A fresh report into Unity’s hugely-controversial decision to start charging developers when their games are downloaded has thrown fresh light on the situation.

MobileGamer sources say Unity has already offered some studios a 100% fee waiver - if they switch over to Unity’s own LevelPlay ad platform.

The report quotes industry consultants that say this move is an “attempt to destroy” Unity’s main competitior in this field: AppLovin.

  • empireOfLove@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    340
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why’s it always end up being fucking ads?

    I hate late stage capitalism. I want off Mr. Bones’ Wild Ride.

  • legion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    1 year ago

    Game devs: “No thanks, we’re waiving the fees by using a different engine.”

  • Poggervania@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The conspiracy theorist in me says Unity planned this whole thing out to get less resistance on this thing they actually wanted to roll out; announce a super shit change that will intentionally outrage everybody, then say “ok, we won’t do it if you agree to use this other shitty model instead”.

    Anyways, big shoutout to Godot for existing as an open-source alternative.

  • Ms. ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hey remember that time Unity bought IronSource so they could integrate ads more aggressively? Unity stopped being a game engine at some point they’re just an ads company now

  • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There should be a law against offering something for free for a long time, until many other businesses rely on it then make it pay to a point of breaking all those businesses. It’s one thing changing the price of a product that’s customer facing but if you market to other businesses that’s not okay. I guess it’s up to businesses to look in the contract for a clause that states that the product will be free forever or that they need X time warning before making it pay.

    • geosoco@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tech companies wouldn’t exist. It’s literally most of their business plans.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Changing from free to paid is fine. Doing it retroactively is not.

      Once a game is in development using their product the terms need to stay the same.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree. If you state that it’s free until X bench make and you make the change after that benchmark it’s fine. If you don’t, then users should be able to seek compensation

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The vast majority of “new” tech companies operate at a loss.

        This is a bullshit hypothetical that has no relevance for Unity. Unity is a well established company, that has been very successful after they revised their model to be more Indie friendly. This is a money grab attempt pure and simple. And it’s a money grab that is so bad it might actually kill Unity.

        • jaaval@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unity technologies has never made a profit since it was founded. It’s still a company aiming at growth by burning money. Their losses have only increased since they went public.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m pretty sure that when Unity was headquartered in Denmark it made a profit. But I may be mistaken, because it was hyped as a danish enterprise success.

            When they changed the license to be more Indie friendly a few years back, that too was hyped as a huge success.

            But I can see on Wikipedia that Unity Software Inc. has a negative net income of $921 million on revenue of $1.4 billion.

            That’s an insane loss, meaning that they basically operate at 50% loss! How or Why they ended up that badly is beyond me. It’s so bad it smells like something is not quite right with those numbers.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                They work with you to make your code more performant

                I wasn’t talking about whether they have expenses, If I recall correctly they have about 7000+ employees.

                Generally that kind of company only collaborate on huge projects, smaller projects don’t get that level of service, bust are generally referred to a developer forum, where their questions may be answered by in-house personel. This is as I understand it common, but I’m not a pro gaming programmer, although I used to know a few decades ago.

                Fun fact, the story now is that it was a Unity employee who made the death threat!?

            • jaaval@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It was a private company back then so I don’t think there is financial info available. But at least it seems that the reports they filed for IPO indicated they had made loss for a few years prior.

      • MrCharles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        My problem with it is not monetizing; it is the changing of your monetization to affect games that were sold under a different model. If this was just the new TOS, ok fine. It would suck, but it’s their right to make whatever shitty monetization they want. But retroactively inflicting this on games? Shocking the development world with only a few months warning when game development takes years? No, that is not ok.

    • stigmata@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, if I had any stake in them I’d be wondering why Unity is so desperate for money.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Every tech company is desperate for money right now. Funding isn’t coming in at the same rate it did for the last 10 years and now everyone is desperately trying to make a profit.

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            It wasn’t really just crypto. The American government subsidized a lot of loans and did a lot to stimulate the economy post 2008. Those policies are now catching up to us. Crypto didn’t help anything, but it also wasn’t the root cause.

  • BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m pretty sure this is just unequivocally worse. This is how Ads end up in paid games. Unity is speed running their complete collapse as the dominant player in the market.

  • itsaghostcar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    AppLovin? What kind of a stupid name is that? What, are they trying to be an Irish R&B singer?

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Time to polish off my unreal dev skills, something tells me those jobs about to be hot.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, I’d be better off polishing off my existing skills using a technology that currently holds a significant market share in the industry.

        • eskimofry@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Technically concepts do that… not tools. You can do the same bashing with a hammer or a wrench

  • Ertebolle@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    How many times are developers going to put up with being used as sticks for one group of rich assholes to whack a different group of rich assholes with before we start supporting open platforms?