at some point, after years of saying they’d never do such a thing. So people agreed to a loophole without realizing. The legality of such a thing is highly questionable, hence the rumblings of potential lawsuits are already brewing.
Removed by mod
Cult of the Lamb did come out and say they weren’t serious about delisting.
Telling people to purchase their game because they’re delisting it, then coming out later and saying, “haha jk” is kind of shitty.
Cult of the Lamb has always been shitposty with their marketing. It would be a little silly to take them seriously immediately and buy on the spot.
That does seem to be their excuse. It crosses a line when they make a call for action that benefits them monetarily and “it’s just a prank, bro” is just deflection for not great behavior, imo.
Nah dude, don’t be so eager to jump on people’s throats like this. They were being sarcastic about a difficult situation that they and many other indie developers might have to deal with, that in January 1st they might be sent a massive bill over a deal that they never agreed with.
If your conclusion here is Cult of the Lamb/Massive Monster/Devolver is being greedy rather than Unity, you are missing the point. Unity is the one actually making it so that the most sensible decision for many smaller developers barely making ends meet will be to delist before January 1st.
Sometimes people become so cynical that they go back around at losing perspective by always assuming the worst out of everything and everyone, that’s not great.
I think you are misunderstanding what I’m saying. I do believe they were just joking around and being sarcastic, I don’t think they were intentionally trying to fleece people for money. But when you’re running a studio and you make a call for action saying “we’re going to pull the game so buy it now!” and just expect people to somehow know you’re kidding, well, that isn’t very responsible or professional. That’s my point. I’m not sure why you’re defending them, here. It’s not the end of the World or anything, but it’s not great behavior, either.
This, jumping on massive monster is definitely victim blaming. The real massive monster is unity
This is going to get so bad…Go godot.
For anyone interested to sign I found this petition against the new fee. https://chng.it/kYpqWBBHbB
Hoping with all the backlash Unity is forced to role it back. Thank you to everyone posting alternatives, I will be checking these out :)
I don’t think an online petition has ever changed anything in the history of the internet.
Honestly I don’t see most of the indie companies keep working with Unity unless they have no choice. Even if they roll it back, who’s to say that they won’t do that again next year?
The fact that they count you retroactively for eligibility means they want to try and rake as much money as possible.
There was some sort of similar issue a year or two ago and it wasn’t enough to drive people away. I suspect the long-term picture is that any given business either slowly grows to the scale that Unreal Engine is a better fit anyway and abandon Unity or very very very slowly we see Indies move to Godot. Though it’ll be more that new indies will form studios around breakthrough hits made in Godot and be Godot studios from the start (and replace older Unity studios as part of the natural turnover of small to medium sized studios) until there is a tipping point where there’s enough Godot developers floating around that it becomes easier for existing Unity studios to switch than to keep putting up with Unity’s shit. That’s a slow process though. 5-10 years imho (if ever.)
This is a far more nuanced situation, but even in what you’re describing the service is then ceased, you don’t get to continue using the service on the previous terms.
I’ve seen a claim that the old terms of service explicitly stated that you could do so so long as you didn’t update to the newer version. Which is probably fine for most developers who are already deep into a Unity project. (Though as Unity has now taken down their GitHub page with those terms on it, I haven’t yet seen anyone link to an easy to verify and read copy for people to see if that’s true or not.
Thoughts and prayers
If they kill Cult of the Lamb over this. There will no longer be any reason to live.
The devs followed up indicating that the tweet about delisting the game on Jan 1st was a joke, but it’s still a shitty situation for developers
